Why did God make the universe at all?

[-1-]

I am not religious whatsoever. I therefore approached the question with another quesiton: "How would god answer this question, "why did god create the universe?""

I think it must have been an act of separating the wheat from the chaff in his mind, sorta. He had created the concept of good and the concept of evil, in his mind, but his mind was not a good vessel to contain both at the same time and in the same respect. So he separated the two by creating physical entities that contained these qualities.

Have you ever had a bad taste in the mouth, which you knew you could only rid yourself of by expectorating? the creation of the world of good and evil was a similar process; god wanted to empty out his mind of this duality, of this pleasant and unpleasant quality both being present within himself, but without any form or feeling; so he created a world of forms and feelings in which good and evil were distinct and therefore manageable.

[Grotto19]

Does your dog wonder why you go to work, or mow the lawn, or get angry about politics on the television. Likely he does wonder that. Does he have even a remote possibility of understanding any of the answers to his curiosity? Absolutely not. I am a theist and so I will answer your question with the only honest answer anyone who believes God is omniscient can give. I am not on his level nor even close. I could not make sense of his reasons even if he explained them to me as if speaking to a small child.

Worse still if God is as we imagine him to be, then we are not even akin to a dog trying to understand world politics. We would be a tree trying to understand it. A tree cannot but barely recognize the influence of people let alone what they are doing or why. Perhaps the leaves notice the shade a bit as a child climbs on it and blocks some sunlight. But that’s about it. Likewise if humans are as imperceptive of God as a tree is of us, how can we expect to know anything about his motives beyond what a tree knows of ours? This may sound absurd “trees don’t think!!!” But compared to omniscience neither do we. If God exists it is probably adorable to him that we think our thought process is akin to his. To us it is all powerful and magnanimous and to him it is a paramecium by reflex moving away from stimuli.

[Dolphin42]

Chimpanzees (presumably) don't understand Quantum Mechanics, and they (presumably) are unaware that there is anything to not understand. That's the way Martin Rees put it when talking about the more general issue of "things that we can never know and can never know that we don't know":

newscientist.com/article/mg21028111-200 ... nderstand/

Whether we call this set of all things that we could never understand "God" or whether we call it something else is, I think, not necessarily relevant to considering the philosophical point being made.

For me, the question that arises from considering this is: If there set of things that I cannot ever know is infinitely greater than the set of things that I can potentially know, how, if at all, does that affect my behaviour or state of mind?

[Lark_Truth]

I don't think that God would create the world and the universe for no reason at all. He must have a plan in mind for designing the world the way that He did.

Among the Mormons (my church), we have a story just about this.
In the pre-existance, we all lived with God as His spirit children. We were spirits, but God had a body of flesh and bones. In order for His children to be more like Him, God came up with the Plan of Salvation to bring us to such glory. The plan was such that we would need to focus on our Heavenly Father in order to gain eternal life. He knew that we would make mistakes and sin, causing us to be separated from God and not being able to obtain the greatest happiness in existence, so He asked for a volunteer to be our Savior. Lucifer came forward and wanted to alter the plan so that he would get all of the glory instead of God being the focus of salvation, it would be Lucifer instead, and that nobody would have the freedom to choose and be "drones" of goodness, never learning anything. Jesus Christ came forward and agreed to perfectly follow God's plan. God accepted Jesus as the Savior, Lucifer got mad, he and 1/3 of our spirit siblings left because they wanted to follow Lucifer's plan, Lucifer became the Devil, you know the rest of the story.
Does that make any sense?

[Grotto19]

Chimpanzees (presumably) don't understand Quantum Mechanics, and they (presumably) are unaware that there is anything to not understand. That's the way Martin Rees put it when talking about the more general issue of "things that we can never know and can never know that we don't know":

newscientist.com/article/mg21028111-200 ... nderstand/

Whether we call this set of all things that we could never understand "God" or whether we call it something else is, I think, not necessarily relevant to considering the philosophical point being made.

For me, the question that arises from considering this is: If there set of things that I cannot ever know is infinitely greater than the set of things that I can potentially know, how, if at all, does that affect my behaviour or state of mind?

The question which you’re dodging is not regarding a total absence of knowledge. It is an insufficient degree of knowledge. The supposition being if there is a God, then why did he make (whatever). Your answer implies we both do not know of a God and as a result would never query why he made us. Thus the unknown which remains unquestioned as it is unknown.

