Ship of Fools: Why?

Thread: Why? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=022997

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Why did God create the universe?

I don't think religion really answers this question. At least Christianity doesn't seem to. We were created and it was good and we had a job to do keeping the Garden but God doesn't really need us to keep the Garden.

I know it's an impossible question but I'm interested in your thoughts cos you're a thoughtful, insightful bunch.

It's a question that recurrently bugs the hell out of me.

Why did God create you?

Posted by Lord Clonk (# 13205) on :

For what it's worth, I suspect that if God exists, it's nevertheless unlikely for It to have been what 'created' the universe.

[ 16. April 2012, 15:02: Message edited by: Lord Clonk ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Why did God create the universe?

He has a great love of vast, empty spaces (and an inordinate fondness for beetles).

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Why does an artist paint a picture, a composer write a sonata, a craftsman make an elegant chair? Because it's exhilarating. And a Bigness like God could take a lot of stimulation.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Why did God create you?

Because he thought I was damned interesting.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Why did God create the universe?

I don't think religion really answers this question. At least Christianity doesn't seem to. We were created and it was good and we had a job to do keeping the Garden but God doesn't really need us to keep the Garden.

I know it's an impossible question but I'm interested in your thoughts cos you're a thoughtful, insightful bunch.

It's a question that recurrently bugs the hell out of me.

Why did God create you?

For the same reason that any parent has a child... loneliness, boredom, because they can, because they really hate having money and free time to spare. Maybe in a vain attempt to salvage a relationship (which raises other questions).

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

It's possible to give many answers, most of them facetious or silly:

God created the universe as a 7th-grade science project. (What was the grade?)

God created the universe as an act of rebellion after someone told him not to.

God decided to build himself a toy.

God was lonely and wanted to create sentient beings who might in time evolve to be interesting companions.

It was unavoidably in the nature of God to create the universe.

Our universe is actually the beta-test model of the planned universe.

Our universe actually exists only as a dream within God's mind.

As I said, silly. We don't know the answer. As with some many other such questions: wait a short period of time and ask God in person.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I would say that God created us to have someone to love and provide for. The same reason I had my children.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

Because He is Love. And you can't love nothing.

Posted by Jonathan Strange (# 11001) on :

Because it was(n't) there.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Because He is Love. And you can't love nothing.

Any chance of expanding on this? I have no idea what it might mean to identify an apparently personal being as being equivalent to or interchangeable with an emotion/feeling/state of mind.

I also can't escape the thought that you're saying God didn't exist until He created something.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

I think the answer can partially be found in the reasons any human gives when they create something.

Which for me, over this weekend, includes but was not limited to:
1) I mixed up a batch of homebrew because it tastes good.
2) I painted a little watercolor because I was bored alone at home.
3) I started knitting a baby sweater because there's someone coming who I want to ensure is warm and knows she is loved.

There's also Julian of Norwich's answer to the question:

quote:
Also in this He shewed me a little thing, the quantity of an hazel-nut, in the palm of my hand; and it was as round as a ball. I looked thereupon with eye of my understanding, and thought: What may this be? And it was answered generally thus: It is all that is made. I marvelled how it might last, for methought it might suddenly have fallen to naught for little[ness]. And I was answered in my understanding: It lasteth, and ever shall [last] for that God loveth it. And so All-thing hath the Being by the love of God.

In this Little Thing I saw three properties. The first is that God made it, the second is that God loveth it, the third, that God keepeth it. But what is to me verily the Maker, the Keeper, and the Lover,—I cannot tell; for till I am Substantially oned27 to Him, I may never have full rest nor very bliss: that is to say, till I be so fastened to Him, that there is right nought that is made betwixt my God and me.

[ 16. April 2012, 16:36: Message edited by: Spiffy ]

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Why did God create the universe?

This is only an extension of the more basic question: why does God create. If by God we mean creator of the universe there's no good reason for saying other than it's simply God's nature to create.

Why this universe? It's just our of view of what God happens to be creating now.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Because He is Love. And you can't love nothing.
Any chance of expanding on this? I have no idea what it might mean to identify an apparently personal being as being equivalent to or interchangeable with an emotion/feeling/state of mind.

