Why did God create us?

[VicR28]

I was raised a Lutheran, but when my former church decided they didn't like our pastor (who was doing a fine job in my opinion), they kicked him out; my family decided to leave also. It was in the move from our Lutheran church to a Methodist church that I stopped attending and now consider myself a non-believer.

However, I still think much about religious philosophy, and my thinking brought me to the very beginning of everything:

Assuming there is a God, creator of heaven and earth, why did God create us, the universe, and all things?

This is where my logic leads me:

A prominent lesson that I was taught in my years as a church-goer was by not worshiping God, our only God, and by not repenting my sins, I would be doomed to eternal damnation. I found this to be in conflict with the concept of "freewill."

If God truely gave humans freewill, then our situation would be this:

God, the one and only being, created new, inferior beings out of nothing, and instructed them to worship Him; however, at the same time, God granted the beings the gift of freewill, which allowed for the choice of not worshiping Him. If a being chose not to worship Him, then God would damn the being to hell. Thus, by exercising one's freewill, a direct gift from God, one would become damned. Furthermore, the being's only chance to enter God's Kingdom would be to repent as originally instructed, therefore eliminating the validity of our "freewill."

One might say the being's repentance was a lesson to follow the word of God, but if that were so, this would be the situation:

The omniscient, omnipresent God created, out of nothing, humans for the sole purpose of imposing His importance on these new, ignorant, inferior beings. And through such "lessons," He displayed His greatness to these new beings by indirectly forcing them, who He gave "freewill," to worship Him.

Case 1 - If my logic is sound, then I'm led to conclude that God created us so something/someone would worship Him; and if I was brought into existence as a tool to satisfy the omnipotent Being's wish to be worshiped, then I don't believe God deserves my praise, whether that damns my soul or not.*

Case 2 - However, if God truely gave humans freewill, then I am free to hold no faith in His existence without any consequence; therefore, I would be allowed to never worship or never repent and still be accepted into God's Kingdom.

If Case 1 is true, then "freewill" is an illusion, and our existance is futile. He did not create us for our own good (which would be a paradox if he did), but to satisfy God's want to be worshiped.

If Case 2 is true, then thousands of years of Christian ceremony will have been proved futile, and Christians would shift from living to please God to living to create a utopian society.

I understand if this may come off as blasphemous, and I hope I didn't deeply offend anyone by posting this. It was difficult to translate my thoughts into words, so I also understand if you don't follow my logic. If you were able to grasp my ideas, then I would like to know what you think. Either way, I would appreciate constructive insight.





*Based on the adaptivity of humans, the power of thought over emotion, and the concept that all "negative" environments are relative to experience and time, my logic leads me to postulate whether there can truely be "eternal misery" (a.k.a. hell). However, I'd wish to save this for a seperate thread.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I can appreciate that you took the time to put your thoughts into form, but I read your logic and disagree that it is logic. It is rather long and wide reaching to make an attempt to address all of it, so I will hope that my conclusion will be sufficient in you re-examining your logic in a different light.

I do have another question: if you consider yourself a non-believer, not a Lutheran, etc. why do you still show the Lutheran symbol for yourself - this is false representation and motivated by other reasons in my view.

But back to your logic. review your statements in the light of rejection of God or rebellion to obedience in not being condemned but instead the removal of God from the individual... IOW, God honors the 'free will' choice and removes His presence from the individual - either in total after Judgment or in part during life.

Have a good day.

 

[Spyr]

I do have another question: if you consider yourself a non-believer, not a Lutheran, etc. why do you still show the Lutheran symbol for yourself - this is false representation and motivated by other reasons in my view.

I find that statement almost entirely counter-productive.

But back to your logic. review your statements in the light of rejection of God or rebellion to obedience in not being condemned but instead the removal of God from the individual... IOW, God honors the 'free will' choice and removes His presence from the individual - either in total after Judgment or in part during life.

If I understand correctly you're saying that by exercising our free will to not beleive in god that he will give us what we want and remove his presence from us and thus we'd be in eternal damnation. But hell isn't merely a removal from god, it is a place actually created by god which we will have to go if we choose not to follow him.

