Why did God create the universe?

[lefty22]

Hey all,

I’m taking a world religions class and in our study of Jainism we were assigned this passage from a Jain text that considers the existence of a creator. I’ve wondered about this myself, so I’m wondering firstly what you make of this passage and secondly, why did God create the universe?

Peace,
~lefty22

“Some foolish men declare that a Creator made the world.
The doctrine that the world was created is ill-advised, and should be rejected.
If God created the world, where was he before creation?
If you say he was transcendent then, and needed no support, where is he now?
No single being had the skill to make this world – For how can an immaterial god create that which is material?
How could God have made teh world without any raw material?
If you say he made this first, and then the world, you are faced with an endless regression.
If you say that this raw material arose naturally you fall into another fallacy,
For the whole universe might thus have been its own creator and have arisen naturally in the same way.
If God created the world by an act of his own will, without any raw material,
Then it is just his will and nothing else – and who will believe this nonsense?
If he is ever perfect and complete, how could the will to create have arisen in him?
If, on the other hand, he is not perfect, he could no more create the universe than a potter could.
If he is formless, actionless, and all-embracing, how could he have created the world?
Such a soul, devoid of all modality, would have no desire to create anything.
If he is perfect, he does not strive for the three aims of humanity,
So what advantage would be gained by creating the universe?
If you say that he created for no purpose, because it was his nature to do so, then God is pointless.
If he created in some kind of sport, it was the sport of a foolish child, leading to trouble…
If out of love for living things and need of them he made the world,
Why did he not make creation wholly blissful, free from misfortune?
If he were transcendent he would not create, for he would be free;
Nor if involved in transmigration, for then he would not be almighty.
So the doctrine that the world was created by God makes no sense at all.
And God commits great sin in killing the children that he himself created.
If you say that he kills only to destroy evil beings, why did he create such beings in the first place?..
Good men should combat the believer in divine creation, maddened by an evil doctrine.
Know that the world is uncreated, as time itself is, without beginning and end…
Uncreated and indestructible, it endures through the compulsion of its own nature,
Divided into three sections – hell, earth, and heaven.”

From Mahapurana 4.16-31, 38-40

 

[Equites_Christi]

To get to the other side?

 

[JimmytheButcher]

He created it for Mary.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

This reminds me of a story about Martin Luther I heard (don’t know if it’s true) that someone asked him “what was God doing before the creation of the world” and Luther answered “devising punishments for people who ask stupid questions.”

Really though, I would consider that, first, there was no time before the creation of the world and anyway God is outside of time, so it’s silly to ask what God was doing before it or where God came from as though He could have arisen at some time in the past. The question seems to presuppose that God is a finite being within time. Likewise the author does not seem to possess an idea of God being omnipotent, otherwise he would not consider creation ex nihilo simply at the will of the Creator to be nonsense.

Why would a God who is complete and perfect in Himself want to create anything at all? Because He is perfect enough not to be selfish. Sure, in His eternal beatitude God could have been perfectly happy and fulfilled without creating anything, but His goodness abounds so much that He selflessly creates creatures capable of sharing that beatitude with Him.

 

[GenerationY]

I can see how God made creation out of complete Love, but why create matter? Why not stop at angelic beings or the immaterial?

 

[FurtherSuntime]

I’m going to take a guess and thats all anybody can do…

God did not create the universe, we did…to explain:

