Why Did Omniscient God Need to Create?

[lightgigantic]

If you think you have a purpose then by all means go for it.

If you think that purposelessness is the default position of reason then it remains even less clear why you have such a problem with an omniscient god drawn up by your requirements
:shrug:

Any creations designed by an omniscient God would simply mimic His thoughts. For the creator you do have a purpose......How's it feel to be part of a diorama?

lol
So how do you resolve your individualism in our contemporary social and political environment?
Or don't you consider that a diorama?

(or maybe its simply because you have some problem with personhood and individuality ... so there's no scope for such impersonal articles as society and politics to rain on your parade)

For the created there is no true purpose to life unless you count acting out the creator's thoughts as something significant but remember that is all you do. Whether God thinks it and then creates you to live it...makes no difference to God. As an individual, your life serves no purpose and is meaningless. There is more to life if God is out of the picture.

Then I guess that just leaves you with the exact same set of problems of being an individual in a society ( or do you think that there is something so wonderful about yourself that you transcend the society that produced you?).


Your rant is remarkably similar to an anarchist.

I feel I'm treading on the debunking thread so I'll leave it at that. Go ahead LG.

On the contrary, all you are doing is expressing your distaste for a certain level of organization (which is kind of the default position from demanding that nothing occupy a superior category to one's self).

IOW its plain ol envy.


(BTW, your post didn't explain anything about your previous assertion that there is something about knowing that makes the experience of it redundant)

 

[Enmos]

I bet some kid might have even got one of these for Christmas

:facepalm:

 

[Enmos]

If God did NOT Create HE COULD NOT BE A CREATOR!

So what? Did he need to be a creator? Was he needy?

 

[lightgigantic]

:facepalm:

you should never under-estimate the pleasure involved in snow balls

 

[lightgigantic]

So what? Did he need to be a creator? Was he needy?

So something that can't/won't create is somehow superior?

 

[wynn]

Its not clear what inextricable connection you are drawing between knowing something and making the pursuit of the experience of it redundant.

I mean a more perfect picture of purposelessness is if the only reason one pursues anything in life is simply because they run the risk of not knowing whether they will achieve it.

Our usual experience of everyday life is like that - the only thrill is in the novelty. Whether that novelty is produced by extraordinary endeavor or by willed / selective ignorance.

I am finding it impossible to imagine that it could be otherwise.

 

[wynn]

So something that can't/won't create is somehow superior?

Yes. Or we have to accept that God is an incomprehensible mystic.


The downside of mysticism is of course that when it comes to dealing with everyday life troubles, trying to find satisfaction in mystic explanations requires a lot of teeth gritting.

 

[wynn]

you should never under-estimate the pleasure involved in snow balls

*tsk tsk*
Have you ever made any? Last I heard, you have never even seen snow.

 

[Enmos]

So something that can't/won't create is somehow superior?

God doesn't have to create to be a creator. He is omnipotent. He doesn't have to do anything, and if he does, he's not omnipotent.

 

[Enmos]

you should never under-estimate the pleasure involved in snow balls

I was referring to that horrible tool. What's wrong with making snowballs with your hands?

 

[scifes]

God doesn't have to create to be a creator. He is omnipotent. He doesn't have to do anything, and if he does, he's not omnipotent.

so an omnipotent entity can't do as it likes?

 

[Enmos]

so an omnipotent entity can't do as it likes?

Look here:

If God did NOT Create HE COULD NOT BE A CREATOR!

So what? Did he need to be a creator? Was he needy?

So God HAD to create something because he NEEDED to be a creator. That doesn't sound omnipotent to me, it sounds human.

And it's also false since an omnipotent God doesn't have to create to be a creator (as stupid as that sounds, but then again, so is the concept of omnipotence).

 

[scifes]

Not to mention an Omni3 god would not need any worship,praise or following it. The more I read from theist about this god of theirs,the more they humanize this god.It wants,needs,hopes,gets angry,is wrathful,strikes some down dead etc etc A human god? I have a headache.

gos does not need worship, praise or following it, it adds nothing to him by being done, and damages him in no way if it is not.
we should do it because it affects us, not him.
as for emotions, it is strange that god can feel them when he knows their causes are going to happen before hand, or when what happens doesn't affect him anyhow..:scratchin:
.....idk..:shrug:..too tired to think

I wouldn't specifically use 'omniscience' as the factor with which to frame the question. Rather 'perfection'.

Nothing exists apart from god, (total absolute perfection). Nothing follows from that. Everything is absolutely undeniably perfect as it is - creation of anything is a worthless concept.

we are too far from prefection, that we see it as a dot, one which one has to to stay still to be in.
that doesn't mean that it IS a dot, a zero dimension point, it could be flat or spherical, one which one can "move around" in freely, without leaving/stopping to be perfect(ion).

