There are only two reasons anyone ever does anything: because they have to, or because they want to.
That means that God either wanted to create humans, or had to create humans. We must be the result either of God’s desire, or of God’s need.
I’m voting it’s God’s desire. Because how could God have needs? He’s full unto himself. Safe to say, God, being absolute, is absolutely satisfied. God doesn’t have needs.
That means we’re the result of a desire God had. He chose to create us.
But why would God make that choice? What’s in it for him? What desire of God’s are we satisfying just by being alive?
Oh, sure, he gets 10% of our money. But c’mon. It’s not like God’s up there sitting at his kitchen table clipping coupons. I’m sure he has someone do that for him. (Okay, on a side note: Can you imagine being an angel, trying to buy a gift for God? Talk about the guy who has everything.)
It’s hard to think of why a perfect, perfectly fulfilled being would want to create humans. What would motivate God to go, “You know what I feel like doing? Creating a race of beings who walk upright, are consciously aware of themselves as separate from their surroundings, and who sense but cannot objectively varify my existence. The monkeys have been fun, but these’ll be even better. Upright, less hairy, infinitely smarter monkeys! Sweet!”?
So here we are.
But why?
What’s in it for God?
![John Shore on The Huffington Post](http://johnshore.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/huffpost.jpg?w=120 "John Shore on The Huffington Post\")
{ 50 comments… read them below or add one }
« 1 2
We are asking about God's motivation here. It seems to me that motivation is an aspect of the human mind (and the minds of animals with sufficiently complex nervous systems) that serves a biological function. So any talk of motivation (in any sense meaningful to man) becomes quite meaningless (and perhaps even a bit demeaning) in discussing God. God's will simply *is*—no if's, when's, why's, or wherefore's. Not for us at least.
To such questions I think the apostle Paul would answer something along the lines of Romans 9:20 "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'"
The Biblical references others gave above, they appear to be using in an attempt to construct a somewhat contrived and–it seems to me–mistaken argument:
All things are for God and made by Him for His own pleasure: thus humans exist for God's pleasure. (Fair enough–it's in the Bible.) So in what way would it please God to make man, I understand John's question to ask. The argument seems to go: God made all things that have been made because they would increase His pleasure (wherein they err in assuming that it ever could have been anything less than the fully perfected), for whatsoever did not, that God would not have made since He made all things for his pleasure (which is, it seems to me, a bit of circular reasoning). Ergo God created humans for to bring him pleasure.
I think I should add to the last line: e.g., by loving Him, worshipping Him, and so on.
Yeah Kj, I have read the entire bible because I used to be a Christian. I was brought up that way and I believed it with all my heart, and god was my best friend. Funnily enough, I did change after that. How? Rational thought.
Your idea that someone should go away and read a few books and come back and have their life changed is so insulting and condescending I wouldn't have even said that to someone when I was a christian! You win people over with facts, not rhetoric.
As for the assertion that god is human, I must protest: humans are not supposed to be perfect immortal transcendent beings that predate time and created the entire universe. You want your cake and eat it. God is human, but also not. God is human and imperfect, but also perfect. He cannot die yet died. He cannot value and yet values. He punishes for non-existent crimes that people didn't commit. The concept is a contradiction. The only way to explain it with a contradiction. This fact is so startling I can only think you can't see the woods for the trees.
Did you know that there's a word for apparent contradictions that are in reality true? The word is "miracle". Now, God may be the source of some pretty big miracles, but it's not like a Big Bang is anything less than miraclulous, any less in contradiction with our most fundamental laws, such as how net energy increase (or decrease, for that matter) is impossible in a closed system (assuming the universe is one–if it's not, then what's *outside* the universe? Well, whatever it might be, it would have to be some kind of transcendant entity, some kind of god). Yeah, it would be awesome if we could power cars without paying for energy at the gas pump (or off the electric grid or someplace else), but that's as impossible as a god who died, and even more so since it's actually a real law of the universe.
And is the nature of such laws, and the laws you (sometimes erroneously) employ in your logic, any less than divine? They even fit your own definitions of gods, it seems. They don't have any wants; they don't create; they aren't human; they never die; they contain no flaws; they don't punish. So if you're truly an atheist instead of a polytheist, then you aren't being completely honest with yourself about your concept of god. Perhaps you never really cared to, but simply dismissed religion because you had been hurt by it, perhaps being horribly misled and/or misinformed by it and even *about* it. If so, *that* spirit was not of Christ. (It is a major concern of mine that an antichrist-ian spirit seems so powerful in churches today. It forces people with sound minds and good heats to leave the church, making it easier for his malevolence to consolidate power within the church.)
I've never written in, but your discussion has kept me up for the past 30 minutes…. and in response to Evanescent #41… God is perfect and he IS HUMAN. He sent His son Jesus Christ into the world. He has experienced every emotion, every pain, every joy and was perfectly sinless. And he took your sins on himself and died for you. That is perfect love. Have you ever read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? After you've done that, come back. You'll be changed.
Wow, Jono, if you’re going to try and shoot someone down for not being logical, at least try and get it right yourself. LOL.
Contradictions don’t exist in reality, so if the concept of god is a contradiction, it cannot exist in reality. And if you think differently, maybe you should “toddle home” and learn some logic.
Nice way to avoid everything else I said though!
Oh and I happen to be an atheist because I don’t believe in the same sky fairy that you seem to believe in, but *yawn* on the “faith” comment; hey if it helps you sleep at night to believe that those who don’t share your fantasies are just as irrational as you then fine, but when you say this stuff on the internet it makes you look silly.