I also can't escape the thought that you're saying God didn't exist until He created something.

Hmm. Good point. The reason God must be trinitarian is that he couldn't love nothing - so then why did he need to create the Universe?

On the first point, I think I find it harder to think of God as a personal being. I'm not really sure what the first person of the trinity is (or what he does that the other two persons haven't got covered).

Hopefully someone can explain this to me...

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

I like your answer, Spiffy. I think Julian of Norwich had the best take on it.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Love the Julian of Norwich. Does it answer the question though?

Because God is Trinity, God does not have to create in order to express the love that God is. So creation is wholly gift. And God creates because God is self-giving love. Creation is a kenotic act, just as incarnation is. It's like Anselm's question 'Cur Deus Homo?' and Rahner's answer, 'Quia Deus.' Why did God become man? Because that's the kind of God He is.

[ 16. April 2012, 17:25: Message edited by: Amos ]

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

Eh, Julian's got bigger fish to fry. Like she says (translated from the Olde English to the Mary Sue Revised Standard Version), "Until I'm up kicking it with God, I won't be able to chill and be happy because I know everything: you know, until I'm so embraced by him, that really there's like nothing between my God and myself."

(Also, I tend to on first go always read "oned" not as one-ed, but like pwned, which both has a clearer correlation to people of my subculture and interesting theological implications.)

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Exactly, Spiffy. [Big Grin]

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

I believe God created the universe to be a dwelling place for the Logos. Why would God want to dwell in a universe? Well, I think it can't be need or loneliness, both of which imply something deficient in God; rather, I think it's the nature of love and joy to bubble over and want to be shared.

I think the movement of creation and salvation history is God loving the world/cosmos/universe out into existence and loving it back to Godself, but not as an implosion where all that exists ceases to exist or loses its distinctions. Rather, through creation and the Incarnation, God has opened space within God for more of the beautiful unity-in-diversity that already characterizes the Trinity.

It's just what love does.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong
Why did God create the universe?

Why do you think the universe was created? Not "for what reason was it created" just for what reason(s) do you think there was a concious, deliberate act or acts leading to a tangible result (the universe)?

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Because He is Love. And you can't love nothing.

Which means that god and the universe started simultaneously.
Otherwise
a) god did exist without our universe which means it either loved nothing (which you won't allow) or it loved a previous universe (which just moves the question back one universal generation), or
b) god didn't create the universe, or
c) god was created after the universe (in the image of man).

Posted by savedbyhim01 (# 17035) on :

We can not know because we are not God. I suspect it is similar to the reasons parents have children. Parents know their children aren't going to be perfect. They know that their children will make them sad sometimes. But they want someone to love and there will be a lot of joy as a result of these children.

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Why did God create you?

Because God is Love, and he wanted beings to love who might love him in return.

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :

There is nothing that suggests that God is just a bigger us and thinks like us, only more so. There's nothing to suggest that God operates on the same principles, cultural values and ideas as we do. Even we want to be a bit more literal than I like to be, it doesn't say "just like God", it says in God's image. The just like God line belongs to the serpent in the garden.

It is annoying (at least to me) but there is a mystery of things that means I can never 'get' what's going in with an eternal being who does absolutely ridiculous things (from my perspective). And is quite neglectful (from my perspective) to most of the people in the world who are suffering. But what on earth can I possibly know?

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Why does an artist create? Or a musician? If we can answer that question, it might be an indication of why God creates.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Because God is love and it is the essence of love to be creative

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I think that posts about love and creativity probably get to the heart of it.

But does anyone else out there have the feeling that I sometimes do- and it's not one I really feel very happy about naming- that given the complexities and difficulties and general sod-it-all-why's-it-all-such-a-grind-ness of existence (and I'm not even mentioning the real suffering because I've been fortunate enough not to experience that so far) it might all have been better if He hadn't bothered ?

