Hey God, Why Us Anyway?

[Skwim]

The only thing I can think of is that an omnipotent being has to eliminate omnipotence in order to experience any change at all (in my opinion).

Wouldn't an amoeba or crawdad have sufficed?

Making creatures that it couldn't control would certainly accomplish that.

If I understand you correctly, why would making an entity that lacked omnipotence be uncontrollable?

 

[Sir Doom]

Wouldn't an amoeba or crawdad have sufficed?

Yeah, the cow was just an example. My answer doesn't really explain why humans instead of whatever else it could have been (literally anything). Aesthetic reasons is all I can think of for that (which isn't much of an answer, admittedly).

If I understand you correctly, why would making an entity that lacked omnipotence be uncontrollable?

Its not our lack of omnipotence that makes us uncontrollable, it is God's inability to control us that eliminates its own omnipotence (even if that is by design). I do have to agree this does not require us human beings specifically, though we are supposedly the only ones granted free will (though I have no idea why that is, either). Its just that if God can't foresee or determine what we do or think or believe, then its suddenly got something worth paying attention to.

Of course, this is going way outside the typical Biblical notions of God so I'm not sure how important my answers really are on this.

 

[Quintessence]

You do have a valid question, which goes back to the question of why is there anything. But I wanted to focus more on the supposed acme of his creating endeavors: we humans.

Fair enough. I'm not sure that the answer would be particularly different for one part of the one-god's alleged creation than for another. Let me present some sample issues for consideration along these lines.

Theism generally regards gods as non-human. They are often framed in a human context in terms of mythos and narrative because that tells for a better story that humans can relate to, but it is generally understood that the gods are not human. This means that, to some extent, the gods transcend human characteristics or qualities. If we are to ask a question like "why did god X create Y" we are presuming that this question is valid for the subject at hand. This is not necessarily the case, especially for highly abstract god-concepts like the transcendent one-god of classical monotheisms. The assumption that gods have motives, emotions, and desires like people is not an insignificant one. Before answering the question "why did god X create Y" I would first ask "why do we assume that god X displays human-like (or animal-like) reason when it behaves? Is this a valid question to ask, or are we guilty of excessive anthropomorphizing of god X?"

Another issue that arises is how we determine what the reasons are for something, presuming that this applies to the god-concept in question. I don't think there is any way to determine this with a satisfactory level of certainty. We can't even manage to do this for people! Psychology is a soft science precisely because of difficulties like this - when it comes to understanding human behavior there are always competing hypotheses for the reasons behind it. None of them is the truth, and all of them are the truth; there's no objective way to assess reasons for things. Part of that is because assessing reasons treads into myth-making, or the narrative stories we tell that grant meaning to our existences.

That leads me to a final point I want to raise. What is the story one wants to tell? This sort of question isn't (and shouldn't) be about determining in some matter-of-fact fashion what the reasons for something are. What mythology does - religious or otherwise - is construct narratives of meaning that ground our place in the grandeur of reality. It is better to ask "what do you want to believe about the reasons the one-god created humans, and how does the meaning of that story inform your life?" The story I tell is that "this is unimportant; I do not honor the one-god and in my theology. There is not a distinction between creator and creation, so this question doesn't have meaning for me." I'd wager that the authors of the Bible didn't find this question important either given its omission from their narrative, but I would not speculate as to why.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think you have a good point.

"In order to capture the whole beauty of this, let's take a look at that one word "inheritance" in verse 4. And the idea is to bless God, to praise God, to adore God for the inheritance He has promised us"
source

And, we're certainly slaves to all the pain and suffering he's saddled us with.

Pretty much. As a Gnostic, I think this reality we're experiencing is a filtered or hacked reality that serves as a prison or rather a farm for spiritual beings. It is created and maintained by malevolent parasitic entities who feed off of certain energies generated by the imprisoned spirits and who keep us locked into this sorrowful reality. These lying entities did not create our spirits and didn't even create reality itself. They have no true creative powers. They only can pervert and manipulate. So they took what was already in existence and perverted it, dragging it down to a lower state. These evil entities hide behind various names in mythology.