To put it simply you're saying that by me not following you I've exercised my free will and you are no long in my presence when in all actuallity it's more like me choosing not to follow you and you proceeding to put a gun to my head. I find it confusing how so many people find this fair but like it says above, that's a discussion for another thread.

 

[Velo Princesse]

But back to your logic. review your statements in the light of rejection of God or rebellion to obedience in not being condemned but instead the removal of God from the individual... IOW, God honors the 'free will' choice and removes His presence from the individual - either in total after Judgment or in part during life.

Have a good day.

But the question was why did he create us? And the logic is sound. Free will was just part of the logic and not the point of the OP. Did he create us so that he could one day judge us?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I find that statement almost entirely counter-productive.

I don't understand your objection. Counter productive to what - a false representation of the person's declaration?

If I understand correctly you're saying that by exercising our free will to not beleive in god that he will give us what we want and remove his presence from us and thus we'd be in eternal damnation. But hell isn't merely a removal from god, it is a place actually created by god which we will have to go if we choose not to follow him.

To put it simply you're saying that by me not following you I've exercised my free will and you are no long in my presence when in all actuallity it's more like me choosing not to follow you and you proceeding to put a gun to my head. I find it confusing how so many people find this fair but like it says above, that's a discussion for another thread.

To me, the logic is clear and simple and your notions of what Hades is and isn't supposed to be is kind of... well to be honest, irrelevant to the subject.
I suppose what muddies the waters in reading your statement of fairness, it strikes one a bit like a child rebelling against their parent and then complaining that they fell into folly when left to their own demise.

 

[Velo Princesse]

I suppose what muddies the waters in reading your statement of fairness, it strikes one a bit like a child rebelling against their parent and then complaining that they fell into folly when left to their own demise.

That isn't comparable. Although it is true that the statement is fairly accurate, I didn't 'create' my children to do exactly what I say and believe things that can't be proven upon penalty of death. Or, more to the point, upon penalty of being on fire forever. I decided to have children so that I could love them, not the other way around. The OP is about why god created us.


Also, that isn't a false representation of anything. She obviously considers herself Lutheran because that is how she was raised and part of the culture of her family, but still considers herself a non believer. Much in the way that I am Jewish and atheist. I could just as easily put a star of David by my name and that would have been perfectly honest. Maybe she isn't ready to let go of a belief system she's always known just yet. Your pointing it out was counter-productive to the question at hand.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

That isn't comparable. Although it is true that the statement is fairly accurate, I didn't 'create' my children to do exactly what I say and believe things that can't be proven upon penalty of death. Or, more to the point, upon penalty of being on fire forever. I decided to have children so that I could love them, not the other way around. The OP is about why god created us.

I don't understand why the question is still being asked when you are answering it on your own. Replace "I" with God and consider the alternative conditions for the children when they choose to reject you. This is v e r y simple, I don't understand why I'm ending up repeating myself.

Also, that isn't a false representation of anything. She obviously considers herself Lutheran because that is how she was raised and part of the culture of her family, but still considers herself a non believer. Much in the way that I am Jewish and atheist. I could just as easily put a star of David by my name and that would have been perfectly honest. Maybe she isn't ready to let go of a belief system she's always known just yet. Your pointing it out was counter-productive to the question at hand.

One, Jewish is another matter. That can be inclusive of ethnicity... Lutheran cannot.
Two, the point is... either she is or she isn't. The fact that she (I'm trusting that you checked, because I had not he/she?) has it as her description reflects reasoning... either there is a non-spoken motive or she is not being completely honest with herself and she still believes but has doubts. Those are relative points and the rebuttal to my asking hasn't given its own reasoning for objection. You will not find me one for believing in coincidences.
IOW - It was a legitimate question that hasn't been answered and can only be answered by the originator. Your objections are noted.

 

[Spyr]

I don't understand why the question is still being asked when you are answering it on your own. Replace "I" with God and consider the alternative conditions for the children when they choose to reject you. This is v e r y simple, I don't understand why I'm ending up repeating myself.

It most certainly isn't simple. It may be to you because you already beleive but when I and many other people think about it it seems as if the choice god gave us really isn't a choice at all but more like an ultimatum: love me or burn forever. Now whenever I say this to a beleiver I usually get the response back that god is like our parent advising us not to do something because something bad would happen but it's different in this case because god is the one who created the danger.

