What was God’s plan behind Creation and why does he need one?

Hi MR I think this discussion about Good and Evil is wandering slightly off topic. I've actually been preparing a new post on the specific subject of Morality, following a recent discussion I had with Stile, which I hope to propose as a new topic in the next few days.It seems to me that most of your arguments on this topic of God's plan have been along the lines of "how do we know that God doesn't have some reason behind the way things are?" That's not really much of an argument. We don't know that there's a god at all, let alone whether or not he has a reason for the way things are, or any plan to change things. Do you have any specific ideas as to what any plan might be? I don't blame you for not coming up with anything, because I can't.

---

"Bring on the wall!" - Dale Winton

Hello Iblis,
Sorry to delay answering your post, but I've been struggling to just keeping up with Bluejay & Larni. Yes I am tentative about this idea, and the more we discuss it, the more uncertain I become. I agree that Job suggests we havn't a clue what God is really up to, or what happens behind the scenes. Which is why I directed 'words without knowledge' at myself. But I felt this thread was an oportunity to discuss what could be the reason for God creating us, of which I had my own pet theory to share. Also I saw it as an opportunity to question the assumption that rules were a bad thing. But as it turns out, it also now seems linked with the common complaint against God's creation regarding the problem of evil. This is a big task for silly old me to attempt to tackle, and I'd appreciate any help.Regarding purpose & use of creation, I see your point, I think. Bluejay was also trying to pull me up on this point, using the word 'motivation' to help me understand the distinction. I think I may be falsely interpreting the term 'purpose', but can't see the distinction just yet. Need more strong coffee.I thank you for alerting me that my idea of God creating stuff just for us, could be perceived as egotistical, something that man thought up only to boost his self importance. I didn't really mean it in that way, but yes I can see now how this could provide easy fodder for a mocker.By the way, please don't see me as being wise. I'm sure to say something soon to demonstrate how much a fool I am, if not said already.Edited by Minority Report, : correcting typoEdited by Minority Report, : correcting typo

I'd like to take this bit one step further: If said being you created was created with the ability to reproduce, on it's own, would you then blame each individual successor generation for what the first had done wrong?It would be like being an eloctronics engineer: holding a hammer over each individual piece of machinery you build, just waiting for it to fuck up (because you KNOW it will).I went to the laundromat this past weekend to do some laundry. there were some pamphlets lying about from a few churches. 3 different churches, IIRC. Each and everyone started off with something along these lines:"You are a sinner. You are born a sinner. You NEED to be saved."So if this fella created us, it would seem his "plan" is for us to "sin"...since according to some members on this board, everyon sins, even Ned Flanders (NOT a true chrisitan).Meandering back more on topic: if I had to believe that god created us for "company" (to put it lightly): why is he lonely? Why not just create us as he intended? Why put all his children through so much suffering in our physical form?After reading some of the theists postings in this thread, I've almost asked whether or not god himself has freewill. It almost begs the question that creating us was what god was SUPPOSED to do. He did it because it was in his plan. As a Chicago Bears fan, I know this scenario all too well since Lovie NEVER deviates from the playbook.

---

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl SaganFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

Hello Jumped up Chimpanzee, Thats a good idea. Perhapps starting a thread with the title 'The problem of Evil', as typing this into google gets a staggering number of hits, and appears to be the main term used to address the question 'If God is good/loving, why does he allow suffering' etc. Yes, now that you mention it, that does seem to be a large part of my argument so far. I was mainly using it to refute other peoples assumptions that there is no legitimate reason for God to allow suffering. I wasn't using it as a positive argument, just a defensive one. I have not had much time yet to present a positive case for the problem of evil. Hope I get a chance to in your new thread. The original question has to assume for a moment that God does exist and created this world, before asking for reasons as to why God made it.

Hi hooah212002 Quite. It reminds me of a conclusion I reached on another thread discussing the reasons behind Jesus dying to save us from our sins. Who or what gave God the power or the authority to "save" us after Jesus had temporarily died? It's implied that he didn't have that power or authority beforehand. Why not? Who is really in charge?

