If God exists, why did he create life? (The nature of a \'Creator\')
PART ONE-On the "Dodo" thread, we discussed four evolutionary scenarios. On that thread, as I have done on other threads too, I already suggested a motive for creation, and that is what I'd like to discuss now. First, though, a comment on the scenarios. The simplest by far is the atheist one, which involves a single giant leap of faith: namely, that the mechanism for life and evolution could fashion itself by chance, after which the whole process moves step by step, branch by branch, until it gets to us (so far). No mystery about where God came from, which in view of his complexity makes him even more incredible than the first chance-created molecule. No need for all the squabbling religions, speculations, interpretations, colleges, books, churches, mosques, synagogues, priests ... or the whole vast industry that is devoted to "The God Delusion". David's theist evolutionary scenario is exactly the same as the atheist's ... a single mechanism to start it all off, and the rest follows automatically. The one difference is that the mechanism is deliberately created by God right from the start to evolve the way it has done, with no further guidance required. The other two versions are that God created the mechanism, but intervened in order to experiment ... either because he didn't know where it was all heading, or because he wanted to create a spiritual image of himself but didn't know how best to incorporate it into a physical form.-Once you accept the atheist version, there's no more to be said ... which is a strong point in its favour ... and so we shall leave it. This thread deals only with the hypothetical motives of a hypothetical God, and starts out from the theory that life began with a few forms or one, and branched into David's "bush", culminating (so far) in humans. When I first read Darwin (in my late teens) and was converted from atheism to agnosticism, my eyes were opened to the now obvious fact that so many species of animal had exactly the same form as us: four limbs, two eyes, two ears, mouth, breathing, digestive and circulatory apparatus, brain etc. We are all variations. In Rachmaninov's Variations on a Theme by Paganini, there's a magical section (18th variation) which I'm sure everybody knows, in which Rachmaninov slows Paganini's theme down and inverts it, to create one of the loveliest melodies you'll ever hear. I'm willing to bet that he didn't start out with that melody in mind. I don't know of any artist, writer or composer who knows precisely what's coming when he/she starts. They may even plan the work in detail, but every stroke, word and note brings new ideas with it. That is how I can imagine God working, as I will try to explain in the rest of this post.-Any speculation on God's motives has to take in what we know or think we know about the history of life. For example, over billions of years there were no humans, 200 million years ago there were dinosaurs, which eventually disappeared, and there were bacteria which go back to the beginning and are still with us. Now on the principle that nobody does nothin' for nothin', God must have hoped to get somethin' ... otherwise, why bother? Bacteria are essential, so God wouldn't have needed any motive other than their usefulness for his project. But what would he have hoped to get out of dinosaurs? No animal we know, other than ourselves, is capable of communing with him. There were generations upon generations, and species upon species of dinosaurs for 160 million years, and if you truly believe that every one of them was essential for the creation of humans, so be it. I don't. Nor do I believe that dinosaurs developed technologies or philosophies or art or religion. I don't think they progressed beyond what was necessary for survival, and in the end they couldn't even achieve that. So what was the point for God? There are, as I see it, only two things God could have done with the dinosaurs. Watched them, and experimented with them. (In passing, let's note that battles for territory and/or dominance, killing for food, selfishness as a crucial factor for survival were all integral to life before man ... all forerunners of the evil that many religious people think began with humans.) Why would he watch them? For the same reason as we would, and do ... entertainment (Jurassic Park). Why would he experiment? To see what else he could come up with (new species, new organs, new abilities ... I'm thinking specifically here of flight, as the first birds are believed to have appeared during the Mesozoic era). What else could he have hoped to get out of the dinosaurs?-Continued in Part Two
If God exists, why did he create life?
PART TWO-And so we come to man. Back in my teenage Darwin days, there was much talk of the "missing link". But if the Darwin/atheist/David scenario is correct, there has to be a chain all the way back from us to the first molecule, and that means millions of missing links. Can we ever hope to find them? Follow the experimentation scenario, and you don't need to find them. They don't even have to be there. If life began as a conscious experiment, the experimental scientist can conduct further experiments at will, including brand new inventions (e.g. sex, the senses) and refinements of old ones (e.g. an enlarged brain).-Whichever scenario we believe, man is here now, so what can God get out of us? David thinks that he has to keep himself hidden. I don't know why he has to, but I agree that he keeps himself hidden. From what I know of human history and myth, the tale is one of bloodshed, violence, disease and suffering that counterbalances and almost certainly outweighs the tale of love, beauty, happiness, joy. Perhaps God gets a little thrill of vanity when churchgoers praise him, but since they're just as likely to be killed by a terrorist bomb or a meteor or a conflagration in church as out of church, he clearly doesn't lift a divine finger. So what's he doing? As with the dinosaurs, presumably watching. Being entertained. It's such early days in our history (remember, he thinks in terms of billions) that I wouldn't expect him to have lost interest. Besides, if dinosaurs eating grass or one another kept him entertained for 160 million years, surely the variety of human activities should keep him hooked for at least as long.-And so I'm suggesting that if there is a God, he created life for his own entertainment. I'm also suggesting that part of the fun was experimentation, because most creative artists proceed by discovery, and would be bored if they knew exactly what was coming. This scenario explains all the major innovations, the variations on a theme, and the long delayed arrival of the human brain, which perhaps brings us as close as we can get to his "image". It also removes the need for theological convolutions over such matters as the source of evil, and it explains why God doesn't intervene any more, since we're making so many entertaining changes by ourselves. Life is just a film show. -Here, then, is the challenge: if you believe in the existence of God, and can disregard the ancient, man-made texts with their unsubstantiated stories of dialogues between God and humans, can you find anything in this scenario that contradicts your own experience and knowledge of the world?
If God exists, why did he create life?
by Balance_Maintained 
, U.S.A., Friday, December 10, 2010, 06:34 (5096 days ago) @ dhw
Here, then, is the challenge: if you believe in the existence of God, and can disregard the ancient, man-made texts with their unsubstantiated stories of dialogues between God and humans, can you find anything in this scenario that contradicts your own experience and knowledge of the world?-In a word, Yes. (and I know you expected that from me)-You are only looking at it from a negative perspective, i.e. attributing any possible motive to vanity, desire for praise and worship, morbid enjoyment at our own wanton destruction of everything around us. -What about other possibly positive attributes? The simple joy of creation, for instance, the desire to share the gift of consciousness, which according to all accounts did not exist prior to the UI. Perhaps even to see if, given enough time, a simple consciousness could reach the potential that It possesses.-I also notice in your post that there seems to be a sense that free will is not an attribute that would have been granted, or else we would be able to choose not to be the dancing monkey's that your scenarios propose.
If God exists, why did he create life?
dhw: Here, then, is the challenge: if you believe in the existence of God, and can disregard the ancient, man-made texts with their unsubstantiated stories of dialogues between God and humans, can you find anything in this scenario that contradicts your own experience and knowledge of the world?-TONY: In a word, Yes. (and I know you expected that from me) You are only looking at it from a negative perspective, i.e. attributing any possible motive to vanity, desire for praise and worship, morbid enjoyment at our own wanton destruction of everything around us. What about other possibly positive attributes? The simple joy of creation, for instance, the desire to share the gift of consciousness, which according to all accounts did not exist prior to the UI. Perhaps even to see if, given enough time, a simple consciousness could reach the potential that It possesses.-Thank you for responding. I did indeed expect opposition from you, although I'm quite surprised at its nature. The praise element was the tiniest of asides ("perhaps God gets a little thrill of vanity when churchgoers praise him") in the context of his not intervening. The whole of my argument centres on the motive of entertainment. You have begun your critique with humans, whereas I have carefully prepared the way by asking what God might have got out of dinosaurs ... a difficult question for those who think anthropocentrically. I've incorporated the "simple joy of creation", through my various references to creative artists and experimentation with different forms. Simple joy, complicated joy, saints and sinners ... it's all part of what I mean by entertainment. "To see if a simple consciousness could reach the potential that It possesses": what for? To satisfy his own curiosity ... all part of the entertainment. "To share the gift of consciousness" ... if you like, but since there is no communication, what would be the purpose of the gift? A conscious form of life offers a far wider variety of pleasures. What makes you think that entertainment is all wanton destruction? Have you never enjoyed a love story? Besides, I've included "love, beauty, happiness, joy", although it's true that I've suggested these are "almost certainly" outweighed by the suffering. I think the negative perspective is your own imposition, and in any case the positive attributes do not contradict my scenario in any way. So what exactly is your objection to life conceived as a show created by God for his own enjoyment, with all its good and all its bad?-TONY: I also notice in your post that there seems to be a sense that free will is not an attribute that would have been granted, or else we would be able to choose not to be the dancing monkey's that your scenarios propose.-There is absolutely no hint of dancing monkeys in my post! I have made it clear that he watches us and does not intervene, and a lack of free will would entirely defeat the purpose I have suggested! What sort of entertainment would it be if he knew what was coming?
If God exists, why did he create life?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, December 11, 2010, 03:30 (5095 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Saturday, December 11, 2010, 03:37
Thank you for responding. I did indeed expect opposition from you, although I'm quite surprised at its nature. The praise element was the tiniest of asides ("perhaps God gets a little thrill of vanity when churchgoers praise him") in the context of his not intervening. The whole of my argument centres on the motive of entertainment. You have begun your critique with humans, whereas I have carefully prepared the way by asking what God might have got out of dinosaurs ... a difficult question for those who think anthropocentrically. I've incorporated the "simple joy of creation", through my various references to creative artists and experimentation with different forms. Simple joy, complicated joy, saints and sinners ... it's all part of what I mean by entertainment. "To see if a simple consciousness could reach the potential that It possesses": what for? To satisfy his own curiosity ... all part of the entertainment. "To share the gift of consciousness" ... if you like, but since there is no communication, what would be the purpose of the gift? A conscious form of life offers a far wider variety of pleasures. What makes you think that entertainment is all wanton destruction? Have you never enjoyed a love story? Besides, I've included "love, beauty, happiness, joy", although it's true that I've suggested these are "almost certainly" outweighed by the suffering. I think the negative perspective is your own imposition, and in any case the positive attributes do not contradict my scenario in any way. So what exactly is your objection to life conceived as a show created by God for his own enjoyment, with all its good and all its bad? > - For me I suppose it is a matter of perspective, and perhaps imperfect language. When I hear the word entertainment, I think of television, movies, books, music, games, shows, etc. To me that is something completely different from the satisfaction and joy a person gets from creating something. So in my mind, they are two separate and distinct categories. My apologies if I misunderstood your own perspective. -My own personal views can not be brought into line really with this line of reasoning. You have effectively removed all possible causes and motivations from the equation except the ones that you have been trying to promote, i.e. entertainment and experimentation, by removing any possibility of an end goal. You ask what a UI possibly could have gained by creating the Dinosaurs which implies a) that there were no future plans of which that was just one step, b) that the UI must operate under purely selfish motivation, and c)ignores the fact that long before the Dinosaurs there was the small matter of the creation of the universe, which, when compared to life, must have been like watching paint dry.-Basically, you might as well ask Di Vinci what he got out of painting the Mona Lisa's hair with the stipulation that he was not allowed to reference the rest of the painting in his reply. I know I keep coming back to this point over and over again, to the point of sounding like a broken record, even to myself. But you simply can not take any one thing and completely remove all the context surrounding it.
