Excellent analogy! Kudos to you. Okay, you are correct, the motivations of Anna, in the same sense as your or my motivation, are in fact unknowable since Anna is not a person (with motivations). Anna is a two dimensional simplistic creation that anyone can flesh out to a complex fully human construct (with motivations). And as long as we acknowledge that the source of the complexity that would make Anna "human" originates with the reader (not Anna herself), then we are all good, go ahead and have a wonderful discussion of your take on Anna's motivation (not Anna's actual motivation).Ecurb wrote: ↑April 3rd, 2021, 10:46 amAs usual, Sculptor's approach to theology is misguided and anti-intellectual. Suppose someone were to ask,"In Anna Karenina, Kitty idolizes Anna and is in love with Vronsky. Is Kitty protected from sin because her passions are weaker than Anna's? Is Tolstoy suggesting that loving more is somehow worse than loving less?"Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 3rd, 2021, 6:55 am
None of which has ANY basis in fact. None can be falsified. None can be verified.
Though if there were a god I can see no reason why this complete lack of verification should be the case.
You grasp on reality seems rudimentary.
If you were any kind of theologian you would be inventing rubbish or borrowing rubbish from some other theologian; none of it would be beyond refutation and ridicule.
Sculptor (and perhaps Tegularius and LuckyR) would probably say, "This question is meaningless! Anna and Kitty are fictional characters! Neither of them has any basis in fact!"
Huh? OK. Everyone admits Kitty and Anna are fictional characters. Why should that make a question about their motives (or their creator's motives) "meaningless"? Kitty and Anna are (I suppose) what Lucky would call "metaphysical". But that doesn't mean they are "unknowable". We know them through the pages of the novel, just as we can know God through the pages of the Bible or Quran (among other possible ways of knowing).
Suggesting that we oughtn't discuss God's motives because God is "unknowable" is exactly comparable to suggesting that we oughtn't discuss Anna's or Kitty's motives because they are "unknowable". It's anti-intellectual and downright silly.
Why did God create Human in the first place?
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7914
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Why did God create Human in the first place?
-
- Posts: 1133
- Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm
Re: Why did God create Human in the first place?
Good point on praying, which may be included in the next topic: Why does human invent or find the need for God?
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7066
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Why did God create Human in the first place?
No. It is strictly intellectual, and guided by reason.Ecurb wrote: ↑April 3rd, 2021, 10:46 amAs usual, Sculptor's approach to theology is misguided and anti-intellectual.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 3rd, 2021, 6:55 am
None of which has ANY basis in fact. None can be falsified. None can be verified.
Though if there were a god I can see no reason why this complete lack of verification should be the case.
You grasp on reality seems rudimentary.
If you were any kind of theologian you would be inventing rubbish or borrowing rubbish from some other theologian; none of it would be beyond refutation and ridicule.
Careful of the ad hominemes.
This is literary fiction. We can assess the intentions of Tolstoy.
Suppose someone were to ask,"In Anna Karenina, Kitty idolizes Anna and is in love with Vronsky. Is Kitty protected from sin because her passions are weaker than Anna's? Is Tolstoy suggesting that loving more is somehow worse than loving less?"
Not philosophy and not theology.
You are wasting time off topic.
So are you admitting that god is a fiction?
Sculptor (and perhaps Tegularius and LuckyR) would probably say, "This question is meaningless! Anna and Kitty are fictional characters! Neither of them has any basis in fact!"
Huh? OK. Everyone admits Kitty and Anna are fictional characters. Why should that make a question about their motives (or their creator's motives) "meaningless"? Kitty and Anna are (I suppose) what Lucky would call "metaphysical". But that doesn't mean they are "unknowable". We know them through the pages of the novel, just as we can know God through the pages of the Bible or Quran (among other possible ways of knowing).
Here's the difference for the hard of thinking.
Tolstoy wrote friction and did not claim that his characters were real.
When people talk of god they are speaking as if god exists.
If you do not know how important that difference is then it is you that is "misguided".
Massive strawman.
Suggesting that we oughtn't discuss God's motives because God is "unknowable" is exactly comparable to suggesting that we oughtn't discuss Anna's or Kitty's motives because they are "unknowable". It's anti-intellectual and downright silly.