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
But does anyone else out there have the feeling that I sometimes do- and it's not one I really feel very happy about naming- that given the complexities and difficulties and general sod-it-all-why's-it-all-such-a-grind-ness of existence (and I'm not even mentioning the real suffering because I've been fortunate enough not to experience that so far) it might all have been better if He hadn't bothered ?

I don't much like the thought, as it doesn't tick any of the boxes in our current culture of fairness for all, but it does seem rather likely that the wastage of humans is rather like the wastage of frogspawn or cod roe - for every 1 human that really achieves something amazing in life (musician, artist, inventor, great statesman) there are thousands who don't really do much, don't really get very far, and who take up a huge amount of resources, leading in many cases rather miserable little lives.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Because He is Love. And you can't love nothing.
Any chance of expanding on this?

As I was taught, it is indeed because God is love. The lesson continues that love has three qualities:

1. It requires something outside of itself to love.
2. It wishes to be joined freely and reciprocally with what it loves.
3. It wishes to make what it loves happy.

This explains everything.

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
I also can't escape the thought that you're saying God didn't exist until He created something.

That's assuming that the word "until" applies. There was no time before creation, and thus no "before."

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
But does anyone else out there have the feeling that I sometimes do-...it might all have been better if He hadn't bothered?

That would be the right conclusion if we believe that there is a good chance that the requirements of love will not be met. That is, no freely chosen reciprocal connection with God, and no happiness.

If we assume that the project will be successful, though, and that we have a world that is increasingly full of people who feel connected with their Creator and who are happy, then it does seem worthwhile.

Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I would say that God created us to have someone to love and provide for. The same reason I had my children.

I had my children because I already had someone to love and provide for, and she me. I cannot help but love my children because of the love from which they were created.

From these experiences of love we learn something of the love of God.

As for why God created the muliverse? I don't know. I just thank him that he did.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

I've always been quite a fan of voluntarism. Simply (and slightly flippantly) put, this says that the answer to all those "why did God" questions is "because He felt like it" [Big Grin]

.

Why did God create the universe? Felt like it.
Why did God create people? Felt like it.
Why did God redeem people? Felt like it.

The problematic bit of this is that it makes all of God's actions arbitrary. But this isn't such a problem if (and only if) God is entirely good and benevolent.

Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :

Just before the universe came to existence there was energy. Energy has to be expressed or it isn't energy. There result of energy's expression was the universe in one five hundred millionth of a second.

No "reason", just physics.

[ 17. April 2012, 13:30: Message edited by: IconiumBound ]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

I'm loving these answers. Thank you.

Let's take it to the next level:

If you believe God created the world/universe/you because of or out of or for "x,y,z", what are the implications for how you live your life?

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

So when we die we can go and tell Him the Stories of our lifes. What a gift, who would have imagined?

P

Posted by Niminypiminy (# 15489) on :

That reminds me of a cartoon I once saw which had a beggar standing by a notice that said 'for 10p I'll look at your holiday photos'.

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :

I am the universe, the Universe is me, I am an expression of God, God "is" through me.

Read the Upanishads, dears, and get off this linear cause-and-effect nonsense that muddles our insight when we consider God.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Since the universe does exist, and so do we, does it matter why?

I'm not just being facetious. If either the question or the answer mattered, wouldn't God be a bit more explicit about it? Isn't enough just to accept that the universe does exist and be thankful.

O all ye works of the Lord, bless ye the Lord: praise him and magnify him forever.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Since the universe does exist, and so do we, does it matter why?

I'm not just being facetious. If either the question or the answer mattered, wouldn't God be a bit more explicit about it? Isn't enough just to accept that the universe does exist and be thankful.

O all ye works of the Lord, bless ye the Lord: praise him and magnify him forever.

By the same token - if that god thought it mattered whether we believed he existed wouldn't he be a bit more explicit about that?

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Current theories of the physical creation of the universe and life on Earth might have an impact on the "why" question.

Think about it. The Universe is currently calculated to be 1%: 13.7 ± 0.13 billion years old. Our solar system is about 4.5 billion years old. Some form of human has been around for a couple of million years. Before us, there were trilobites, but I understand they were not much for long conversations.