One, Jewish is another matter. That can be inclusive of ethnicity... Lutheran cannot.
Two, the point is... either she is or she isn't. The fact that she (I'm trusting that you checked, because I had not he/she?) has it as her description reflects reasoning... either there is a non-spoken motive or she is not being completely honest with herself and she still believes but has doubts. Those are relative points and the rebuttal to my asking hasn't given its own reasoning for objection. You will not find me one for believing in coincidences.
IOW - It was a legitimate question that hasn't been answered and can only be answered by the originator. Your objections are noted.

The reason I said that this was counter-productive was because you seem to have just assumed there was something else going on. What does it even matter what she has as a description? It's counter-productive because it has nothing to do with the post.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

It most certainly isn't simple. It may be to you because you already beleive but when I and many other people think about it it seems as if the choice god gave us really isn't a choice at all but more like an ultimatum: love me or burn forever. Now whenever I say this to a beleiver I usually get the response back that god is like our parent advising us not to do something because something bad would happen but it's different in this case because god is the one who created the danger.

I haven't been there, I don't know as firmly as you whether the 'burning' is fire or metaphorical of emotions, desires, rage, hate, etc. Assume at your own risk.
Again, God didn't decide for you and if the absence of God is 'creating the danger', then I'll leave you to your assertion on that.

The reason I said that this was counter-productive was because you seem to have just assumed there was something else going on. What does it even matter what she has as a description? It's counter-productive because it has nothing to do with the post.

So you challenge my question based on your opinion, so be it. As I stated, only one can address the question with legitimacy.

 

[Spyr]

I haven't been there, I don't know as firmly as you whether the 'burning' is fire or metaphorical of emotions, desires, rage, hate, etc. Assume at your own risk.

I never thought about it that way, I suppose it is an assumption to say it's physical fire. Good point.

So you challenge my question based on your opinion, so be it. As I stated, only one can address the question with legitimacy.

Agreed.

 

[jayem]

To me, there is a definite logical difficulty in reconciling the existence of the universe with God's supposed perfection. It is taught that God is absolutely perfect in every possible way--God is the ultimate in perfection. (That was the basis of St. Anselm's ontological argument for God's existence.) If so, then why would a perfect being do anything at all, let alone create an entire universe? A totally perfect being would need nothing, lack nothing, or want nothing. I can think of no logical reason why such an entity would do anything. So if God is the highest manifestation of utter perfection, why would he/she create us?

 

[Seeking...]

To me, there is a definite logical difficulty in reconciling the existence of the universe with God's supposed perfection. It is taught that God is absolutely perfect in every possible way--God is the ultimate in perfection. (That was the basis of St. Anselm's ontological argument for God's existence.) If so, then why would a perfect being do anything at all, let alone create an entire universe? A totally perfect being would need nothing, lack nothing, or want nothing. I can think of no logical reason why such an entity would do anything. So if God is the highest manifestation of utter perfection, why would he/she create us?

For entertainment value.
Honestly, I think we are God's guilty pleasure - kind of like any television show produced by Aaron Spelling - there is no need for them to exist, they bring nothing into your life, but sometimes they're just perfect for blowing time...

 

[VicR28]

I do have another question: if you consider yourself a non-believer, not a Lutheran, etc. why do you still show the Lutheran symbol for yourself - this is false representation and motivated by other reasons in my view.

I suppose I wasn't very precise: I didn't stop attending church completely; I stopped attending church regularly. I still prefer the Lutheran service/liturgy to any other denomination's. However, I consider myself Lutheran because my family has been Lutheran for many generations (at least five), and I am more likely to agree with Lutheran morals/politics.

 

[Chrysalis Kat]

For entertainment value.
Honestly, I think we are God's guilty pleasure - kind of like any television show produced by Aaron Spelling - there is no need for them to exist, they bring nothing into your life, but sometimes they're just perfect for blowing time...

I strongly suspect that there is a great deal of truth to this.

 

[Shane Roach]

I was raised a Lutheran, but when my former church decided they didn't like our pastor (who was doing a fine job in my opinion), they kicked him out; my family decided to leave also. It was in the move from our Lutheran church to a Methodist church that I stopped attending and now consider myself a non-believer.