Hello Bluejay, Sorry about that. I used the word comfort to singularly stand for all three. I find communicating in general very hard, and to express thoughts & ideas concisely in written form extremely tedious. I'd like to have an excuse, such as english being my second language, because it feels that way to me when I attempt to write anything. I am Australian though, so that might count for something.

Well, yes, in a way. But of course my original question was really a challenge to the general idea often spouted by religionists that there has to be a purpose to life, and therefore there must be an intelligent creator behind that purpose. I'm just asking if anyone could come up with a good suggestion of what that purpose might be, because I don't think I've ever heard one.The lack of response to this is remarkable considering how much certainty and dogma is normally associated with religious belief. You'd have thought that if "purpose" was fundamental to the belief in a creator, there would be a lot of very strong and readily available answers as to what that purpose was.

---

"Bring on the wall!" - Dale Winton

I think for anyone to even entertain the notion of "why did god do this that or the other" starts off wrong (in the eyes of a believer) by even questioning god. We were created becaused god did it, and god is good. Don't ask questions. If he wants us to know "why" he did it, he will tell us.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

---

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl SaganFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

Hi, MR. I know the feeling. I was born with that weakness myself.Just take whatever time you need to reply to my unconventional religious views and thought-exercises. I'm just pushing to get to the crux of the matter, but I'll back off for awhile, since you've got your hands full already.Good day.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Thanks. Yes, take your time. That's what wisdom is though, that's how the process works. If you know that anything you say may well be wrong, then you know at least one true thing. There are a lot of people who think their little world-view or arrangement of dogma somehow contains the whole world, as I'm sure you know, so you are familiar with at least one false thing as well. These two give you a standard to compare ideas that are unfamiliar or due for a review with, to help you get a preliminary tentative classification for them. This is how we begin to find our way, by knowing which direction is what. Yep, I'm going to suggest that you expand on your idea of love. Loving us before creating us, creating us because he loves us, is classic God behavior, similar to his lack of free will like the kind we have that I was preaching about earlier. So, if he creates us because he loves us, it isn't nonsensical to propose that he might create pulsars and bunny rabbits because he loves them too.Sure, it could be a different kind of love. A good analogy might be a father's love for his children, versus his love for his record collection. Sure, he loves those old vinyl hits a lot, but in a fire he gets his kids out first and then goes back for the Peter Paul and Mary if he has the chance. On the other hand, on a good day, when no one is hitting anyone and everyone has good grades, what he really likes to do is sit down and listen to Puff the Magic Dragon. Let's look harder at your love idea then. We like to think of love as all cookies and cake, but it isn't, is it? It's not just a brother who upholds his sister's honor against any criticism, it's also a brother who kills his sister over her damaged honor too. It isn't just a mother who gives her kids a hot nutritious meal, it's a mother who can only be happy through her kids and makes them sick so she can thrive on the attention it gets them. There's the wife who can bring home the bacon and fry it up in a pan, sure. But there's also the wife who cuts her man's pork off and throws it in a ditch.Love is wonderful, but it's also terrible. I have mixed feelings about bringing C S Lewis into this, because half of what he does is a particularly clever method of lying (persuasion disguised as proof.) But credit where credit is due, I stole this analogy from him.We are supposed to love others as we love ourselves, right? But no one thinks about what this means. They have the idea that it means as much as we love ourselves. But that's not what it says, is it? Nor do we love ourselves very much anyway, most of us. The egotist doesn't have a large ego, he has a tiny starved one that desperately needs attention.But to the extent that we do love ourselves, how does this love express itself? In a very peculiar and specific fashion. We do forgive ourselves readily, but its always a case of "that can't be helped now, it's too late." It's never a case of "That's actually OK, that's excusable, everyone makes mistakes." Far from it! We must do better, let everyone else worry about everyone else. We are far crueler with ourselves than anyone else could be. We put ourselves through torture no one else could, often for very minor gains like a grade or a better physique.Now we see signs of something like this in the more selfish forms of love that I was mentioning above. Sure, I love my neighbor in some generic sense, I guess, on a good day. But I don't really give a rat's ass what kind of grades his kids get, except in a vague sense of Oh, I'm sorry to hear that. But when our own kids get bad grades, when our own spouses do stupid things, well! Then we might go ahead and be as rough with them as we are with ourselves.Now God is pretty rough with himself, isn't he? He repenteth everything he do, from beginning to end. Oh Me, if it be My will, please can't You just not do this to Myself, huh please? So it shouldn't be a surprise that he's quite rough on us too. We often kill the things we love, don't we? For their own good.When we understand this only then can we begin to hope to understand this King Saul fell on his sword when it all went wrong;
and Joseph's brothers sold him down the river for a song;
and "Sonny" Liston rubbed some Tiger Balm into his glove;
some things you do for money, and some you do for
love love love