But that is not the topic here. The topic supposes there is a God and from that assumption asks then why did that god do…. Very different than your strawman. If the apes are aware of quarks but simply don’t get what they do is quite different from them never conceiving of the quarks in the first place. A whole different argument in fact which is fruitless as obviously all which we have no conception of at all is irrelevant as we have no conception of the thing.

My exposition was regarding our arrogance to on one hand define a deity omniscient (which by definition means vastly orders of magnitude more intelligent than us). And then to follow with a query regarding its motives and agenda, as if we could comprehend it. If we define a deity as omniscient we are immediately guaranteeing we cannot comprehend at all its thought process just like a dog trying to calculate launch trajectories for escape velocity.

[Belindi]

If God exists He lacks moral intelligence.

[Eaglerising]

Why did God make the universe at all?

This is an excellent question because it causes us to question our concept, image, or perception of God. That is important because our perception of God prevents us from answering it.

Nothing is able to see itself. We can see this in that we have to use some type of mirror to be able to see ourselves. Likewise, we can only understand what we can experience. Keeping these two things in mind, I present the following for your consideration and examination.

Science has knowledge of physical and non-physical, but oblivious of what is neither tangible or intangible. There are numerous words for the non-physical but, there are none for which is neither tangible nor intangible, which I will call “No-Name.”

Although No-Name is aware of itself, it is unable to see itself. So it created a mirror image of itself, the non-physical world. Although this allowed No-Name to see itself, it didn’t allow No-Name to experience itself, so it could understand itself. So it created the physical world. The physical world allows No-Name to see and experience itself so that it can understand itself.

[Grotto19]

If God exists He lacks moral intelligence.

So let me get this straight. You think if there was a God who created everything, and thus determined how things should be, and you are dissatisfied with his creation or determination of how things should be, then you the created are the one which determines morals.

That is akin to a hammer I made not liking being a hammer. I made you a hammer it is your duty to push nails into wood on pain of striking until your handle breaks. Even if I crafted the hammer poorly its perspective on its purpose or how the world should work is not relevant. I the creator matter not the hammer. Next time you boil water think of how cruel your being putting the pot to the fire, then remember you’re a human and it’s a pot.

If God created us than his morals are the morals. The creator of something dictates its purpose. The created don’t get to manifest that. If I make a hammer it is to pound nails that’s what its purpose is and the damage it suffers from it is mine to dispense as I feel necessary. The hammer is not important relevant to me. If this offends you then think of the cut down trees that made your newspaper, the cut down cows used to make your steak. And you didn’t even create those things God did. Yet you’re quite comfortable putting them to your purposes.

I cannot understand why this concept is difficult for so many people. I get why someone might not believe in a God at all. But this logic of there is a God but we his worms get to dictate morals is beyond absurd. At best a code of ethics for us pertains only to us, just as dog pack rules for dogs is valid for them but does not apply to us and what we do.

[Belindi]

But Grotto, God is supposed to be not only the Creator but also the benevolent and all-powerful creator Who can intervene in history.

Otherwise, if God is nothing but the uncaring creator you describe, then you are right. Deism however leaves we men responsible for our own morality. God's morals are incomprehensible and also that God cares for us is impossible, as He made us to be , not tools, but men.

The God that most people here are talking about not only transcends His creation but is also immanent in the world which He created.

[Eaglerising]

Belindi & Grotto19 – How do you know that both your conceptions of God are not accurate. How do you know for sure that it is possible to describe or conceptualize God? Maybe what is called "God" is a mystery that cannot be imagined, described, or conceptualized.

[Belindi]

Eaglerising, we men invent gods, and God.

If talk of God had any meaning the talk would regard some concept of God. All meanings refer to sets of attributes, which we call concepts. Unless we attribute something to God the name has no meaning.

[Eaglerising]

A $100 dollar bill is printed on a fabric. The ink and fabric costs pennies. It's humans who give it value. It's worth $100 because they believe it is.

Likewise, thought invented gods. And, the fragmentation of thought causes it to mistakenly believe it is real. What some call God could be a set of immutable laws that govern life instead of a supreme entity. What if the primal source of everything is neither physical nor non-physical, something entirely different and beyond human comprehension. The human mind cannot imagine, describe, or conceptualize something that has no beginning or infinity? Yet, it believes it can imagine, describe, or conceptualize something multidimensional, omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience.

-- Updated May 20th, 2017, 8:13 pm to add the following --

All I am asking is how do you know for sure that what you think you know or believe is accurate? Surely, it's wiser to consider the possibility that it may not be accurate or correct. Especially when thought cannot see, examine or challenge itself. It takes something different from thought to see, examine and challenge thought. Likewise, you need some type of mirror or something different from yourself to see yourself.