However, I still think much about religious philosophy, and my thinking brought me to the very beginning of everything:

Assuming there is a God, creator of heaven and earth, why did God create us, the universe, and all things?

This is where my logic leads me:

A prominent lesson that I was taught in my years as a church-goer was by not worshiping God, our only God, and by not repenting my sins, I would be doomed to eternal damnation. I found this to be in conflict with the concept of "freewill."

If God truely gave humans freewill, then our situation would be this:

God, the one and only being, created new, inferior beings out of nothing, and instructed them to worship Him; however, at the same time, God granted the beings the gift of freewill, which allowed for the choice of not worshiping Him. If a being chose not to worship Him, then God would damn the being to hell. Thus, by exercising one's freewill, a direct gift from God, one would become damned. Furthermore, the being's only chance to enter God's Kingdom would be to repent as originally instructed, therefore eliminating the validity of our "freewill."

One might say the being's repentance was a lesson to follow the word of God, but if that were so, this would be the situation:

The omniscient, omnipresent God created, out of nothing, humans for the sole purpose of imposing His importance on these new, ignorant, inferior beings. And through such "lessons," He displayed His greatness to these new beings by indirectly forcing them, who He gave "freewill," to worship Him.

Case 1 - If my logic is sound, then I'm led to conclude that God created us so something/someone would worship Him; and if I was brought into existence as a tool to satisfy the omnipotent Being's wish to be worshiped, then I don't believe God deserves my praise, whether that damns my soul or not.*

Case 2 - However, if God truely gave humans freewill, then I am free to hold no faith in His existence without any consequence; therefore, I would be allowed to never worship or never repent and still be accepted into God's Kingdom.

If Case 1 is true, then "freewill" is an illusion, and our existance is futile. He did not create us for our own good (which would be a paradox if he did), but to satisfy God's want to be worshiped.

If Case 2 is true, then thousands of years of Christian ceremony will have been proved futile, and Christians would shift from living to please God to living to create a utopian society.

I understand if this may come off as blasphemous, and I hope I didn't deeply offend anyone by posting this. It was difficult to translate my thoughts into words, so I also understand if you don't follow my logic. If you were able to grasp my ideas, then I would like to know what you think. Either way, I would appreciate constructive insight.





*Based on the adaptivity of humans, the power of thought over emotion, and the concept that all "negative" environments are relative to experience and time, my logic leads me to postulate whether there can truely be "eternal misery" (a.k.a. hell). However, I'd wish to save this for a seperate thread.

It's long been my opinion that we were created to love and be loved by God, in much the same way it describes in Genesis that it was not good for man to be alone, so God created Eve.

I think your attitude that if God is not this or that way then he doesn't deserve your worship is fine as far as it goes. Sometimes I feel Christians go too far trying to win people over rather than pointing out that if God exists, he certainly is not groveling for attention and begging for people's merciful boons to pay attention to Him. I think to a certain extent it just reaffirms your statement that you are an non-believer, because if one believed in an all powerfull being one might think twice before making such a statement without a lot of proof that God had bad motives.

Finally, while some have taken offense at Centurion's words about your little Lutheran icon, it is actually against site policy to represent yourself as a Christian with that icon if you are not one. I am not trying to pass off any character judgement on you over it, but you probably should change it.

*Edited to add: Should change it if you honestly do think of yourself as a non-believer to agnostic, atheist, or something.*

Hope that helps some. Maybe in the idea that God created you more for the purpose of loving you than you loving Him will give you a reason to explore His love once more.

 

[Shane Roach]

To me, there is a definite logical difficulty in reconciling the existence of the universe with God's supposed perfection. It is taught that God is absolutely perfect in every possible way--God is the ultimate in perfection. (That was the basis of St. Anselm's ontological argument for God's existence.) If so, then why would a perfect being do anything at all, let alone create an entire universe? A totally perfect being would need nothing, lack nothing, or want nothing. I can think of no logical reason why such an entity would do anything. So if God is the highest manifestation of utter perfection, why would he/she create us?