If God exists, why did he create life?
TONY: When I hear the word entertainment, I think of television, movies, books, music, games, shows etc. To me that is completely different from the satisfaction and joy a person gets from creating something. -Has it not occurred to you that TV shows, movies, books, music etc. have to be created before you experience them? A screenwriter gets the satisfaction and joy of writing the script, the satisfaction and joy of seeing it brought to life (usually with plenty of changes as the process goes along), and then the satisfaction and joy of watching it himself in the cinema. That is the joined-up image of God that I'm proposing, though his own script entails the additional excitement of the unpredictable.-TONY: My own personal views can not be brought into line really with this line of reasoning. You have effectively removed all possible causes and motivations from the equation except the ones that you have been trying to promote, i.e. entertainment and experimentation, by removing any possibility of an end goal. You ask what a UI possibly could have gained by creating the Dinosaurs which implies a) that there were no future plans of which that was just one step, b) that the UI must operate under purely selfish motivation, and c) ignores the fact that long before the Dinosaurs there was the small matter of the creation of the universe, which, when compared to life, must have been like watching paint dry.-I'm not trying to promote anything. As an agnostic, I'm simply exploring various avenues, and I find that there are huge gaps between the conventional image of God and life as we know it. I'm offering a possible explanation and am inviting you to look for loopholes in the argument. My scenario applies just as much to the creation of the universe as to the creation of life and of humans. The dinosaurs are simply one example of the many gaps (previously I took the dodo) which don't NEED to be filled if my scenario is correct. It doesn't matter what your starting point is, or what "end goal" you have in mind, if you believe there is only one God, and nothing existed before him, how can his motive not have been to please himself? There was no-one else to please! And what do you think is wrong with God creating entertainment for himself? Crucially for the anthropocentric view of life, we also need to incorporate into our theory his apparent non-intervention in human affairs and his apparent indifference to suffering. The scenario I'm proposing combines all of these factors without leaving any unexplained gaps. (So too, of course, does the atheist scenario, with its similar problem of an unidentifiable first cause.)-TONY: Basically, you might as well ask Di Vinci what he got out of painting the Mona Lisa's hair with the stipulation that he was not allowed to reference the rest of the painting in his reply. I know I keep coming back to this point over and over again, to the point of sounding like a broken record, even to myself. But you simply can not take any one thing and completely remove all the context surrounding it.-I have given you the whole context: God created the universe and life in order to provide himself with entertainment. This entertainment includes the satisfaction of creating as well as the pleasure of watching. Since none of your objections (negative view of the world, ignoring creative satisfaction, only giving examples out of context etc.) contradict my scenario, perhaps it might be more productive if you tell us what YOU think was God's motive for creating the universe and life, including humans.
If God exists, why did he create life?
by BBella , Sunday, December 12, 2010, 03:54 (5094 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Sunday, December 12, 2010, 04:07
If I were God, or a creator of all I could imagine, I would want to create beings with the capacity to grow and learn, especially developing the capacity for love, compassion and creativity. So I would want to create a situation or place where they could go to do so. -Whatever you want someone to learn they have to have a place to learn it. Earth could be a small speck of the universe created to develop/grow abilities that could not be grown anywhere else in all creation. -Beings could come to earth to experience all of their free will abilities (according to whatever limits them). I would give them a choice to come here or not. I would give them the choice to come as many times as they want. It would be a place that a life would only be so long for intense training purposes. In their in-between times they would remember each life and what they learned in each one.-I would create a system so that once a being develops certain abilities that have been proven as tried and true they would also gain abilities to 'leave the nest', so to speak. There would be greater heights to attain to, maybe as guides or leaders, or creators of other worlds and other beings. Whatever these beings could imagine or want to do. As once these virtues are created and given the life span of forever and the space, they could develop in many ways. -There would be beings who grow attached to each other and help each other through lives and help each other attain greater abilities, that way it would foster familial bonds which would grow the capacity for even more love and compassion and leadership, wanting to be examples for others.-Obviously, if there is such a thing as a creator God of all that IS, it has had plenty of time to figure all these things out....the possibilities are mind boggling for such a mind as that with all the creative juices of dark matter flowing and available for creation. -I, as one short lived created being, have the ability to imagine myself as a creator as well as the ability to imagine why I would build such a system as this, and, if given even more time, I am sure I could elaborate many times over on the possibilities of what could exist beyond our here and now for all beings....and I'm just a measly pion with just a tiny bit of dark matter running my brain and very little to build with. So, imagine if I had all access to all the creative soup of dark matter!!! Who knows, maybe one day I will....maybe one day we all will...it's a thought.-[edit]-You asked why would a creator create life? Why not? What greater creation could a creator create than to create and give beings the opportunity to become conscious and know how it feels to feel? It is like asking a mother or father why they want to give birth to children, knowing this world ain't always a pretty place and there will be trials and tribulations. But still, we choose to give birth. The joy of birth and the new child's life is always worth the pain and sorrow we know that child will eventually experience...isn't it?
If God exists, why did he create life?
BBELLA: If I were God, or a creator of all I could imagine, I would want to create beings with the capacity to grow and learn, especially developing the capacity for love, compassion and creativity. So I would want to create a situation or place where they could go to do so. [...] Beings could come to earth to experience all of their free will abilities (according to whatever limits them). I would give them a choice to come here or not. I would give them the choice to come as many times as they want. It would be a place that a life would only be so long for intense training purposes. In their in-between times they would remember each life and what they learned in each one.-Ah, BBella, at the next divine election, you will have my vote! You and I had already agreed (on the "Paradise" thread) about our idea of what existence ought to be like, and of course there's no harm in hoping! But the problem I'm grappling with here is very different. I'm trying to put together an image of a hypothetical creator in accordance with the world as I see it, and not as I'd like it to be. This involves not only the extraordinary and wonderful mixture of human life, but everything that leads up to it and everything that is not so wonderful. More in a moment.-BBELLA: You asked why would a creator create life? Why not? What greater creation could a creator create than to create and give beings the opportunity to become conscious and know how it feels to feel? It is like asking a mother or father why they want to give birth to children, knowing this world ain't always a pretty place and there will be trials and tribulations. But still, we choose to give birth. The joy of birth and the new child's life is always worth the pain and sorrow we know that child will eventually experience...isn't it?-I must stress that I'm delighted to have had the opportunity of life myself, I believe my (grown-up) children feel the same, and nothing I say is meant in any way to downgrade what I still regard as a miracle ... whether made by God or by chance. That is absolutely NOT what this thread is about. If God exists, I want to know what he's like, and the only evidence I have is the world as I see it. One highly conventional image is totally anthropocentric, holding us humans to be the be-all and end-all, and sets God up as a loving father figure ("God is love" is, I think, far more common than "God is organized energy"). At the opposite end of the spectrum is the total impersonality of atheism. I believe in neither, but here are some major gaps in my vision of the world which can easily be filled by my artist/scientist/spectator God: 1) I believe that all life evolved from one or a few forms (Darwin), but our knowledge of evolution does not explain the major innovations that may in turn have led to new species. This, in conjunction with 2), suggests to me experimentation; 2) Science has not come up with any link between humans and the millions of extinct species such as dinosaurs, and unlike Tony I have no faith that links may one day be discovered. I therefore can't believe in an original human-centred plan (barring initial ignorance of how to do it), and so I ask what God could derive from so many unrelated species. My answer is entertainment and/or knowledge through experimentation. 3) As regards your parental analogy, I love being a father, and although my children are free agents, I'm there to share their pleasures and pains and to help if required. I see no sign of God the Father being there to do the same. You, BBella, have triumphed over your suffering, but you won't need me to tell you that every day there are thousands who don't even have the chance to emulate you. What parent stands idly by while his child perishes even though he has the means to save it? The conventional religious answer to this question is that God works in mysterious ways and we must have faith. That does not satisfy me, because if the pieces don't fit, I can't believe the image is right and the pieces are wrong. Nor can I believe in an afterlife in which we remember past lives, and get to choose whether we come back or not ... great though it sounds. Where's the evidence? If God created life as an experiment and an entertainment for himself, this in no way diminishes his genius as a scientist and creative artist, nor does it lessen the many positives of existence; but it does explain the negatives, including his apparent indifference to suffering, it fills in the gaps relating to evolution, including the roundabout "progress" to humans, and it can be applied to just about every aspect of life as we know it, apart from the (idealized?) scenarios offered to us by ancient man-made texts. I don't expect anyone to accept it. From the comfort of my padded picket fence, I don't accept it myself. I do, however, find it more convincing than "have faith", and so I'm asking if anyone can see a loophole in the argument.
If God exists, why did he create life?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, December 13, 2010, 02:41 (5093 days ago) @ dhw
Firstly, let me say that my comment on the entertainment value was not to say that A UI would not get joy from creating, but, to use your analogy of a screenwriter, that the pleasure derived from writing the script is completely different derived from watching the finished film. -> 2) Science has not come up with any link between humans and the millions of extinct species such as dinosaurs, and unlike Tony I have no faith that links may one day be discovered. I therefore can't believe in an original human-centred plan (barring initial ignorance of how to do it), and so I ask what God could derive from so many unrelated species.- I do not believe that we are descended from dinosaurs(not in a direct genetic sense). I believe that they were necessary to turn this lump of rock into something inhabitable by humanity. There is a vast difference between the two, though I may one day be proved wrong on both counts, I doubt it. --> 3) As regards your parental analogy, I love being a father, and although my children are free agents, I'm there to share their pleasures and pains and to help if required. I see no sign of God the Father being there to do the same. You, BBella, have triumphed over your suffering, but you won't need me to tell you that every day there are thousands who don't even have the chance to emulate you. What parent stands idly by while his child perishes even though he has the means to save it? The conventional religious answer to this question is that God works in mysterious ways and we must have faith. That does not satisfy me, because if the pieces don't fit, I can't believe the image is right and the pieces are wrong.- I am with Bella on the parental analogy, and even though I always question the form, number, ideals, methodology, and various other attributes of the UI, I still view it as a parent like figure. In that context, I do not see where it should intervene with the pangs of humanity. IF this life is simply a step on a longer journey, then anything we experience here would be the cosmic equivalent of a skinned knee, and as a parent with young ones, I know I for one do not even try to keep them from skinning their knees as that would in the long run do more harm than good. -Also, more in regards to the topic at hand, I am not sure UI could do other than create/destroy. To me it seems an intrinsic part of its nature. If God is organized energy, than organization would obviously be an innate goal of such an entity. All matter and life, though at times seemingly random, has been shown to be extraordinarily organized. The randomness is a product of our own lack of understanding, not a fault of a chaotic universe. -I do not share the view of experimentation. I view all creation as a purposeful movement towards a goal that I do not yet understand. I have seen no false starts, no failed attempts, no out of place artifacts that would lend themselves to the idea of 'experimentation'. Surely, if there were failures, there would be evidence. The dinosaurs, in my opinion, were not failed experiments, but a necessary precursory step in a much grander creative process, as was all that came before, and all that has come since. Like putting a preparation on a canvas and sanding it smooth before you paint. It does not seem like a creative work in and of itself, but without it, the finished painting would be completely different and might not achieve the desired result. What God could derive from 'from so many unrelated species' is a preparation of the canvas in the most efficient manner with the least expenditure of energy.
