Why Did God Make Humans in the First Place?

[boatsnguitars]

The Theist's Nightmare:

P1. If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god exists, then evil does not.
P2. There is evil in the world.
C1. Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god does not exist.

This is the traditional Problem of Evil and it's given Theists nightsweats for centuries. It is one of the reason many people start their exit from religion.

Now, I will let the Theists try to explain it away, but there is one simple problem with all their answers (which usually end with "There may be logical reasons God allows evil for some greater purpose.")

Why did God create Human's at all? Human's, as we have seen, are - if not the source of Evil - are the sole recipient of all suffering. (I would add animals, but many Christians claim animals either don't suffer or they deserve the suffering we impose on them).

God, being Perfect, had no need to create a world in which there was suffering, and if he created Humans for the sole purpose of having things worship him, or entertain him, he chose a very sick way to do it.

After all, he could have made an infinite number of Gods.

Theists argue against this by claiming there can only be one God. By what rule? They claim that there would be a power struggle, but how so? If you have Perfect Beings that have no need to compete over resources, and are All Loving, how is there any struggle? After all, Christians are happy to claim Jesus was perfect and gets along with God, so why was God unable to make even greater beings than Jesus?

Angels, you say? Well, they don't exist, but the story of Satan only shows how a lesser being than a God would inevitably lead to evil and suffering - and he allows it.

So, Theists have to logically explain why an Omnipotent, All-Loving God allows evil and suffering, when he could have avoided all of it to begin with by either not creating beings, or making Gods equal to him.

Checkmate, Theists.

[JoeyKnothead]

Having your life mean something to you is not being duped.

It is if that something IS NOT TRUE. Its pathetic and a waste. And as I said, the real Christian way is extremely difficult. We make great sacrifices for our faith. Faith in a God that does not exist? Waiting for liberation from a dead man? And hoping in a new world that will never come?

It is sad and pathetic to suffer for no good reason.

Yet you suffer along.

If all my atheist life were turned on its head and a god was shown to exist, I still wouldn't consider it to be "pathetic", or a "waste".

Believing in magical fairy men is so important that to find out you were wrong is so damaging? I can't even understand.

[tam]

Peace to you,

I hope no one minds, but I am going to go back to the OP. I have not read all the posts in between the OP and now.

The answer to the question in the title is: love.

Love enough to want to give life TO us. (not just us of course, but many other forms of life as well)

Love CREATES. Love GIVES.

The Theist's Nightmare:

P1. If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god exists, then evil does not.
P2. There is evil in the world.
C1. Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god does not exist.

The problem rests upon P1.

Why could evil not exist if an omnipotent/benevolent/scient god exists?

Why did God create Human's at all?

Answered above.

Human's, as we have seen, are - if not the source of Evil - are the sole recipient of all suffering. (I would add animals, but many Christians claim animals either don't suffer or they deserve the suffering we impose on them).

Humans and animals are both capable of suffering.

God, being Perfect, had no need to create a world in which there was suffering,

He did not.

Suffering came about after Adam allowed sin (error) and death into the world.

and if he created Humans for the sole purpose of having things worship him, or entertain him, he chose a very sick way to do it.

He did not. See first answer.

After all, he could have made an infinite number of Gods.

Theists argue against this by claiming there can only be one God. By what rule? They claim that there would be a power struggle, but how so? If you have Perfect Beings that have no need to compete over resources, and are All Loving, how is there any struggle? After all, Christians are happy to claim Jesus was perfect and gets along with God, so why was God unable to make even greater beings than Jesus?

Angels, you say? Well, they don't exist, but the story of Satan only shows how a lesser being than a God would inevitably lead to evil and suffering - and he allows it.

So your resolution to this problem would be that Satan should have had all the same power as God from the get-go?

So that Satan could never be put to an end, and the suffering that he causes could continue for all eternity?

You believe that men should also have received all the same power as God from the get-go - even if some might corrupt themselves (as Satan corrupted himself) - without ever having any checks in place to keep that person from wreaking havoc and causing harm, not just temporarily, but eternally as well?

You also said that a lesser being than God would inevitably lead to evil and suffering, but that is not true. The archangel Michael (who is not Christ) did not do as Satan did. Michael (as well as many other angels) remained faithful to both God and to His Son.

So, Theists have to logically explain why an Omnipotent, All-Loving God allows evil and suffering, when he could have avoided all of it to begin with by either not creating beings, or making Gods equal to him.

NOT creating beings at all would mean ABORTING all life (before it has even been conceived no less), even those you love, those you know will learn to choose the right and reject the wrong; those you know will learn and choose LOVE, forgiveness, mercy; some - such as Christ - even giving His life for others. Why would an Omni and all-loving God wipe those people out before they even have a chance to live? Where is the love in that? The hope?

God knows there are countless people (and animals) that will live in the Kingdom and receive eternal life, free from suffering, mourning, tears and death. That could never come about if God decided people are just not worth the hassle; not even those who love and who are loyal to Him, who show that love is written upon their hearts. Love does not just give up on people like that.