I get it that God is not locked into our time horizon. Still, 13.7 billion years is a bit long for most folks patience to have a family.

Read Genesis and you see that there wasn't much around. Variations on the big bang theory say there weren't many shopping malls around, for instance.

A facile answer might be that God was bored.

I think a better answer might be different. I remember a sermon from Pyx_e in the CoF. He was talking about when the woman touched the robe of Jesus. Even though Jesus was not in the mood, Jesus was compelled to turn and bless the woman. Jesus was compelled because that reaching out was the core nature of Jesus.

The Big Bang occurred because the nature of the original singularity was that it had to expand into the Universe.

Creation came from God because the nature of God is that God had to create the Universe.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Since the universe does exist, and so do we, does it matter why?

I'm not just being facetious. If either the question or the answer mattered, wouldn't God be a bit more explicit about it? Isn't enough just to accept that the universe does exist and be thankful.

O all ye works of the Lord, bless ye the Lord: praise him and magnify him forever.
By the same token - if that god thought it mattered whether we believed he existed wouldn't he be a bit more explicit about that?

There are serious drawbacks to being explicit.

At the same time, an answer to the "why" question is pre-requisite to an adequate explanation of most things. Removing the idea of purpose from the formula of existence means that it is not understood.

There is nothing wrong with admitting that we don't understand, but I think that there is something wrong with insisting that an adequate explanation is impossible.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:

As I said, silly. We don't know the answer. As with some many other such questions: wait a short period of time and ask God in person.

I've been much struck by this.

I tried it last night (asked God).

Then flipped out cos I realised I may not like the answer! So didn't really want to know.

I suck. [Big Grin]

And God knows that so God is merciful and gracious. [Big Grin]

As for God needing us to love......a very human construct. A very anthropomorphic answer.

Possible. But doesn't really fit was the Greek images of God so much of our scriptures are infused with.

Jewish one perhaps? More likely. The Jewish God is much more anthropomorphic.

She changes her mind all the time. Seems to feel sorrow etc.

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I think that posts about love and creativity probably get to the heart of it.

But does anyone else out there have the feeling that I sometimes do- and it's not one I really feel very happy about naming- that given the complexities and difficulties and general sod-it-all-why's-it-all-such-a-grind-ness of existence (and I'm not even mentioning the real suffering because I've been fortunate enough not to experience that so far) it might all have been better if He hadn't bothered ?

A good point.

And I've realised this question of why usually comes up with me when I'm struggling with questions of the nature of humankind.

Why we suck so much. Why we fight so much. Why we victimize the "other" so much. Why we are so violent.

"Atonement" (which others are arguing so violently about on the other thread) seems to be a complete illusion.

How are we really reconciled with God now if we still suck so much?

Puts all atonement theories to shame.

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I'm loving these answers. Thank you.

Let's take it to the next level:

If you believe God created the world/universe/you because of or out of or for "x,y,z", what are the implications for how you live your life?

Well I would agree that God in Trinity has a completely fulfilled expression of a loving relationship. In the act of creation he invites us to join him in that relationship. In making sense of what life is all about, and how to live it, then what else can we sensibly do but accept the invitation?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I tried it last night (asked God).

Then flipped out cos I realised I may not like the answer! So didn't really want to know.

Thank you Evensong. I found that inspiringly profound.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Why did God create the universe?

Don't know, that's what God does I guess.

quote:

Why did God create you?

He wanted to give my mother the best present in the world: Me as a son.
[Razz]

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
By the same token - if that god thought it mattered whether we believed he existed wouldn't he be a bit more explicit about that?

Originally posted by Freddy
There are serious drawbacks to being explicit.

At the same time, an answer to the "why" question is pre-requisite to an adequate explanation of most things. Removing the idea of purpose from the formula of existence means that it is not understood.

There is nothing wrong with admitting that we don't understand, but I think that there is something wrong with insisting that an adequate explanation is impossible.