If God exists, why did he create life?
If there is a God, I would like to know what he is like. The only clue I have, other than unreliable man-made texts, is the world he created, and my only tools are reason, experience and science. Any concept must be derived from and consistent with what I know or think I know of the world. Here are some of the factors (and I would also call them facts) I need to link together if I'm to come up with a consistent pattern: 1) man came relatively late on the evolutionary scene. 2) There are gaps in the evolutionary theory (innovations, long periods of stasis and sudden "explosions", missing links). 3) Millions and millions of species, extinct and extant. 4) A wonderful world of joy, a terrible world of suffering. 5) There is no sign that God intervenes in human affairs.-Here is a theory (not a belief): God created the universe and the mechanism for life and evolution in order to give himself pleasure (explanation of (3)); occasionally he intervened, creating new organs and species (explanation of (2)); his experiments eventually led to humans (explanation of (1)); with their wide range of talents, humans provide him with a wide range of entertainment (explanation of (4) and (5)). I have asked if there is anything in this theory that contradicts what others know of the world. Tony has been kind enough to take up the challenge, and below are quotes from his latest reply: 1) "I believe that they [dinosaurs] were necessary to turn this lump of rock into something inhabitable by humanity." 2) "IF this life is simply a step on a longer journey, then anything we experience here would be the cosmic equivalent of a skinned knee." 3) "I view all creation as a purposeful movement towards a goal that I do not yet understand." 4) "I have seen no false starts, no failed attempts, no out of place artifacts that would lend themselves to the idea of 'experimentation'."-A brief response: 1) Your unsubstantiated belief that the millions of species were needed to prepare the way for humans does not provide any factors to contradict my theory. 2) Your "IF" is like saying that if my theory is wrong, it is wrong. Such an "if" does not provide any factors to contradict my theory. 3) Your belief in a goal that you do not yet understand does not provide any factors to contradict my theory. 4) Experimentation does not mean failure. Every form of life is a successful experiment. Every innovation is a successful experiment. I had asked you to present your own counter-version, but let me see if I can summarize it out of the answers you have given me: God's purpose in creating life was to create humans, though we don't know why, and he had to create millions of other forms of life in order to accomplish this, though we don't why, and he doesn't intervene in human affairs because maybe he is a loving father and maybe this life is a small step in a long journey, though we don't know where to, and maybe this will make the dead child's broken neck seem like a scratch.-I hope this is accurate, and I apologize if it's not, but please don't misunderstand me. I think my scenario presents logical solutions to all the problems I've listed; it's derived from those problems, and is not a preconception imposed on them. However, I'm not stating a belief (I'm a searching agnostic) or denigrating your own beliefs. I'm only asking in what way my hypothetical scenario conflicts with what we know of the world.
If God exists, why did he create life?
by George Jelliss 
, Crewe, Wednesday, December 15, 2010, 10:31 (5091 days ago) @ dhw
If a god existed I would imagine it as being more like some version of Yog-Sothoth:-http://www.viasinistrae.com/yog.htm-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yog-Sothoth-http://www.chaosmatrix.org/library/books/necro_proj/n_yogsothoth.html-http://community-2.webtv.net/TheObsidianMask/YogSothoth/-Not particularly interested in the trivial doings of human beings.
--
GPJ
If God exists, why did he create life?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, December 15, 2010, 13:04 (5091 days ago) @ dhw
I posted a reply to this earlier, but for some reason it didn't take. The short version though, is that the contradiction I see between you statement and evidence is 'purpose'. Whether you want to call it instinct, behavioral Darwinism, genetic memory, or anything else, there is little denying that each and every organism has a distinct purpose. Virus's help manipulate DNA. Algae provide a food source, remove toxic gases other noxious things from the environment, even carbon monoxide. Even every element serves a purpose such as a necessary medium for some elemental force, as Iron, or as a vital component of nutrition such as zinc. What possible entertainment could a UI get from the bodies absorption of Zinc? All of these little details scream 'purpose'. And, as you are trying to use your observations to try and understand the personality of a possible UI, I would think 'purpose' would be pretty high on your list.
If God exists, why did he create life?
TONY: The contradiction I see between your statement and evidence is 'purpose'. Whether you want to call it instinct, behavioral Darwinism, genetic memory, or anything else, there is little denying that each and every organism has a distinct purpose. Virus's help manipulate DNA. Algae provide a food source, remove toxic gases other noxious things from the environment, even carbon monoxide. Even every element serves a purpose such as a necessary medium for some elemental force, as Iron, or as a vital component of nutrition such as zinc. What possible entertainment could a UI get from the bodies absorption of Zinc? All of these little details scream 'purpose'. And, as you are trying to use your observations to try and understand the personality of a possible UI, I would think 'purpose' would be pretty high on your list.-When I ask why God created life, purpose is the whole point of my question. Viruses and bacteria, food sources, removal of toxic gases, the body's absorption of zinc etc. are all essential to life, but they do not explain the purpose of life itself. They are ... as I have already acknowledged several times ... means whereby life is sustained. Not many people would argue that God created life in order to provide viruses, algae and zinc with a purpose! You have even given dinosaurs (and my friend the dodo) a similar purpose: "to turn this lump of rock into something inhabitable by humanity". Believe that if you will ... at least it's a simple enough goal for both of us to understand. However, you say: "I view all creation as a purposeful movement towards a goal that I do not yet understand." It is the goal which you do not understand that is the subject of my question: "why did God create life?" How about: for his own entertainment? Sorry, but you still haven't even dented the theory.
If God exists, why did he create life?
by David Turell , Thursday, December 16, 2010, 01:10 (5090 days ago) @ dhw
However, you say: "I view all creation as a purposeful movement towards a goal that I do not yet understand." It is the goal which you do not understand that is the subject of my question: "why did God create life?" How about: for his own entertainment? Sorry, but you still haven't even dented the theory.-The religions say love, but they can't prove it. It had better be love. Someone that powerful shouldn't be made angry, and there was an angry God in the Old Testament. Love appeared all over the New Testamant. There all sorts of other answers. He was bored. He wanted to entertain himself. He wanted to experiment. He simply wanted to, no real reason. He wanted to prove He could do it: Inorganic matter was the easy part. Life is extremely complicated. Unless God reveals himself, and explains, we will never know. And so far He is not the revealing type.
If God exists, why did he create life?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, December 16, 2010, 05:57 (5090 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Thursday, December 16, 2010, 06:07
When I ask why God created life, purpose is the whole point of my question. Viruses and bacteria, food sources, removal of toxic gases, the body's absorption of zinc etc. are all essential to life, but they do not explain the purpose of life itself. They are ... as I have already acknowledged several times ... means whereby life is sustained. Not many people would argue that God created life in order to provide viruses, algae and zinc with a purpose! You have even given dinosaurs (and my friend the dodo) a similar purpose: "to turn this lump of rock into something inhabitable by humanity". Believe that if you will ... at least it's a simple enough goal for both of us to understand. However, you say: "I view all creation as a purposeful movement towards a goal that I do not yet understand." It is the goal which you do not understand that is the subject of my question: "why did God create life?" How about: for his own entertainment? Sorry, but you still haven't even dented the theory.-We keep dancing around each other. There is nothing entertaining about the absorption of zinc or CO, or many of the multitude of other processes that happen throughout the universe. Which to me indicates that the purpose is something other than entertainment. I am not arguing that he did/does not find it entertaining, simply that entertainment was not the the end goal itself. My inability to provide a replacement goal is not a reason to use entertainment as the answer.
If God exists, why did he create life?
TONY: We keep dancing around each other. There is nothing entertaining about the absorption of zinc or CO, or many of the multitude of other processes that happen throughout the universe. Which to me indicates that the purpose is something other than entertainment.-No dance necessary. The absorption of zinc or CO and the multitude of other processes have the purpose of creating and sustaining life. There is much pleasure to be had out of this essential, creative work, but the entertainment comes from what living creatures do with their lives. There's a distinction between the way things get made and the reason for making them (my question is why, not how).-I think this comment of yours makes it clear that we're dealing with two very different phases in your answer to my question. Because of your conviction that all other forms of life have been created to make Earth "inhabitable by humanity", they all have precisely that purpose for you (i.e. not entertainment). Even if I open my mind to its widest, I don't think I'll ever be able to believe that every extinct and living species of animal, insect, fish, plant etc. was created for the sake of humans, but I respect your faith (inspired by Genesis?) and we can agree to disagree. The second phase is humanity itself, and so instead of asking why God created life, I would have to ask why God created humans. Your next comment can be taken as an answer:-TONY: I am not arguing that he did/does not find it entertaining, simply that entertainment was not the end goal itself. My inability to provide a replacement goal is not a reason to use entertainment as the answer.-Agreed, but I'm merely proposing a theory that seems to me to make sense in all the contexts, prior to and including humans. I have not asked you to accept it, but only to point out anything that "contradicts your own experience and knowledge of the world". The fact that you can't do so suggests to me that the entertainment theory is at least as good as, if not better than any other explanation of God's conduct. As David has pointed out, so far God "is not the revealing type", and if he is there at all, I think you'll agree that his silence cries out for an explanation. The conventional religious one is "have faith" ... again tying in with what David says about God and love ... and that is probably where you and I must again agree to disagree. Stick to your faith, and I'll stay on my fence with my puny human reasoning!
If God exists, why did he create life?
by David Turell , Friday, December 17, 2010, 16:11 (5089 days ago) @ dhw
As David has pointed out, so far God "is not the revealing type", and if he is there at all, I think you'll agree that his silence cries out for an explanation. The conventional religious one is "have faith" ... again tying in with what David says about God and love ... and that is probably where you and I must again agree to disagree. Stick to your faith, and I'll stay on my fence with my puny human reasoning!-His silence does not cry out for explanation. It is more than His asking for faith. He has given us intellect and insatiable curiosity and challenged us to figure out how he did it, made the universe, gave us life, etc.
If God exists, why did he create life?
