Im going a bit off topic but what if god created us but it was sort of involutay or an accident and he really has no bearing on what happenes to us or care what hapens to us? Why does there have to be a reason for creating us?

Zak -

What you say is perfectly reasonable.

There doesn't HAVE TO be a reason.

Again, analogy from human experience is probably (on the absence of anythign else!) our best guide. We have plenty of examples of artists apparently creating things on a "whim". But, equally, it seems there is normally a rationale of some kind underlying even the most "random" sort of art.

Certainly, even if one excludes the idea of a "chance" creation, one cannot exclude the idea of a
reckless or other less-than-high-minded sort of creation.

It would indeed the height of arrogance to ASSUME that just becasue some supreme creator created us we must have somehow incorporate some important purpose.

However, on a balance of probabilities I think one can reasonably say that if an Absolute God is not going to create things on a whim.

I think it often helps to think in terms of the parent-child realtionship. Whilst it is true that not all parents are responsible and have the best interests of their children at heart it is reasonable to presume that most do try to do the best for their children, in so far as they are able to.

I think it is reasonable ot presume that a God would not create the cosmos perversely and woudl actually have some noble purpose in mind. When I say "purpose" I don't necessarily mean some rational course of putative action - rather I presume (soem presumption) that God must act accroding to his will much in the way that humans feel the need to act on sexual desire. So God feel moved to create the cosmos and to do so in a way which was not perverse but rather was founded on principles of love.

David

But This is my point why do we assume that god must have some high reason for creating us. To me it doesnt make sense to assume anything about God. I dont see musch evidence that god had a reason for creating us but then again there isnt much evidence that god exists but yet i belive in him (or it).

You said "However, on a balance of probabilities I think one can reasonably say that if an Absolute God is not going to create things on a whim."


What are these probabilities? Can we assume there are any with an Absolute God?

Zak -

I am not sure I am saying there is a high purpose to the creation, I am just saying that the cosmos is unlikely to have been created on a whim.

It seems to me that the creation can best be characterised as an act of will.

Teh best analogy I can think of is that of a an artist who paints on canvas. I believe most such good artists would actually find it very difficult to paint anything that was meaningless or even very badly composed. Their creative spirit is just too overwhelming for that to be possible.

Can we apply probabilities to God? I think this is a replay of the medieval debates over whether God ocudl do anything He wanted. Rationalists have to believe that he cannot. He cannot create Himself. He cannot make a created thing uncreated. He cannot make the truth untrue. And so on...

I think these observations are really a way of saying God is as much a natural phenomenon as we are. God may therefore have some sort of "history" (one that we of course cannot understand).

I was suggesting God had some sort of "compulsion" to create the cosmos - a feeling of incompleteness perhaps.

IN relation to ourselves God may appear perfect and infinite from our distance but close up - perhaps not. It seems more likely to me that God is finite and imperfect.

David

But what if he didnt set out to create us. What if God just Threw up and out came the univerese?(i know this sounds ridiculous but its hard to get my point across) He wouldnt have any need for it. HE most likely wouldnt take any pride in it he might just disregard it.

Zak -

What you say is perfectly reasonable. To put it another way - we might just be a kind of by-product of the divine intellect meditating on itself. Who knows? Nobody does.

I suppose I take an existentialist line, saying that we have to deal with the phenomena that our consciousnesses provide us with. Teh first thing we have to accept is that there is a lot of uncertainty about fundamental reality.

We then have to decide how we engage with that uncertainty. Pascal recommended we take a gamble on faith in a benevolent God who is interested in our fate. I suppose my arguemnt woudl be we should (a) try and enjoy the life we have and (b) engage with the uncertainty in constructive ways.

Despair seems to me an odd path to follow, since if everything is uncertain then everything is possible.
I think it is a rather positive state of affairs, not unlike youth itself - when we are young and the pattern of our life is undecided, it is an exciting time. Difficult perhaps, but potentially full of hope and joy and expectation.

David

"if everything is uncertain then everything is possible. "

That is a great quote. It explains alot for me. Thank you.

"Reality is an illusion, although a persistant one."

--------Albert Einstein

are you familiar with relativity?

simply put, you aren't likely to move through things that are harder than you, such as brick walls but will move through softer things than you, such as air.

...THAN YOU is the relative bit.

'real' is one rotational energy experiencing another rotational energy. this is often called 'sub-atomic structure'.

you are real relative to like, perceptible energies.

or not. that's up to you- belief is also relative, after all!!

sean