A dozen or so universe’s just like ours in a sea, all independent , not inter-connected.
The soul or goodness in consciousness constantly flairing out of the above universe’s
Rising above the sea this goodness, innosense in consciousness enters another level
This level precedes or is before enter into the all God state of absolute unity in all consciousness
The all God state a brilliance of perfection made up of all the innosense in consciousness
drawn up from the sea of universe’s.
So the end result is we comprise God …we are one with God…the future part of God , always
replenishing itself…the whole system always was , and always will be. All unfolding continued growth at once and not without reason.
The santa claus God is illogical due to need. Why if God is God could God actually be something which could improve of himself by creating this particular universe…so the question is illogical relative to the given description of God…I dreamnt that scene a couple of nights ago
The interersting thing is that never have i dreamnt about Jesus since a kid…but he was seen in this dream as a pathway or direction , very imp so to say just from the bust up and in red…the projections of the unconcious mind throughout sleep is interesting with respects to solving problems and creative approach
The universe’s were like cells , I can still see it all very clearly, the white gushing of consciousness rising toward the brilliant God essence further upward…it was thought the
actual God essense would have been the on-going accumulation of the whole process…that seemed to be the theme…really bright at the top, electric bright (just a dream …no biggy but it was a beauty…lots of color ect …little ery to)

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

This reminds me of a story about Martin Luther I heard (don’t know if it’s true) that someone asked him “what was God doing before the creation of the world” and Luther answered “devising punishments for people who ask stupid questions.”

Really though, I would consider that, first, there was no time before the creation of the world and anyway God is outside of time, so it’s silly to ask what God was doing before it or where God came from as though He could have arisen at some time in the past. The question seems to presuppose that God is a finite being within time. Likewise the author does not seem to possess an idea of God being omnipotent, otherwise he would not consider creation ex nihilo simply at the will of the Creator to be nonsense.

Why would a God who is complete and perfect in Himself want to create anything at all? Because He is perfect enough not to be selfish. Sure, in His eternal beatitude God could have been perfectly happy and fulfilled without creating anything, but His goodness abounds so much that He selflessly creates creatures capable of sharing that beatitude with Him.

Dr. Feser answered this perfectly in a reply to my email awhile back, “He eternally willed to create.”

Our existence does not complete Him, but the love and will to do so does since the will to do so has no prior nor end.

This “Mahapurana” is a 9th century text I believe. If the writer had knowledge that the universe is extremely scientifically likely (I leave out proven to save any arguments) to have a beginning, this would not have been written.

 

[Heuchler]

I can see how God made creation out of complete Love, but why create matter? Why not stop at angelic beings or the immaterial?

Good question. The best possible answer was one proposed by C.S. Lewis. It says that God is one. However, there are three persons of God. There is the Father. The Father is omnipotent, omnipresent, etc. The Father had perfect self-knowledge which resulted in the Son. The Son is essentially a duplicate of the Father except the Son was begotten by the Father. The Holy Spirit is the love between them which is identical to those two. Now there can only be three beings that are in all places as there are only three possible differences. The Father is the first, the Son is the second one, and the Holy Spirit is the love between them. If there were more “Sons” they would be the same as there is nothing to differientiate them making them once again one “Son”. So, there can only be three of God. But God is love and love wishes to spread and to love many people. This is why you aren’t just kind to your close family. So, there needs to be some way in which God is to create more persons without creating contradictions and fallacies. So, we have matter. Matter can be distinguished by space and time. Two pennies are different because they are in two different places. If they both occupied one place they would be one. So, through our divisination (our becoming one with God through Jesus Christ) God is able to make himself ever more immense and to create more love and compassion in existence while avoiding contradictions created by using just spirit.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Why did God create? To share His Love and Goodness. Why did the Devil and the first man fall? They wanted to define this love and goodness themselves and not receive it as it is.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

I’m totally confused here…

Dr. Feser answered this perfectly in a reply to my email awhile back, “He eternally willed to create.”

FS says…

well then God was eternally in-complete by virtue of an un-satisfied will before creation began

EB says:

Why did God create? To share His Love and Goodness. Why did the Devil and the first man fall? They wanted to define this love and goodness themselves and not receive it as it is.