DAVID: His silence does not cry out for explanation. It is more than His asking for faith. He has given us intellect and insatiable curiosity and challenged us to figure out how he did it, made the universe, gave us life, etc.-For one blissful moment I thought you were going to point out that silences don't cry, but you are far too kind! -I think we challenge ourselves to figure out whether he did it, and if so how he did it. But in any case that is not the silence that disturbs uncommitted folk like me. It's the silence that greets the prayers of those who are being destroyed by catastrophes and diseases and all the other treats that God's natural world has in store for us. Theologians tie themselves in knots trying to explain or justify them, whereas the simplest explanation by far is that if he exists, he doesn't care. Take one step further, and ask why he created them and us if he doesn't care, and the simplest answer is that he enjoys the entertainment (the good as well as the bad). Any more favourable explanation can only rest on faith. As you have so rightly pointed out on the Similarities thread, "Religion tries to answer 'the why question', but has done so in a very unsatisfactory way so far." Atheists needn't bother with 'the why question', but of course that doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't ask it. -(Thank you, George, for the Yog-Sothoth references. If he's insulted, does he ferment into Yoghurt-Sothoth?)
If God exists, why did he create life?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, December 18, 2010, 02:16 (5088 days ago) @ dhw
It's the silence that greets the prayers of those who are being destroyed by catastrophes and diseases and all the other treats that God's natural world has in store for us. Theologians tie themselves in knots trying to explain or justify them, whereas the simplest explanation by far is that if he exists, he doesn't care. Take one step further, and ask why he created them and us if he doesn't care, and the simplest answer is that he enjoys the entertainment (the good as well as the bad). Any more favourable explanation can only rest on faith. As you have so rightly pointed out on the Similarities thread, "Religion tries to answer 'the why question', but has done so in a very unsatisfactory way so far." Atheists needn't bother with 'the why question', but of course that doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't ask it. -DHW while the arrogant humanist streak in me would love to think that humans were the final purpose, there is a part of me that is not so certain of that, which is why I said I do not know what the actual purpose of all life is, merely that it has once. And yes, I do think that everything that has came before was necessary to lead us up to where we are now, and I believe that on several levels, not just the physical biological progression from one organism to the next. -As for the statement above, I have to ask, why blame God? Either you are blaming the UI for the disasters, or blaming him for not bailing us out when they happen. Either way, what made it his responsibility anymore than it is your responsibility to bail your adult children out of jail when they break the law, or to pay their medical bills when they get ill? What is the responsibility of humanity in all of this? -Let's suppose for a moment, since this thread is dealing with God, that God did create everything and all life, gave us this wonderful home, and all the joys of existence and, if *any* of the religious texts are accurate even in the slightest, provided some instruction at the very beginning on how it can be used. If all of that were true, which is more than most parents would, or do, do for their children, what makes it his responsibility to keep us from screwing it all up or from hurting ourselves either by our own willful intention, or out of sheer ignorance and arrogance?
If God exists, why did he create life?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, December 18, 2010, 02:43 (5088 days ago) @ dhw
..... Take one step further, and ask why he created them and us if he doesn't care, and the simplest answer is that he enjoys the entertainment (the good as well as the bad). Any more favourable explanation can only rest on faith. .... Atheists needn't bother with 'the why question', but of course that doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't ask it. > -I apologize in advance if this comes across as a rant, but the statement above struck a nerve DHW.- In all my years of searching, as theist to near atheist and full circle back around to theist, this has been the most common and altogether aggravating statement/question that I have seen from every group of people that I have talked to. -A while back on AW.com I put up a few posts talking about humility and how I value it as a character trait, and received a lot of flack about it. This question/statement is at the heart of the answer. We as, humans, screw ourselves, each other, and everything around us up beyond all reason, and still have the gall to blame something outside of ourselves for the pain that comes from it. Why? Are we really to ignorant, or arrogant, to take responsibility for the fallout of our own failings? -*IF* there is a God, and it gave us only a limited timespan to live, why blame any misfortune that befalls us on him. He did not 'break the child's neck', to use DHW's earlier example. He didn't make people *NOT* use netting that could prevent malaria, or *NOT* give them the medication that could treat it. He didn't make a person poor or rich, he didn't even give us the concept of wealth or money. He didn't divide up the Earth into geopolitical regions and then set them at each others throats for the rest of time. He doesn't start, end, or sanction our wars, regardless of what the priests might say to gain political favor. He doesn't make someone drive drunk, or put a gun in a killers hand, or put drugs in our women's drinks, or stick a needle in our arms. He doesn't take every invention that could be used for the betterment of mankind and turn it into a weapon to be used to destroy life. So, please, with all this talk about how He doesn't care about us, tell me please, just what the hell we have done with this life and this planet and to each other to actually deserve any further kindness in word or deed from him? Why shouldn't he just throw his hands up and tell us that we are on our own? When human beings develop the capacity for humility and accept the responsibility for their own lives, the good and bad, things will become better, not before. In my belief, God gave us everything we needed to be happy. We simply have chosen not to do it.
If God exists, why did he create life?
by David Turell , Saturday, December 18, 2010, 05:11 (5088 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> *IF* there is a God, and it gave us only a limited timespan to live, why blame any misfortune that befalls us on him. He did not 'break the child's neck', to use DHW's earlier example. He didn't make people *NOT* use netting that could prevent malaria, or *NOT* give them the medication that could treat it. He didn't make a person poor or rich, he didn't even give us the concept of wealth or money. He didn't divide up the Earth into geopolitical regions and then set them at each others throats for the rest of time. He doesn't start, end, or sanction our wars, regardless of what the priests might say to gain political favor. He doesn't make someone drive drunk, or put a gun in a killers hand, or put drugs in our women's drinks, or stick a needle in our arms. He doesn't take every invention that could be used for the betterment of mankind and turn it into a weapon to be used to destroy life. So, please, with all this talk about how He doesn't care about us, tell me please, just what the hell we have done with this life and this planet and to each other to actually deserve any further kindness in word or deed from him? Why shouldn't he just throw his hands up and tell us that we are on our own? When human beings develop the capacity for humility and accept the responsibility for their own lives, the good and bad, things will become better, not before. In my belief, God gave us everything we needed to be happy. We simply have chosen not to do it.-There is more truth to your rant than fiction. The gift of life is a tremendous gift. Many of us generally try and screw it up.
If God exists, why did he create life?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, December 18, 2010, 08:20 (5088 days ago) @ David Turell
> > *IF* there is a God, and it gave us only a limited timespan to live, why blame any misfortune that befalls us on him. He did not 'break the child's neck', to use DHW's earlier example. He didn't make people *NOT* use netting that could prevent malaria, or *NOT* give them the medication that could treat it. He didn't make a person poor or rich, he didn't even give us the concept of wealth or money. He didn't divide up the Earth into geopolitical regions and then set them at each others throats for the rest of time. He doesn't start, end, or sanction our wars, regardless of what the priests might say to gain political favor. He doesn't make someone drive drunk, or put a gun in a killers hand, or put drugs in our women's drinks, or stick a needle in our arms. He doesn't take every invention that could be used for the betterment of mankind and turn it into a weapon to be used to destroy life. So, please, with all this talk about how He doesn't care about us, tell me please, just what the hell we have done with this life and this planet and to each other to actually deserve any further kindness in word or deed from him? Why shouldn't he just throw his hands up and tell us that we are on our own? When human beings develop the capacity for humility and accept the responsibility for their own lives, the good and bad, things will become better, not before. In my belief, God gave us everything we needed to be happy. We simply have chosen not to do it. > > There is more truth to your rant than fiction. The gift of life is a tremendous gift. Many of us generally try and screw it up.-I know I am not any kind of good example of a life well led, but I take full credit and responsibility for that. To me, that is a huge difference from what I generally see.
If God exists, why did he create life?
TONY: I apologize in advance if this comes across as a rant, but the statement above struck a nerve DHW. In all my years of searching, as theist to near atheist and full circle back around to theist, this has been the most common and altogether aggravating statement/question that I have seen from every group of people that I have talked to. [...] -We as, humans, screw ourselves, each other, and everything around us up beyond all reason, and still have the gall to blame something outside of ourselves for the pain that comes from it. Why? Are we really too ignorant, or arrogant, to take responsibility for the fallout of our own failings? -This is the most common and altogether aggravating statement that I have seen from every religious apologist when the question is raised of God's responsibilities. My complaint was worded with scrupulous care in order to pre-empt just such a defence: "It's the silence that greets the prayers of those who are being destroyed by catastrophes and diseases and all the other treats that God's natural world has in store for them." You have given one example after another of the disasters caused by man, for which of course man is responsible. The only example you have given of natural disaster is malaria, and then you blame people for not using netting or medication. Why do you think your God created malaria in the first place? Do you think the millions of people who died from it before man found a cure were responsible for their own deaths? Do you think that floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, the thousands of diseases are all man's fault? You may, as many modern apologists do, try to blame them on man's indiscriminate exploitation of the planet, but what about the time when man did not have the means to exploit the planet? Do you think our ancient ancestors were to blame for the natural catastrophes and diseases that maimed or killed them? Or did their lives not count?-Your apology for God ties in with the story of Genesis, in which God created a paradise and then man ruined it by disobeying him. But here's the rub: if you believe the story of Genesis, God was perfectly capable of creating paradise. Disease and natural catastrophes were unnecessary. Even if you don't believe it, it's hard to imagine that a God powerful enough to create a universe is incapable of creating a domain free from disease. But the apologists continue to defend him by presuming there was no other way (a strangely impotent omnipotence), or by switching attention from natural disasters to man-made disasters as you have done. Another interesting defence is that God sets us challenges. Again, the victims clearly don't matter in such games between God and humans, but what, after all, could be more entertaining than a game?-I agree totally with both you and David that life is a wonderful opportunity (credit to God - if he exists - for the good as well as the bad), many humans mess it up, we are responsible for our own actions etc. But to go back to your one and only example of a God-made disaster, I don't see how you can blame the millions of children who died from malaria before man even discovered the cause. And so my new question to you is: why did God create a world in which helpless humans could be destroyed at a moment's notice by forces beyond their own control? But to avoid the conventional theological digressions, please focus your attention on natural catastrophes and diseases, and on the time before humans even knew the causes of those diseases.
If God exists, why did he create life?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, December 18, 2010, 17:42 (5088 days ago) @ dhw
This is the most common and altogether aggravating statement that I have seen from every religious apologist when the question is raised of God's responsibilities. My complaint was worded with scrupulous care in order to pre-empt just such a defence: "It's the silence that greets the prayers of those who are being destroyed by catastrophes and diseases and all the other treats that God's natural world has in store for them." You have given one example after another of the disasters caused by man, for which of course man is responsible. The only example you have given of natural disaster is malaria, and then you blame people for not using netting or medication. Why do you think your God created malaria in the first place? Do you think the millions of people who died from it before man found a cure were responsible for their own deaths? Do you think that floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, the thousands of diseases are all man's fault? You may, as many modern apologists do, try to blame them on man's indiscriminate exploitation of the planet, but what about the time when man did not have the means to exploit the planet? Do you think our ancient ancestors were to blame for the natural catastrophes and diseases that maimed or killed them? Or did their lives not count? > - *MOST* natural catastrophes are *necessary*! Earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, floods, lightning; these are all necessary things. Without them life on this planet would not, could not exist. I am not apologizing for God, that would imply that he would have done something that needed apologizing for. Do you know if the parasite that causes malaria is necessary for the mosquito, or has some benefit for it? I don't and don't pretend to. But I do no it is just another living organism that just happens not to be good for humans. Quite a large number of the natural viruses our there aren't even all that harmful to us. The most deadly ones were created by us indirectly through the indiscriminate use of anti-biotics. Other were transferred to us because we were doing things that were harmful to ourselves and our world to begin with, such as the spread of HIV from monkey's to humans. And as I pointed out a long time ago, every natural disaster, bar none(that I am aware of) gives clear and definite warnings before it hits. If a person chooses NOT to heed those warnings, who is to blame for their death? God?
