For what purpose did God create the world?

So, the other night, I was thinking of a reason for God's supposed creation of the universe (yes, I indulge in that sort of philosophical and religious thought regularly). After reading many religious arguments against atheists, I've come to understand that the saner religious ones seem to believe that science is the 'how', and religion is the 'why'; I'm sure many on this forum will agree with this concept. But what about the biggest 'why' of all? What motivation would a supposedly omniscient being have for creating a world? Is it for some sort of emotional gratification? But why would such a divine being be in need of enjoyment? Is that not one of the 'limitations' of humanity? Do we exist in order to entertain God?

What I'm asking is for the religious folk of these forums to give me a logical explanation for God's creation of the universe, and hopefully substantiate it with some sort of logical fact.

Of course, I'm willing to accept the possibility that God's motivations simply exist far beyond the scope of human comprehension and are therefore pointless to debate. But would that not, in fact, be supporting the sentiments of atheists and agnostics that not everything must have a discernible 'why' behind it, because that 'why' can never be backed up with proof? I simply find it impossible to provide a motivation for God to create the universe without, ultimately, adhering to this line of thought- a line of thought that exists in tandem with un-religious beliefs.

Note: I am an atheist myself, but I was interested in targeting this question and see it from the perspective of those who do believe in religion.

Why do you assume there was a creation?

The Big Bang was simply a starting point, and there is mathematical models that suggest a contracting universe before the Big Bang. If there was no creation, then a reason for creation is not needed.

Well, I think the first question in deciding on an answer is: what does one believe about God?

If one thinks that God is omniscient and has neither needs nor desires then nothing would be gained from creating the universe because it wouldn't want anything there and it would already know everything that will/could happen and you have to go with the "ineffable" answer.

However, being omniscient and not wanting or needing anything aren't requirements for being a God as evidenced by various cultures across the world. A less than omniscient but otherwise "perfect" God might simply have been curious. An omniscient but "imperfect" God could have been lonely.

The typical Christian answer would be, I assume, that God is ineffable or (quite reasonably) that perfection is largely indefinable. Personally I'd say if there was a creator it was either "imperfect" or not all knowing.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why do you assume there was a creation?

The Big Bang was simply a starting point, and there is mathematical models that suggest a contracting universe before the Big Bang. If there was no creation, then a reason for creation is not needed.

He said that religious people believe there was a point of creation. He didn't say anything about his own thoughts on the subject.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why do you assume there was a creation?

The Big Bang was simply a starting point, and there is mathematical models that suggest a contracting universe before the Big Bang. If there was no creation, then a reason for creation is not needed.

But the Bible and other sort of 'religious' ideas all insinuate that God created the universe a definitive time ago. If you're religious, could you please explain your views on the creation, and infinity, and how God is intertwined with the universe?

Well, I think the first question in deciding on an answer is: what does one believe about God?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If one thinks that God is omniscient and has neither needs nor desires then nothing would be gained from creating the universe because it wouldn't want anything there and it would already know everything that will/could happen and you have to go with the "ineffable" answer.

However, being omniscient and not wanting or needing anything aren't requirements for being a God as evidenced by various cultures across the world. A less than omniscient but otherwise "perfect" God might simply have been curious. An omniscient but "imperfect" God could have been lonely.

The typical Christian answer would be, I assume, that God is ineffable or (quite reasonably) that perfection is largely indefinable. Personally I'd say if there was a creator it was either "imperfect" or not all knowing.

Your point of view seems rather logical in nature, but can we genuinely call a being 'God' if that being is not perfection incarnate? Can we call it a 'higher being' if it is not omniscient in nature?

An imperfect God is simply not God as the main religions treat it. Indeed, I think that the Christian thought of God needing some sort of 'companionship' and 'love' simply cannot work: either God is not omniscient and all-knowing or God is a sadist.

I personally believe that, with our current realm of knowledge, we are completely incapable of deciphering any potential motivation for a higher being to create us. However, it is exactly for that reason that debating the existence of a God is a pointless and futile exercise- the 'why's' for the creation of the universe can never be substantiated or proven; God only exists as humans invent or perceive him. And I cannot believe in anything that has nothing logically suggesting it.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
But the Bible and other sort of 'religious' ideas all insinuate that God created the universe a definitive time ago. If you're religious, could you please explain your views on the creation, and infinity, and how God is intertwined with the universe?

Well, I think the first question in deciding on an answer is: what does one believe about God?

...

I do not believe in the bible. The bible is a very important book, but not one of historical fact. The idea that a god created the universe is a way to establish authority. This authority is then used by that religion to control the people.

