If God exists, why did he create life? (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Sunday, January 02, 2011, 14:38 (5073 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

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.