If God exists, why did he create life?
by David Turell , Saturday, December 18, 2010, 20:59 (5088 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Quite a large number of the natural viruses our there aren't even all that harmful to us. The most deadly ones were created by us indirectly through the indiscriminate use of anti-biotics. Other were transferred to us because we were doing things that were harmful to ourselves and our world to begin with, such as the spread of HIV from monkey's to humans. -As a retired physician I can't let this slip by. Viruses are NOT affected by antibiotics. Antibiotics treat bacteria. Anti-virals treat viruses. The most deadly viruses figured it out to be nasty all by themselves.
If God exists, why did he create life?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, December 19, 2010, 05:09 (5087 days ago) @ David Turell
Not debating the finer points of your comment, as you are undoubtedly correct in pointing out my misuse of terminology. However, are you saying that are over use of medication has had no impact on viruses and bacteria, forcing them to mutate into strains or organisms that are more resilient and deadly? Or perhaps you think that humans would have contracted a virus found natively only in Rhesus(sp?) monkey's had we not been poaching or otherwise doing things we ought not to them? Perhaps the spread of HIV around the globe was not due to poor human decisions either? Biological warfare doesn't exist either, I suppose. I mean, rational humans would never develop a virus or other biological to wipe out other humans, I'm sure those all occurred naturally in their weaponized (and deadlier) form.
If God exists, why did he create life?
by David Turell , Sunday, December 19, 2010, 05:56 (5087 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Not debating the finer points of your comment, as you are undoubtedly correct in pointing out my misuse of terminology. However, are you saying that are over use of medication has had no impact on viruses and bacteria, forcing them to mutate into strains or organisms that are more resilient and deadly? Or perhaps you think that humans would have contracted a virus found natively only in Rhesus(sp?) monkey's had we not been poaching or otherwise doing things we ought not to them? Perhaps the spread of HIV around the globe was not due to poor human decisions either? Biological warfare doesn't exist either, I suppose. I mean, rational humans would never develop a virus or other biological to wipe out other humans, I'm sure those all occurred naturally in their weaponized (and deadlier) form.-I'm not debating most of your points. they are true enough. I'm simply pointing out that overuse of antibiotics, by definition, produces bacteria that are antibiotic resistant. Possibly the bacteria that are eradicated by antibiotics leave an open field for viruses to have some fun and do some more mutating on their own, leading to more virulent viruses, but that is only a theory. Antibiotics do not change the virulence of bacteria, just their resistance to therapy.-There is a tone of sarcasm or hostility in the rest of your paragraph. Is that correct, or is this the way you like to come across?
If God exists, why did he create life?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, December 20, 2010, 03:56 (5086 days ago) @ David Turell
Yeah.. sorry about that. There was a bit of sarcasm there. (Rough day, long story) But I should apologize for it regardless.
If God exists, why did he create life?
TONY: *MOST* natural catastrophes are *necessary*! Earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, floods, lightning; these are all necessary things. Without them life on this planet would not, could not exist. I am not apologizing for God, that would imply that he would have done something that needed apologizing for. Do you know if the parasite that causes malaria is necessary for the mosquito, or has some benefit for it? I don't and don't pretend to. But I do no it is just another living organism that just happens not to be good for humans. Quite a large number of the natural viruses out there aren't even all that harmful to us. The most deadly ones were created by us indirectly through the indiscriminate use of anti-biotics. Other were transferred to us because we were doing things that were harmful to ourselves and our world to begin with, such as the spread of HIV from monkey's to humans. And as I pointed out a long time ago, every natural disaster, bar none(that I am aware of) gives clear and definite warnings before it hits. If a person chooses NOT to heed those warnings, who is to blame for their death? God?-First let me clear up a slight misunderstanding: an apologist is someone who tries to defend a particular idea. It's not someone who apologizes, and I would not dream of asking you to apologize for God. He alone is responsible for his actions!-If "most" of the natural catastrophes that have indiscriminately killed or maimed millions of people through the ages are necessary for life, then a God powerful enough to create a universe must have been incapable of creating life without indiscriminate slaughter. If that comforts and satisfies you, so be it. What about the catastrophes that are not necessary?-I ended my post by asking: "Why did God create a world in which helpless humans could be destroyed at a moment's notice by forces beyond their control? But to avoid the conventional theological digressions, please focus your attention on natural catastrophes and diseases, and on the time before humans even knew the causes of those diseases." -You have answered with: 1) a question about the possible benefits of the parasite to the mosquito (strange that in your anthropocentric world the survival of the mosquito has precedence over that of the millions of humans it has killed); 2) the fact that a lot of viruses are not harmful (but I'm talking about those that are); 3) the claim that the most deadly viruses are caused by misuse of antibiotics (not produced commercially until the 20th century, and in your response to Dr David's correction you have once more focused only on modern human failings, ignoring all other deadly viruses and diseases that have ravaged humanity throughout its history); 4) a reference to AIDS (not known till the 1980s). As for blaming humans for not escaping, perhaps you think our ancient ancestors should have jumped into their luxury cruisers when God sent down the Great Flood. (I'm using that as a symbol for all such natural disasters and for the helplessness of their victims). I respect your faith, and I acknowledge that my attempts to solve the problem of God's apparent indifference to human suffering are hampered by the limitations of my powers of reason. However, I'm afraid I just can't go along with your exclusive focus on those modern diseases that may have been the fault of humans, and your belief that throughout human history the billions of human deaths caused by "most" of God's floods, earthquakes etc. were necessary for the survival of humans. This sounds to me rather like a lawyer defending his client against the charge of burgling House No. 1 on the grounds that someone else burgled House No. 2, and in any case crime is necessary for the survival of the police force, so who cares about the victims? I'm about to go away for the next two weeks (weather permitting), but in the meantime I sincerely hope that neither you nor I will be struck down by one of God's necessary catastrophes or deadly home-made viruses! Maybe we can maintain a better balance when I get back!
If God exists, why did he create life?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, December 20, 2010, 04:28 (5086 days ago) @ dhw
If "most" of the natural catastrophes that have indiscriminately killed or maimed millions of people through the ages are necessary for life, then a God powerful enough to create a universe must have been incapable of creating life without indiscriminate slaughter. If that comforts and satisfies you, so be it. What about the catastrophes that are not necessary? > > I ended my post by asking: "Why did God create a world in which helpless humans could be destroyed at a moment's notice by forces beyond their control? But to avoid the conventional theological digressions, please focus your attention on natural catastrophes and diseases, and on the time before humans even knew the causes of those diseases." > > You have answered with: > > As for blaming humans for not escaping, perhaps you think our ancient ancestors should have jumped into their luxury cruisers when God sent down the Great Flood. (I'm using that as a symbol for all such natural disasters and for the helplessness of their victims). > > I respect your faith, and I acknowledge that my attempts to solve the problem of God's apparent indifference to human suffering are hampered by the limitations of my powers of reason. However, I'm afraid I just can't go along with your exclusive focus on those modern diseases that may have been the fault of humans, and your belief that throughout human history the billions of human deaths caused by "most" of God's floods, earthquakes etc. were necessary for the survival of humans. This sounds to me rather like a lawyer defending his client against the charge of burgling House No. 1 on the grounds that someone else burgled House No. 2, and in any case crime is necessary for the survival of the police force, so who cares about the victims? > -Ok, so lets back up a couple of thousand years or so, and ask some necessary questions.-1)Did God(s), or some other higher being force people to live in an Earthquake riddled part of the Mediterranean? -2)Did God(s), or some other higher being force people to live within the kill zone of an active volcano? (And for the sake of brevity, let us just apply this question to all areas prone to natural disasters, i.e. flood planes, Hurricane and tornado alleys, etc)-3)Do all such natural disasters provide some form of warning before they strike, that under most circumstances would allow people to evacuate the area, on foot if need be? -Bear in mind that natural disasters have a very limited range, normally of less than 100 miles, which from experience I can testify can be crossed, on foot, with at least 80lbs of goods on your back, in a matter of about 4 days. The effective killing range of most natural disasters is actually MUCH less than that(A mile can clear you from a tornado, 5 miles from a hurricane and less for most other natural disasters. A fleeing human carrying nothing with them can exceed the 25 mile per day mark quite easily. -4)Are there simple and effective ways to survive?-Many natural disasters only require a bit of brains to survive, i.e. cover your mouth and nose if you are in the ash cloud radius of a volcano, try to be outside and away from buildings for major earthquakes. Don't put your house at the bottom of the hill next to the river if you don't want to get flooded, and if you do live next to the river, have a boat, canoe, log raft, reed bundle, or some other floaty thing nearby for emergencies. And our ancient ancestors were clever, they knew the dangers, in fact they worshiped most of these events because they were dangerous. (Egyptian's and the Nile flooding for example)- As for ancient viruses, the most effective countermeasures we have today, was known by at least 900 BCE. We know this because several of those counter measures were written about in the Torah,(See the list of directions for setting up the Israelites camp as they wandered the desert for 40 years) and included things like proper sanitation and bathing(also huge in the Roman and Egyptian civilizations), latrines being away from your eating and living spaces(Reference ). The major sources of plague could be avoided in a couple of easy steps. First, by not congregating in major cities, and second again with cleanliness(this time avoiding rats and flies, the carriers for two types of plague). It is hard to argue about the possible viruses that were around then, because many have mutated, but truth be told, you don't hear about many viral outbreaks in ancient history. You hear about Plague which is transmitted from rats or flies depending on the type, and then spread from person to person.
If God exists, why did he create life?