There are serious drawbacks to being explicit Drawbacks such as “I’ve a message for the lady called Effie, who is wearing green knickers and sitting in the front row, who has three cats, a mole on her left thigh and a never declared passion for strawberry jelly smeared with Marmite. It’s from her dead great, great uncle's third cousin (twice removed) Potiphar who says "put the house on Purple Porpoise to win the 4:30 at Wincanton tomorrow” might permit? Being explicit helps to remove doubt, focus the pursuit of truth and test hypotheses. Why should a loving/caring/perfect god object to that?

I’m not sure I comprehend Removing the idea of purpose from the formula of existence means that it is not understood. You seem to think that existence should/can be understood – why?

There is nothing wrong with admitting that we don't understand, but I think that there is something wrong with insisting that an adequate explanation is impossible. Totally agree – but we have to be careful that the desire for an explanation doesn’t mean that we over-value a hypothesis.

Generally - the “god is love” idea is jolly wonderful – until it disintegrates on the buffers of reality (arthritis/dementia/osteoporosis/motor neurone/earthquakes/tsunamis/Aberfan/Wolbachia pipientis/parasitic wasps etc. create your own list).
ISTM that, were there a god who loves us, either we misunderstand the concept of love, god misunderstands the concept of love or god is powerless to affect the universe he’s alleged to have created – in which cases what good is god to us (or, indeed, are we to him)?

What am I missing?

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
What am I missing?

It's not really that hard to learn how to use the quote thingies.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
You seem to think that existence should/can be understood – why?

Because an understanding of life, especially a shared sense of purpose, enhances human well being. By contrast, the lack of understanding, and especially the lack of a sense of purpose, detracts from it.

As to whether it can be understood, that is a matter of opinion. There are thousands of models and theories to choose from. It's not a hard question, in my opinion.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Being explicit helps to remove doubt, focus the pursuit of truth and test hypotheses. Why should a loving/caring/perfect god object to that?

Actually this is what I love about Swedenborgianism. It is explicit, detailed, and fully explanatory. But it may or may not be true.

If by explicit you mean demonstrable, though, that is different. A God who was manifestly present would pretty much wreck your life.

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
There is nothing wrong with admitting that we don't understand, but I think that there is something wrong with insisting that an adequate explanation is impossible. Totally agree – but we have to be careful that the desire for an explanation doesn’t mean that we over-value a hypothesis.

Sure.

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Generally - the “god is love” idea is jolly wonderful – until it disintegrates on the buffers of reality (arthritis/dementia/osteoporosis/motor neurone/earthquakes/tsunamis/Aberfan/Wolbachia pipientis/parasitic wasps etc. create your own list).
ISTM that, were there a god who loves us, either we misunderstand the concept of love, god misunderstands the concept of love or god is powerless to affect the universe he’s alleged to have created – in which cases what good is god to us (or, indeed, are we to him)?

I don't understand why people's thoughts go in that direction. Would we really prefer a world where earthquakes were impossible? Would we really prefer a world where bad intentions simply couldn't happen?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Evensong: Why did God create you?

Because He has a really weird sense of humour.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Why did God create the universe?

Why not?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Huia:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Why did God create the universe?

Why not?

I was waiting for that one!

[Big Grin]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Would we really prefer a world where earthquakes were impossible? Would we really prefer a world where bad intentions simply couldn't happen?

Yes.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Would we really prefer a world where earthquakes were impossible? Would we really prefer a world where bad intentions simply couldn't happen?
Yes.

Sure. Seems easy enough.

I would bet, though, that people would answer differently if they understood the implications.

Would you leave the other laws of physics intact? Would you allow people's intentions to vary at all? Could you eliminate earthquakes and still be able to farm or mine for useful minerals?

I guess we could say that a smarter or kinder God would have created a system in which heavy things couldn't fall on us, sharp things couldn't cut us, and good tasting things couldn't make us fat, but which was nevertheless a stable and consistent environment. And that He would allow us to do as we wish, except that this wouldn't include anything in any way varying from His own wishes.

Imagining a system in which negative things simply do not exist is an interesting thought experiment. Could the Ship of Fools function in a world like this? When you realize all the things that would have to change to make suffering impossible it presents quite a challenge.

