Why Did Omniscient God Need to Create?

[Doreen]

Funny how you seem to be speculating about me.

Well, I read your words. And I wrote about those words. I notice that you have not disagreed with my interpretation of them. Let me know if you do. I am less interested in errors I might be making but am not making than you might think. As far as me speculating, I do speculate. I didn't realize this was an issue of contention.

No difference as far as a claim of being omniscient. I claim to know and you claim to not...since they are contrary then that is the difference.

What? This was disingenuous. You understood, I am assuming, the distinction I made between two types of claims, one about my current state, and in your case what you would do if you were radically different than you are now. You have not responded to this point.

Your argument here is that if we have contradictory claims there is no difference. That is absurd. If I claim I can read minds and you claim you can't, these claims are different. For example.

Or do you think ALL claims to knowledge are equal?

If you do, great. But start writing posts here that reflect this position please.

Irrelevant. Based on your experience do you think you would speculate if omniscient? IOW's would you start a thought with "What if.....?" Yes or no.

You know psychotic. You have now shifted from the thread topic to an admittedly related topic, without dealing with the points I made about your claims.

I could go on and explain how an omniscient God could speculate, and we can shift to that conversation, but only if you acknowledge that you have no idea whether or not an omniscient God might create as far as you know.

This seems a little slimy to me, your evasiveness here.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

You know psychotic. You have now shifted from the thread topic to an admittedly related topic, without dealing with the points I made about your claims.

I could go on and explain how an omniscient God could speculate, and we can shift to that conversation, but only if you acknowledge that you have no idea whether or not an omniscient God might create as far as you know.

This seems a little slimy to me, your evasiveness here.

Slimy? Yes but you can't answer it after revealing your stance. That's OK, no big deal since things are off topic.

The question in the thread title has 3 parts. Why, omniscient & a need to create. For what seems like forever, the whole debate appears focused on omniscience. I'd be very interested to hear how an omniscient god could speculate. I have no idea whether such a god would need to create, that is why I'm asking. So far all I've heard is that He would for pleasure. So God would need to feel pleasure.

So is there a need since that is really what I'm asking. I accepted God's omniscience in the question so why are we discussing it?

Need...does an omniscient God have one? God would be in want of something? If so then it must be something He doesn't have or is in short supply of. If that's the case then I would like to know why. If I ask the question then I don't have the answer.

Does being all knowing still mean you have needs? I picture God, all alone floating in wherever He was before the universe came along, thinking to Himself, 'I need monkey people.'

 

[Sarkus]

Surely omniscience only affects those actions that would be carried out in order to learn / know the outcome.
Any action that is performed for any other reason would be unaffected by omniscience, right?
I breathe not because I want to know something, but because my body has an instinctive need to do so.

Thus whether an omniscient God would create or not would depend on the purpose of creation. If it is solely to know the outcome then they wouldn't need to create.
But if it is for the same reason as you eat food (even though you know it will sate your hunger) then even an omniscient God might create.

Thus omniscience does not negate the possibility of creating.
But as for why... is it possible to know?

 

[Rav]

Does being all knowing still mean you have needs? I picture God, all alone floating in wherever He was before the universe came along, thinking to Himself, 'I need monkey people.'

I read a book a long time ago called The Divine Romance. It made a certain amount of sense at the time. In summary it suggests that God needed a counterpart in much the same way that Adam did when God created him. He was not complete. We see this echoed in nature, and especially in people. But a relationship isn't properly rewarding if one of the people involved has no say in the matter. It's meant to be a choice. So God created the universe and set the whole plan in motion for the sole purpose of having His own counterpart, which would consist of all of the people who chose to worship Him.

This does of course bring one right back to the question how an omnipotent being could possibly have needs or be incomplete. It seems like a contradiction. My own personal thoughts on this matter are that that God, the universe and all of the people in it have always formed a symbiotic relationship throughout the fullness of time. That everything is, always has been, and always will be, a part of God. The need isn't really a need as it has always been met.

Suddenly though we are in awfully tricky territory. Our future has already happened? I really can't solve it from here. But I do have some other thoughts.

God, who is greater than time and space, can't really be sitting back watching events unfold. That would mean that time would indeed have to be passing for Him. An omnipotent being couldn't possibly have such a limitation. He'd have to exist within the universe and then He wouldn't be God. It makes more sense to suggest that everything in existence, past present and future, is laid out before Him. Indeed He says as much in the Bible, several times. But if God knows the future, regardless of how He knows it, how can you reconcile that with free will? How can your choices be real choices if God already knows what they will be?

