Why did God create humans?

[Occams Barber]

When I think of God before Genesis 1:1, what I see is pure intelligence. That's it. That's what I see as God in it's natural state before any of this physical world came into being. In that state of pure intelligence there is no way for God to be aware of HimSelf. There's nothing to be conscious of. Nothing to grab onto. And that's were Human Beings come into play. At least in how I understand it, we Human Beings are how God is consciousness of Himself. Creation fulfills God's completeness. And to carry this a step further, the way I see it, it's through this Creation that God can be complete and fully sufficient within Himself.

How does God move from a state of being unaware of himself to a state of consciousness? Logically it requires another force outside of God to wake him up. Once woken we still need a reason for him to create humans. If "Creation" fulfils God's completeness" then logically God must have been less than complete prior to Creation. I doubt that most Christians would agree with this.
OB

 

[dlamberth]

I doubt that most Christians would agree with this.
OB

Agreed.
But than again most Christians don't think of the Creation as an aspect of God.

 

[Occams Barber]

You are importing the concept of "need" where it doesn't exist. Think of a cup of water--if additional water is added, the cup will overflow. Does the water that overflows "need" to be absorbed by anything? Not really. It's just there.
You're also looking at things backwards if you think the logic would be, "I have all this extra love, so I need to do something with it." It's more that God's nature is such that further sharing this love is something he has freely chosen to do, even though he isn't constrained to do it.

But you are insisting that this overflow has something to do with God's actions while at the same time insisting it doesn't. Freely chosen or not the excess of love appears to be a reason/motivation/cause for sharing.

There's nothing anthropomorphic in the notion of overflow. It's a very basic metaphor.

It's the idea that God would not do anything unless he actually needed to that I find extremely anthropomorphic. Your whole concept of self-sufficiency is based on a very human picture of complacency, I think.

God actually did something (He created humans). If your answer is that He did it for no reason then there is no reason or purpose to human existence. Now, I accept this, but I doubt Christianity would agree.

I don't know how "complacency" fits into this.

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

Agreed.
But than again most Christians don't think of the Creation as an aspect of God.

I thought that Creation concepts were central to Christianity. But... I'm an atheist - I could be wrong.

OB

 

[BNR32FAN]

Is God so vain that He needs a yardstick with which to measure His own glory?
OB

I wouldn’t say vain but I do believe when His glory is revealed it does please Him.

 

[Halbhh]

Your quote says God created humans. It doesn't say why.
OB

I'm saying:

"Why not?"

Cause it's an equally good question -- why wouldn't He want more that can be?

John 10:34 Jesus replied, "Is it not written in your Law: 'I have said you are gods'?

So, in some sense, we are like toddlers, and He is the Ancient of Days. I don't need to try to make it more complex, because it already is plenty.

These things aren't that simple, in that theologies are invented trying to hypothesize this and that. But it's not theologies that I believe in.

Here: Why do I (and most people) like to look at the stars?

Here's my answer: Because they are enjoyable. That's enough. See?

 

[BigV]

Why?
Why did God create humans?

Good question. I think it's because without humans, God dies. Nobody to worship him, nobody to pray to him, nobody to believe in him. Remember, without FAITH it is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6). And who is going to believe if not for people?

 

[BigV]

Here: Why do I (and most people) like to look at the stars?

Here's my answer: Because they are enjoyable. That's enough. See?

But God will end up throwing most of us into eternal Hell. How's that for enjoyment?

 

[Silmarien]

But you are insisting that this overflow has something to do with God's actions while at the same time insisting it doesn't. Freely chosen or not the excess of love appears to be a reason/motivation/cause for sharing.

No, I am saying that the overflow has something to do with God's nature. Even "overflow" is probably an imperfect metaphor, but it's the difference between taking a vacation somewhere because you're enthusiastic and "overflowing" with energy, and taking one because you're bored and want something to do.

God actually did something (He created humans). If your answer is that He did it for no reason then there is no reason or purpose to human existence. Now, I accept this, but I doubt Christianity would agree.

The problem here is that the whole underlying debate about free will comes into play. You are presumably a determinist of some form or another (correct me if I'm wrong), and view causes and reasons as compelling someone to action in a stronger sense than most theists would.

There is a "reason" that God created humanity, according to Christianity--he is relational by nature and has apparently chosen to "share" that love with created beings. This reason isn't a cause in the deterministic sense; he could have done otherwise.

As for the purpose of human life, @zippy2006 mentioned it on the first page: communion with God.

 

[Halbhh]

But God will end up throwing most of us into eternal Hell. How's that for enjoyment?

Not the repentant. They will be forgiven, and won't 'perish' in the 'second death' (where God will "destroy body and soul in hell" which is indeed an 'eternal punishment' but isn't the idea some have of an eternal torment for human souls (not addressing the evil angels at all here), which eternal torment for our kind would contradict Christ's words.)

 

[ewq1938]

if God is perfect, God cannot have either needs or desires, so being self sufficient

This is human reasoning. We cannot decide what God may want or not want while still being perfect. We cannot understand God fully and we are lucky to understand a small fraction of God.

 

[dlamberth]

I thought that Creation concepts were central to Christianity. But... I'm an atheist - I could be wrong.

OB

Whats there for a few Christians is seeing God through the Panentheist lens. That's where I was coming from. For most though God is separate and apart from this Creation.