That's interesting. I would think the exact opposite, that the perfect being would always be building more and better, in an infinite and unfathomable spiral, at a rate that would warp my mind.

But then that might explain why I believe and I guess you don't.

Still, what an interesting post. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Shane Roach]

About the whole "love me or die" hypothesis.

It's not entirely agreable I suppose, but the Bible appears at one point to say that what we are all going through now is God's way of showing us He is willing to suffer for a long time, in patience, to save every one that is possible to save, that would turn from evil and towards good. I believe that people go to hell not because of a choice not to love God but because of a choice to love evil. It just so happens, if one can be convinced to love good at all, then they will love its source as well.

This of course is not something that an unbeliever will tend to believe of themselves. Still, again, the idea that God is being selfish and punishing people for not making Him feel better about Himself or something doesn't jive at all with my understanding.

 

[mepalmer3]

Assuming there is a God, creator of heaven and earth, why did God create us, the universe, and all things?

This is where my logic leads me:

A prominent lesson that I was taught in my years as a church-goer was by not worshiping God, our only God, and by not repenting my sins, I would be doomed to eternal damnation. I found this to be in conflict with the concept of "freewill."

I think (and this is my guess, but it seems very accurate) that people don't see God as an all-powerful, all-loving God. They initially think of God as like some person with superpowers. Or the phrase, "Heavenly Father" may give them the mental picture of their real father as an almighty God. In that case, it seems an absolute horrific idea that such an imperfect thing as my dad getting angry if people don't worship him. If I had this picture I'd want to run and throw it all away too.

BUT, this is VERY different from the notion of the Christian God. If the Christian God is absolutely perfect, perfectly benevolent & loving, all-powerful, all-knowing, completely logical, etc... then by wanting people to love him, he is wanting people to love all of his attributes as well. So with that in mind, if God gets angry because someone doesn't love him (or outright hates him), then he is angry because that person outright hates love/knowledge/logic. That person would continue to become more and more destructive -- but not merely to himself, but to all the people around him. There would be no bounds of his hatred towards humanity if he really hated God. And so God, if he is perfect and loving, simply can't stand imperfection and hatred. He must put a stop to it. He must call people back to him. But he does forgive us -- he lets us start over with him.

If God truely gave humans freewill, then our situation would be this:

God, the one and only being, created new, inferior beings out of nothing, and instructed them to worship Him; however, at the same time, God granted the beings the gift of freewill, which allowed for the choice of not worshiping Him. If a being chose not to worship Him, then God would damn the being to hell. Thus, by exercising one's freewill, a direct gift from God, one would become damned. Furthermore, the being's only chance to enter God's Kingdom would be to repent as originally instructed, therefore eliminating the validity of our "freewill."

You're speaking of eliminating freewill as being bad in the sense that God is so horrible because he wants us to do our math correctly. We can either strive for perfection and to do our math correctly, or we can say to heck with perfection, and to heck with all logic, reasoning, and love. And consequently, if our will is free and God is unchanging, then it is absolutely by our own free choice that we move ourselves away from God and we move ourselves to hell.

 

[elman]

To me, there is a definite logical difficulty in reconciling the existence of the universe with God's supposed perfection. It is taught that God is absolutely perfect in every possible way--God is the ultimate in perfection. (That was the basis of St. Anselm's ontological argument for God's existence.) If so, then why would a perfect being do anything at all, let alone create an entire universe? A totally perfect being would need nothing, lack nothing, or want nothing. I can think of no logical reason why such an entity would do anything. So if God is the highest manifestation of utter perfection, why would he/she create us?

If God is Love, then what is so hard to understand about God wanting beings to love and to return His love?

 

[elman]

I find that statement almost entirely counter-productive.



If I understand correctly you're saying that by exercising our free will to not beleive in god that he will give us what we want and remove his presence from us and thus we'd be in eternal damnation. But hell isn't merely a removal from god, it is a place actually created by god which we will have to go if we choose not to follow him.

To put it simply you're saying that by me not following you I've exercised my free will and you are no long in my presence when in all actuallity it's more like me choosing not to follow you and you proceeding to put a gun to my head. I find it confusing how so many people find this fair but like it says above, that's a discussion for another thread.

All Christians do not believe in the hell you are describing.