FS says:

If God needed to share then he was in-complete without sharing and more like a guy. Also…
Defining something is a form of identification to allow for appreciation…this devil talk is
irrational…unless one requires giving consequence to such an oddity

Heuchler says

Good question. The best possible answer was one proposed by C.S. Lewis. It says that God is one. However, there are three persons of God. There is the Father. The Father is omnipotent, omnipresent, etc. The Father had perfect self-knowledge which resulted in the Son. The Son is essentially a duplicate of the Father except the Son was begotten by the Father. The Holy Spirit is the love between them which is identical to those two. Now there can only be three beings that are in all places as there are only three possible differences. The Father is the first, the Son is the second one, and the Holy Spirit is the love between them. If there were more “Sons” they would be the same as there is nothing to differientiate them making them once again one “Son”. So, there can only be three of God. But God is love and love wishes to spread and to love many people. This is why you aren’t just kind to your close family. So, there needs to be some way in which God is to create more persons without creating contradictions and fallacies. So, we have matter. Matter can be distinguished by space and time. Two pennies are different because they are in two different places. If they both occupied one place they would be one. So, through our divisination (our becoming one with God through Jesus Christ) God is able to make himself ever more immense and to create more love and compassion in existence while avoiding contradictions created by using just spirit.

FS says;

If God is love (which I believe but not as yourself) and God is God…then why would God wish anything unless he was in complete or dis-satisfied…love in of itself is “in-complete” without the participation of sharing…no? Thisidea stamps God with a human need to share…I cannot buy it under these irrational terms…either change the description of God or change the meaning of words…plain and simple…the remainder seems a maze of confusion as to why this un-defined sketch of God you have went about creating people…can you re-address this…you may have a good point …but I’m not getting it

 

[Heuchler]

FS, you seem to treat love as if you need a certain quantity for it to be complete. Love is not something that is complete or incomplete by number, it is complete or incomplete in if you are constantly acting in love or not. So, God is complete in love when He is the perfect love that flows in the trinity. However, the desire of love is to spread (but this is not needed for it to be complete. The love of a family can be complete whether there are 2 children or 8 children or if there are no children). But God desires for His love to spread into others. There is nothing wrong or debilitating in this. It is similar to wanting pizza for dinner. You want there to be pizza but all you need to be complete is food. God wants to love many others, but He is fine and complete with the love inside of the trinity.

 

[Perplexity]

I don’t think there is any good answer to the question why did God create. These answers like ‘God loved it into existence’ etc. aren’t good because they can’t explain why God would love this universe rather than another. More generally, every answer that appeals to God’s desire can’t really explain why God has this desire rather than another.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

Hey all,

I’m taking a world religions class and in our study of Jainism we were assigned this passage from a Jain text that considers the existence of a creator. I’ve wondered about this myself, so I’m wondering firstly what you make of this passage and secondly, why did God create the universe?

Peace,
~lefty22

…,. my dearest friend , my replues are very brief and line by line in bold italics underline to distinguish easily , but very brief replies …

"Some foolish men declare that a Creator made the world.

yes , god is the creato , creation or creatinf requires a creator , we call this god …

The doctrine that the world was created is ill-advised, and should be rejected.

it is illogical to deny the creator …

If God created the world, where was he before creation?

god just " is " in " now " god is eternal outside time and has no beginning , end or middle , he is in " now " as said …

If you say he was transcendent then, and needed no support, where is he now?

he is everywhere just the same as always , not hard to figure out …

No single being had the skill to make this world – For how can an immaterial god create that which is material?

define material perectly please , i see matter as just a different type and varying degree of the spiritual , no ptobs again …

How could God have made teh world without any raw material?

miraculously , i can explain this with a new concept in maths block " 8 " and the miracuolous created raw material is a blend varying of love , thought , dream , prayer and music , no probs still …

If you say he made this first, and then the world, you are faced with an endless regression.

god must do all his creativity " now " an not over time as god is eternal and not in time , there’s no time in our world eitther , it’s an illusion of necessity as we cannot experience our whole eternal existence all at once , god does not travel thru time or do things over time , he must do everything " now " it is an illusion time and change as said …

If you say that this raw material arose naturally you fall into another fallacy,

miracles are path of the course in our world , creation and everything is miracuolus in infinite ways too …

For the whole universe might thus have been its own creator and have arisen naturally in the same way.

no , something like our universe , cosmos and all cannot come from nothing , something can only come from something , the first cause , and it is the nature of something we call god that he must do something , be creative , infinite creayivity …

If God created the world by an act of his own will, without any raw material,
Then it is just his will and nothing else – and who will believe this nonsense?

i do , it’s common sense to me , god miraculously creates , is that hard to understand ???