No you are being silly for completely obvious reasons.
Kitty is fictional and speculations on what Tolstoy meant to say helps us understand Tolstoy's view of human nature and is an entertainment.
Pretending to know god is a tagic delusion.
-
- Posts: 711
- Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am
Re: Why did God create Human in the first place?
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Why did God create Human in the first place?
Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 3rd, 2021, 4:53 pm
No. It is strictly intellectual, and guided by reason.
Careful of the ad hominemes.
This is literary fiction. We can assess the intentions of Tolstoy.
Not philosophy and not theology.
You are wasting time off topic.
So are you admitting that god is a fiction?
Here's the difference for the hard of thinking.
Tolstoy wrote friction and did not claim that his characters were real.
When people talk of god they are speaking as if god exists.
If you do not know how important that difference is then it is you that is "misguided".
Massive strawman.
No you are being silly for completely obvious reasons.
Kitty is fictional and speculations on what Tolstoy meant to say helps us understand Tolstoy's view of human nature and is an entertainment.
Pretending to know god is a tagic delusion.
Once again, Sculptor's meandering and anti-intellectual posts miss the point entirely. Sculptor claims that "when people talk of god they are speaking as if god exists." That is true of some people, but not of me, and not of the OP. The OP clearly stated "The Holy Bible or the Koran should be the initial source to ruminate on this celestial question." God is a character in a book, just like Anna, Vronsky or Kitty. It's irrelevant to this discussion whether He is also something more than a character in a book.
There are many characters in books who are not (or at least not fully) "fictional". Shakespeare wrote "Julius Caesar" and "Anthony and Cleopatra". We can ask, "Why does Cleopatra love Anthony?" Of course it is probably true that Cleopatra never said, upon Anthony's death, "There is nothing left remarkable beneath the visiting moon." She didn't speak English, for one. Nonetheless, it's perfectly reasonable to discuss Cleopatra the character in Shakespeare's play, or God the character in the Bible or Quran. Once again, why wouldn't it be? The only reason it wouldn't be (it seems) is a rejection of "ideas" that aren't based on "evidence". That's why Sculptor's approach is anti-intellectual; he seems to be saying that ideas are worthless and there is no point in discussing them. Only physical reality is worthwhile. This is a strange position to hold on a Philosophy discussion board.
By the way, fictional characters are clearly "two dimensional" (as Lucky said) in that the pages of the book are two dimensional. But they "exist" apart from the author. A reader may reasonably impute motives to Anna that Tolstoy did not intend, but that might be reasonably inferred from the text. God is a character in a book, but He is also (if nothing else) an important figure in Christian Theology, Church teachings, and the popular imagination. Based on the OP, we need not concern ourselves with these. To paraphrase Shkespeare, the books the thing in which we'll catch the conscience of the king.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Why did God create Human in the first place?
Tegularius wrote: ↑April 3rd, 2021, 5:50 pm Fiction is fiction. It's read for entertainment and with the best some insight into the human condition. Belief in god is not remotely allied to anything fictional even if the core of those beliefs are grounded in it. One who believes in god believes in its existence and not in Captain Ahab or Sherlock Holmes. I have no idea why anyone would believe there's a connection between the two completely separate scenarios!
The Abrahamic god has a name which is usually God. This is because the version of a god you refer to is a mythic person like Jupiter or Aphrodite and indeed Captain Ahab are mythic persons.
People have at various times believed in the actual historical existence of members of the Greek and Roman pantheons, and also believed in the historical existence of mythic quasi-historical persons who have not been deified, such as Robin Hood, and King Arthur of Camelot. Supernatural Christ is mythic Jesus who has been deified largely(Constantine)for the purpose of social cohesion.
What causes some person or fictional character to become a myth is basically psychological need for leadership at times of high emotions of joy, sorrow, fear, or anger. What causes some person or cultural symbol to be deified is need for social cohesion.
The simple reason some people believe in the historicity of God is lack of post-Enlightenment education in history and science. There is a political remedy for lack of education among the general public.
-
- Posts: 1133
- Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm
Re: Why did God create Human in the first place?