That's my opinion, anyway. You don't have to agree or anything. I'm not here to convert anyone.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Because it's a product of human imagination and Ego - believing that we are literally the centre of the universe.

Additionaly to have the likeness/ image of a god too. Very aggrandizing and self flattering when looking into a mirror.

 

[Skwim]

Theism generally regards gods as non-human. They are often framed in a human context in terms of mythos and narrative because that tells for a better story that humans can relate to, but it is generally understood that the gods are not human. This means that, to some extent, the gods transcend human characteristics or qualities. If we are to ask a question like "why did god X create Y" we are presuming that this question is valid for the subject at hand. This is not necessarily the case, especially for highly abstract god-concepts like the transcendent one-god of classical monotheisms. The assumption that gods have motives, emotions, and desires like people is not an insignificant one. Before answering the question "why did god X create Y" I would first ask "why do we assume that god X displays human-like (or animal-like) reason when it behaves? Is this a valid question to ask, or are we guilty of excessive anthropomorphizing of god X?"

Because they are " framed in a human context ," which becomes their accepted model, I think it easily follows that they display "human-like reason when it behaves." Of course one can deny this is the case and construct whatever kind of god they like, but I think its reasonable that they stay in character, and the supposition of other peculiarities follow form.

 

[Pegg]

The bible tells us.

Genesis 1:

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Genesis 2:

6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.


18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.


21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

​

But it never tells us why he created humans, at least as far as I can tell. So, why us? Why not leave the place just as it was pre– A&E?

the 'why' is answered in Gen 1: 28

 

[Whiterain]

Because this is the monotheist version of a far more ancient story originating eons long before the mere idea of a Jewdom was even conceived.



Man was to be master of the kingdom of Earth, the Kingdom of Man presided over beast and the fruits of the Earth. Not necessarily slaves to the Gods then into myth, I won't bore you with the legends. The understanding of omnipotence was more than
likely not even existing at the time.

There was also the cult of Adam, which was fantastic and totally abolished and annihilated. Man used to worship Adam and the cult believed in sacrifice as well.

The truth on the Adam and Even is long gone, maybe some tycoon has the original
legend trying to auction it off.

Monotheism didn't even exist in the age this should have taken place, 10 to 12,000
years ago, I guess. I doubt they're interpreting the timeline right anyway.

It was supposedly in ancient Sumeria, Iraq, not Israel and Jews did not even exist.

 

[Skwim]

the 'why' is answered in Gen 1: 28

To tired to post it eh. Okay.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
​

Well, we can forget about humans subduing earth and having dominion over every living thing that moveth. That just hasn't happened (gotta be a big disappointment to god), which leaves us with your implication that god created humans so they would multiply and "replenish" the earth. Nice, but this was simply their job, so the question still remains why create humans to do such a thing? Why not have the cicadas or marmots multiply and "replenish" the earth? After all, they were already here.

 

[Pegg]

To tired to post it eh. Okay.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
​

Well, we can forget about humans subduing earth and having dominion over every living thing that moveth. That just hasn't happened (gotta be a big disappointment to god), which leaves us with your implication that god created humans so they would multiply and "replenish" the earth. Nice, but this was simply their job, so the question still remains why create humans to do such a thing? Why not have the cicadas or marmots multiply and "replenish" the earth? After all, they were already here.

Well he could have sent angels to manage the planet and the animals... but instead he chose to create mankind who are in his image and "just a little lower then angels"

we are fellow workers and just as the Angles have their respective roles to play in the heavens, we have our respective role to play here on earth.

The garden of Eden is what the earth needs to become... but you are right, mankind has not been working to subdue the earth and make it a paradise. They are doing their own thing rather then the role they were given.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well he could have sent angels to manage the planet and the animals... but instead he chose to create mankind who are in his image and "just a little lower then angels"

we are fellow workers and just as the Angles have their respective roles to play in the heavens, we have our respective role to play here on earth.