If he is ever perfect and complete, how could the will to create have arisen in him?

something must do something , it cannot do nothing / ness or this what must be the most absolutely infinitely perfect something that can possibly be would have a degree or amount of nothing / ness in it and be imperfect and cease to be if so , nothing / ness cannot exist as it says if you think hard …

If, on the other hand, he is not perfect, he could no more create the universe than a potter could.

let’s look at why god must be : there is no time but for arguments sake we’ll say there was a beginning , in the beginning there is a choice , there must be something or nothing , now this word nothing is so commonly misused and note this , if nothing exists then having existence it is not nothing but has become something , so either way something must exist , and we get a glimpse why god has always been with this , now the nature of this something we call god is that it cannot have any nothing / ness in it at all as nothing / ness cannot exist , so it must be the most absolutely infiniutely perfect something that can possibly be , if any imperfection it ceases to be , but then there is nothing which is impossible as nothing cannot exist at all …

continued -

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

If he is formless, actionless, and all-embracing, how could he have created the world?

wrong thinking here , makes no real sense , answered q anyway earlier …

Such a soul, devoid of all modality, would have no desire to create anything.

something must do something as said , be crative , and infinitely creative …

If he is perfect, he does not strive for the three aims of humanity,

***does he have to , god is beyond mand 3 aims , so if he does or doesn’t it is up to him , why would one argue this ??? , what’s so special about these 3 aims ??? ***

So what advantage would be gained by creating the universe?

… god does what his nature demands by doing something , and god = love , and gets to love more and more forever and all eternity , god is a big winner and so is all …

If you say that he created for no purpose, because it was his nature to do so, then God is pointless.

purpose explained already …

If he created in some kind of sport, it was the sport of a foolish child, leading to trouble…

silly thing to say , a fool says this , god is not foolish , what can i say ???

If out of love for living things and need of them he made the world,
Why did he not make creation wholly blissful, free from misfortune?

he made a perfect world and we’ll get it back soon enough and god is so clever it’ll be like this mess never even happened in my opine , people should not presume god cannot or has not fixed this and all probs just because they don’t exp or see it yet , trust god , all is and will be well …

If he were transcendent he would not create, for he would be free;

wrong assumption again , he is perfectly free no matter what …

Nor if involved in transmigration, for then he would not be almighty.

god remains omipoyent and almight even if he limits the exercise of his power or completely witholds it …
So the doctrine that the world was created by God makes no sense at all.

wrong , makes perfect sense , but a huge sunbject to totally cover , poor assumptions in this dear friend …

And God commits great sin in killing the children that he himself created.

god cannot sin , sin is human and demonic , all this now is a delusion and all evil is occuring outside reality as god cannot allow evil to exist , he is fixing our problems , soon enough we get reality or the garden of eden back i thinks …

If you say that he kills only to destroy evil beings, why did he create such beings in the first place?..

in the end all are alright once we get reality back , and eternity is so blissful and beyond ecstatic that a little trouble here is nothing , and all will forget this mess in this world , better to live for eternal bliss rather than never exist , god is fixing this mess , all will infinitely appreciate it eventually …

Good men should combat the believer in divine creation, maddened by an evil doctrine.

makes no sense , who is good but god though , what evil doctrine ???

Know that the world is uncreated, as time itself is, without beginning and end…

we only have a concept of time because we can measure change , but it is an illusion , there is no time at all in reality or anywhere …

Uncreated and indestructible, it endures through the compulsion of its own nature,
Divided into three sections – hell, earth, and heaven."

what does this mean ??? god will create a new heaven and new earth as these one are destroyed having lost reality , they are the opposite of reality in varie ways and degrees …

From Mahapurana 4.16-31, 38-40

 

[greylorn]

To get to the other side?