Let me quote from what I have written:
Even if you know absolutely nothing about God, you can still question his motive, out of curiosity or out of your need to know, like the police questioning a suspect with no record. . . . Questioning motive is no disrespect. You are so entitled as a decent human being.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7066
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Why did God create Human in the first place?
If you were not so insulting I might be more inclined to educate you of your obvoous errors.Ecurb wrote: ↑April 3rd, 2021, 6:43 pmSculptor1 wrote: ↑April 3rd, 2021, 4:53 pm
No. It is strictly intellectual, and guided by reason.
Careful of the ad hominemes.
This is literary fiction. We can assess the intentions of Tolstoy.
Not philosophy and not theology.
You are wasting time off topic.
So are you admitting that god is a fiction?
Here's the difference for the hard of thinking.
Tolstoy wrote friction and did not claim that his characters were real.
When people talk of god they are speaking as if god exists.
If you do not know how important that difference is then it is you that is "misguided".
Massive strawman.
No you are being silly for completely obvious reasons.
Kitty is fictional and speculations on what Tolstoy meant to say helps us understand Tolstoy's view of human nature and is an entertainment.
Pretending to know god is a tagic delusion.
Once again, Sculptor's meandering and anti-intellectual posts miss the point entirely. Sculptor claims that "when people talk of god they are speaking as if god exists." That is true of some people, but not of me, and not of the OP. The OP clearly stated "The Holy Bible or the Koran should be the initial source to ruminate on this celestial question." God is a character in a book, just like Anna, Vronsky or Kitty. It's irrelevant to this discussion whether He is also something more than a character in a book.
What is particularly amusing is that the OP can speak for themselves, and I deny that the OP is an atheist or is taking an atheist stance you are you are now pretending to.
WHilst the OP might be calling doubt upon the particular versions of the Koran or Bible, there is nothing to say that the OP is denying the existence of god.
That is all completely irrelevant and off topic.
There are many characters in books who are not (or at least not fully) "fictional". Shakespeare wrote "Julius Caesar" and "Anthony and Cleopatra". We can ask, "Why does Cleopatra love Anthony?" Of course it is probably true that Cleopatra never said, upon Anthony's death, "There is nothing left remarkable beneath the visiting moon." She didn't speak English, for one. Nonetheless, it's perfectly reasonable to discuss Cleopatra the character in Shakespeare's play, or God the character in the Bible or Quran. Once again, why wouldn't it be? The only reason it wouldn't be (it seems) is a rejection of "ideas" that aren't based on "evidence". That's why Sculptor's approach is anti-intellectual; he seems to be saying that ideas are worthless and there is no point in discussing them. Only physical reality is worthwhile. This is a strange position to hold on a Philosophy discussion board.
THe OP has already pointed to doubt concerning account of god in the "scriptures"; whilst we can discuss Shakespeare's Anthony, the OP seems to be looking for the real thing.
More off topic rubbish.
By the way, fictional characters are clearly "two dimensional" (as Lucky said) in that the pages of the book are two dimensional. But they "exist" apart from the author. A reader may reasonably impute motives to Anna that Tolstoy did not intend, but that might be reasonably inferred from the text. God is a character in a book, but He is also (if nothing else) an important figure in Christian Theology, Church teachings, and the popular imagination. Based on the OP, we need not concern ourselves with these. To paraphrase Shkespeare, the books the thing in which we'll catch the conscience of the king.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7066
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Why did God create Human in the first place?
I know plenty about plenty of godsgad-fly wrote: ↑April 4th, 2021, 11:19 am It must be easier arguing whether God is fictional, than to focus on the tilted challenge which can be a headache. I am afraid I would not be engaged in such argument at this juncture. It is fine if, as a non-believer, you would prefer to evade the present challenge, even if you can.
Let me quote from what I have written:
Even if you know absolutely nothing about God, you can still question his motive, out of curiosity or out of your need to know, like the police questioning a suspect with no record. . . .
WHich ones are you talking about?
So ecurb is wrong to assume that you are taking a purely academic stance?Questioning motive is no disrespect. You are so entitled as a decent human being.
I have no need to argue whether god is fictional.
If you want to proceed with the challenge of the thread, then what evidence are you going to argue with exactly?
If you think god is a real thing, then which version are you choosing today?
What books are you going to cherry pick for evidence?