My reason for asking the above question was to explore the possible nature of a God/UI if it does exist. In considering the rich variety of life, the apparent randomness with which billions of species have appeared and disappeared, the equal randomness with which natural disasters and diseases have struck the planet, and the apparent non-intervention of God in human affairs, I suggested the unifying theory of a God who created life for his own entertainment. Tony (b_m) has very patiently given his explanations of all the above, and rather than quote his last response (20 December at 04.28), I will try to summarize his different arguments:-1) All life was geared to the production of humans, and we just don't know why dodos and dinosaurs etc. were essential prerequisites. 2) Natural disasters and diseases are essential factors in the production and survival of humans. 3) If humans don't heed the warnings or take the necessary precautions, it's their own fault when they are struck down by natural disasters and diseases. 4) God has an ultimate plan for humans, but we don't know what that plan is.-Tony, please forgive me if any of this is inaccurate. I'm trying to understand your approach, and these are the arguments I've extrapolated from your posts as a "defence" of God's apparent indifference to the suffering not just of humans but of all his creatures (though we mustn't ignore the beauty and happiness that are also on offer to us).-Your last post on the subject offered excellent examples of 3), but the image that came very forcibly into my mind was that of the terrorist issuing a warning that a bomb is about to explode in the middle of a crowded market. Whether everyone really will have time to escape is not the issue here: my concern is the attitude of the terrorist who plants the bomb in the first place. If he has no feeling of responsibility or guilt at the death or maiming of even a single victim, then is this the sort of being I want to have power over me? (I realize that what I want is not relevant, but I'm actually probing into what I think YOU want!) The image of God that you have drawn is of one who is capable of creating a universe, but not capable of creating living beings without the imposition of appalling suffering. We don't know why all the dead creatures were essential for the production of humans, we don't know why all the disasters and diseases were/are also essential (though you have given some illuminating explanations of selected cases), the victims are apparently to blame for not getting out of the way, and we don't know what God is actually aiming at. This to me is a theory full of don't-knows and unsubstantiated presuppositions. Of course it doesn't matter two hoots whether or not I find it convincing, but what we're all doing on this forum is offering one another ideas to be tested and thought through, and I wonder to what extent you yourself actually find your theory convincing. To go one step further, I wonder why you might prefer it to simpler theories that at least have the merit of not requiring any further explanation: (a) that the apparent randomness indicates that there is no God at all, or (b) that God's interest lies purely in creating life, with all its apparently random contingencies, and watching how the spectacle develops.
If God exists, why did he create life?
by David Turell , Sunday, January 02, 2011, 15:23 (5073 days ago) @ dhw
> 1) All life was geared to the production of humans, and we just don't know why dodos and dinosaurs etc. were essential prerequisites. > 2) Natural disasters and diseases are essential factors in the production and survival of humans. > 3) If humans don't heed the warnings or take the necessary precautions, it's their own fault when they are struck down by natural disasters and diseases. > 4) God has an ultimate plan for humans, but we don't know what that plan is.- > To go one step further, I wonder why you might prefer it to simpler theories that at least have the merit of not requiring any further explanation: (a) that the apparent randomness indicates that there is no God at all, or (b) that God's interest lies purely in creating life, with all its apparently random contingencies, and watching how the spectacle develops.-Jumping in, Tony's first 3 points fit my reasoning exactly. To create this 'goldylocks' planet required an evolultionary plan with all the disasters, thereby taking the third rock from the sun and making it habitable. We have giant brains to give ourselves warnings so we can avoid most of the disasters. The biological evolutionary plan is programmed for increasingly complex organisms, dashing off in all possible directions, until ideal forms appear. There are essays in recent years suggestiong that evolution is over with our arrival. As for point four,what God's plan should do next is beside the point. If his purpose was to create us, the plan is over.-As for simpler theories, your plan (b) is fine, but not watching the spectacle, perhaps guiding it, with planned codes in DNA set up beforehand.
If God exists, why did he create life?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, January 02, 2011, 19:10 (5073 days ago) @ dhw
> 1) All life was geared to the production of humans, and we just don't know why dodos and dinosaurs etc. were essential prerequisites. > 2) Natural disasters and diseases are essential factors in the production and survival of humans. > 3) If humans don't heed the warnings or take the necessary precautions, it's their own fault when they are struck down by natural disasters and diseases. > 4) God has an ultimate plan for humans, but we don't know what that plan is. > > Tony, please forgive me if any of this is inaccurate. I'm trying to understand your approach, and these are the arguments I've extrapolated from your posts as a "defence" of God's apparent indifference to the suffering not just of humans but of all his creatures (though we mustn't ignore the beauty and happiness that are also on offer to us). > > Your last post on the subject offered excellent examples of 3), but the image that came very forcibly into my mind was that of the terrorist issuing a warning that a bomb is about to explode in the middle of a crowded market. Whether everyone really will have time to escape is not the issue here: my concern is the attitude of the terrorist who plants the bomb in the first place. If he has no feeling of responsibility or guilt at the death or maiming of even a single victim, then is this the sort of being I want to have power over me? (I realize that what I want is not relevant, but I'm actually probing into what I think YOU want!) The image of God that you have drawn is of one who is capable of creating a universe, but not capable of creating living beings without the imposition of appalling suffering. We don't know why all the dead creatures were essential for the production of humans, we don't know why all the disasters and diseases were/are also essential (though you have given some illuminating explanations of selected cases), the victims are apparently to blame for not getting out of the way, and we don't know what God is actually aiming at. This to me is a theory full of don't-knows and unsubstantiated presuppositions. Of course it doesn't matter two hoots whether or not I find it convincing, but what we're all doing on this forum is offering one another ideas to be tested and thought through, and I wonder to what extent you yourself actually find your theory convincing. To go one step further, I wonder why you might prefer it to simpler theories that at least have the merit of not requiring any further explanation: (a) that the apparent randomness indicates that there is no God at all, or (b) that God's interest lies purely in creating life, with all its apparently random contingencies, and watching how the spectacle develops.- (a) that the apparent randomness indicates that there is no God at all:-Actually it is because despite the seeming chaos and randomness I see patterns, and so do most physicist, whether they realize it or not, or else their precious physics simply would not work.-(b) that God's interest lies purely in creating life, with all its apparently random contingencies, and watching how the spectacle develops.-I have not completely discarded this hypothesis, despite my objections to it, I still admit the possibility. It seems so absolutely counter intuitive to everything though that it is very difficult from me to swallow, all anthropological deities aside.- I would like to address your terrorist analogy for a moment, though. There is a fundamental difference between the two scenarios, that of a creating God and that of a terrorist. The most important distinguishing characteristic, without attributing any personality beyond this present analogy, is that the natural disasters and diseases and such often promote life as well as take it, where as the terrorists only goal is to take life and instill fear. A volcano creates earth and soil that will eventually provide habitable land. Hurricanes cool the planet and help maintain homeostasis. Tsunami's act as geological shock absorbers and help prevent earth quakes from causing even more devastation. The core of the planet is heated by the breakdown of radioactive materials which are also deadly to us. Even the sun, which is responsible for the survival of all life on planet earth could end said life in a heartbeat, and over exposure to it is deadly. -These things play a necessary role. We even KNOW the necessity of them in many cases. How strange is it, though, that all of them give warning signs? To use your analogy, how many terrorist call the FAA and say what day they are going to put the bomb on the plane.
If God exists, why did he create life?
TONY: Actually it is because despite the seeming chaos and randomness I see patterns, and so do most physicists, whether they realize it or not, or else their precious physics simply would not work.-I don't think anyone would deny that there are patterns when it comes to the laws of physics, chemistry, biology etc., but the seeming randomness that I'm referring to is the manner in which natural disasters and diseases strike indiscriminately. -Even if I were to accept (though I don't) that the Boxing Day 2004 tsunami which killed over 230,000 people and devastated communities and towns over a vast area was actually necessary for the survival of the human race, and that the ghosts (I speak figuratively) of the once flourishing Pompeii should be comforted by the fact that "a volcano creates earth and soil that will eventually provide habitable land", the point of my terrorist analogy was to focus on the mind of the perpetrator. -I now need to tread very carefully, because as always I don't want to cause offence, but your anthropocentric view of the universe seems to me only to emphasize God's apparent indifference towards all other forms of life, and even humans themselves. I have never met a dodo or a dinosaur, nor did I know any of the inhabitants of Pompeii, or any victims of the 2004 tsunami, but I find the nonchalant dismissal of their extinction/suffering/death as a "necessity" very disturbing. It's the same disrespect for individual lives that underlies the worst excesses of human conduct. The terrorist generally doesn't kill just for the sake of it or to "instill fear", but to serve what he thinks is a higher cause ... his own form of "necessity". My analogy therefore points to a God for whom individual lives, whether animal or human, have never mattered and still do not matter so long as the higher cause is served, i.e. the show goes on. Your own explanations imply the same: animals and humans are to be sacrificed to ensure that other humans survive (and it's the victims' own fault for not interpreting the rumblings). The only difference between us seems to be that you can't think of a purpose, whereas I can. David says that if God's purpose "was to create us, the plan is over." I would simply take it one step further, and ask why he created us ... and would suggest that if the plan is over, all that remains is the spectacle.-If we follow this line of reasoning, the important question then becomes, not whether God exists, but whether his existence actually matters. An impersonal God for whom individual lives are of no significance might just as well not be there, so why should we as individuals bother with him?
If God exists, why did he create life?
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 04, 2011, 00:46 (5071 days ago) @ dhw
David says that if God's purpose "was to create us, the plan is over." I would simply take it one step further, and ask why he created us ... and would suggest that if the plan is over, all that remains is the spectacle. > > If we follow this line of reasoning, the important question then becomes, not whether God exists, but whether his existence actually matters. An impersonal God for whom individual lives are of no significance might just as well not be there, so why should we as individuals bother with him?-Theodicy is a tough area to think about. Whatever is God may certainly be impersonal. We don't know that the concerned God of religions is real. Adler left it at a 50/50 proposition that God cared for the individual. Changing the Earth from a big rock to what we have now, allows life, but it also requires all of the dangerous events that have occurred and are still ocurring. Even if God doesn't care, He has given us life to experience and enjoy. To my mind that is a great gift all by itself.
If God exists, why did he create life?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, January 04, 2011, 07:51 (5071 days ago) @ dhw
> Even if I were to accept (though I don't) that the Boxing Day 2004 tsunami which killed over 230,000 people and devastated communities and towns over a vast area was actually necessary for the survival of the human race, and that the ghosts (I speak figuratively) of the once flourishing Pompeii should be comforted by the fact that "a volcano creates earth and soil that will eventually provide habitable land", the point of my terrorist analogy was to focus on the mind of the perpetrator. > -During the 2004 Tsunami, there was a group of people, whose name I do not recall, that survived the tsunami without the loss of a single life in their tribe because they heeded the warnings and acted accordingly. The same could almost certainly said of survivors of the Pompeii volcano, the residents of New Orleans, and the survivors of other natural disasters. You seem to have made the assumption that, and feel free to correct me if I am mistaken, that people are not responsible for their own lives, and that their failure to pay attention to the warnings represents a callous disregard for life on the part of a UI. Is the engineer that designs brakes for cars(which come standard with a warning system to tell you they are going bad) responsible for people who die because they fail to heed the warning and crash when their brakes fail? Did that engineer show a callous disregard, or even indifference to life? He knew the brakes would eventually fail, he built in a warning to notify the operators of the danger, and some might speculate that when people die because of his brakes, despite the fact that they ignored the warning, he might feel remorse or regret at their deaths. Yet, in this example, we generally do not blame the engineer, we blame the individual. Why do you not hold people to the same standard in other aspects of their lives, choosing to instead blame the UI for their deaths when they fail to heed the warnings?-Just like the engineer, there was no innate need for any form of UI to put any form of warning system in any of its creations. Had there been no warning signs, I could accept your reasoning that it is perhaps indifferent, or has a callous disregard for life. However, as things are, I do hold people responsible for their own actions and decisions, or lack thereof.-To answer your last question, there is no reason not to be indifferent to a UI, if one exists, other than simple gratitude for every breath you draw, every sunset you witness, and every twinge in your guts when you feel the love of someone you care about. In general, I find that people like to take credit for the good in their life, and avoid all responsibility for the bad.
