Why did God create us

[Notthedarkweb]

I have already mentioned that I consider Guadapada, Sankara and Budddha as my gurus but differ from all of them.
Yes, I am a total materialist, 'physical energy', with no mysticism. Every thing is pure, because everything is Brahman, none is impure. Yeah, I have read the Wikipedia articles on Kashkmir Shavism and Charvakas, but that is not my line.
See my signature: "Advaita (non-dual) Hinduism is a 'no nonsense' philosophy."

I don't want to continue on this line because self-identification is self-identification (though honestly I don't see much that could link you to the Advaitin tradition's ontology), but you definitely ought to check out Jayarasi's Tattvopaplavasimha.

Edit: Also fwiw the wikipedia pages on Indian phil (and philosophy generally) are usually suspect, so tread carefully there.

 

[PureX]

I'm not going to answer the rest of this, because its an oddly confused argument (in fact, a lack of it) that would require an incredibly long comment to unpack, but your claim that human phenomenology requires a concept of "something" is expressly what I called tautological. Of course human cognition is intentional and is always about a thing, it's exactly for that reason I was saying that the concept of nothing standing for itself is unclear and lacks semantic content because by definition anything with semantic content is identical with the proposition that it is about something.

Edit: I am not denying some concept of nothing encoding the absence of any entity or property here. What I am denying is the claim that it is possible to make sense of this absence without presence existing in the first place, which would exactly restrict our phenomenological experience of the world to the horizon of experience itself i.e. about-something-ness.

You can argue all you want, but in the end it's how the brain perceives. We differentiate "this" by it's not being "that". There is no conception of the one without a conception of the other. And as this differentiating cognitive process expands to include more and more "things" until it includes "all things", that "no things" concept remains a necessary cognitive component.

"Being begets non-being".

Non-existence is an idea that has no content, but is necessary for us to cognate all those ideas that do have content. You are suggesting we drop the former and keep the latter, but our brains don't work like that. It's like asking your computer to drop the 0's because they are content-less.

 

[Notthedarkweb]

You can argue all you want, but in the end it's how the brain perceives. We differentiate "this" by it's not being "that". There is no conception of the one without a conception of the other. And as this differentiating cognitive process expands to include more and more "things" until it includes "all things", that "no things" concept remains a necessary cognitive component.

"Being begets non-being".

Non-existence is an idea that has no content, but is necessary for us to cognate all those ideas that do have content. You are suggesting we drop the former and keep the latter, but our brains don't work like that. It's like asking your computer to drop the 0's because they are content-less.

Actually I and you are saying the same thing, that the concept of nothing is parasitic on the concept of something, which is why I am saying that your claim that there needs to be a mysterious source before the world (i.e. something which all cognition is intentionally oriented towards as aboutness) is superfluous since it can be equally well explained as the brute fact of the world simply...existing.

Also frankly, that's a strange attitude to have towards discussion. Asserting something as self-evidently true and attacking others for not accepting it isnt very nice.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Apparently you do make an assumption that there was/is a source….
Since you admit;
Why not just accept it as a mystery
and say “I don’t know”?

I do make an assumption that there is a cause to all happenings, because I have never come across any happening without a cause. I never said that it is not a mystery and that we do not understand it. I have always said "I do not know', whenever the question has come up. The only difference is that when we understand it, it will no longer remain a total mystery, just like relativity and QM.

 

[PureX]

Actually I and you are saying the same thing, that the concept of nothing is parasitic on the concept of something, which is why I am saying that your claim that there needs to be a mysterious source before the world (i.e. something which all cognition is intentionally oriented towards as aboutness) is superfluous since it can be equally well explained as the brute fact of the world simply...existing.

Also frankly, that's a strange attitude to have towards discussion. Asserting something as self-evidently true and attacking others for not accepting it isnt very nice.

I am not saying there "needs to be a source", I am saying that it's self-evident. Like, 'I think therefor I am'.

 

[Notthedarkweb]

I am not saying there "needs to be a source", I am saying that it's self-evident. Like, 'I think therefor I am'.