On the other hand, imagining a world in which the human population freely chose beneficial things over harmful ones overcomes the drawbacks of a world that was simply created that way. Or so I believe.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I guess we could say that a smarter or kinder God would have created a system in which heavy things couldn't fall on us, sharp things couldn't cut us, and good tasting things couldn't make us fat, but which was nevertheless a stable and consistent environment.

Yep.

quote:
And that He would allow us to do as we wish, except that this wouldn't include anything in any way varying from His own wishes.

We wouldn't be able to do as we wish. But as we wouldn't have been created with the desire to do so that wouldn't be a problem.

quote:
Could the Ship of Fools function in a world like this?

We would all be happy all the time, so there would be no need for unrest. No need for unrest = no need for the Ship of Fools.

quote:
On the other hand, imagining a world in which the human population freely chose beneficial things over harmful ones overcomes the drawbacks of a world that was simply created that way. Or so I believe.

That's just as much a thought experiment as imagining a world where everything was perfect because free will didn't exist. Except it's one that's less likely to ever become true.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I guess we could say that a smarter or kinder God would have created a system in which heavy things couldn't fall on us, sharp things couldn't cut us, and good tasting things couldn't make us fat, but which was nevertheless a stable and consistent environment.
Yep.

Darn. It is so frustrating to have a God that messed up so badly! [Disappointed]

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
And that He would allow us to do as we wish, except that this wouldn't include anything in any way varying from His own wishes.
We wouldn't be able to do as we wish. But as we wouldn't have been created with the desire to do so that wouldn't be a problem.

This would fail to satisfy the requirement of love that I listed above. Love requires an object that can freely return that love. Would you really sacrifice autonomy for perfection?

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Could the Ship of Fools function in a world like this?
We would all be happy all the time, so there would be no need for unrest. No need for unrest = no need for the Ship of Fools.

You are right. I guess that would be fine.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
On the other hand, imagining a world in which the human population freely chose beneficial things over harmful ones overcomes the drawbacks of a world that was simply created that way. Or so I believe.
That's just as much a thought experiment as imagining a world where everything was perfect because free will didn't exist. Except it's one that's less likely to ever become true.

It's more likely to be true since the other one has already not happened.

I am confident that it is certain to be true, sooner or later. Then it will last that way for a long time - dwarfing this brief period in human history when people were ignorant and confused.

All that is happening now is that the human race is growing up, and there is bound to be a snag or two. I expect that civilization will continue for several hundred thousand years after this, perhaps millions of years, and that is plenty of time for things to improve within a free system.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I don't understand why people's thoughts go in that direction. Would we really prefer a world where earthquakes were impossible?

I'm not sure I really understand the pro-suffering position. To paraphrase the question, would we really prefer a world where smallpox has been eradicated? Most non-sociopaths would answer this question with an emphatic "YES!" Maybe I'm just not getting why you think this sort of thing is a net negative.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

If God had created a perfect world, what would he have saved for inclusion in heaven?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Darn. It is so frustrating to have a God that messed up so badly!

You get me [Smile]

quote:
Would you really sacrifice autonomy for perfection?

If I had perfection, I wouldn't need autonomy.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
If God had created a perfect world, what would he have saved for inclusion in heaven?

It would be heaven.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
If God had created a perfect world, what would he have saved for inclusion in heaven?
It would be heaven.

It's hard to reconcile God creating a perfect heaven with the position of Freddy et al, who maintain that such perfection is beyond God's capabilities to create, as evidenced by our less than perfect world.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Would you really sacrifice autonomy for perfection?
If I had perfection, I wouldn't need autonomy.

I would - I can't stand being told what to do, even if it's good for me.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure I really understand the pro-suffering position. To paraphrase the question, would we really prefer a world where smallpox has been eradicated? Most non-sociopaths would answer this question with an emphatic "YES!" Maybe I'm just not getting why you think this sort of thing is a net negative.

It's not a pro-suffering position. It's a pro-choice position. It is also a pro-stable-environment-organized-around-fixed-natural-laws position.