If God exists, why did he create life?
Tony has heard of a group of people who heeded the 2004 tsunami warnings and escaped unscathed. He therefore assumes that the 230,000 people who died (not to mention the millions whose lives were ruined by loss of family, property, livelihood etc.) were to blame for their own fate. He writes: "You seem to have made the assumption that, and feel free to correct me if I am mistaken, that people are not responsible for their own lives, and that their failure to pay attention to the warnings represents a callous disregard for life on the part of a UI."-It would be absurd to argue that people are not to a degree responsible for their own lives, but your blanket assumption that since the dawn of time every creature and human has been given adequate warning of natural disasters and diseases and has had the means to avoid them seems to me unrealistic in the extreme. I can't imagine that you yourself have absolutely no compassion for those that have perished, or that you blame every dinosaur, caveman, child and cripple for not avoiding the ravages of Nature.-You've asked me in your "aside" whether I think earthquakes and volcanoes are not essential to the survival of our planet. Our planet would not be as it is without them, but how can I possibly say whether it might have been built differently and still maintained life? This is the only form of life and ecosystem we know, and if it was built by a UI, the UI is responsible for the system. In trying to understand its thinking, I have nothing else to go on, and what I see is a system of indiscriminate suffering and slaughter ... as well as the love, sunsets and beauty to which you rightly draw attention.-You write: "In general, I find that people like to take credit for the good in their life, and avoid all responsibility for the bad." In general, I find that conventionally religious people like to give credit to God for all the good in life, and to hold humans responsible for the bad. My own observations suggest that humans are responsible for much of the good and much of the bad, but they are also recipients of much good and much bad from forces that are beyond their own control. -You write: "there is no reason not to be indifferent to a UI, if one exists, other than simple gratitude for every breath you draw etc." This ties in nicely with David's observation: "Even if God doesn't care, He has given us life to experience and enjoy. To my mind that is a great gift all by itself." As one of the (so far) lucky ones to have been given a winning ticket in the lottery, I can only agree with both of you, and am extremely happy that chance or a UI has given me such an opportunity. But I can't go along with the sentiment that those who have not been so fortunate as me are always to blame for their own suffering. It is the apparent randomness of the latter, and the apparent impersonality of the whole system, that makes me question a possible God's concern for individuals and hence his relevance to our lives.-*** I've just read that you're going to be away, so let me wish you a safe journey and a great time with the family. No matter what disagreements we may have, we are at one over our priorities!
If God exists, why did he create life?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, January 06, 2011, 19:44 (5069 days ago) @ dhw
> You write: "there is no reason not to be indifferent to a UI, if one exists, other than simple gratitude for every breath you draw etc." This ties in nicely with David's observation: "Even if God doesn't care, He has given us life to experience and enjoy. To my mind that is a great gift all by itself." As one of the (so far) lucky ones to have been given a winning ticket in the lottery, I can only agree with both of you, and am extremely happy that chance or a UI has given me such an opportunity. But I can't go along with the sentiment that those who have not been so fortunate as me are always to blame for their own suffering. It is the apparent randomness of the latter, and the apparent impersonality of the whole system, that makes me question a possible God's concern for individuals and hence his relevance to our lives. > -**got to love nap time, it gives me a chance to sneak in a post while everyone else is sleeping :P88-At the risk of again seeming callous, I would ask you to try to 'zoom out' your perspective a bit. Step back from the ultra personal perception of every death that you feel represents a lack of interest or concern on the part of a UI and look at a bigger picture. Every fleshly creature that is born must eventually die. This law of nature is so pervasive that we have, as of yet, failed to find a single exception to this rule. Why? Why allow the death of something you created? The simple answer, because it must be so. If nothing ever died in the billions of years we think the earth has been around, we would not be able to take a single step because of the over abundance of life. We could not eat because all that we eat requires the death of something, either plant or animal. We could not grow crops because plants require nutrients that are donated to the soil by the decomposition of dead matter, whether through the actual rotting of a corpse or from the defecation of plant or animal matter that must have died in order to be digested. So, in that regard, ask yourself, is death a absolute, if tragic, necessity? To push the point further, isn't it beautiful how even death brings forth life? On a personal level I do, in fact, feel intense remorse over any life that ends, because I find every individual life a beautiful and awe inspiring miracle that is beyond our ability to explain why it happens at all. I feel sympathy for those that die, whether by their own action/inaction, or through no fault of their own. But, on the other side of the scale, I recognize that it is in fact a necessity. This world could not function without this cycle. I would not be alive without this cycle. And therefore, I am forced to acknowledge its necessity, and admire the beautiful tragic simplicity of it. I have personally experienced more death than any one person should ever have to witness, particular during my time serving in Iraq. Friends, some I considered as close as brothers, dying unnecessarily, and often under seemingly random circumstances. I will never see them again, their families can never replace them. That is something I carry with me every day of my life. So please, do not confuse my statements with callousness or a lack of compassion, but that experience has helped me to understand the importance of death, and has helped me to cope with it, often to a point that others do not understand and mistake for a lack of care or concern.-As far as your statement: "In general, I find that conventionally religious people like to give credit to God for all the good in life, and to hold humans responsible for the bad." Much like you, I hold people responsible for much of the good and bad in their life, and I also recognize that much is beyond their control. The UI, in my personal perspective, is ultimately what we consider neutral, though I find that word extremely lacking. I can already sense that someone is going to misunderstand that statement and respond with something to the effect of "If the UI is neutral than that would mean that he is indifferent..etc etc." This is not the case at all, from my perspective. Perhaps a better way of phrasing it would be to say that I believe the UI has an "ultimate grasp of necessity that trancends our limited understanding of good, evil, and everything in between. I do not personally hold him responsible for every death, though, in an abstract way I could grudgingly concede the point as it was him who implemented the system that allowed for death by creating a realm in which life was even a possibility, for without life, there could be no death, no pain, no suffering. How many times have you heard the phrase a "necessary evil", or something that is temporarily a negative that must occur in order to bring about a long term positive? If we can understand that concept in our own actions, why are we so blind to perceiving the concept in regards to a UI?
If God exists, why did he create life?
TONY: ** got to love nap time, it gives me a chance to sneak in a post while everyone else is sleeping.-This brings back great memories. Alas, nowadays I'm the one who is liable to be caught napping.-I'm glad you were able to sneak in this post, because I find your thoughts on death not only highly pertinent and beautifully expressed, but also revealing about your own approach. I never for one moment thought you were lacking in compassion, but the personal background you have described gives me a much greater understanding of your views (and your pseudonym!). I can only admire the way you have dealt with your experiences. -I have no quarrel with what you say about the "necessary evil" of death, pain and suffering. You can't have good without bad, and the transience of all things is what endows them with their value. That is a problem many of us have with the concept of everlasting life, because it's impossible to conceive of endlessness as anything but unbearable, unless it's endless unconsciousness. However, in the context of this particular discussion, you have ... albeit grudgingly ... come as close as I think you ever will to acknowledging the argument that underlies the question posed by this thread: If God exists, why did he create life? In order to answer it, we have to speculate on the nature of the creator as reflected in his creation. You have used the word "neutral" with a number of important qualifications, and I can accept all of them, but this neutrality is the key to the answer which I suggested at the beginning, with the challenge to provide counter-arguments: life is an experiment devised for God's entertainment, and the random distribution of pain and pleasure offers no evidence to indicate that he has any personal interest in us as individuals. If so, he has no relevance to our lives. This should not be seen as an attempt to pass judgement (I'm not that presumptuous!), but only as an attempt to make sense of the world as we know it.
If God exists, why did he create life?
by David Turell , Friday, January 07, 2011, 14:45 (5068 days ago) @ dhw
life is an experiment devised for God's entertainment, and the random distribution of pain and pleasure offers no evidence to indicate that he has any personal interest in us as individuals. If so, he has no relevance to our lives. This should not be seen as an attempt to pass judgement (I'm not that presumptuous!), but only as an attempt to make sense of the world as we know it.-In Judaism at the Passover Sedar there is a prayer often sung called "Dayanu",meaning: it is enough. Whatever God has done for us is enough. HE has given us life. We are here to battle with it and enjoy it. I'm not ready to leave life. I have enjoyed most of it. I have been privileged to be alive. It is enough, Dayanu! And that is Judaisms' answer to your question.
If God exists, why did he create life?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, January 07, 2011, 18:27 (5068 days ago) @ David Turell
life is an experiment devised for God's entertainment, and the random distribution of pain and pleasure offers no evidence to indicate that he has any personal interest in us as individuals. If so, he has no relevance to our lives. This should not be seen as an attempt to pass judgement (I'm not that presumptuous!), but only as an attempt to make sense of the world as we know it. > > In Judaism at the Passover Sedar there is a prayer often sung called "Dayanu",meaning: it is enough. Whatever God has done for us is enough. HE has given us life. We are here to battle with it and enjoy it. I'm not ready to leave life. I have enjoyed most of it. I have been privileged to be alive. It is enough, Dayanu! And that is Judaisms' answer to your question.-I find that sentiment to be quite beautiful. Thank you for sharing it. It does not answer the why, but it is something resonates with me deeply. There is something else that falls into the category of this conversation DHW, that I don't think I have spoken about(I could be mistaken). Without pain, without heartache, death, sickness, and other negatives, would you have any reference at all to appreciate all the good in your life? Generally, when we see someone who has never experienced pain, they are spoiled brats, insulated from the world and from reality, ungrateful for all they have, not compassionate for others, and have no natural affection for anything because they have no reference to appreciate it. Pain to me is as absolutely necessary as the disasters that I have discussed. Yin & Yang, Good & Evil, Right & Wrong, Light & Darkness, Life & Death, Pain & Pleasure, Love & Hate, Have & Have Not, Matter & Anti-matter, Positive & Negative, Rational & Emotional. Without one, you can not truly appreciate the other. In everything there is a balancing act that must be maintained, that is absolutely necessary, and that is the true meaning behind my pseudonym. It is a rule that permeates the universe, it is a fundamental concept in mathematics, science, and nature. All people intuitively grasp the concept, though not many ever consciously and completely accept it, much less understand it. -The people living six months in darkness find the light of the first sunrise on their face a experience that borders on spiritual, while the man trudging through the murderous heat of the Sahara finds nightfall and darkness a tremendous blessing. In these cases, both the light and the darkness are a source of life. Too much light will ultimately kill you as just as certainly as too much darkness.-Perhaps the UI created this realm of experience so that we could more fully appreciate the gift of simple existence. Personally, after a few million years of watching the cycle of life go round and round, I think it will most likely have lost all its entertainment value, like watching one too many movies. The sequence of events and characters may change, but the plot never really does, which makes the movie boring. What fun is it if you know that the hero is always going to die eventually?