The garden of Eden is what the earth needs to become... but you are right, mankind has not been working to subdue the earth and make it a paradise. They are doing their own thing rather then the role they were given.

That's a rather lackluster failure of a reason. The Earth was fine before humans made an appearance and didn't need any "subduing". In fact, our efforts at "subuding" the Earth have turned into a nightmare of ecosystem destruction, brutality to animals, and mass extinction.

 

[Pegg]

That's a rather lackluster failure of a reason. The Earth was fine before humans made an appearance and didn't need any "subduing". In fact, our efforts at "subuding" the Earth have turned into a nightmare of ecosystem destruction, brutality to animals, and mass extinction.

well thats because we 'have not' being doing what God asked us to do.


Mankind does their own thing...building cities and highways for their cars and bulldozing rainforests for their building projects.

I dont think any of this is what God had in mind.

 

[Aupmanyav]

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

He said multiply and replenish. Now, both things are not possible together. He erred.

 

[ChristineES]

You realize that if God made crawdads or whatever in His image, they would be on the computer instead of us and one of them would ask the very same question that was asked here.

 

[Sir Doom]

But then why would an omnipotent being have any desire for anything in the first place? It would have nothing to envy, nothing to desire, no personality.

I suggest it would have desire for the one thing it does not have. Mystery. That's why I say an omnipotent being would most certainly destroy itself (or at least eliminate its omnipotence). Nothing else would ever alter its reality. Every other action it could perform is already performed an infinite number of times in infinite variation the very instant it conceives of performing that action. In fact, there is no before and after, there is really only NOW for such a being. Everything that could ever be done is already done. Except that one thing. In order to add mystery, it has to stop being omnipotent.

 

[Aquitaine]

I suggest it would have desire for the one thing it does not have. Mystery. That's why I say an omnipotent being would most certainly destroy itself (or at least eliminate its omnipotence). Nothing else would ever alter its reality. Every other action it could perform is already performed an infinite number of times in infinite variation the very instant it conceives of performing that action. In fact, there is no before and after, there is really only NOW for such a being. Everything that could ever be done is already done. Except that one thing. In order to add mystery, it has to stop being omnipotent.

That's assuming it would even have such a desire (or such a void) in the first place.

Out of curiosity, this whole 'God finding mystery through living things' scenario, - is this what you personally believe?

 

[idav]

[/INDENT]But it never tells us why he created humans, at least as far as I can tell. So, why us? Why not leave the place just as it was pre– A&E?

I kinda like the slaves idea, makes a lot of sense, but then God should just do it himself, but that is another issue. The idea can be examined by analyzing what an all powerful being needs, which is nothing. God needs nothing from humans all is provided of god. So god does whatever cause he feels like it, there doesn't need to be a reason certainly not one we would like.

 

[Skwim]

I kinda like the slaves idea, makes a lot of sense, but then God should just do it himself, but that is another issue. The idea can be examined by analyzing what an all powerful being needs, which is nothing. God needs nothing from humans all is provided of god. So god does whatever cause he feels like it, there doesn't need to be a reason certainly not one we would like.

The closest reason I've ever thought worth considering is entertainment. The angels were bored and implored god to devise some kind of diversion. So god made an ant hill, and, like a kid, from time to time dumped water on it, shoved it around a bit, and inflicted various types of suffering on the poor creatures The angles were delighted, and remain so.

 

[Pegg]

But then why would an omnipotent being have any desire for anything in the first place? It would have nothing to envy, nothing to desire, no personality.

The bible tells us that all things were created 'for' his only begotten Son:

Colossians 1:15 He (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth,... All other things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist,

We know as parents that it is very satisfying to give things to our children... where do you think we get that desire from?

 

[Skwim]

The bible tells us that all things were created 'for' his only begotten Son:

Colossians 1:15 He (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth,... All other things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist,

We know as parents that it is very satisfying to give things to our children... where do you think we get that desire from?

This would mean that before anything was ever created god planned on creating a savior. Hmmmmmm! Seems kind of odd.