No, Jono is right. It only proves is that *your* chosen concept paradigm is flawed, and not that the concept of God has no relation to any "real" being. Indeed you claimed to show not that *God* doesn't exist, but that this "concept of God" doesn't exist. You didn't need to go about proving that; we sort of figured that you have no real concept of God—I mean, considering that you *are* atheist and all.
evanescent,
Not to put too fine a point on it – or be deliberately rude – but if you're going to try to use logic in your arguments you might want to toddle home and learn it first.
"The concept of god is a contradiction, and that is why it disproves his existence."
That is a ludicrously illogical and unwarranted statement. The only thing that the contradiction comes close to disproving is the framework for the understanding of a god and his possible motives.
If, as an atheist, you are going to proselytize your faith, learn its tenets first please. LOL
Cheryl, you are the one who is guilty of personification; it is, after all, you and your fellow believers who are comparing god to a human in the first place by describing a being that has needs, wants, and desires.
It is YOU who believes that god has values, whereas I have shown this is a contradiction. Now, humans can love, and find pleasure, and happiness, etc in fellow beings and children, because they can ENRICH our lives and can MAKE OUR LIVES BETTER. However, by definition, God is perfect; nothing can possibly harm him or make him worse, and nothing can possibly make him better or improve him. It is this that seems to be lost on you; because there is absolutely nothing that can affect god, (for good or bad), he has absolutely NO choice to make that can effect him. But since a value is that which one acts to keep and/or gain, and god doesn't need or want to keep or gain anything, he cannot value anything. The concept of love is meaningless with god.
All your arguments about god wanting to create people out of love etc are exactly what you've just accused me of doing: personification. You want your god to be perfect and untouchable, yet also human and have human emotions at the same time. You want your god to be flawless and unchangeable, but also have weaknesses and able to be changed by human existence/actions. It is a contradiction. The concept of god is a contradiction, and that is why it disproves his existence.
Evanescent, you replied to mhogue’s analogy that God creating humans is like a person having a child. Mhogue, it’s a beautiful, heartwarming thought, though ultimately it’s flawed as a response to this question because an analogy is never proof. It is a similar set of circumstances, not an exact set of circumstances. And because (pardon the turn of phrase) God is in the details, it will never serve to answer or fully illustrate a proposition other than its own.
But Evanescence, comparing a human’s biological drive to procreate to God's lack of need to procreate does not, by proof through contradiction, disprove the existence of God. In fact, it’s nothing more than personification … a flawed argument for proving mhogue’s proposition that God created humans in order to love and value them. It’s not a verification of your theory, it’s simply a failure to prove his.
mhogue, scroll up and read my post, comment number 18.
Humans want to have children because we have an emotional and biological need for them that evolution has selected for. Humans NEED to procreate.
God doesn't NEED to procreate; he has no fundamental choices to make since there is absolutely nothing that can improve him or denigrate him. God therefore cannot make any choice regarding anything that affects him, since nothing can affect him. Therefore, "value" is a meaningless term for god; he can value nothing.
Like the other concepts associated with god, it reduces to contradiction (you have to treat god as a god but also treat him like a human), this is because the concept of god itself is a contradiction. Contradictions don't exist in reality, therefore god doesn't exist. So the question of why he would create anything is resolved: he didn't.
If you had the knowledge and ability to "invent" something so brilliant, so intelligent as a human being, WHY NOT? I think anyone who ever invented something is pretty proud of their accomplishment. But humans are the most complex entity in the whole universe. Besides the fact that we have an intricate physical, mental, and emotional makeup which sets us apart each and every human being around us, we also have a soul which is unique to our species, with the capability of thinking and knowing and feeling and all that at the same time!
Why not create humans? It's like bearing a child, they're part of yourself, you watch them grow up and become like you, with some of the same characteristics and emotions and abilities…but not exactly like you of course. They'll make mistakes but you'll be there to help them and give them the knowledge that you have so they can have it to…
I don't know…if I created the human being I could pretty much spend the rest of eternity enjoying them and watching them discover me and discover how to enjoy me and communicate that to others. And we would have a relationship so different from any other relationship that I had, and then someday they would leave the Earth I placed them in and finally arrive in front of my physically and that relationship would finally be perfect and complete and I could watch the wonder in their eyes as everything they've ever wondered was finally revealed to them and they just couldn't do anything but drop to their knees and exclaim, "wow! thank you! I love you!" And it would just get better and better from there…
Just the references are fine. I’m probably not interested in debating, just curious what your sources are.
You know John I’ve been reading some of your other posts on this page and I like what you’re doing here. I’ve decided to add you to my own bloggroll. Huzzah!
Revelation 4:11: "You are worthy, O Lord our God, to receive glory and honor and power. For you created everything, and it is for your pleasure that they exist and were created."
Colossians 1:16 ". . .all things in heaven and on earth were created by him – all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers – all things were created through him and for him."
I still have not found a better answer than from scripture, although there have been some 'interesting' comments in here.
First time here. I’ve been blog shopping recently. There are some really great conversations going on here…I wish I had found this sooner! Thanks for all the inspiration to keep on thinking and questioning!
Human life begins with an orgasm. What does that say about God and desire?
I know there is a scripture that says (paraphrased), He that knows to do good and chooses not to do good, to him it is sin.
God created life (us) because we are a reflection of Him.
Everything he made is good for He said it.
God not creating us would contradict who He is. He is Love and had to create Love.
If He didn't create Love it definitely would contradict who He is …and we all know there is no Sin in God.
God is Love!
« 1 2
{ 1 trackback }