 

[scifes]

Look here:



So God HAD to create something because he NEEDED to be a creator. That doesn't sound omnipotent to me, it sounds human.

And it's also false since an omnipotent God doesn't have to create to be a creator (as stupid as that sounds, but then again, so is the concept of omnipotence).

lol no man replace "need" with "want", i've been over this with sarkus and have linked it.

 

[Enmos]

lol no man replace "need" with "want", i've been over this with sarkus and have linked it.

Want?

want
–verb (used with object)
1. to feel a need or a desire for; wish for: to want one's dinner; always wanting something new.
2. to wish, need, crave, demand, or desire (often fol. by an infinitive): I want to see you. She wants to be notified.
3. to be without or be deficient in: to want judgment; to want knowledge.
4. to fall short by (a specified amount): The sum collected wants but a few dollars of the desired amount.
5. to require or need: The house wants painting.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/want

Yea, sounds pretty godlike to me to want.

 

[scifes]

Want?

want
–verb (used with object)
1. to feel a need or a desire for; wish for: to want one's dinner; always wanting something new.
2. to wish, need, crave, demand, or desire (often fol. by an infinitive): I want to see you. She wants to be notified.
3. to be without or be deficient in: to want judgment; to want knowledge.
4. to fall short by (a specified amount): The sum collected wants but a few dollars of the desired amount.
5. to require or need: The house wants painting.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/want

Yea, sounds pretty godlike to me to want.

way to go in using a human everyday dictionary in a philosophical argument about god, in the other thread D said that all dictionary definitions of "choice" must be wrong if god exists, and unless i'm wrong, most of the people who wrote those dictionaries were theists, and they definitely didn't write their dictionaries keeping in mind god would object that they don't apply to him too well..

you've replied to the first half of my post, what about the second?

, i've been over this with sarkus and have linked it.

but since you're all lazy here's the last post in it;

sarkus:
not all wants reflect needs, or to be more exact, not all needs result in the same wants. many wants simply reflect who we are.

hunger is an imperfection requiring the need food.
so when people need food, do they want the same food?

you may say the differrence in what one wants to eat is actually fulfilling the other need of tasting something delicious, and delicious changes from one to the other.
what makes it so?
why do people fulfill their needs in different ways? why do they want different things yet the imperfection is the same?
aren't they expressing their individuality? their personality? their selves? their existence? who they are?
can't one express who is without having a need? show how he is different without answering for an imperfection? making a choice because he explicitly wants to, with 0% needing to?
can't a perfect being EXIST?

why? is it because we haven't seen one?
is it because we haven't BECOME one?

if your brain fails to make one up, does that mean it doesn't exist?

know your limitations, and progress keeping them in mind.

 

[sifreak21]

CDK007 says it best

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmjFVP6qkiI&feature=video_response

 

[Dywyddyr]

way to go in using a human everyday dictionary in a philosophical argument about god

So what's your definition of "want" with regard to god?
Or maybe, since you're only now quibbling about applying human definitions, the definition as it applies to god is "turquoise" or "15 kilos of steamed haddock".

YOU claimed that he "wanted" to so you must have had some idea of how the word applies.

Regardless: if god is perfect then he must, by definition, be complete. With no unfulfilled needs, desires or curiosities. And therefore would not have created us.

 

[lightgigantic]

*tsk tsk*
Have you ever made any? Last I heard, you have never even seen snow.

yet I don't under-estimate the pleasure in making them

Yes. Or we have to accept that God is an incomprehensible mystic.

I don't understand

The downside of mysticism is of course that when it comes to dealing with everyday life troubles, trying to find satisfaction in mystic explanations requires a lot of teeth gritting.

what's an experience of mystical teeth gritting over an everyday trouble?

Our usual experience of everyday life is like that - the only thrill is in the novelty. Whether that novelty is produced by extraordinary endeavor or by willed / selective ignorance.

actually our usual experience of everyday life is that the thrill lies in reciprocation. Even the wildest things people do in the name of fun are meaningless unless they have others to display it to or tell about it. For instance, what is the use in making a snow ball unless you have someone to throw it at?

I am finding it impossible to imagine that it could be otherwise.

Same here.

Reciprocation floats everyone's boat.

 

[lightgigantic]

God doesn't have to create to be a creator. He is omnipotent. He doesn't have to do anything, and if he does, he's not omnipotent.

how does an entity that is prohibited from certain actions establish themselves as capable of certain actions?

I was referring to that horrible tool. What's wrong with making snowballs with your hands?

Maybe they work better in pneumatic snow ball cannons