And I am pointing out that it isn't! Neither is "I think therefore I am"! Descartes' famous saying was criticized for presuming that the thinking entity was a propositional subject "I" from the get-go! Otherwise thinkers like Hume or Spinoza wouldn't attempt to solve the problem of skepticism with different conceptions of subjectivity.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am not saying there "needs to be a source", I am saying that it's self-evident. Like, 'I think therefor I am'.

It has happened only in scriptures, God without needing a source, but people term it as 'special pleading.' Otherwise, there is no record of any such happening. However, I am open to correction with there is a report of such a happening.

@Notthedarkweb, I quite agree with you about Wikipedia. It was nice before the Hindu chauvinist invaded it. I loved it, but they have spoiled it. Now I do not recommend it to anyone wanting to know about Hinduism. But one can still get something from Wikipedia.

 

[PureX]

And I am pointing out that it isn't! Neither is "I think therefore I am"! Descartes' famous saying was criticized for presuming that the thinking entity was a propositional subject "I" from the get-go! Otherwise thinkers like Hume or Spinoza wouldn't attempt to solve the problem of skepticism with different conceptions of subjectivity.

There is a reason they call that "sophistry". And it's why in the end it doesn't matter. Because the human can't ever really escape his humanness. And what is self-evident remains so regardless of the occasional sophistry.

As I stated before, "God" is because we are. And we don't know what God is because we are what we are. Humans can ask questions that humans cannot answer, leaving us with unresolve-able mysteries. Such is the 'way of man'. And why mankind "knows of the gods".

 

[stvdv]

I believe it is possible that God who has unlimited power, who can be everywhere simultaneously and is immortal

That's true

would at some stage become bored.

That is false

 

[Notthedarkweb]

There is a reason they call that "sophistry". And it's why in the end it doesn't matter. Because the human can't ever really escape his humanness. And what is self-evident remains so regardless of the occasional sophistry.

As I stated before, "God" is because we are. And we don't know what God is because we are what we are. Humans can ask questions that humans cannot answer, leaving us with unresolve-able mysteries. Such is the 'way of man'. And why mankind "knows of the gods".

My man I study academic philosophy and you don't know what sophistry is. Have you actually perused the evil daemon thought-experiment in Descartes' Meditations? Or literally anything in the early modern literature responding to it? Have you even read the basic critique that followed from the scholastic theologians that the propositional form "I am thinking" can have the equal alternative "thought is thinking" on Cartesian terms since his basic mental substance is thought? That he already always presupposes the "I" that he is he trying to prove?Or do you know that this is exactly the proposition extended by Hume and the Yogacara Buddhists to criticize the idea of a unitary self-consciousness that can be attributed with the propositional form "I" in a sentence about facts in the world? I'm not even getting into Kant's devastating critique of rationalist psychology.

Show a little intellectual humility like the others in the thread. It will go a long way.

Either way, to make it clear to you why your formulation of the cosmological proof is obviously nonsense (since you seem to love asserting things absolutely), since you are asserting it as basic and self-evident, you are confusing between ground and reason as pointed out by Schopenhauer in his On the Fourfold Root. Reason-Causation is a concept of thought only applicable in time, and we know that time isn't endless. It makes no sense to assert there would be a natural reason for the beginning of time since there cannot be any prior to time. The other argument, that God is the ground for existence but is its own ground is also superfluous. Nature as it is given can be self-grounded and doesn't require any further grounding. Why would it need it? What would it even mean for the world to be grounded in something other than itself?

 

[Balthazzar]

I believe it is possible that God who has unlimited power, who can be everywhere simultaneously and is immortal would at some stage become bored.

All this knowledge in an empty void God decided to create the universe and all its contents, without it God would return to an empty void of suffering.

Because of the Joy his many creations bring he loves them deeply and created a storied universe with life on multiple planets in many universes and Dimensions and gave them free will.

Free will enables them to act independently of God and thus entertain thee.

I say Thee because surely God has No genitalia as breeding is not necessary when you create with thought, why would God have a body, hands to grasp are not required, legs to walk, just a thought and he can move.

the different races of different planets in different dimensions have Bodies designed to be vehicles that can physically react and manipulate their world.