And again, making gods equal to Him from the get-go (if that is even possible) would mean that there are no checks in place to prevent even just one of those creations from corrupting itself and causing suffering and havoc for all eternity. Have you considered also that wisdom, love, mercy, empathy, etc... are things that may need to be learned by newly created beings, rather than things that can just be 'downloaded' (so to speak). Even knowing the right thing to do is not the same as choosing the right thing to do. If you are making FREE beings, they might not choose the same things as you.

Checkmate, Theists.

Sorry, but I see far too many holes in your theory for that. Perhaps you need to reconsider some things,




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Purple Knight]

Says somebody that doesn't believe in righteousness. Biblically, righteousness is living in a way God deems as right. There is no "righteousness " without God there is social norm; there is personal and cultural acceptance. I don't need to go to prison for that.

Without God, there might be a trip to prison in store for killing a man, but it's not fundamentally morally wrong? I don't believe that, neither do you, and neither does anybody else. To exemplify this and provide actual evidence, there is no shocker statistic that Christians who lose their faith go out and rampage. They do if I recall correctly have an increased rate of drug and alcohol abuse, but this proves my point. They discard the purity stuff, but the real stuff, the hurting-other-people stuff, they don't throw that away because they know better.

Now to be fair, maybe to you this is a case of you having a conscience but believing that God put it there. So you think without God, you wouldn't have any way to experience that little yikes-I-shouldn't-do-that. And yeah, if we don't know, it probably can't be expected of us.

And yes I do believe in righteousness, though I don't fully understand it. I think it has to do with not hurting others. The hard part is what counts as hurt. People who are physically bleeding and bruised? People who say "he hit me" and could be lying? People who say that me picking my nose traumatises them and are probably lying and power tripping, but might be telling the truth?

Those that follow Jesus do so because they believe him to be the Son of God. They are willing to suffer for what they believe is true, based on his teachings. Someone is sad, mad or bad in this scenario (the antithesis are right on that count) the only question is who.

I don't think anybody is wrong here, and least not to that degree. Somebody is mistaken but everyone is properly accounting for the fact that they really don't know what happens after death. Atheists (generally) try to be good people anyway, and the religious people who believe babies get a pass, do not kill their babies.

I don't even think the big sacrifice dogma makes people wrong in that sense. It amounts to holding a bunch of extra buckets, but in doing something they believe is right, it makes them better people. And they'll hold extra buckets until the end of time. However, people willing to do something they would see as horribly wrong, if not for their religion, is such a tiny minority that's it's a tiny minority of the one religion that even thinks that way.

If you're holding extra buckets and that stops you from doing something you actually know to be righteous, and you're seeking the reward, I suggest you not do it, because it's the worst wager. (Actually the worst wager is doing horrid things you know are horrid for the sake of a god you know is horrid, but hardly anyone does that.)
1) It's the worst wager because a just and fair god would probably not punish you for dropping a bucket full of dogma and (for example) saving a child.
2) It's the worst wager because if there is no god, and no reward, it really is for nothing.
3) It's the worst wager because even in the case of a cryptic and/or unfair god who will reward only those who guess correctly or discover what he wants, such a god might easily lie, and even if he can't lie for some reason, he can always mislead. And he's smarter than we are so if he wants us deprived of the carrot, we ain't getting it. There are two Bible verses that may even indicate this.

Being righteous anyway is the best wager, even if you are seeking the reward.
1) It's the best wager because a just and fair god will reward that.
2) It's the best wager because if there's no god, it's the right thing to do anyway.
3) It's the best wager because a cryptic and unfair god always might punish you anyway.

And if holding one or two of those extra buckets is achievable without major sacrifice, go ahead and do it because you never lose anything in case 1 or 2 and you gain in case 3. A just and fair god won't punish you for holding those buckets because he knows that you don't know that it's not case 3.

This is the upgraded version of Pascal's Wager: The Purple Wager. It's valid but the conclusion is different: Just be a good person.

[brunumb]

The answer to the question in the title is: love.

Love enough to want to give life TO us. (not just us of course, but many other forms of life as well)

What's love got to do with it? God was already surrounded by angels, so why would he decide, through 'love', to create lesser material beings? Makes no sense. Also, not very loving to create life forms that can only survive by killing and eating each other. There is absolutely no evidence that it was ever different or even possible to be different.

God, being Perfect, had no need to create a world in which there was suffering,

He did not.

Suffering came about after Adam allowed sin (error) and death into the world.

Adam allowed no such thing. Adam was a mere human being with no special powers. Anything that happened as a consequence of eating the forbidden fruit was allowed by God.

NOT creating beings at all would mean ABORTING all life (before it has even been conceived no less), even those you love, those you know will learn to choose the right and reject the wrong; those you know will learn and choose LOVE, forgiveness, mercy; some - such as Christ - even giving His life for others. Why would an Omni and all-loving God wipe those people out before they even have a chance to live? Where is the love in that? The hope?

This is one of the most absurd arguments I have ever heard. Not creating non-existent beings is aborting those beings? Surely you jest. The mental gymnastics one has to go through to prop up religious beliefs is sometimes staggering.

[tam]

Peace to you,

The answer to the question in the title is: love.