​

Raskolnikov felt sick (but he couldn't say why)
when he saw his face reflected in his victim's twinkling eye;
some things you'll do for money, and some you'll do for fun;
but the things you do for love are going to come back to you
one by one

​

Love, love is going to lead you by the hand
into a white and soundless place;
now we see things as in a mirror dimly,
but then we shall see each other
face to face-- Mountain GoatsEdited by Iblis, : And I will give him the morning star.-- Revelations 2:28

I might be wrong about my knowing anything I say may well be wrong. Which means I might well know I'm right.- God having (or not) a free will is open to question. Could Jesus have sinned (even though he didn't)? If he couldn't have had then his being tempted in the wilderness (etc) is problematic. If he could have (but didn't) and did .. then you've got God himself sinning. Which would be suicidal for God (it would appear).Given that we are supposedly made in his image and likeness we might expect ourselves to do the kinds of things he does.Hands up, those in humanity who've hesitated bringing a child into the world at a particular time - due to the problems apparent at the particular time? It is the love of the child (yet to be born) which causes the hesitation. It is possible to love in advance (so to speak). To take action now because of what you expect shall occur.And so, loving us before he created us. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Hello Bluejay,
Thanks for some breathing space. I'll try & get back to some of your earlier posts which I had trouble understanding/answering. I'll also try at some point to expand on my idea of love being the reason for God's creation, as suggested by Iblis. I had to read this whole section a few times to try & understand what your getting at, and what exactly is your confusion? I think your confusion might be caused by a possible false dilemma you've presented here. The first part of your dilemma goes something like this; If Good & bad existed before God & therefore He is not the source of Good (including love) & bad, then love cannot be the reason for creation. Have I got that right?Iblis presented this verse; I have not investigated this verse to verify the context, but it does seem to indicate at face value that God is saying He created evil. If so then God is the source & authority on good & evil, and it could not have already existed before Him. Therefore the first part of your dilemma is possibly false.The second part of your dilemma goes something like this: If good & bad did not exist before God, then His reason for creation was not influenced by good(including love) or bad. Have I got that right, because the logic just doesn't seem right in this? You seem to suggest that either good & bad existed before God, so therefore He is not the source of love, or they didn't exist before God and therefore love cannot influence Him. Have I got that right?But if good & bad did not exist before God, then they must have come into existance after God, and therefore God must have been the source of good & bad. If God is the source of good & bad, then why would it (including love) not be an influence in His reason for creation?I assume that God is the source of good(including love) & evil, and that love is the reason for creation. I can't see a dilemma here, or having it both ways.I may have you completely wrong here as I find this dilemma entirely confusing.

Hello bluejay, Just a quick point about this which I should have revealed earlier. I think if you look back you will find it was actually me who wrote this, not Larni. I think the confusion arose because I was not putting the authors name above each quote. I'll perhapps start doing this from now on. Sorry for the confusion.

Hi, Iano. This is just an assertion!

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, MR. Here's a series of questions relating to this concept that I've toyed with before:What was His reason for creating good and bad in the first place?Furthermore, what was He like "before" He created good and bad? Was He capable of doing good?Could His creation of good and bad change Him in some way such that He was now "good" instead of "neutral"? Did it suddenly empower Him to do "good"? Why couldn't He do it before?Furthermore, isn't it written that He is always unchanging (Hebrews 13:8, Malachi 3:6)? So, how could He love us now if He was around "before" love existed? Doesn't that imply some kind of change?Edited by Bluejay, : Subtitle grammar

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.