Why did God create?

[robo]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

And you deep understanding of preternatural agency comes from where?

I already made my case in the OP.

But am always eager to learn from those more learned than me...If only they answered questions with answers.

[james2ko]

Originally Posted by robo

Greetings folks:

Was your God ever happy just by herself without any universe or souls or pain or evil or pleasure or Hitler or earthquakes, etc. etc. to worry about?

If yes, why did she not just remain quiet by herself, all blissful, with no unsatisfied need?

Why did she have to engage in creation? Looks like your God is a lonely God who wants company, yes? Why worship an insecure God that cannot just be by herself?

I see the glass half full. Perhaps God was happy and secure by himself but felt compelled to share the gift of life with billions of others.

[robo]

Originally Posted by james2ko

I see the glass half full. Perhaps God was happy and secure by himself but felt compelled to share the gift of life with billions of others.

Except that there are millions whom he created without any food.

Spoiler for Warning: Graphic Image:

What a strange way for God to share the gift. Was this the best your God could do?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by robo

I already made my case in the OP.

Here?

Originally Posted by robo

Was your God ever happy just by herself without any universe or souls or pain or evil or pleasure or Hitler or earthquakes, etc. etc. to worry about?

If yes, why did she not just remain quiet by herself, all blissful, with no unsatisfied need?

Why did she have to engage in creation? Looks like your God is a lonely God who wants company, yes? Why worship an insecure God that cannot just be by herself?

Originally Posted by robo

But am always eager to learn from those more learned than me ...

This kind of disingenuous drivel does little to secure you image as "a student of philosophy of religion".

Originally Posted by robo

... if only they answered questions with answers.

If only the questions were less adolescent. Nevertheless, you have a point ...

Originally Posted by robo

Was your God ever happy just by herself ...

If there is preternatural agency, I expect the references to it being happy, sad, angry, or contemptuous of childish rhetorical questions is little more than anthropopathic projection.

Originally Posted by robo

If yes, ...

See above.

Originally Posted by robo

..., why did she not just remain quiet ...

So the options were creation and remaining quiet? Who made up that rule?

Originally Posted by robo

... by herself, ...

I assume that this anthropomorphism was intended as a display of sophistication. It didn't work.

Originally Posted by robo

..., all blissful, ...

Obviously 'blissful' also falls under the category of anthropopathic projection. It's good to see you're consistent.

Originally Posted by robo

..., with no unsatisfied need?

The assertion that all action is driven by unsatisfied need is interesting, and it might be fun to discover what unsatisfied need drove you to create the OP. But tell me, on what grounds do you, as "a student of philosophy of religion", extend this 'rule' to the preternatural?

Originally Posted by robo

Why did she have to engage in creation?

Have to? Based on what.

Originally Posted by robo

Looks like your God is a lonely God who wants company, yes?

On the contrary, it looks like a pretty childish attempt to denigrate theism predicated upon equally childish assumptions.

Originally Posted by robo

Why worship an insecure God that cannot just be by herself?

Leading questions such as this are best characterized by the maxime: garbage in, garbage out." But, since you request that we "answer questions with answers", my answer would be: "I can think of no reason to worship any god so ignorantly and disingenuously defined."

"As a student of philosophy of religion", you'd better pray that they grade on a curve.

[robo]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

"I can think of no reason to worship any god so ignorantly and disingenuously defined."

Phew...I had to search through so much to get to your answer.

Now, please define God knowledgeably and honestly. Did she create or didnt she? The two options are indeed collectively exhaustive and mutually exclusive.

[james2ko]

Originally Posted by robo

Except that there are millions whom he created without any food.



What a strange way for God to share the gift. Was this the best your God could do?

As I read the first few chapters of the book of Genesis, there's no indication God created that, mankind did. Mankind chose to do things his way instead of God's way and are reaping the consequences.

[robo]

Originally Posted by james2ko

As I read the first few chapters of the book of Genesis, there's no indication God created that, mankind did. Mankind chose to do things his way instead of God's way and are reaping the consequences.

Was there a point in time when only your God was without the universe?

[Jainarayan]

Originally Posted by robo

Greetings folks:

Was your God ever happy just by herself without any universe or souls or pain or evil or pleasure or Hitler or earthquakes, etc. etc. to worry about?

If yes, why did she not just remain quiet by herself, all blissful, with no unsatisfied need?

Why did she have to engage in creation? Looks like your God is a lonely God who wants company, yes? Why worship an insecure God that cannot just be by herself?

According to Adi Shankara, a great Hindu philosopher and founder of the Advaita school of philosophy, creation is the recreation and play of God (Ishvara).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita...ta#.C4.AAsvara

Īsvara ...

Now the question arises as to why the Ishvara created the world. If one assumes that Ishvara creates the world for any incentive, this slanders the wholeness and perfection of Ishvara. For example, if one assumes that Ishvara creates the world for gaining something, it would be against His perfection. If we assume that He creates for compassion, it would be illogical, because the emotion of compassion cannot arise in a blank and void world in the beginning (when only Ishvara existed). So Adi Shankara assumes that Creation is recreation or play of Ishvara. It is His nature, just as it is man's nature to breathe.


The sole proof for Ishvara that Adi Shankara gives is Shruti's mentions of Ishvara, as Ishvara is beyond logic and thinking. This is similar to Kant's philosophy about Ishvara in which he says that "faith" is the basis of theism. However, Adi Shankara has also given few other logical proofs for Ishvara, but warning us not to completely rely on them:

• The world is a work, an effect, and so must have real cause. This cause must be Ishvara.
• The world has a wonderful unity, coordination and order, so its creator must have been an intelligent being.
• People do good and sinful work and get its fruits, either in this life or after. People themselves cannot be the giver of their fruits, as no one would give himself the fruit of his sin. Also, this giver cannot be an unconscious object. So the giver of the fruits of Karma is Ishvara. See, Karma in Hinduism for more information.

[BruceDLimber]

Originally Posted by robo

Why did [God] have to engage in creation?

From the Baha'i scriptures:

“O SON OF MAN!
“Veiled in My immemorial being and in the ancient eternity of My essence, I knew My love for thee; therefore I created thee, have engraved on thee Mine image, and revealed to thee My beauty. “
―The Hidden Words, Part One, #4


Best! :-)

Bruce

[robo]

Originally Posted by TouchedbytheLord

According to Adi Shankara, a great Hindu philosopher and founder of the Advaita school of philosophy, creation is the recreation and play of God (Ishvara).

Perhaps I can ask you the same question I asked Madhuri. It appears that the Hindu God is not a creator God.

Can your God grant instant salvation for all? Why delay things? Just let us reach the end-state pronto.