You cannot question a motive unless you choose which god or gods you think are real and which accounts you want to discuss.
To fail to do that is simply dishonest.
-
- Posts: 711
- Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am
Re: Why did God create Human in the first place?
Not so much the lack of as the acceptance of which is beyond any political remedy to accomplish.Belindi wrote: ↑April 4th, 2021, 5:24 amTegularius wrote: ↑April 3rd, 2021, 5:50 pm Fiction is fiction. It's read for entertainment and with the best some insight into the human condition. Belief in god is not remotely allied to anything fictional even if the core of those beliefs are grounded in it. One who believes in god believes in its existence and not in Captain Ahab or Sherlock Holmes. I have no idea why anyone would believe there's a connection between the two completely separate scenarios!
The Abrahamic god has a name which is usually God. This is because the version of a god you refer to is a mythic person like Jupiter or Aphrodite and indeed Captain Ahab are mythic persons.
People have at various times believed in the actual historical existence of members of the Greek and Roman pantheons, and also believed in the historical existence of mythic quasi-historical persons who have not been deified, such as Robin Hood, and King Arthur of Camelot. Supernatural Christ is mythic Jesus who has been deified largely(Constantine)for the purpose of social cohesion.
What causes some person or fictional character to become a myth is basically psychological need for leadership at times of high emotions of joy, sorrow, fear, or anger. What causes some person or cultural symbol to be deified is need for social cohesion.
The simple reason some people believe in the historicity of God is lack of post-Enlightenment education in history and science. There is a political remedy for lack of education among the general public.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Why did God create Human in the first place?
Tegularius wrote: ↑April 4th, 2021, 3:26 pmNot so much the lack of as the acceptance of which is beyond any political remedy to accomplish.Belindi wrote: ↑April 4th, 2021, 5:24 amTegularius wrote: ↑April 3rd, 2021, 5:50 pm Fiction is fiction. It's read for entertainment and with the best some insight into the human condition. Belief in god is not remotely allied to anything fictional even if the core of those beliefs are grounded in it. One who believes in god believes in its existence and not in Captain Ahab or Sherlock Holmes. I have no idea why anyone would believe there's a connection between the two completely separate scenarios!
The Abrahamic god has a name which is usually God. This is because the version of a god you refer to is a mythic person like Jupiter or Aphrodite and indeed Captain Ahab are mythic persons.
People have at various times believed in the actual historical existence of members of the Greek and Roman pantheons, and also believed in the historical existence of mythic quasi-historical persons who have not been deified, such as Robin Hood, and King Arthur of Camelot. Supernatural Christ is mythic Jesus who has been deified largely(Constantine)for the purpose of social cohesion.
What causes some person or fictional character to become a myth is basically psychological need for leadership at times of high emotions of joy, sorrow, fear, or anger. What causes some person or cultural symbol to be deified is need for social cohesion.
The simple reason some people believe in the historicity of God is lack of post-Enlightenment education in history and science. There is a political remedy for lack of education among the general public.
It is an uphill struggle for educationists and decent teachers are greatly either helped or impeded according to the political regime.
-
- Posts: 711
- Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am
Re: Why did God create Human in the first place?
Belindi wrote: ↑April 5th, 2021, 4:58 amPolitics doesn't force one to believe in god, not in the Western World anyways.Tegularius wrote: ↑April 4th, 2021, 3:26 pmNot so much the lack of as the acceptance of which is beyond any political remedy to accomplish.Belindi wrote: ↑April 4th, 2021, 5:24 amTegularius wrote: ↑April 3rd, 2021, 5:50 pm Fiction is fiction. It's read for entertainment and with the best some insight into the human condition. Belief in god is not remotely allied to anything fictional even if the core of those beliefs are grounded in it. One who believes in god believes in its existence and not in Captain Ahab or Sherlock Holmes. I have no idea why anyone would believe there's a connection between the two completely separate scenarios!
The Abrahamic god has a name which is usually God. This is because the version of a god you refer to is a mythic person like Jupiter or Aphrodite and indeed Captain Ahab are mythic persons.
People have at various times believed in the actual historical existence of members of the Greek and Roman pantheons, and also believed in the historical existence of mythic quasi-historical persons who have not been deified, such as Robin Hood, and King Arthur of Camelot. Supernatural Christ is mythic Jesus who has been deified largely(Constantine)for the purpose of social cohesion.
