What kind of creation would any creator create?

[the iconoclast]

When a believer wants to sit with Christ on His throne while on Earth, they say I see Christ sitting at the right hand of the Father.

You need to learn not to be so quick to link assertions of what someone is, with what they want.

You need to learn you are not equal to christ and what you just said is no where in the bible.

 

[Gottservant]

You need to learn you are not equal to christ and what you just said is no where in the bible.

Stephen said this.

Why do you think?

 

[the iconoclast]

Stephen said this.

Why do you think?

Said what?

 

[Gottservant]

Said what?

What I said.

"I see Christ seated at the right hand of the Father"

Why do you think he said it? Because he wanted to look at something?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

More probable would be mental motives, like making art or a game or entertainment.

Or restoring a damaged spiritual kingdom?

 

[jayem]

While any talk of a creator's motivation must be speculation, some motives are certainly more reasonable than others.
Any being powerful and intelligent enough to intentionally create life would not need that life to meet its physical needs--it probably would have none, or would long since have come up with simpler ways of meeting them.
More probable would be mental motives, like making art or a game or entertainment. So one would expect that life designed intelligently would not necessarily have efficiency or perfection of function, if that conflicted with it being interesting in any way. A designer might well enjoy watching its creations overcome obstacles with limited resources, or challenge itself with how little input it could give and still reach the desired goal--a sentient being for instance.

Why would an all-powerful, all-knowing creator need to be entertained? An entity who is claimed to be the zenith of perfection in every way should have no reason to do anything at all.

 

[Gottservant]

Why would an all-powerful, all-knowing creator need to be entertained? An entity who is claimed to be the zenith of perfection in every way should have no reason to do anything at all.

that's irrational

if you don't do anything you've got no reason to eat

if you've got no reason to eat, you die

 

[Percivale]

Why would an all-powerful, all-knowing creator need to be entertained? An entity who is claimed to be the zenith of perfection in every way should have no reason to do anything at all.

I'd think any being who had no desire to do anything would not be perfect. Creativity is better than lethargy, activity than passivity, reality than imagination. So a perfect being would create real things and take an active interest in them in some way. Obviously such a being would have no needs, but it does not follow that it would have no desires or interests. Certainly among humans the ones we see as the most advanced or fulfilled are those who have the most interests and pursuits, despite having the least needs. Anyway, I did not say the creator must be absolutely perfect in this thread; I said, 'any creator.' And I'm not tied to any highly specific view of what the creator is like.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'd think any being who had no desire to do anything would not be perfect. Creativity is better than lethargy, activity than passivity, reality than imagination.

Yeah, if you're a human being with needs and desires, creativity is better than lethargy and activity better than passivity. I'm not sure whether such thinking would apply to a "perfect" being though. (If "perfection" is defined as wanting for nothing).

So a perfect being would create real things and take an active interest in them in some way. Obviously such a being would have no needs, but it does not follow that it would have no desires or interests. Certainly among humans the ones we see as the most advanced or fulfilled are those who have the most interests and pursuits, despite having the least needs. Anyway, I did not say the creator must be absolutely perfect in this thread; I said, 'any creator.' And I'm not tied to any highly specific view of what the creator is like.

Then it would depend on how "perfection" is defined. How can a "perfect" being be perfect if he does not perfectly devote himself to every interest? Favouring one interest or desire over another means that some will receive less attention and may not be executed perfectly, if at all. Is that "perfect"? I don't know. The concept seems far too nebulous to me.

 

[Percivale]

The concept of perfection is indeed too nebulous. Let's trash it and instead describe the creator as simply 'very excellent.'

Or we could try to hammer out perfection. A perfect being would have all valid interests, and give each the portion of interest and attention it merits. Don't you think so?

 

[quatona]

The concept of perfection is indeed too nebulous. Let's trash it and instead describe the creator as simply 'very excellent.'

Compared to what?
By whose standards?

 

[quatona]

The concept of perfection is indeed too nebulous. Let's trash it and instead describe the creator as simply 'very excellent.'

Compared to what?
By whose standards?

