Why did God create everything in the beginning?

What's His rationale behind doing so, and what's the point of it?

Sayre said:

What's to say that it was a rational decision, or a decision at all?

If God is obliged to do good by His own nature, then God makes no decisions nor does He "rationalise" what is good and what is bad, and chose to do that which is good.

Can an all knowing agent rationalise? He already knows the best options... and already knows all His future decisions.

So why does God do anything?

Click to expand...

In this case, in what way is creating better than not creating anything?

Sayre said:

Are you hinting at the logical problem of evil?

If God is obliged to do good, and if the existence of moral free agents is a good thing, then perhaps God was obliged to bring about the existence of moral free agents. Is it better than not? Who knows.

Click to expand...

I was thinking of that, but it's not the only thing that I am thinking of. He's the Almighty, I'm sure He doesn't need us and doesn't need our companionship either, so I also want to know His rationale behind doing something for a reason that I cannot figure out. Hence He didn't create out of necessity. I'd like to know the reason.

Well, it seems better at first to have creations than none, but because of free will, creations can be more trouble than help. For one, humans are destroying planet Earth, ultimately destroying ourselves, when we're supposed to be the guardians of Earth. That's my rationale behind my question.

Sayre said:

I don't think you've demonstrated that God doesn't need.

Click to expand...

Well, I read this from Gotquestions, regarding the question "Does God need us?", and I found this:

God, on the other hand, is not dependent on anything or anyone. He suffers no lack, knows no limitation, and experiences no deficiency. He is “I AM THAT I AM,” with no qualification or exception (Exodus 3:14). If He needed anything to stay alive or to feel complete, then He would not be God.

Click to expand...

Sayre said:

Answering your own question with "Gotquestions" is like answering your own creationist question with AiG. You'll get an answer - just not a very good one.

The article presumes that it is part of the very nature of God to not need. So concluding, that therefore, God does not have a need, is merely a truism.

They did not anywhere defend the idea that being without need is part of God's ontology.

Click to expand...

I don't get your point. AiG (assuming you meant American International Group) is completely irrelevant to my question. However, you're saying that my point is incorrect, not irrelevant. That's a strawman; incorrect and irrelevant are completely different matters.

So you're trying to claim that God created everything because He needs us? What evidence do you have? If not, are you able to logically explain it?

Sayre said:

AiG is answers in genesis. Are you trolling me? I am not saying that God had a need. I'm suggesting that you need to demonstrate that God create not of need but of want - you haven't done that yet.

Click to expand...

Why would answers in Genesis not give very good answers? No, I'm not. In fact I think you're the one who's not taking my question seriously and going in various irrelevant tangents and trying to confuse me from the original question with strawmen. I really don't know where you are coming from if you just make claims without explaining your rationale behind it or how you reach that conclusion.

I have already shown the argument in that link, you're telling me that it's a bad answer, so I'm asking you about what is the correct answer, and where to seek a correct answer, as per your claims about it "not being a very good answer". My proposition is that God is Almighty, and He's not a fallible human, so He does not have needs. It's a hypothesis, nobody can prove that.

I did not suggest that he wants to create us, I said that I don't see any need for him to do so, which makes His act of creating completely pointless. Why would God do something redundant?

I have difficulty believing in God fully precisely due to this: lack of evidence and logical contradiction. Nobody is able to prove anything about Him with concrete evidence. I can't prove my claim that God doesn't have needs. I can't even prove that He exists; nobody can.

If you don't know the answer either, say so instead of trying to confuse me.

Sayre said:

I'm an atheist... I don't believe in a personal God, so I can't help you determine why an invisible pink unicorn did anything...

Click to expand...

Ok, I am an omnist, and I am here in this forum to get answers.

Who knows, in a parallel universe there may be pink unicorns after all. I'm skeptical but I'm not 100% against the possibility of it. I think it would have helped if you stated your stance from the beginning.

I'm sorry for being rude to you, but I think our discussion is going nowhere. I've just got it all figured out anyway. We should just end it here.

I got it all figured out. I'm an omnist (I believe in all religions partially), and I believe that every existing religion has got a portion of the truth correct, but not the whole truth yet. When the word is being passed from person-to-person, there is prone to be misunderstanding and misinterpretation during translation, causing us to be divided among ourselves. We're all actually One humanity.

I've come up with this explanation after figuring it out.

I believe that we are all a portion of God (God is within us), and we are assigned a body for our lifetime. Our souls are not capable of sin and evil, but our bodies are because we have needs, wants and feelings, as the result of sustaining biological vehicle. Similarly, Satan and his fallen angel followers (as well as all demons and spirits) have an eternally-living spiritual body, but similarly, when their souls are not capable of evil because they're also a part of God, but their spiritual bodies are, because with a body comes needs, feelings and desires. Once our souls leave our body, we're born again, we become as pure as we have been when we were new-born babies, and hence, God-like. There is no way souls can turn against each other, because we're all One and we know it. It's our minds that come up with perceived boundaries and 'us vs. them' mentality.

It is in the nature of everything, including God, to evolve and change. Therefore, He lets us have an earthly body to go through suffering and face evil, in order to spiritually enhance and to evolve. That was why He created everything and everyone.

We go through reincarnation to learn our lessons in life, and when we've learned our lessons well, all of us return to God in heaven eventually.

As for hell, because God is too pure to see evil, our bodies and corpses need to be thrown into hell to be destroyed, or our souls cannot ascend to Heaven. Also, energy cannot be destroyed, it can only be transformed. As our lives are finite and fragile, we'll be dead and our souls free before our bodies enter the purgatory. As for angels in Heaven, God will probably release them from their bodies easily because they have not sinned despite being capable of doing so. However, for the fallen angels, because of their immortality, they have to be burned in hell to release their souls from their spiritual bodies. They will eventually ascend to Heaven, but their corpses will burn forever in hell. It is not a punishment, take it that God is doing spring-cleaning. An analogy would be when we throw our trash away and burn it in the incinerator, but we're not punishing our trash, just getting rid of them.

When we're all back in Heaven, there will be no more instincts, hierarchy or any human-created status. There will be no more enmity or hate, only love for each other will be left. The lion will lay beside the lamb and even be friends, because the lion has no more needs to hunt and eat the lamb.

This is not an excuse to harm anyone or anything, though, as we and our descendants will still face the consequences of our actions during our lifetime(s) on Earth.

Addition:
Jesus may have died for our sins to pardon us from having to pay the price of our sins: Our lives. Even though God already forgiven all of us for our sins, it does not shield us from facing the consequence of our actions. The law of cause and effect still applies. I take it that God is like a good parent, who will forgive their child quickly, but at the same time, does not shield them from the consequences so that the lesson will be learned.

quatona said:

What´s that even supposed to mean?

Click to expand...

I think he meant to say that it's the law of nature. For example, the law of cause-and-effect applies. There's no reason why, it's just the way it is. Another analogy would be that a person may be naturally introverted, but it's not because of childhood trauma or fear of speaking up, it's simply in his/her DNA.