What causes some person or fictional character to become a myth is basically psychological need for leadership at times of high emotions of joy, sorrow, fear, or anger. What causes some person or cultural symbol to be deified is need for social cohesion.
The simple reason some people believe in the historicity of God is lack of post-Enlightenment education in history and science. There is a political remedy for lack of education among the general public.
It is an uphill struggle for educationists and decent teachers are greatly either helped or impeded according to the political regime.
- Newme
- Posts: 1401
- Joined: December 13th, 2011, 1:21 am
Re: Why did God create Human in the first place?
Well, God is not just a he:
Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
From a theological perspective:
God created Adam & Eve (not Adam & Steve ) to be able to experience & learn good from evil. A deeper interpretation of it as parable is awareness of our nakedness - our vulnerability, ignorance & fallibility - & not staying in the ignorant bliss (garden) but confronting the hardships of making our way despite opposition.
From my perspective:
God is a 3 letter word representing the highest GOoD one can fathom.
Many people never really grow up - they need some authority to quote or to tell them what to think. And they argue about who’s dad/authority can beat up the others. This is why there are herd mentalities - like Atheism, Christianity - which label a herd’s thinking. No individual exercise of thought - just accepting dogma.
I’m not suggesting we reinvent the wheel. “The kingdom of God is within you” is wise truth that Christ said but Buddha said similarly hundreds of years before. God is an internal phenomenon.
So consider, why do I create my ideas of humans? What is the highest GOoD that might come from the life of a human being like me?
-
- Posts: 1133
- Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm
Re: Why did God create Human in the first place?
I welcome your focused reply.Newme wrote: ↑April 5th, 2021, 8:14 pm
From a theological perspective:
God created Adam & Eve (not Adam & Steve ) to be able to experience & learn good from evil. A deeper interpretation of it as parable is awareness of our nakedness - our vulnerability, ignorance & fallibility - & not staying in the ignorant bliss (garden) but confronting the hardships of making our way despite opposition.
The topic is not so much about the manner than on the motive and justification of creation. Granted God is too lofty beyond our understanding, we can ponder his motive from the human perspective. Is he a teacher needing student, a master needing apprentice, a redeemer needing sinner, a child needing toy, a decorator needing ornament, a governor needing lieutenant, or simply a charity needing to spread grace?
The only sliver of motive from Genesis, repeated quite a few times: And that is good.
- Newme
- Posts: 1401
- Joined: December 13th, 2011, 1:21 am
Re: Why did God create Human in the first place?
Thanks.gad-fly wrote: ↑April 6th, 2021, 10:57 amI welcome your focused reply.Newme wrote: ↑April 5th, 2021, 8:14 pm
From a theological perspective:
God created Adam & Eve (not Adam & Steve ) to be able to experience & learn good from evil. A deeper interpretation of it as parable is awareness of our nakedness - our vulnerability, ignorance & fallibility - & not staying in the ignorant bliss (garden) but confronting the hardships of making our way despite opposition.
The topic is not so much about the manner than on the motive and justification of creation. Granted God is too lofty beyond our understanding, we can ponder his motive from the human perspective. Is he a teacher needing student, a master needing apprentice, a redeemer needing sinner, a child needing toy, a decorator needing ornament, a governor needing lieutenant, or simply a charity needing to spread grace?
The only sliver of motive from Genesis, repeated quite a few times: And that is good.
Who exactly is God? Aristotle’s notion (biblically borrowed) as “Prime Mover”? The Genesis account suggests that before there was light, it was dark - not as in evil, but maybe as in “dark matter” - invisible energy known by how light goes around it. That energy seems to be gravitational - like a very powerful desire attracting things to it. Maybe that gives us a clue as to the nature & motives of God.
You mentioned how God saw creation as good... which may be what God is - highest GOoD. “God is love” & love is essentially desire for good. But how can good manifest without its opposite? If everything is good, then maybe nothing really is. Maybe God’s reasoning for creation is to set up opposing conditions so that GOoD can be manifest & grow.
Christ seemed to borrow from Buddha in saying, “the kingdom of God is within you.” What do you think of that?
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023