 

[jayem]

Or we could try to hammer out perfection. A perfect being would have all valid interests, and give each the portion of interest and attention it merits. Don't you think so?

This is an issue of definitions, and their logical consequences. I'd define perfect as the best possible state of being. Something that cannot be made better. Thus, if I thought my house is perfect, it would be illogical for me to remodel it. If my existence was perfect, I'd have no reason to seek new ventures or interests. And if God's natural state is one of ultimate perfection, then it's a logical contradiction that he would do anything at all--let alone create a universe. Do you see my point?

 

[Percivale]

This is an issue of definitions, and their logical consequences. I'd define perfect as the best possible state of being. Something that cannot be made better. Thus, if I thought my house is perfect, it would be illogical for me to remodel it. If my existence was perfect, I'd have no reason to seek new ventures or interests. And if God's natural state is one of ultimate perfection, then it's a logical contradiction that he would do anything at all--let alone create a universe. Do you see my point?

Apparently you are assuming that if God creates a universe he's changing his pattern of activity. There's two potential problems with that assumption. One is we don't know that God has not been creating universes for all eternity. Another is that God may not be limited by time, so even if he created only one universe, that action was initiated before (when) time began, based on an eternal decision, and therefore indicates no change in God's activity.
Everyone who believes in a perfect God believes he is the creator, and therefore that being creative is a part of being a perfect being.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Apparently you are assuming that if God creates a universe he's changing his pattern of activity. There's two potential problems with that assumption. One is we don't know that God has not been creating universes for all eternity. Another is that God may not be limited by time, so even if he created only one universe, that action was initiated before (when) time began, based on an eternal decision, and therefore indicates no change in God's activity.

What is an "eternal decision"?

 

[Golden Yak]

More probable would be mental motives, like making art or a game or entertainment. So one would expect that life designed intelligently would not necessarily have efficiency or perfection of function, if that conflicted with it being interesting in any way. A designer might well enjoy watching its creations overcome obstacles with limited resources, or challenge itself with how little input it could give and still reach the desired goal--a sentient being for instance.

As if the whole of existence was a terrarium for a bored child? All our struggles for the amusement of a cosmic observer? Like bugs in a jar? What a horrible thought.


An all-powerful being could, of course, create anything they wanted. The universe, reality, existence, could take any shape - certainly something that wouldn't have to obey any laws. Worlds made of glass or light, sentient beings made of living stone or music, etc. It can have its games and entertainment without anything needing to be made of meat or physics.

As far as I can tell though, if there is no all-powerful being, the universe has to look pretty much the way it does now.

 

[Percivale]

As if the whole of existence was a terrarium for a bored child? All our struggles for the amusement of a cosmic observer? Like bugs in a jar? What a horrible thought.

Why? If you're on the stage, wouldn't you rather have an audience? Would you rather the whole of existence was an accident than an epic planned by and for the interest of the most intelligent being in the universe?

An all-powerful being could, of course, create anything they wanted. The universe, reality, existence, could take any shape - certainly something that wouldn't have to obey any laws. Worlds made of glass or light, sentient beings made of living stone or music, etc. It can have its games and entertainment without anything needing to be made of meat or physics.

As far as I can tell though, if there is no all-powerful being, the universe has to look pretty much the way it does now.

Do you have any evidence for that? True, given this universe carbon based life is the only kind that can evolve most likely, but if natural laws were different that could be different too. And as soon as you look beyond physics into psychology you start finding things that are better explained by God's existence.

 

[Golden Yak]

Why? If you're on the stage, wouldn't you rather have an audience?

My life's trials, triumphs, and tragedies are not a damn show.

Would you rather the whole of existence was an accident than an epic planned by and for the interest of the most intelligent being in the universe?

Yes.

At least if it's an accident, there's no one to blame for the awful parts!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Do you have any evidence for that? True, given this universe carbon based life is the only kind that can evolve most likely, but if natural laws were different that could be different too. And as soon as you look beyond physics into psychology you start finding things that are better explained by God's existence.

Such as?

 

[terryjohn]

Better to have created than never to have created at all? I get an impression that all of creation history is about getting all men to bow and freely confess, Jesus is Lord.