Why did God create humans?

[muichimotsu]

Simply, you are making too many assumptions and guesses about what I think (however plausible these added assumptions seem to you, they are mistaken over and over, at a high rate, much higher than 50/50). Try to stop. If you can. Make an effort. I nowhere claimed nor suggested (unless I wrote unclearly) that somehow reality has to be fully independent of us. (To assume so would be an unawareness of Quantum Mechanics (QM) and the implications and possibilities of QM -- to assume one theory and reject the others, without a basis) No, I don't assume reality is fully independent of us even, not an assumption I do. I leave that correctly as an unknown in QM, we have yet to solve. I did write something else quite meaningful, connected to the reality of independent laws of nature, which is only the endless factual reality we run into all the time. This doesn't imply that reality is somehow unconnected to us. I could imagine how you could jump to that conclusion. It doesn't follow.

Not making absolute claims, you're insinuating your own notions onto me in the idea that I cannot be corrected, when I clearly have to some extent in the conversations.

Reality can be fully independent of us in itself, but in terms of a dynamic, that would be absurd to suggest, because it would mean we aren't really involved in reality as entities that are also real

As to whether nature has agency, I think it's a poorly formed way of asking something, in that by 'agency' we typically mean actions done by a conscious being or actor. In contrast, nature definitely does actions, being that is the very thing it is -- physics (consistent actions of nature, as we have discovered over time). But one needn't add an assumption nature is then conscious or a being, etc. Perhaps some people might speculate on such, but I'm not such a person.

You're still anthropomorphizing in your language, not claiming it has a consciousness is just slightly less irrational than engaging with an anthropic principle, as if our assessments of nature are already there in terms of nature being a lawgiver and such.

You're still using the notion of laws of nature in the idea that the laws are an independent phenomenon rather than dependent on human minds to conceive of it in a descriptive model

Now this is actually a pretty good representation of how I see it. How did you get to imagining my thinking is instead that odd fantastical other way? (do you think you have a mind reading ability? Well, it's not working evidently.) There's something profoundly wrong in how you perceive other people. Just letting you know. My guess: you liberally assume all sorts of wrong guesses, and then...get used to those assumptions. Do you end up believing your guesses? Not a good way to think of other people, frankly. Not a good method.

Nature having an order in our perception is not the same as it having an order in itself, that's the problem in even Einstein's thinking, let's not assume or suggest in any sense that scientists are perfectly rational individuals

I don't believe my provisional assessments unless I have good evidence to suggest they are reliable. You keep assuming yourself that I'm absolutely confident in these claims with no basis beyond what you perceive in the posts, tone not clear because it's online. Take your own advice in regards to assessing people, because you're engaging in the same mischaracterization you accuse me of and are doing it consistently as if you're absolutely certain

 

[Halbhh]

You're still using the notion of laws of nature in the idea that the laws are an independent phenomenon rather than dependent on human minds

Take a course in physics, I suggest. It would help anyone realize nature operates by consistent rules of some sort we can discover forms (such as approximations) of, when we try. The rules are not created by us, but exist before we discover them, one can realize, once one has learned enough physics and seen enough about how well it works, such as in experiments. (a supplemental thing might be to watch experiments performed)

 

[muichimotsu]

Take a course in physics, I suggest. It would help anyone realize nature operates by consistent rules of some sort we can discover forms (such as approximations) of, when we try. The rules are not created by us, but exist before we discover them, one can realize, once one has learned enough physics and seen enough about how well it works, such as in experiments. (a supplemental thing might be to watch experiments performed)

We don't "discover" in the sense that they are already there as you describe them as "laws", that's still ascribing independent agency that instituted the laws themselves rather than them being innate to nature as a basic property and we happen to call them laws as a matter of semantic convenience.

No, the rules don't exist in the sense of our laws that can describe them, they exist in a manner that isn't cogent in human terms, because that'd be the objective angle versus the subjective anthropic lens applied in scientific models for explanation

The experiments performed still don't follow to your conclusion even if they have consistent results, you're ignoring the problem of human perspective and how you're insinuating that onto nature in itself rather than the basic and limited aspect that comes about in our explaining it, which is not the same as nature's essence apart from our observations (or even if we didn't exist in a hypothetical universe that was otherwise the same)

A class in physics is not what I require, what you seem to require is an understanding of even basic philosophy of science to realize how you're implicitly trying to go to an argument from design, I'm almost certain (could be wrong, before you start accusing me of mind-reading, which is never what I'm remotely trying to do)

 

[Halbhh]

We don't "discover" in the sense that they are already there as you describe them as "laws", that's still ascribing independent agency that instituted the laws themselves rather than them being innate to nature as a basic property and we happen to call them laws as a matter of semantic convenience.