Love enough to want to give life TO us. (not just us of course, but many other forms of life as well)

What's love got to do with it? God was already surrounded by angels, so why would he decide, through 'love', to create lesser material beings? Makes no sense.

Well I don't think you have to be a woman to understand, but I had a child (more than one) out of love. Not as selfless as God of course, because I wanted a child to love rather than simply wanting to bring more life into existence out of love for that life. But I can at least understand love wanting to bring life into existence; love wanting to GIVE life to others.

NOT creating beings at all would mean ABORTING all life (before it has even been conceived no less), even those you love, those you know will learn to choose the right and reject the wrong; those you know will learn and choose LOVE, forgiveness, mercy; some - such as Christ - even giving His life for others. Why would an Omni and all-loving God wipe those people out before they even have a chance to live? Where is the love in that? The hope?

This is one of the most absurd arguments I have ever heard. Not creating non-existent beings is aborting those beings? Surely you jest. The mental gymnastics one has to go through to prop up religious beliefs is sometimes staggering.

Have you never heard of aborting a plan?


Peace again.

[boatsnguitars]

Peace to you,

The answer to the question in the title is: love.

Love enough to want to give life TO us. (not just us of course, but many other forms of life as well)

What's love got to do with it? God was already surrounded by angels, so why would he decide, through 'love', to create lesser material beings? Makes no sense.

Well I don't think you have to be a woman to understand, but I had a child (more than one) out of love. Not as selfless as God of course, because I wanted a child to love rather than simply wanting to bring more life into existence out of love for that life. But I can at least understand love wanting to bring life into existence; love wanting to GIVE life to others.

NOT creating beings at all would mean ABORTING all life (before it has even been conceived no less), even those you love, those you know will learn to choose the right and reject the wrong; those you know will learn and choose LOVE, forgiveness, mercy; some - such as Christ - even giving His life for others. Why would an Omni and all-loving God wipe those people out before they even have a chance to live? Where is the love in that? The hope?

This is one of the most absurd arguments I have ever heard. Not creating non-existent beings is aborting those beings? Surely you jest. The mental gymnastics one has to go through to prop up religious beliefs is sometimes staggering.

Have you never heard of aborting a plan?


Peace again.

I had no idea I have aborted millions of human beings by not planning them.

Tam, I think you need to think about the OP a little more. I am not suggesting God shouldn't create Life, but I am questioning why he would make Life that can cause and experience suffering?

Work though this: What would God have lost if he only created other Beings that were Gods? Equal to him in every way?
He couldn't make better Beings, because God is the max. But this is what we all want for our own children - we want them better than us. However, we accept our children as they are because we don't have any control over their dna (expect to make them worse, by drugs, drinking, etc, while pregnant, or other environmental factors) - but we'd never want our children to purposely suffer if we could help it.

Would you, personally, do something to make your child dumber than you, or would you raise your child in a home where they would suffer horrible experiences, even injury or death - purposely? Would you raise your child in a home that is perfect - except for a button on the wall that unleashes sin, pain, death, genocide, war, etc? Would you be a good parent if you purposely created such a place?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #76]

Very good. This is making the point - why all this? If god has angels,what are we needed for? They have free will as some rebelled. If not, no Satan, no serpent no Eden, no hell, no point in Christianity.

The believers can excuse as much as they like, 'God knows best, it's all part of His Plan' or pretest Faith as much as they like, but why should anyone believe it when an evolved world with imperfect critters struggling to survive makes more sense and fits the facts better?

[JehovahsWitness]

And yes I do believe in righteousness, though I don't fully understand it.

Belief without understanding is called gullibility; blind faith leaves one open to being manupulated. May I suggest withold believing in things until you understand what those things are . I have to wonder why atheist don't stick to keeping themselves out of jail and leave those with faith to say if their faith needs to be based on truth or not.



JW

[JoeyKnothead]

...
I have to wonder why atheist don't stick to keeping themselves out of jail and leave those with faith to say if their faith needs to be based on truth or not.

Maybe atheists don't wanna return to a time when being jailed, or worse, was a consequence for not playing along with theist beliefs?

[TRANSPONDER]

And yes I do believe in righteousness, though I don't fully understand it.

Belief without understanding is called gullibility; blind faith leaves one open to being manupulated. May I suggest withold believing in things until you understand what those things are . I have to wonder why atheist don't stick to keeping themselves out of jail and leave those with faith to say if their faith needs to be based on truth.



JW

you were doing fine advocating a much -needed attention to understanding and avoiding blind faith, which is where Christian apologists fall down.

But then you switched to a suggestion that atheists should work at keeping out of jail. But that's what we are ding - all we can to stop Christianity getting political power. If we can then jail demographics will stay as they are, last survey far more Christians than atheists.

But you give yourself away of course misdirection to get us to shut up and go away. 'leave those with faith...' to be bamboozled by the Bible apologists. Up to them whether they want their Beliefs to be based on truth (which is not the same as "Truth") John explains - it is Faith. But to those who want to believe that their beliefs are based on the truth as near as we can get, we will continue to put the rational and evidence -based side and not just let the Bible apologists push one side, and never mind the threat of Jail.