Why did God create humans?

[Occams Barber]

It's more like no one is forcing you.... Would you rather imagine a situation in which you were forced, against your own will, to relate to God? No. Most people would have some ideal pretty much...pretty close (or the same!) to just like it is: Amazing Grace and Mercy and Forgiveness to any that would choose to turn to the God of Love, but no one forced, and those that reject Him are simply outside of the eternal Life which He is; they've simply chosen not-Love, and then simply perish. But the truth about this is also conveyed: it will be a overwhelming regret, with 'weeping and gnashing of teeth' at what one has rejected: the very thing all most want.

I don't expect God to force anyone to believe but something with His alleged abilities could, I'm sure, provide evidence that would convince everyone on Earth of His existence. Before you say it - providing convincing evidence does not impinge on free will.

The fact that God can't or won't do this lends weight to the idea that He may not actually exist. Doesn't this mean that, if God exists, He is actually responsible for creating a situation which encourages disbelief?
OB

 

[cloudyday2]

I can't imagine that any theologian would say that he needs humans.

It seems to me that "need" is simply a synonym for "motivation" or "purpose". So to claim that God has no needs is to claim that God has no motivation for his actions.

For example, I can justifiably say that I need a cookie even though somebody else might think I need a diet instead. Obviously if God is immortal then he does not need to take actions to maintain his life, but that is only one kind of need or motivation for actions.

(Sorry if you guys have already covered this issue. I didn't read the whole thread.)

 

[Silmarien]

It seems to me that "need" is simply a synonym for "motivation" or "purpose".

But none of these three things are synonymous. For example, someone could learn Italian because they really love the language. Their motivation is love of the language, but there's no explicit purpose here, much less a need. If they're learning Italian because they want to move to Italy, then there's a purpose, presumably a motivation, but not necessarily a need. If they have to move to Italy, then there's both need and purpose, though given the way people are, possibly no motivation.

Theologically speaking, I think we're closest to "motivation" territory. Not the other two.

 

[Halbhh]

I don't expect God to force anyone to believe but something with His alleged abilities could, I'm sure, provide evidence that would convince everyone on Earth of His existence. Before you say it - providing convincing evidence does not impinge on free will.

The fact that God can't or won't do this lends weight to the idea that He may not actually exist. Doesn't this mean that, if God exists, He is actually responsible for creating a situation which encourages disbelief?
OB

Providing convincing evidence before faith, that is, instead of faith, would preclude the trusting act of faith, itself the valuable thing we are here to do -- to trust God, instead of distrusting.

Why?

Because distrust causes conflicts, reliably. Distrust is...a rejection of a part of relationship.

But after the key act, faith, one gets support.

 

[BigV]

It's more like no one is forcing you.... Would you rather imagine a situation in which you were forced, against your own will, to relate to God? No. Most people would have some ideal pretty much...pretty close (or the same!) to just like it is: Amazing Grace and Mercy and Forgiveness to any that would choose to turn to the God of Love, but no one forced, and those that reject Him are simply outside of the eternal Life which He is; they've simply chosen not-Love, and then simply perish. But the truth about this is also conveyed: it will be a overwhelming regret, with 'weeping and gnashing of teeth' at what one has rejected: the very thing all most want.

So, God has prepared something very special for me, but if I don’t believe in him, he will kill me for not accepting his perfect plan? If he is so wise, why doesn’t he have any other options? Either I believe his book, full of lies and tales, or I die as punishment?

 

[Halbhh]

So, God has prepared something very special for me, but if I don’t believe in him, he will kill me for not accepting his perfect plan? If he is so wise, why doesn’t he have any other options? Either I believe his book, full of lies and tales, or I die as punishment?

Consider this though: "Either I believe his book, full of lies and tales...".

Does it sound like a listening orientation?

It's possible to just accept a characterization, say with a bit of evidence, without deeper context or information...

...say a black teenager was in the park that same hour when a man was mugged...

...and not give something a more careful, fair hearing.

But would that quick judging work for the best generally as a way to judge, say in a eternal life?

 

[cloudyday2]

But none of these three things are synonymous. For example, someone could learn Italian because they really love the language. Their motivation is love of the language, but there's no explicit purpose here, much less a need. If they're learning Italian because they want to move to Italy, then there's a purpose, presumably a motivation, but not necessarily a need. If they have to move to Italy, then there's both need and purpose, though given the way people are, possibly no motivation.

Theologically speaking, I think we're closest to "motivation" territory. Not the other two.

I see the words "need", "purpose", and "motivation" all as rationalizations of human behavior. Maybe we are all slaves to the chemicals in our brains and we only imagine that there is a captain at the helm with maps and a destination. Maybe these words have differing intensities, but they are all of the same kind IMO. "Will" is another word of that kind as in "Thy will be done".

Wouldn't it be interesting if God had a brain constructed from smaller parts that followed rules and God's will was a rationalization rather than a cause of God's behavior?