If you cannot take an honest question seriously, go watch a TV sitcom. They come with laugh tracks so that by watching them you will learn to identify what is blandly amusing.

This is a philosophy thread. Maybe you ought to read a philosophy book— not a comic book— a real book, before posting any more brain drool.

 

[greylorn]

Hey all,

I’m taking a world religions class and in our study of Jainism we were assigned this passage from a Jain text that considers the existence of a creator. I’ve wondered about this myself, so I’m wondering firstly what you make of this passage and secondly, why did God create the universe?

Peace,
~lefty22

“Some foolish men declare that a Creator made the world.
If God created the world, where was he before creation?
If you say he was transcendent then, and needed no support, where is he now?
No single being had the skill to make this world – For how can an immaterial god create that which is material?
How could God have made teh world without any raw material?
If you say he made this first, and then the world, you are faced with an endless regression.
If you say that this raw material arose naturally you fall into another fallacy,
For the whole universe might thus have been its own creator and have arisen naturally in the same way.
If God created the world by an act of his own will, without any raw material,
Then it is just his will and nothing else – and who will believe this nonsense?
If he is ever perfect and complete, how could the will to create have arisen in him?
If, on the other hand, he is not perfect, he could no more create the universe than a potter could.
If he is formless, actionless, and all-embracing, how could he have created the world?
Such a soul, devoid of all modality, would have no desire to create anything.
If he is perfect, he does not strive for the three aims of humanity,
So what advantage would be gained by creating the universe?
If you say that he created for no purpose, because it was his nature to do so, then God is pointless.
If he created in some kind of sport, it was the sport of a foolish child, leading to trouble…
If out of love for living things and need of them he made the world,
Why did he not make creation wholly blissful, free from misfortune?
If he were transcendent he would not create, for he would be free;
Nor if involved in transmigration, for then he would not be almighty.
So the doctrine that the world was created by God makes no sense at all.
And God commits great sin in killing the children that he himself created.
If you say that he kills only to destroy evil beings, why did he create such beings in the first place?..
Good men should combat the believer in divine creation, maddened by an evil doctrine.
Know that the world is uncreated, as time itself is, without beginning and end…
Uncreated and indestructible, it endures through the compulsion of its own nature,
Divided into three sections – hell, earth, and heaven.”

From Mahapurana 4.16-31, 38-40

Reply 1 of 4 or 5

Lefty,
This is one of the best OP’s initiated on CAF in the last few years and deserves a reply. Feel free to employ the answers in your class, with attribution please.

The Jainish material is uneven in quality, mixing gibberish with excellent points. Their version of NLP (neurolinguistic programming), perhaps. I’ll deal with the good points.

The best way to deal with this is in sections. That will make it easier for me to cut through the poetry and errors, and give others a chance to contribute as well.

My answers to this question-set are well outside Catholic dogma, and I would appreciate it if the usual glut of dogmatists and bible thumpers supported this thread by not showing up to reiterate doctrine-- we already know it. Save space for those with curious and open minds.
Mahapurana:

"Some foolish men declare that a Creator made the world.

Likewise, other foolish men declare that the world is a “natural” pheomenon, the consequence of the inexplicable explosion of a cosmic micropea some 14 billion years ago, its unlikely reformation into a well-structured universe, and the subsequent “evolution” of life by an assembly of random events.