No, the rules don't exist in the sense of our laws that can describe them, they exist in a manner that isn't cogent in human terms, because that'd be the objective angle versus the subjective anthropic lens applied in scientific models for explanation

The experiments performed still don't follow to your conclusion even if they have consistent results, you're ignoring the problem of human perspective and how you're insinuating that onto nature in itself rather than the basic and limited aspect that comes about in our explaining it, which is not the same as nature's essence apart from our observations (or even if we didn't exist in a hypothetical universe that was otherwise the same)

A class in physics is not what I require, what you seem to require is an understanding of even basic philosophy of science to realize how you're implicitly trying to go to an argument from design, I'm almost certain (could be wrong, before you start accusing me of mind-reading, which is never what I'm remotely trying to do)

Ah, you are trying to apply a different thing/fact onto this separate thing.

So, you've talked about a true thing, but not the same thing.

Yes, we only have evolving worldviews that are only somewhat aligned (inevitably) to the complexity reality is.

But, this is only one side aspect of the real thing I've been trying to point out to you.

By "physics" I do not mean merely our viewpoints. Or even what we've discovered so far. More than that. Or other than that.

Nature (aka "physics", aka "reality") has always shown itself to be consistent without any failure ever that we've seen -- magnetism remains consistent, electrical fields, etc., on and on. Always consistent, never any failures.

This reality exists regardless of whether anyone has a hint about it, before any human discovered any of it.

Some kind of 'laws' (consistency) of nature -- "physics" -- that are effectively as real as the moon or as water. More real than our typical worldviews by far. Our worldviews are evolving models. Nature -- that is, "physics" -- has simply demonstrated itself constant.

We can discover forms (mathematical transforms or analogs) of it, as history of science shows. You don't need a physics degree to get that, but may need more information, possibly, and it might help, if you have the desire to learn more, to see or read high quality accounts of the discoveries of various physics.

If you do learn, you'll learn this physics exists independently of our attempts to find it and represent it. Possibly here, you are only assuming too much about how I'm using words though. "Physics" doesn't mean only what we know, but it means also the undiscovered physics we are trying to discover, which physicists call "new physics".

 

[RBPerry]

It appears to be a central tenet of Christianity that God created humans. While Christians may disagree on the specifics of how and when, there seems to be a consensus that God was responsible.

Assuming I’ve understood this correctly, I have a simple question.

Why?
Why did God create humans?​

OB

He's probably asked Himself that.

 

[Ed1wolf]

It appears to be a central tenet of Christianity that God created humans. While Christians may disagree on the specifics of how and when, there seems to be a consensus that God was responsible.

Assuming I’ve understood this correctly, I have a simple question.

Why?
Why did God create humans?​

OB

We dont know all the reasons, but a big part is to demonstrate His power and glory and use them to help destroy evil forever by their spiritual growth and maturation.

 

[Occams Barber]

We dont know all the reasons, but a big part is to demonstrate His power and glory and use them to help destroy evil forever by their spiritual growth and maturation.

What a strange answer.

To whom is He going to demonstrate his power and his glory and why does he need to demonstrate these aspects of Himself?

Does God need help to destroy evil?

OB

 

[SPF]

It appears to be a central tenet of Christianity that God created humans. While Christians may disagree on the specifics of how and when, there seems to be a consensus that God was responsible.

Assuming I’ve understood this correctly, I have a simple question.

Why?
Why did God create humans?​

OB

If God is accurately described in Scripture, then God is by definition a Maximally Great Being (MGB). So He is omnipotent, omniscient, immutable in character, eternal, etc...

I often here atheists ask this question. They ultimately ask it to drive home the fact that God isn't real because they think God creating humans to worship Him is somehow narcissistic, some even go so far as to say sadistic. Or if not narcissistic, they suggest there is a contradiction because it makes God sound like He needs something, or He's lacking something because He needs to have a relationship.

But I think the truth is much more simple than that. If God truly is a MGB, then there can be nothing greater than for another being to know God. If God truly is as Scripture describes Him, then the pinnacle of my existence would be to know Him and have a relationship with Him. So the very fact that God created me to know Him was a selfless and loving act of His.

What could be greater for me than to have a real relationship with the omnipotent, eternal creator of all the universe? Creating contingent beings to know God was an act of utter selflessness.

 

[Ed1wolf]

What a strange answer.

To whom is He going to demonstrate his power and his glory and why does he need to demonstrate these aspects of Himself?

Does God need help to destroy evil?

OB

He demonstrates His power and glory to humans. He does need our help in a universe that operates primarily by natural law and allows for free will beings.