 

[eleos1954]

You have a lot of lovin' going on in your post eleos but no explanation of why God created humans.

If I accept, for argument's sake, the very vague "God is Love" trope, how does that lead to the creation of humans?
OB

God is a creative being and decided to create intelligent beings, each being unique in character and with the ability to interact with Him and with each other ... an expansion of the original 3 (trinity) ... expansion of the already existing divine loving relationships ... expanding into a huge family ... guess you could say He is family oriented and that is part of His character.

 

[Sketcher]

When I think of God before Genesis 1:1, what I see is pure intelligence. That's it. That's what I see as God in it's natural state before any of this physical world came into being. In that state of pure intelligence there is no way for God to be aware of HimSelf. There's nothing to be conscious of. Nothing to grab onto. And that's were Human Beings come into play. At least in how I understand it, we Human Beings are how God is consciousness of Himself. Creation fulfills God's completeness. And to carry this a step further, the way I see it, it's through this Creation that God can be complete and fully sufficient within Himself.

Christianity teaches differently. The Genesis account describes a self-aware God, and creation as an act of his will. Christianity also describes God as eternal and unchanging, he didn't need to develop into something more. Hence, the Trinity pre-existed Genesis 1:1 even.

 

[Occams Barber]

No, I am saying that the overflow has something to do with God's nature. Even "overflow" is probably an imperfect metaphor, but it's the difference between taking a vacation somewhere because you're enthusiastic and "overflowing" with energy, and taking one because you're bored and want something to do.

I suspect that your 'overflow' metaphor has reached the limits of its usefulness. If I summarise what I think I'm hearing - "God (always?) overflows with love and 'Bingo!' humans appear. God didn't intentionally do this because he wanted to - it just 'happened". Is it just me or is this argument lacking something?

The problem here is that the whole underlying debate about free will comes into play. You are presumably a determinist of some form or another (correct me if I'm wrong), and view causes and reasons as compelling someone to action in a stronger sense than most theists would.
There is a "reason" that God created humanity, according to Christianity--he is relational by nature and has apparently chosen to "share" that love with created beings. This reason isn't a cause in the deterministic sense; he could have done otherwise.

Free will has nothing to do with this. We're talking about God creating humans. For the purpose of this discussion whether or not he added in free will is irrelevant. For the record I dislike labels like Deterministic since I may not necessarily accept all that a particular label implies. If asked for my opinion I suspect that everything proceeds according to the laws of physics including laws we have yet to discover. This doesn't however imply determinism since the laws of physics may not necessarily produce predictable results on a micro (e.g. Quantum) level. On a macro level I would broadly assume a deterministic result although I am unsure to what extent micro factors might influence macro outcomes. For the purpose of day to day living deterministic physics probably rules.

As for the purpose of human life, @zippy2006 mentioned it on the first page: communion with God.

If communion (whatever that means) is the purpose of human life then it follows that the reason God invented humans is for His own benefit. If humans remained uncreated they would not need communion with God therefore there would be no reason to create them in the first place.
OB

 

[BigV]

Not the repentant. They will be forgiven, and won't 'perish' in the 'second death' (where God will "destroy body and soul in hell" which is indeed an 'eternal punishment' but isn't the idea some have of an eternal torment for human souls (not addressing the evil angels at all here), which eternal torment for our kind would contradict Christ's words.)

According to Jesus, the repentant are few and far in between. Most people will perish in Hell.

 

[Occams Barber]

God is a creative being and decided to create intelligent beings, each being unique in character and with the ability to interact with Him and with each other ... an expansion of the original 3 (trinity) ... expansion of the already existing divine loving relationships ... expanding into a huge family ... guess you could say He is family oriented and that is part of His character.

We could call this the Brady Bunch Theory of Human Creation.
OB

 

[BigV]

This is human reasoning. We cannot decide what God may want or not want while still being perfect. We cannot understand God fully and we are lucky to understand a small fraction of God.

How did you decide that God was perfect? You can't understand him, right? So, he is a genius that could be either perfect or very flawed, but able to hide it well, no?

 

[Silmarien]

I suspect that your 'overflow' metaphor has reached the limits of its usefulness. If I summarise what I think I'm hearing - "God (always?) overflows with love and 'Bingo!' humans appear. God didn't intentionally do this because he wanted to - it just 'happened". Is it just me or is this argument lacking something?

Yeah, it's a pretty serious misinterpretation. Is enthusiastically going on a vacation the sort of thing that just happens with no intent?

Free will has nothing to do with this.

Sure, it does. You wouldn't be interpreting the statement "God freely creates due to his nature" as "Creation just happens without God intending anything" if free will had nothing to do with this.

If communion (whatever that means) is the purpose of human life then it follows that the reason God invented humans is for His own benefit. If humans remained uncreated they would not need communion with God therefore there would be no reason to create them in the first place.

It doesn't actually follow that God invented humans for his own benefit. This is the sort of anthropomorphism I was talking about before--it's hard for us to conceptualize doing something without there being personal profit in it. You should be thinking in terms of gift instead: being able to partake in existence is purely a benefit to the created being.

 

[Tone]

You should be thinking in terms of gift instead: being able to partake in existence is purely a benefit to the created being.

Yes, it is a matter of 'getting' to do something rather than 'got' to do something.