Perhaps both sides are foolish. My theory proposes that creators made the world. Is that foolish too? Nonetheless, we have a complex world and awesome universe which present a puzzle by their existence. Let’s give that puzzle a serious try.

continued…

 

[greylorn]

"Some foolish men declare that a Creator made the world.
The doctrine that the world was created is ill-advised, and should be rejected.
If God created the world, where was he before creation?
If you say he was transcendent then, and needed no support, where is he now?
No single being had the skill to make this world – For how can an immaterial god create that which is material?
How could God have made teh world without any raw material?
If you say he made this first, and then the world, you are faced with an endless regression.
If you say that this raw material arose naturally you fall into another fallacy,
For the whole universe might thus have been its own creator and have arisen naturally in the same way.
From Mahapurana 4.16-31, 38-40

Reply 2 of 4 or 5.
Mahapurana:

The doctrine that the world was created is ill-advised, and should be rejected.

Okay, we got your talking point, and will explain why it is unworthy of serious consideration.

Your arguments are based upon your apparent disbelief in a single creator who possessed the properties attributed to him by Christian and Islamic teachers. You have neglected the more interesting possibilities that creators are a diverse lot, one of which a human mind might justifiably aspire to be.
Mahapurana:

If God created the world, where was he before creation?

Within a space defined by the substance physics has discovered and named dark energy.
Mahapurana:

If you say he was transcendent then, and needed no support, where is he now?

The transcendency concept is clearly an error developed by Christian theologians, as is the “no support” notion. (That one is may not even be a Christian concept, given the teaching that God made mankind to know and love him. But that is another issue.)

I propose that God does indeed need co-existing systems for survival. Your “where” question is relevant only to the digitized portion of the universe, and is unanswerable with our technology. For example, I occupy a fairly well defined locus in spacetime, but you won’t know what that is unless you are standing nearby or manning a spy drone. Giving you my address would not help, for I am seldom there.

Your inability to say with certainty where I am is strictly a limitation on your part, and does not mean that I am not someplace. You are simply repeating Heisenberg’s error, as in the Uncertainty Principle of quantum mechanics.
Mahapurana:

No single being had the skill to make this world – For how can an immaterial god create that which is material?

The two halves of this statement-question are not related whatsoever, indicating your severe confusion. What does the quantity of beings needed to make the world have to do with their material status?

You are clearly writing from deep ignorance about the nature of the world. There is more to the world than the material. In fact, “matter” makes up less than five per cent of the stuff which comprises the universe. The rest is immaterial, but all the stuff in the universe is “physical,” meaning that it all interacts with matter.

It is known that even the minds of certain humans are capable of changing material states. How? Even they do not know, so “how” remains a worthy question.

However you clearly ask this question with the intent of disparaging the possibility that the immaterial can affect the physical. Evidence that it can exposes your sneaky implication.
Mahapurana:

How could God have made the world without any raw material?

Here we have one of your excellent questions. Christian philosophers could not conceive of a good answer to this, and foolishly invented “nothing” as the answer. Curiously, modern cosmologists seem to have arrived at the same incompetent conclusion, and for the same reason. While the conclusion of original Christians can be excused, that of cosmologists is unconscionably stupid. They should know better.

The actual raw material is obvious. It is the stuff called energy, in the amorphous form known as dark energy.
Mahapurana:

If you say he made this first, and then the world, you are faced with an endless regression.

Energy comes equipped with its own laws, or inherent principles of action, and one boundary condition. The First Law of Thermodynamics is that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Thus, God cannot have made it. Thus, no regression.
Mahapurana:

If you say that this raw material arose naturally you fall into another fallacy,

Of course. But given energy’s own property of non-creation, it would be false to claim that it arose naturally. There is no fallacy in trusting the law and admitting that energy has always existed.

(This is not to say that it existed in the forms we currently recognize, such as light, electromagnetic fields, gravitational fields, and matter.)
Mahapurana:

For the whole universe might thus have been its own creator and have arisen naturally in the same way.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics assures us that this cannot have happened. So, not to worry.

More later, perhaps…

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t think there is any good answer to the question why did God create. These answers like ‘God loved it into existence’ etc. aren’t good because they can’t explain why God would love this universe rather than another. More generally, every answer that appeals to God’s desire can’t really explain why God has this desire rather than another.

Do you have to explain why you have one desire rather than another? Persons are not machines!