If God exists, why did he create life?
TONY: Without pain, without heartache, death, sickness, and other negatives, would you have any reference at all to appreciate all the good in your life? -Ah, Tony, now I've caught you napping with your kids. This was precisely what I meant when, in the post to which you are responding, I wrote: -"I have no quarrel with what you say about the "necessary evil" of death, pain and suffering. You can't have good without bad, and the transience of all things is what endows them with their value." -In your last paragraph, you have challenged my entertainment theory: "...after a few million years of watching the cycle of life go round and round, I think it will most likely have lost all its entertainment value, like watching one too many movies." First of all, no-one would expect an entertainment to last for ever, but a few million years of fun is surely preferable to a few million years of boredom ... just as an hour of pleasure is preferable to an hour of pain. Secondly the human show is full of variations, which I think would make it infinitely more interesting than the dinosaur story, for instance, and remember, that went on for 160 million years. Who knows what God might think up when he's finished with us? -Like you, I loved David's "Dayanu" post, and echo all its sentiments. And it reminds me of something we certainly haven't mentioned before. Since I find it hard to believe that a god could create anything of which it had no knowledge, I find it comforting to think that ours ... if he exists ... must have a great sense of humour.-It is now time for my short ten-hour nap.
If God exists, why did he create life?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, January 08, 2011, 08:47 (5067 days ago) @ dhw
> In your last paragraph, you have challenged my entertainment theory: "...after a few million years of watching the cycle of life go round and round, I think it will most likely have lost all its entertainment value, like watching one too many movies." First of all, no-one would expect an entertainment to last for ever, but a few million years of fun is surely preferable to a few million years of boredom ... just as an hour of pleasure is preferable to an hour of pain. Secondly the human show is full of variations, which I think would make it infinitely more interesting than the dinosaur story, for instance, and remember, that went on for 160 million years. Who knows what God might think up when he's finished with us? > -A few million years in the billions of years our universe has been around? That would be like paying the $9 to go to the movies and only watching the first preview.- > Like you, I loved David's "Dayanu" post, and echo all its sentiments. And it reminds me of something we certainly haven't mentioned before. Since I find it hard to believe that a god could create anything of which it had no knowledge, I find it comforting to think that ours ... if he exists ... must have a great sense of humour. > -A sense of humor is definitely something to find comforting :P
If God exists, why did he create life?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, January 04, 2011, 09:13 (5071 days ago) @ dhw
Even if I were to accept (though I don't) that the Boxing Day 2004 tsunami which killed over 230,000 people and devastated communities and towns over a vast area was actually necessary for the survival of the human race, and that the ghosts (I speak figuratively) of the once flourishing Pompeii should be comforted by the fact that "a volcano creates earth and soil that will eventually provide habitable land", the point of my terrorist analogy was to focus on the mind of the perpetrator.-As an aside here, Tsunamis, as we all know are the result of earthquakes. Earthquakes produce tremendously violent shock waves, again, as we all know. Water, as a medium, is terribly efficient at absorbing the energy of those shock-waves, which are then transformed into motion and form the waves that become Tsunami's. We all know all this. My questions that I would ask you to ponder are, what would happen to this world we call home if there were no medium to absorb all the tremendous energy released in an earthquake? How long do you think our home would survive under the constant onslaught of these earthquakes? Do you think that plate tectonics, and thus earthquakes, are not an integral part of life on this planet, a geologic necessity for the survival and development of life? -The volcano at Pompeii, is another fine example. Do you think that life on this planet, regardless of whether you believe in a UI or evolution, could exist without volcanoes? Does the fact that volcanoes serve as a natural pressure relief system for the Earth's molten core (Which provides our EM field, and a host of other benefits) not strike you as a necessity for the stability of the planet, aside from the many other numerous benefits they provide? Do you think our planet, and thus our species or any other that calls this planet home could could survive without volcanoes?-I will end this particular aside here, as my other response to your post covers my view on the humanitarian side of things.
If God exists, why did he create life?
by romansh , Saturday, December 18, 2010, 21:20 (5088 days ago) @ dhw
If there is a god - I have absolutely no clue why it would do anything, nevermind create life.-All I can do anthropomorphize its intents.-I think I have summed up all I can say intelligently about why a god might do anything.
If God exists, why did he create life?
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Saturday, December 18, 2010, 19:24 (5088 days ago) @ dhw
If a creator or first cause of the universe exists, or existed, it does not necessarily follow that it also created life. Life could just be an accidental byproduct. The aim could have been, say, to produce black holes, or gold. Except of course that postulating an intelligent first cause, is to postulate a preexisting life-form. So if a creator existed, life already existed, though I suppose believers would say that the creator must be a different form of life, formed of something other than matter, immaterial.
--
GPJ
If God exists, why did he create life?
by David Turell , Saturday, December 18, 2010, 21:01 (5088 days ago) @ George Jelliss
If a creator or first cause of the universe exists, or existed, > it does not necessarily follow that it also created life. > Life could just be an accidental byproduct. > The aim could have been, say, to produce black holes, or gold. > > Except of course that postulating an intelligent first cause, > is to postulate a preexisting life-form. > So if a creator existed, life already existed, > though I suppose believers would say that the creator > must be a different form of life, > formed of something other than matter, immaterial.-I think He is pure organized energy as an intelligence, not a life form.
If God exists, why did he create life?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, December 19, 2010, 05:13 (5087 days ago) @ David Turell
I have to agree with David. Despite repeated attempts to liken my beliefs to mainstream Christianity, this definition is most clearly in line with my own beliefs. As far as anthropomorphizing that energy into something humanish, well, it is a tool to exceed barrier of thought and language. How do you relate to something for which you have no frame of reference? You put it in a frame of reference that allows you to analyze it, and adjust the reference frame as you go.
If God exists, why did he create life?
by David Turell , Sunday, December 19, 2010, 05:58 (5087 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
I have to agree with David. Despite repeated attempts to liken my beliefs to mainstream Christianity, this definition is most clearly in line with my own beliefs. As far as anthropomorphizing that energy into something humanish, well, it is a tool to exceed barrier of thought and language. How do you relate to something for which you have no frame of reference? You put it in a frame of reference that allows you to analyze it, and adjust the reference frame as you go.-You are quite right. As living beings, it is difficult to imagine some type of alternate being.
If God exists, why did he create life?
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Sunday, December 19, 2010, 23:15 (5086 days ago) @ David Turell
DT: "I think He is pure organized energy as an intelligence, not a life form."-I would say that "organised energy with intelligence" IS a form of life. You are just playing with words.
--
GPJ
If God exists, why did he create life?
We have a neat sequence of observations here:-GEORGE: If a creator or first cause of the universe exists, or existed, it does not necessarily follow that it also created life. Life could just be an accidental byproduct.-One of the most powerful arguments for a UI is that life is too complex to have fashioned itself by accident. One of the most powerful arguments against a UI is that it must be even more complex than what it created, so how the heck did IT come into existence?-DAVID: I think He is pure organized energy as an intelligence, not a life form.-I hope George will comment on this. If I were an atheist, I would have no trouble identifying the universe as "organized energy", but I would say that it is self-organizing, and that it does not CONSCIOUSLY create anything. This, I think, is the key difference between theism and atheism. Once you attribute conscious intelligence to the creative power, you enter the realm of speculation about its nature.-ROMANSH: If there is a god ... I have absolutely no clue why it would do anything, never mind create life. All I can do [is] anthropomorphize its intents.-We're all in the same position, but just as we humans could scarcely create any form of Artificial Intelligence that was not based on our own, it doesn't seem unreasonable to suppose that our own intelligence might reflect that of the being that (may have) created us. I would therefore suggest that anthropomorphization is not necessarily out of line, and in any case if we accept the possibility of a god (which I do, as an agnostic), how else can we speculate on its nature other than through what we ourselves know of the world? Satyansh says his friends laugh at the western preoccupation with God. George has been admirably restrained in his latest comments, but I'm sure he's also chuckling. Fortunately, with my own non-commitment, I too am able to devote 99% of myself to the (for me) wonderfully enjoyable occupation of living my life. One needs a sense of perspective, and whether there is or isn't a God or an afterlife, the here and now is all we're sure of, and I aim to make the most of it. That is why I shall be incommunicado for a fortnight, weather permitting.
If God exists, why did he create life?
by romansh , Sunday, December 19, 2010, 18:44 (5087 days ago) @ dhw
Satyansh says his friends laugh at the western preoccupation with God. George has been admirably restrained in his latest comments, but I'm sure he's also chuckling. -As a very western agnostic, I am totally bemused by our collective perseveration with god.-Have a good holiday - don't forget to switch off the gas.
If God exists, why did he create life?
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Sunday, December 19, 2010, 23:30 (5086 days ago) @ dhw
dhw maintains: "One of the most powerful arguments for a UI is that life is too complex to have fashioned itself by accident."-I know this is dhw's oft-stated thesis, but he knows that the earliest forms of life were much simpler than today, that "fashioned itself" is an unjustifiable attribution of will where none can exist, and that "accident" is the creationist's word for any process whatsoever, involving even the slightest element of chance. But we've discussed this before ad nauseam.
--
GPJ
If God exists, why did he create life?
by romansh , Sunday, December 19, 2010, 23:50 (5086 days ago) @ George Jelliss
dhw maintains: "One of the most powerful arguments for a UI is that life is too complex to have fashioned itself by accident."-And for me this is an ultimate god of the gaps type of argument. Ooohh this is far to complex for me to understand, therefore a UI, a god or a whatever must be responsible. -And for me, pasting examples and links of complex biochemicals as evidence and saying "too complex" does not cut it for me as a method of discussion.-rom
If God exists, why did he create life?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, December 20, 2010, 04:41 (5086 days ago) @ romansh
The challenge is still out there for someone to prove that life came from inert soup, and then continue on backwards to prove that quantum fluctuations spontaneously existed where nothing had before and triggered a big bang(no real explanation was given for where all that mass or matter came from either in that lecture, but they were certain that our universe came from nothing). Proof is the ultimate squash to all of us who are either theist or fence straddlers. But, as no one has yet been able to prove any of it, atheist, theist, and agnostic alike, the debate goes on. And, in all honesty, it probably will until the end of time.
If God exists, why did he create life?
by romansh , Tuesday, December 21, 2010, 03:07 (5085 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
The challenge is still out there for someone to prove that life came from inert soup, and then continue on backwards to prove that quantum fluctuations spontaneously existed where nothing had before and triggered a big bang(no real explanation was given for where all that mass or matter came from either in that lecture, but they were certain that our universe came from nothing). BM No, it's only a challenge for those that claim it's the truth. It is also a challenge for those who claim it is false. For the wise we can sit on the side lines ->Proof is the ultimate squash to all of us who are either theist or fence straddlers. But, as no one has yet been able to prove any of it, atheist, theist, and agnostic alike, the debate goes on. And, in all honesty, it probably will until the end of time.-Proof is the gnostic's illusion my friend.