I'm all about eradicating small-pox and every other disease, social as well as physical. But we need to choose to do it.

You can't have free choice or autonomy without allowing for less-than-desirable possibilities.

You can't have gravity without allowing for the possibility that things will fall.

Of course if God were just a little smarter or nicer He might have figured out a way to get around those two issues. [Biased]

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :

Can we have a world without Ichneumon wasps?, about which Charles Darwin wrote:

quote:
There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars....

Does God enjoy this? or the fact that one lion will be suffocating a gazelle while the rest of the troop starts eating the gazelle's intestines and organs while she's alive?

We obviously have to move away from God being involving intimately in the specifics of the running of the universe to maintain a view that God is at all loving.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It's not a pro-suffering position. It's a pro-choice position. It is also a pro-stable-environment-organized-around-fixed-natural-laws position.

I'm all about eradicating small-pox and every other disease, social as well as physical. But we need to choose to do it.

You can't have free choice or autonomy without allowing for less-than-desirable possibilities.

Given this assumption, maybe we should fault God for not creating a lot more and a lot deadlier diseases. That way we'd have even more choices! And doesn't the smallpox eradication program rob future generations of their choice about whether to die horribly from this disease?

Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I'm all about eradicating small-pox and every other disease, social as well as physical.
But we need to choose to do it.

I am sure my father would have preferred not to have Dementia given the choice.
But that is NOT how it works.
Humanity has been subject to many infectious diseases for at lest 100,000 years for "modern" Humans and millions of years for our ancestors.
During all of that time humans did NOT choose not to eliminate disease. We just did not know how.
We have gotten a bit better at this recently.
Would a few words on preventing infectious diseases in the bible have been a bad thing? How many people would that have saved?
Or something against slavery or in favor of women's rights?
The issue is a bit bigger than "free will". And I agree with those that would rather live in a perfect world instead of this one.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
We obviously have to move away from God being involving intimately in the specifics of the running of the universe to maintain a view that God is at all loving.

I think the shift needs to be in understanding that the world operates according to a vast network of interconnected laws that provide for a stable, consistent and predictable environment. This doesn't mean that God isn't intimately involved in the specifics, only that God's priority is long-term benefits rather than short-term ones.

Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :

What is the long term benefit of Dementia?

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
What is the long term benefit of Dementia?

Same as for any disease. A stable environment running according to consistent laws.

I'm not saying that they cannot or should not be eradicated. But they need to be eradicated by understanding and working according to the universal laws that define our world.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
What is the long term benefit of Dementia?

To allow us to confront, accept and deal with it in a loved one.
To find them a good "facility" which will cater to their needs and keep them (and others) safe.
To find a new relationship with them so that we are still giving to them and they are receiving inasmuch as they can mentally process (which might be zero) but we must continue offer of ourselves in hope and love (and respect in the case of parents)

And to encourage (by weight of numbers) society as a whole to cope and build facilities and do research. And to look at what is life, quality of life, end of life care. Then from that to develope appropriate policies, put aside budgets, etc

Dementia is not about the demented - it is about us and what we do (individually and as a society)

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

None of these questions and answers work for me. I don't think God creates in that way (oh let's see what nasty bacteria we can invent ...) Bacteria etc are necessary, some are good for us and our purposes, some are not.

In my view, God allows freedom, and doesn't intervene. So s/he created the right conditions for life to come about, change and evolve.

Creative - not controlling.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Same as for any disease. A stable environment running according to consistent laws.

I'm not saying that they cannot or should not be eradicated.

Wait, if horrible diseases are necessary for "[a] stable environment running according to consistent laws", doesn't eradicating these diseases undermine the structure of reality? Why would you think that the underlying structure of reality can or should be undermined?

Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :

Galilit I understand your answer as being the sensible approach to take in this case. I'm trying to do my best to cope, along similar lines.
I just can't reconcile Dementia with an Interventionist Just God. I can't see any member of my family benefiting from this. At best we won't make things worse.
As an example, my 8 year old daughter will never really meet the wonderful man her grandfather used to be. She spends a lot of time with and loves the version of him we have now. And I am grateful for that much. But he is not the same person he was, and this will only get worse.

