Why did God create the universe?

[Belindi]

I agree with you: Humans supposing the working of the minds of gods isn't very flattering to gods.

The only way to respond to the thread title is to assume there is a God; the creator of all that is seen and unseen.

Are there thousands of gods, or do thousands of religions choose to worship the same god, but in thousands of ways? Christianity comes to mind, it would make far more sense if there were a thousand Jesus Christs. Despite all our differences, the same God hears all our prayers. We are all created by the same God; and we have a duty to care for all of God's creation; this means caring for each other despite all our differences.

We can look at the amazing advances that science has given our world; yet we cannot grasp the meaning of the greatest commandments; to love God and all our neighbours. Even if we ignore the greatest commandment, the second still makes sense to love all our neighbours as we love ourselves.

We search for a greatest good meaning of 'One God'.

Jesus Christ is the iconic figure, often actually represented in iconic paintings, Who stands for what is God-worthy in humanity. So yes, there are"a thousand Jesus Christs". Even if we disapprove of images of JC, as do Calvinists and Muslims, we think, in our own private thoughts and prayers, of what or who is Christlike . There is no way to conceive of anything, any person, or any idea, other than by means of attaching the thing, person, or idea to one's own lived experience.

My opinion as in the paragraph above is not a Christian opinion. What defines Christian doctrine is belief in the Resurrection event as a unique historical event.

Christ as iconic figure and the historical Jesus of Nazareth are not the same, despite the claims of orthodox Christian doctrine.

Calvinists and Muslims are wrong to disallow images of Christ. In effect there is no ethical difference between a mental image of Christ and an image painted on canvas. Some images of Christ painted on canvas (by such as Leonardo Da Vinci )are iconic in their own right and are as near as we can get to sharing with each other our ideas of God.

[Sculptor1]

I think there’s some misunderstanding in this discussion: the Bible is not a science book. Interpreting it in a scientific way means misinterpreting it.

Sadly the Catholic church treated it that way for 1500 years+.

If a poet says that the moon is in your eyes, saying that this is scientifically false is just nonsense. I’m not saying that the Bible is just poetry: it is a huge collection of ancient books and contains a lot of different literary styles, including what at that time was conceived as science. We can’t criticize the science of thousands years ago as wrong: at that time the idea of science was completely different from ours.

When Joshua asked God to stop the sun moving in the sky that was taken literally to condemn Copurnicus and Gallieo.

[Belindi]

Oh, I agree with the idea of pondering the workings of gods. Why not, they're a human construction,

Can you give an alternative to a creator God? How did the universe and life come to be; purely by natural causes?

No because we would have to search for "first cause" within "purely by natural causes", which if found, is then again God.

Think of it as having unlimited closed doors to open, which ever you open there is a poster that says "God", you can't escape it.

I think a better question would be, is that God a thing or being?

I think a better question would be, is that God a thing or being? is indeed a better question.

The creator of our world is not an original cause in the sense of origin in time. Besides original creation, e.g. the Big Bang, the creator also maintains the ongoing act of creation : from past to future: from here to there: from me to not-me: from A to B. That 's to say, the creator creates difference between one thing and another , or between one event and another.

Some people say the creator is nature which acts without any final cause, any intentions. Other people say the creator is like a person( e.g. the personal God) who acts with intentions towards some goal.

[paradox]

Can you give an alternative to a creator God? How did the universe and life come to be; purely by natural causes?

No because we would have to search for "first cause" within "purely by natural causes", which if found, is then again God.

Think of it as having unlimited closed doors to open, which ever you open there is a poster that says "God", you can't escape it.

I think a better question would be, is that God a thing or being?

I think a better question would be, is that God a thing or being? is indeed a better question.

The creator of our world is not an original cause in the sense of origin in time. Besides original creation, e.g. the Big Bang, the creator also maintains the ongoing act of creation : from past to future: from here to there: from me to not-me: from A to B. That 's to say, the creator creates difference between one thing and another , or between one event and another.

Some people say the creator is nature which acts without any final cause, any intentions. Other people say the creator is like a person( e.g. the personal God) who acts with intentions towards some goal.

Interesting, speaking of "the creator also maintains the ongoing act of creation", whether it is a thing or being, can be observed, however it's uncertain whether that maintenance leads to a positive purpose or toward self-destruction of some sort?
I would distance myself from saying it leads to complete destruction because we don't completely know how does the nature transform itself and whether some self-destructive transformation event would not lead to completely different reality as it is now. (ex. from negative infinity toward zero and then into positive infinity, or vice versa, which is 3-step process not 2)
We can't even imagine what would that zero point look like or what it would produce, there is a theory about this which is the opposite of "ever expanding universe"

This is however in opposition of what you described as "from A to B" because A-B assumes starting point (creation) and end point (destruction), ex. from nothing to nothing, maintenance proposition is however in form of infinite A-B-C points.

Therefore I think, if A-B holds then God is a being, otherwise if it's A-B-C then it's a thing.

Infinity does not lead us to result other than "we don't know if there is God" whether a thing or being, we don't know.
The opposite however, A-B clearly indicates supernatural phenomena and therefore it must be a being and as such there is nothing that would prevent him from maintaining the nature as well. (so maintenance is not an issue at all)

Now how would we deal with the infinity problem?
I think if infinity is real, such that reality is infinite and it is infinitely subject to change then God as a being is subject to that infinity and therefore it is not a being but surely a thing.

However to my understanding, the unmoved mover theory or first cause exceeds the laws of physics and what is considered natural, and is therefore impossible that God would be a (natural) thing.
Supernatural thing of course doesn't make sense because then we're back to infinity.