The only answer I have at this point is that timelessness is beyond our ability to comprehend. Whatever notions we have are so inadequate that thinking about it leads us to an apparently inevitable paradox. Perhaps, though, it's not that God knows what our choices will be, but rather He knows what they were...

Seriously though, I don't really believe that. It's fun to think about but I can never make it fly. Hopefully however I've at least provided some food for thought.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

If there is an all knowing entity then what reason would it have to create?

My friend has mentioned that God derives pleasure from such an endeavor.

Such an entity woud know how its creations woud respond an feel (if those creatons in fact existed)... but jus knowin that informaton is not the sam as if those creations actualy existed an experinced thangs for themselfs.!!!

It seems to me that you'r frind makes a logical pont... that God coud derive pleasure by knowin that other entities experience existence... an the only way God coud derive that pleasure is by creatin other entities.!!!

 

[Doreen]

The question in the thread title has 3 parts. Why, omniscient & a need to create. For what seems like forever, the whole debate appears focused on omniscience. I'd be very interested to hear how an omniscient god could speculate. I have no idea whether such a god would need to create, that is why I'm asking. So far all I've heard is that He would for pleasure. So God would need to feel pleasure.

So is there a need since that is really what I'm asking. I accepted God's omniscience in the question so why are we discussing it?

We're discussing it in the context of your claim about yourself. You have seemed to be someone quite skeptical about psychic powers, for example. So it seemed to me there was an element of hubris in your knowing what you would do and be like if you were completely different:iow omniscient. I may have misunderstood you, but I took this as an argument against people saying that God would still create if God were omniscient. That you could deduce about yourself, somehow, what you would and would not do and that this, to you, in turn was relevent to the topic. IOW we could use this hypothesis about you, or at least you could, to help determine what a God would or would not want, need, do, not do, etc.

I think that is a weak argument for a number of reasons. The main one I have focused on is the kind of claim to self-knowledge involved. If you really can know this, then it seems to me you are not like anyone I know, since they seem, like myself, to always experience at least some facets of changes in their lives as surprising. The bigger the change, the more that was not quite as they expected. I suppose sometimes expectations may fit exactly and so they do not mention it. But the difference occurs with enough regularity that it seems clear one is merely guessing when one thinks expectations will match reality.

In this case we are talking about such a profound change, one that we don't have experience of - unless you do and please mention this - that I felt it was important to point out what seems like hubris to me.

I mentioned the example with gorillas. But I would think we are much closer to gorillas than we are to an omniscient being. Two mammals with fairly similar senses, etc.

Is there something unique about you psychotic episode that leads you to believe that you, unlike other people can be certain about such claims about yourself?

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Is there something unique about you psychotic episode that leads you to believe that you, unlike other people can be certain about such claims about yourself?

Yes.

Would I have a need if omniscient? No I wouldn't? That would include the need to think creatively. What more do I have to think about if omniscient? There is nothing to be gained by creating pleasure. To even create, an omniscient being would have to weigh the thought of creating against already knowing how it will turn out. By doing so an omni-God would be surrendering omniscience because of speculation.

In essence, an omniscient entity is static....technically dead. No amount of creating is going to change the amount of knowledge it possesses. Omniscience means you are nothing more than a storehouse of knowledge. Capable of thought but if one wants to remain omniscient then you must not create.

So no I wouldn't create as I would have to speculate and thus surrender my omniscience. If there is a God who created then He is not omniscient.

 

[wynn]

Surely omniscience only affects those actions that would be carried out in order to learn / know the outcome.
Any action that is performed for any other reason would be unaffected by omniscience, right?
I breathe not because I want to know something, but because my body has an instinctive need to do so.

Thus whether an omniscient God would create or not would depend on the purpose of creation. If it is solely to know the outcome then they wouldn't need to create.
But if it is for the same reason as you eat food (even though you know it will sate your hunger) then even an omniscient God might create.

Thus omniscience does not negate the possibility of creating.
But as for why... is it possible to know?

Interesting points!

But as for why... is it possible to know?[/

I think this depends on one's criteria for what passes for valid knowledge.
Whether that criterium is nothing less than omniscience (ie. "only if we know everything can we rightfully say we know something") - which is a citerium that humans are unable to satisfy anyway.
Or whether there may be other criteria.