Also, your understanding of those words is perfectly valid. I just wanted to explain how I was thinking about them in case you or others didn't see what I meant. But your way is probably the more normal way of thinking about it.

 

[muichimotsu]

To me that "try to put forward your best argument and point out flaws in the arguments." isn't the best way of all to progress for the people in the discussion (! perhaps surprisingly), but there is a significantly more effective way(!) I've found. It just so happens there is a pretty good summary of some of the key pieces helpfully posted here:
Epistemic Virtues: Is it better to know, or to seek to know?

The aim is to more constantly discover better understandings. It's not to stay put in a certain place, just defend a place (or worse: get stuck in a mere arm wrestling), but to progress. It's an approach that pays off very well over time.

I'm not claiming absolute certainty, you're insinuating something that's all in your perception and I'm not stagnating by any notion except how you skew it to mean I have some principles that are fundamental and not just going to change because of feelings

I continue to progress, you don't get to claim where I am based on limited information, that's dishonest

 

[BigV]

Consider this though: "Either I believe his book, full of lies and tales...".

Does it sound like a listening orientation?

It's possible to just accept a characterization, say with a bit of evidence, without deeper context or information...

...say a black teenager was in the park that same hour when a man was mugged...

...and not give something a more careful, fair hearing.

But would that quick judging work for the best generally as a way to judge, say in a eternal life?

Bible is confusing at best, and this is the only reliable message from God.

Pick any topic, addressed in the Bible, and you will have many contradicting opinions on what the Bible actually says and whether it applies to people today.

Jews, Christians, Baptist’s, Catholics, Unitarians, Word of Faith, etc all see and interpret Bible differently from one another.

And this is the best message your God could come up with! With all the time he had to ponder!

 

[muichimotsu]

Consider this though: "Either I believe his book, full of lies and tales...".

Does it sound like a listening orientation?

It's possible to just accept a characterization, say with a bit of evidence, without deeper context or information...

...say a black teenager was in the park that same hour when a man was mugged...

...and not give something a more careful, fair hearing.

But would that quick judging work for the best generally as a way to judge, say in a eternal life?

The difference is that we can actually verify a person exists, even if their testimony in itself would only be a part of the investigation.

We have no rational and consistent reason presented to consider the Bible as special revelation and such rather than people claiming it to be such and convincing others more credulous

 

[Halbhh]

Bible is confusing at best, and this is the only reliable message from God.

Pick any topic, addressed in the Bible, and you will have many contradicting opinions on what the Bible actually says and whether it applies to people today.

Jews, Christians, Baptist’s, Catholics, Unitarians, Word of Faith, etc all see and interpret Bible differently from one another.

And this is the best message your God could come up with! With all the time he had to ponder!

Why rely on opinions, even your own?

It's not churches or doctrines or interpretations that save anyone.

The one who came to rescue us -- Jesus Christ -- through truly listening to Him and doing as He says we are brought near, where we could turn to Him.

 

[Halbhh]

The difference is that we can actually verify a person exists, even if their testimony in itself would only be a part of the investigation.

You could find out He is real. The only real path I know of is to truly listen (to lay aside viewpoints and really listen) to what He says, and then do as He says. This brings you closer to God, so that you could turn to Christ for salvation.

He came to save us by suffering our wrongs to save us from our wrongdoing, the thousand little ways we fail to do right. He rescues those who turn to Him.

 

[BigV]

Why rely on opinions, even your own?

It's not churches or doctrines or interpretations that save anyone.

The one who came to rescue us -- Jesus Christ -- through truly listening to Him and doing as He says we are brought near, where we could turn to Him.

Who was/is Jesus? Wasn’t he the God of the Old Testament? And yet, when he came to the earth, he had to change everything!

Think about it! He knew how people will understand or misunderstand his word, and yet, he didn’t care to write anything down for posterity. What does this tell you about his personality?

 

[Halbhh]

Who was/is Jesus? Wasn’t he the God of the Old Testament? And yet, when he came to the earth, he had to change everything!

Think about it! He knew how people will understand or misunderstand his word, and yet, he didn’t care to write anything down for posterity. What does this tell you about his personality?

He knew how people will understand or misunderstand his word, and yet, he didn’t care to write anything down for posterity. What does this tell you about his personality?

--> That He had a profound understanding of human nature, for one thing. Ideas are more powerful than objects. And that He intended that only those willing to try to hear would be able to understand.

I'd suggest to anyone to read for themselves, first hand, and get their own impression.

I never felt satisfied about the commonplace rhetoric. I don't need other people to think for me, and no one should really be satisfied to take other peoples' opinions.

To listen -- lay aside preconceptions and ideas and viewpoints, a-z, and try to understand the full meaning of what is being said.

 

[dzheremi]

We were created to be in communion with Him. To be 'partakers of the divine nature' as the holy prince of the apostles St. Peter put it (2 Peter 1:14).