[Grotto19]

Belindi & Grotto19 – How do you know that both your conceptions of God are not accurate. How do you know for sure that it is possible to describe or conceptualize God? Maybe what is called "God" is a mystery that cannot be imagined, described, or conceptualized.

I agree completely that I cannot conceive of God. My earlier post should have already made that clear. I am saying if an omni anything being exists we have nowhere near the capacity to comprehend it. And we should be at least intelligent enough to get that.

I don’t think maybe God cannot be characterized accurately. I am certain that if the God described is real we certainly absolutely cannot. As I said above it would be akin to a tree trying to understand global politics.

The fact that we cannot comprehend doesn’t mean it’s not a thing. Trees in the Amazon live and die based on global politics. It’s real despite the fact the trees in the Amazon know nothing about it. And that was my only point. It is not only possible but actually probable that there is much going on well beyond our understanding and capabilities to understand. Those things are still real even when we do not see or understand them.

Is it one God or just elements a physics. I cannot answer that aside from my personal opinion. But it is supreme arrogance to hold the idea there is a creator, and simultaneously proclaim he is immoral for (blank). That is akin to a hammer jugging us as morally bankrupt for making it hammer things. By definition the creator of a thing dictates what its purpose is. The created do not get to decide that.

-- Updated May 20th, 2017, 11:16 pm to add the following --

A $100 dollar bill is printed on a fabric. The ink and fabric costs pennies. It's humans who give it value. It's worth $100 because they believe it is.

Likewise, thought invented gods. And, the fragmentation of thought causes it to mistakenly believe it is real. What some call God could be a set of immutable laws that govern life instead of a supreme entity. What if the primal source of everything is neither physical nor non-physical, something entirely different and beyond human comprehension. The human mind cannot imagine, describe, or conceptualize something that has no beginning or infinity? Yet, it believes it can imagine, describe, or conceptualize something multidimensional, omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience.

-- Updated May 20th, 2017, 8:13 pm to add the following --

All I am asking is how do you know for sure that what you think you know or believe is accurate? Surely, it's wiser to consider the possibility that it may not be accurate or correct. Especially when thought cannot see, examine or challenge itself. It takes something different from thought to see, examine and challenge thought. Likewise, you need some type of mirror or something different from yourself to see yourself.

I am confident most of what we believe is wrong. The question is how wrong, or rather how close to reality we are. My wall is made up of particles vibrating and moving very swiftly. I know this thanks to physics. But I cannot see it. And my perception is that the wall is not moving. But the truth is it is moving and a great deal, and all the time. But that’s not what I see. That’s not what I experience.

I am also hurtling through space right now at thousands of miles per hour. Yet I am quite sure I am sitting in one spot typing and haven’t moved an inch (well my hands are moving but my sore bottom tells me I have not). And on a galactic level I am moving at a mind blowing speed, right now, and always have been my whole life.

All of our perceptions are wrong, all of them. The question is how wrong, and how well we can come to grips with them. How aware can we be of our misconceptions? And how close can we get towards the truth. But have no longer any delusion that I think I get God, or that I think I know reality as it is truly. What makes me think I am more enlightened than most is the fact that I KNOW that I don’t know.

See ignorance is not knowing. But grand ignorance is thinking you know that which you do not know. The first sign of intelligence is recognizing that which you don’t know, not bragging about what you think you do know (and are likely later to be found wrong about).

[Eaglerising]

Grotto19 – Thank you for your excellent posts. Please excuse me for including you in my previous post. I loved your examples.

[Belindi]

Eaglerising wrote:

A $100 dollar bill is printed on a fabric. The ink and fabric costs pennies. It's humans who give it value. It's worth $100 because they believe it is.

Likewise, thought invented gods. And, the fragmentation of thought causes it to mistakenly believe it is real. What some call God could be a set of immutable laws that govern life instead of a supreme entity. What if the primal source of everything is neither physical nor non-physical, something entirely different and beyond human comprehension. The human mind cannot imagine, describe, or conceptualize something that has no beginning or infinity? Yet, it believes it can imagine, describe, or conceptualize something multidimensional, omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience.

Humility and awe, like scepticism, aid the pursuit of truth, beauty, and goodness. I wouldn't like to become so awestruck that I could not act. Institutionalised religions channel natural feeling of awe into the service of some social status quo.

The artist and the scientist , what they do with their feelings of awe is they make something new and benefit life by what they make. The more authoritarian religions are much exercised to control and even eliminate artists and scientists.