Therefore there is God.

[Belindi]

Paradox wrote:

This is however in opposition of what you described as "from A to B" because A-B assumes starting point (creation) and end point

It assumes a starting point and end point if A to B is the same as A or not-A. Better had I written all my examples differentials in the form of A or not-A instead of in the form of from A to B.

I intended only to imply alternative or complementary, but not directional.

[paradox]

Paradox wrote:

This is however in opposition of what you described as "from A to B" because A-B assumes starting point (creation) and end point

It assumes a starting point and end point if A to B is the same as A or not-A. Better had I written all my examples differentials in the form of A or not-A instead of in the form of from A to B.

I intended only to imply alternative or complementary, but not directional.

At first it appears as impossible to imagine, but with a bit of time (unless I'm wrong) you imply eternal existence of a matter that somehow is and is not? something like virtual particles?

[Belindi]

Paradox wrote:

This is however in opposition of what you described as "from A to B" because A-B assumes starting point (creation) and end point

It assumes a starting point and end point if A to B is the same as A or not-A. Better had I written all my examples differentials in the form of A or not-A instead of in the form of from A to B.

I intended only to imply alternative or complementary, but not directional.

At first it appears as impossible to imagine, but with a bit of time (unless I'm wrong) you imply eternal existence of a matter that somehow is and is not? something like virtual particles?

Yes, I do believe in eternal existence where alternatives or complementaries become absolute.

[paradox]

Yes, I do believe in eternal existence where alternatives or complementaries become absolute.

Sounds very interesting!

Which specific branch of philosophy deals with what you described?
Is there any material which deals with this?

[LuckyR]

Oh, I agree with the idea of pondering the workings of gods. Why not, they're a human construction,

Can you give an alternative to a creator God? How did the universe and life come to be; purely by natural causes?

No because we would have to search for "first cause" within "purely by natural causes", which if found, is then again God.

Think of it as having unlimited closed doors to open, which ever you open there is a poster that says "God", you can't escape it.

I think a better question would be, is that God a thing or being?

This is circular labelling argument. "Sure you may have equations that imply the Big Bang is true, but what made the Big Bang? Well, whatever it is, it should be labeled god. Thus gods are proven."

[paradox]

This is circular labelling argument. "Sure you may have equations that imply the Big Bang is true, but what made the Big Bang? Well, whatever it is, it should be labeled god. Thus gods are proven."

Indeed, it "suggests a lack of clarity in reasoning".

[Belindi]

Yes, I do believe in eternal existence where alternatives or complementaries become absolute.

Sounds very interesting!

Which specific branch of philosophy deals with what you described?
Is there any material which deals with this?

Yes, absolute idealism deals with the absolute i.e eternal existence.

In Indian philosophy advaita vedanta deals with Brahman i.e.eternal existence.

Spinoza's Ethics deals with eternal existence.

I expect there are more respected sources ; if only I knew what they are! I could google for other sources for philosophical ideas of the absolute i.e. eternity.

[paradox]

Yes, absolute idealism deals with the absolute i.e eternal existence.

In Indian philosophy advaita vedanta deals with Brahman i.e.eternal existence.

Spinoza's Ethics deals with eternal existence.

I expect there are more respected sources ; if only I knew what they are! I could google for other sources for philosophical ideas of the absolute i.e. eternity.

Interesting, what I find lacking in idealistic views is the final purpose, which seems like an invalid question for eternal existence, or why is there something rather than nothing (purpose is missing).
In addition I find Spinoza's view rather disturbing, he equates God to nature (reality) and that reality as finite reality that is infinite or eternal.

Maybe my understanding is rushed but I definitely find these views locked to human intellect (which obviously isn't absolute).

[Belindi]

Yes, absolute idealism deals with the absolute i.e eternal existence.

In Indian philosophy advaita vedanta deals with Brahman i.e.eternal existence.

Spinoza's Ethics deals with eternal existence.

I expect there are more respected sources ; if only I knew what they are! I could google for other sources for philosophical ideas of the absolute i.e. eternity.

Interesting, what I find lacking in idealistic views is the final purpose, which seems like an invalid question for eternal existence, or why is there something rather than nothing (purpose is missing).
In addition I find Spinoza's view rather disturbing, he equates God to nature (reality) and that reality as finite reality that is infinite or eternal.

Maybe my understanding is rushed but I definitely find these views locked to human intellect (which obviously isn't absolute).

Your understanding is okay. These views are indeed linked to human intellect.

There are only two alternatives to human intellect: 1. mysticism 2. authority

[EricPH]

what I find lacking in idealistic views is the final purpose,

To search for that final purpose, one needs to start from the assumption that there is an all powerful creator God.

What is the greatest good thing that God can create? And Why?

What is the greatest good reason for God to create these?

[Belindi]

Yes, absolute idealism deals with the absolute i.e eternal existence.

In Indian philosophy advaita vedanta deals with Brahman i.e.eternal existence.

Spinoza's Ethics deals with eternal existence.

I expect there are more respected sources ; if only I knew what they are! I could google for other sources for philosophical ideas of the absolute i.e. eternity.

Interesting, what I find lacking in idealistic views is the final purpose, which seems like an invalid question for eternal existence, or why is there something rather than nothing (purpose is missing).
In addition I find Spinoza's view rather disturbing, he equates God to nature (reality) and that reality as finite reality that is infinite or eternal.

Maybe my understanding is rushed but I definitely find these views locked to human intellect (which obviously isn't absolute).

I believe there is an argument that there is not only the Absolute but also God. I hope to read that argument sometime soon.
I don't presume that existence itself purposes.