It makes no sense that we would be cast in Gods image.

Man’s Ego is so great even though we acknowledge Gods power we imagine God as looking Human despite the fact we know he does need a vehicle to traverse our Planet.

Something natural and something fun - it takes two to tango. God made us in thier image, both male and female. That's life and quite honestly, the way of.

 

[PureX]

Please try and keep up. This isn't about whether or not 'God' exists. That is evident even from the fact that we ask the question. It's about what 'God', exists how, and why we think so.

'God' is an idea based on our experience. That idea exists. This is self-evident. So what, then, is the content of this idea? From what experiences is it being derived? And in what way does maintaining our idea of 'God' serve us?

Most humans experience all aspects of their existence as being the product of other (source) aspects of existence. Comprehending existence as a series of countless and ongoing inter-connected effects. Existence isn't something that is, it's something that happens. In fact it's a great many somethings happening in succession, each generating the next.

All the science and philosophy in the world is not going to stop or change this. Because it's who and how we are. It doesn't matter if you think this view of existence is "the truth" of existence or not. Because you are always and only going to decide that for yourself.

This is what I mean by God being "self-evident". And by the great existential mystery source also being self-evident. And why neither philosophy nor science is going to change that.

 

[Notthedarkweb]

Please try and keep up. This isn't about whether or not 'God' exists. That is evident even from the fact that we ask the question. It's about what 'God', exists how, and why we think so.

'God' is an idea based on our experience. That idea exists. This is self-evident. So what, then, is the content of this idea? From what experiences is it being derived? And in what way does maintaining our idea of 'God' serve us?

Most humans experience all aspects of their existence as being the product of other (source) aspects of existence. Comprehending existence as a series of countless and ongoing inter-connected effects. Existence isn't something that is, it's something that happens. In fact it's a great many somethings happening in succession, each generating the next.

All the science and philosophy in the world is not going to stop or change this. Because it's who and how we are. It doesn't matter if you think this view of existence is "the truth" of existence or not. Because you are always and only going to decide that for yourself.

This is what I mean by God being "self-evident". And by the great existential mystery source also being self-evident. And why neither philosophy nor science is going to change that.

Alright man, if you say so. You are clearly making phenomenological claims about our experience, and the fact that I disagree with your claims seems to imply that it isn't as self-evident upon reflection that these claims constitute the foundation of our experience. But if you feel like you are privy to special knowledge that reason cannot discern in reflection upon itself, that cannot be analyzed in language, and cannot be intersubjectively validated with others, then it seems to me that you are claiming a totally empty concept that might as well not exist for all practical purpose.

 

[PureX]

There is no "special knowledge", that's the point. No philosopher or scientist or priest is going to determine the nature or existence of 'God' beyond the ideal. All we have is the ideal. And that is based on our own experiences, and how we have chosen to interpret them.

So far, out of the 7 billion humans on the planet, nearly all of them have chosen to interpret their experience of existence as coming from a single, mysterious source. Most of whom then go on to imagine some form of anthropomorphic entity that they feel they can relate to, to ease their sense of vulnerability in the face of such a powerful and all encompassing unknown.

You may not be one of them, and that's fine. But there is nothing in your method of thinking that is going to change their methods of thinking, or their conclusions. That's just not how we humans work.

 

[Notthedarkweb]

There is no "special knowledge", that's the point. No philosopher or scientist or priest is going to determine the nature or existence of 'God' beyond the ideal. All we have is the ideal. And that is based on our own experiences, and how we have chosen to interpret them.

So far, out of the 7 billion humans on the planet, nearly all of them have chosen to interpret their experience of existence as coming from a single, mysterious source. Most of whom then go on to imagine some form of anthropomorphic entity that they feel they can relate to, to ease their sense of vulnerability in the face of such a powerful and all encompassing unknown.

You may not be one of them, and that's fine. But there is nothing in your method of thinking that is going to change their methods of thinking, or their conclusions. That's just not how we humans work.