The Non Interventionist non personal God Boogie
refers to would work as a possibility in that case but that is not the God of the bible.
Also I don't see how a God like that makes any difference to us.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Wait, if horrible diseases are necessary for "[a] stable environment running according to consistent laws", doesn't eradicating these diseases undermine the structure of reality? Why would you think that the underlying structure of reality can or should be undermined?

I'm not saying that horrible diseases are necessary for a stable universe. I'm saying that the universe must operate according to consistent laws.

Things happen that create diseases, and things happen that eradicate them. The diseases themselves aren't necessary, but the laws and processes that govern them are. The reason is because these laws and processes govern not just diseases but other things as well. It is like gravity - gravity can be an enormous problem, but a world without gravity would be an even bigger one.

So diseases can, and should be eradicated. But they should be eradicated within the framework of the laws that enable them to exist in the first place - because these same laws enable everything else to exist as well.

I'm not saying that diseases are good or desirable. They are horrible, heartbreaking, and unfair. But God doesn't permit them because He is heartless or impotent to prevent them. He permits them because the greatest good is served by governing the physical universe through consistent physical laws and processes.

Happily, though, as I understand it the spiritual universe operates by an entirely different set of laws.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Galilit I understand your answer as being the sensible approach to take in this case. I'm trying to do my best to cope, along similar lines.
.... I can't see any member of my family benefiting from this. At best we won't make things worse.

As an example, my 8 year old daughter will never really meet the wonderful man her grandfather used to be. She spends a lot of time with and loves the version of him we have now. And I am grateful for that much. But he is not the same person he was, and this will only get worse.

Oh but we have all benefited by having to go through the initial worrying, the diagnosis, the search for a facility, the ongoing attempt to relate to someone who doesn't recognise her own daughter. (And in my case travelling to the other side of the world leaving my own family to do all that).

It is a chance to really Do The Loving Thing. To struggle mightily to do it surely... but to do it (can you tell I'm a Process Person?!)

And we actually don't get many of those chances.
Your daughter will be seeing that and internalising it.

[Slightly Nasty aside, which I say to my children (who admittedly are older): "You'll have to do this for me one day. Watch and learn!"]

This is a getting a bit tangential - you can PM me if you like

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
Oh but we have all benefited by having to go through the initial worrying, the diagnosis, the search for a facility, the ongoing attempt to relate to someone who doesn't recognise her own daughter...

I can't deny that those are benefits, but they aren't benefits that most of us would choose. They are rather examples of the good that can come out of bad situations.

In major tragedies it is often heartwarming to see how people pull together and help, and this is a very good thing. But it doesn't justify the tragedy. It would still be far better if the thing hadn't happened.

The point is that God doesn't cause tragedies to bring out kindness and caring behavior in people. Instead He permits tragedies because the benefits of a world that operates according to fixed laws outweighs the benefits of preventing all pain. And then He works with each individual tragedy to bring unexpected benefits like the ones you mention.

Just to get back to the OP, the "why" of it all has to do with the free development of love in all people, and its progressive increase over time. If God is love and one of its goals is that His love is freely returned to Him, then the things that we see as profoundly unhappy and tragic do not necessarily detract from the long term well-being of either individuals or society in general.

This is especially true if we believe in an afterlife.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

The point is that God doesn't cause tragedies to bring out kindness and caring behavior in people. Instead He permits tragedies because the benefits of a world that operates according to fixed laws outweighs the benefits of preventing all pain. And then He works with each individual tragedy to bring unexpected benefits like the ones you mention.

I'm completely with you on that.

I think because the demented parent was something I connected to I answered ikkyu rather than the OP; to which I was originally going to post the Julian "hazelnut" quote but the international clock meant Spiffy beat me to it...

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

The point is that God doesn't cause tragedies to bring out kindness and caring behavior in people. Instead He permits tragedies because the benefits of a world that operates according to fixed laws outweighs the benefits of preventing all pain. And then He works with each individual tragedy to bring unexpected benefits like the ones you mention.

This

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0