 

[muichimotsu]

You could find out He is real. The only real path I know of is to truly listen (to lay aside viewpoints and really listen) to what He says, and then do as He says. This brings you closer to God, so that you could turn to Christ for salvation.

He came to save us by suffering our wrongs to save us from our wrongdoing, the thousand little ways we fail to do right. He rescues those who turn to Him.

Evidence doesn't exist in a vacuum, we cannot just look at things in a purely objective fashion, you're expecting what you see as being self evident and explaining it away otherwise by saying people are prejudiced or in denial rather than that they aren't convinced for reasons that you don't find compelling based on whatever standards of evidence you think are adequate

I don't need to listen to the words of someone speaking about apocalyptic nonsense that's no more demonstrable than the God they pray to

If you expect perfection, you have far more foundational problems to deal with in ideological fundamentalism.

 

[Halbhh]

Evidence doesn't exist in a vacuum, we cannot just look at things in a purely objective fashion, you're expecting what you see as being self evident and explaining it away otherwise by saying people are prejudiced or in denial rather than that they aren't convinced for reasons that you don't find compelling based on whatever standards of evidence you think are adequate

I don't need to listen to the words of someone speaking about apocalyptic nonsense that's no more demonstrable than the God they pray to

If you expect perfection, you have far more foundational problems to deal with in ideological fundamentalism.

If things Jesus said did not work, then I wouldn't label myself "Christian".

All He says works, and that's how I am.

 

[muichimotsu]

By your interpretation of a selective experimental method that is hardly applicable to moral principles versus physical ones. You keep talking like this is common sense, it's clearly not, but you insist that your methodology works because it convinced you, which is the height of self delusion that you have special understanding and everyone else just doesn't comprehend it like you do.

Take your own advice and step back to consider that your assessment is not objectively true or even coming close to objectivity in assessment

 

[Halbhh]

By your interpretation of a selective experimental method that is hardly applicable to moral principles versus physical ones. You keep talking like this is common sense, it's clearly not, but you insist that your methodology works because it convinced you, which is the height of self delusion that you have special understanding and everyone else just doesn't comprehend it like you do.

Take your own advice and step back to consider that your assessment is not objectively true or even coming close to objectivity in assessment

I notice here the very meaningful phrase you just brought in (one I did not ever use even once I can remember) -- "moral principles" (!)....

Did it seem to you as if that was what I've been discussing?

It's not a phrase I use generally. (nor do I believe in other peoples' reasoning about such really)

It is very different and unlike what I've been talking about when I say "test the proposition".

By testing a proposition, I mean only and exactly that alone: to discover by trying something whether it works out beneficially.

What I've been saying is analogous to an engineering approach -- truly agnostic about beliefs other people have about their own notions.

What design (e.g. of a machine) works better than other competing designs?

To find out, an engineer tries it out. Tests the design.

Is there a rule, design, that works better than other designs, in real life? Which one works the best to create the most enjoyment, peace, flourishing?

I say my experience is that these rules for living from Jesus are superior to other rules -- in real life actual outcomes -- and I say to people: try out the design(s) and see.

 

[muichimotsu]

I notice here the very meaningful phrase you just brought in (one I did not ever use even once I can remember) -- "moral principles" (!)....

Did it seem to you as if that was what I've been discussing?

It's not a phrase I use generally. (nor do I believe in other peoples' reasoning about such really)

It is very different and unlike what I've been talking about when I say "test the proposition".

By testing a proposition, I mean only and exactly that alone: to discover by trying something whether it works out beneficially.

What I've been saying is analogous to an engineering approach -- truly agnostic about beliefs other people have about their own notions.

What design (e.g. of a machine) works better than other competing designs?

To find out, an engineer tries it out. Tests the design.

Is there a rule, design, that works better than other designs, in real life? Which one works the best to create the most enjoyment, peace, flourishing?

I say my experience is that these rules for living from Jesus are superior to other rules -- in real life actual outcomes -- and I say to people: try out the design(s) and see.

No you cannot meaningfully use a methodology applied to engineering for what is behavioral and moral principles, how one ought to treat people, not how you ought to build something. This isn't about design, it's about practicing something, but understanding that it's not going to be consistent across all contexts because we aren't the same as artificial materials that have much more constraint in their reaction to situations.

You keep insisting this is somehow objective or detached from particular conclusions you could make, but the problem is that you seem to think this is some novel approach rather than just a category error masquerading as you being a "skeptic" about something and then reaching a conclusion that others could imitate. Thing is, that's not how one concludes something is true when you're talking about something of an ethical nature, because ethics is not purely about the results of actions taken or you'd just go to consequentialist ethics and be done with it.

What you appear to be doing is taking the results that confirm some broad notion of what you gather to be success and then conclude that it can only mean that the person saying them is somehow possessing of unique information rather than happening to get something right that may not be unique to them (golden rule is far older than Jesus, if you're going with the example you use of treating someone nicely: Confucianism, Buddhism and Hinduism all come to mind as having that principle and historically predate Christian texts by millennia)