Sorry, I privilege standards of justifications higher than "well, vibes say something exist." because vibes can be used to justify anything. Also, please quote me if you are trying to respond to me. Makes it easier to respond. And you can just admit that you claim to have special reflective insight into the nature of God that others don't have, since you claim that you, unlike many, interpret it in the real light as opposed to some vague anthromorphic light (whatever that means.)

 

[PureX]

Sorry, I privilege standards of justifications higher than "well, vibes say something exist." because vibes can be used to justify anything. Also, please quote me if you are trying to respond to me. Makes it easier to respond. And you can just admit that you claim to have special reflective insight into the nature of God that others don't have, since you claim that you, unlike many, interpret it in the real light as opposed to some vague anthromorphic light (whatever that means.)

I find this a very strange response.

1. How does one develop "standards of justification" in the face of the unknowable? ... That aren't just an automatic bias in favor of oneself?
2. Why are you reducing the thoughts and experiences of nearly every human that has ever lived to "vibes say something (source) exist" while apparently positioning yourself as the very rare enlightened exception to this, and then accusing ME of claiming I have some special insight? When what I am trying to point out is that no one has any special insight. All any of us have is our OWN insight; i.e., God is self-evident.
3. Humans anthropomorphize all kinds of things and situations. That's hardly a revelation. And we do it mostly so we can 'pretend' that we understand and can relate to (control) them more than we can. Just look at how many of us and how routinely we do this with our pets. It's not a big stretch to see ourselves doing this with our "gods", as well. it may be somewhat silly and superstitious, but it's easy and it often works to the degree that we want it to.

 

[Fool]

I believe it is possible that God who has unlimited power, who can be everywhere simultaneously and is immortal would at some stage become bored.

All this knowledge in an empty void God decided to create the universe and all its contents, without it God would return to an empty void of suffering.

Because of the Joy his many creations bring he loves them deeply and created a storied universe with life on multiple planets in many universes and Dimensions and gave them free will.

Free will enables them to act independently of God and thus entertain thee.

I say Thee because surely God has No genitalia as breeding is not necessary when you create with thought, why would God have a body, hands to grasp are not required, legs to walk, just a thought and he can move.

the different races of different planets in different dimensions have Bodies designed to be vehicles that can physically react and manipulate their world.

It makes no sense that we would be cast in Gods image.

Man’s Ego is so great even though we acknowledge Gods power we imagine God as looking Human despite the fact we know he does need a vehicle to traverse our Planet.

So I know of two differences where nde's met a heavenly being. Both asked why God created man. Both were told; so that man could continue creating God.

So you have touched on the basic idea of the divine play in Hinduism. Its two parts being Lila and Maya. I noticed one poster has already mentioned maya to you.

The following video is a good representation of this idea.

Life doesn't begin/end but the form is impermanent.

 

[Fool]

God is self-evident.

Namaste

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I believe it is possible that God who has unlimited power, who can be everywhere simultaneously and is immortal would at some stage become bored.
All this knowledge in an empty void God decided to create the universe and all its contents, without it God would return to an empty void of suffering.
Because of the Joy his many creations bring he loves them deeply and created a storied universe with life on multiple planets in many universes and Dimensions and gave them free will.
Free will enables them to act independently of God and thus entertain thee.
I say Thee because surely God has No genitalia as breeding is not necessary when you create with thought, why would God have a body, hands to grasp are not required, legs to walk, just a thought and he can move.
the different races of different planets in different dimensions have Bodies designed to be vehicles that can physically react and manipulate their world.
It makes no sense that we would be cast in Gods image.
Man’s Ego is so great even though we acknowledge Gods power we imagine God as looking Human despite the fact we know he does need a vehicle to traverse our Planet.

No, according to Titus 1:2 God does Not have unlimited power because God can Not lie - Hebrews 6:18
God has a home location according to 1 Kings 8:39,49 ( however No ZIP code is listed )
God sends forth His spirit according to Psalms 104:30 to accomplish His purpose, His will.

Being made in God's image ( being capable of love, justice, wisdom, mercy....) was damaged in Eden.
Adam and Eve chose ego over obeying their God.
God is Not at fault for what freely Satan and Adam and Eve chose. - James 1:13-15

 

[Brian2]

I don't have to pretend not to be God.