BTW I am a Buddhist.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
...
He said that religious people believe there was a point of creation. He didn't say anything about his own thoughts on the subject.

My first question can be taken as a general, and rhetorical question.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I do not believe in the bible. The bible is a very important book, but not one of historical fact. The idea that a god created the universe is a way to establish authority. This authority is then used by that religion to control the people.

BTW I am a Buddhist.

I pretty much agree with this, and admittedly find Buddhism more compelling than any other religion, but my question was targeted more towards the Judeo-Christian believers who we see so often in the political mainstream.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Your point of view seems rather logical in nature, but can we genuinely call a being 'God' if that being is not perfection incarnate?

The word "god" moreso than any real or unreal entity is entirely dependent on what we make of it. For a long time Gods were flawed creatures.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Can we call it a 'higher being' if it is not omniscient in nature?

Yes, that just relies on your definition of what makes something better than you. Nowadays people would likely reject the idea of something as a higher being even if it was omniscient.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
An imperfect God is simply not God as the main religions treat it. Indeed, I think that the Christian thought of God needing some sort of 'companionship' and 'love' simply cannot work: either God is not omniscient and all-knowing or God is a sadist.[B]Can we call it a 'higher being' if it is not omniscient in nature?

That is a single facet of thought about a higher power. Indeed the Bible contains more than one instance of God being surprised.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
I personally believe that, with our current realm of knowledge, we are completely incapable of deciphering any potential motivation for a higher being to create us. However, it is exactly for that reason that debating the existence of a God is a pointless and futile exercise- the 'why's' for the creation of the universe can never be substantiated or proven; God only exists as humans invent or perceive him.

I would broadly agree. Too much of the subject is vague. An argument needs some manner of solid ground and on the subject of Gods few people can agree where the ground even is. But while the discussion might be futile that doesn't make it pointless, you can still end up learning something about yourself/reality in the process even if that discovery is simply that you don't believe in God (referring to a hypothetical "you", writing "one" and "oneself" is extremely awkward).

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
And I cannot believe in anything that has nothing logically suggesting it.

Well, you probably could 😛

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The word "god" moreso than any real or unreal entity is entirely dependent on what we make of it. For a long time Gods were flawed creatures.

At the moment, the 'mainstream religions' of the world are monotheistic ones- all religions that support the existence of a singular, omnipotent, omniscient and flawless entity called 'God'. However, when beginning to debate that actual being's characteristics and motivations, the concept of a genuinely perfect God seems to come into significant doubt.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes, that just relies on your definition of what makes something better than you. Nowadays people would likely reject the idea of something as a higher being even if it was omniscient.

I dunno. I admittedly have an emotional problem with believing that there is something greater in humanity, because that would erode any hope I might have for our species to evolve on their own.

My question, again, was primarily targeted at people who do believe in an omniscient God. We don't honestly have any significant disagreement, outside of the fact that I do not believe in any form of God while you do.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That is a single facet of thought about a higher power. Indeed the Bible contains more than one instance of God being surprised.

Really? But the Bible insinuates that everything is part of a divine plan- God knows everything that was, is, and will be. Therefore, God being 'surprised' within the context of the Bible would contradict its own assertion of what God is.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I would broadly agree. Too much of the subject is vague. An argument needs some manner of solid ground and on the subject of Gods few people can agree where the ground even is. But while the discussion might be futile that doesn't make it pointless, you can still end up learning something about yourself/reality in the process even if that discovery is simply that you don't believe in God (referring to a hypothetical "you", writing "one" and "oneself" is extremely awkward).

I don't know, I suppose that's true.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well, you probably could 😛

Well, probably, but I don't want to think that I'm doing so. Lolz.

The world was created for man and man was created to tame and rule it.

That sums up the worldview and overriding cultural imperative that we all grew up with- as did everyone in our culture since its birth.

Edit: MC, you misused 'evolve'. Watch that.
😐

Aha. So 'men killed God', basically? Try to think like an evangelical Christian for a second. I know it's an incredibly excruciating experience, but just... try to give a logical motivation for an omniscient, omnipotent God to create the world.

You're a Nazi, by the way, and you know I'm an Israeli. You ought to applaud my generally outstanding English instead of focusing upon my tiniest mistakes.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Aha. So 'men killed God', basically? Try to think like an evangelical Christian for a second. I know it's an incredibly excruciating experience, but just... try to give a logical motivation for an omniscient, omnipotent God to create the world.

The motivation to create the world was Man, and that answer is the rationale for all the pollution and atrocities committed in the course of our culture's history- the last 12,000 years.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon

You're a Nazi, by the way, and you know I'm an Israeli. You ought to applaud my generally outstanding English instead of focusing upon my tiniest mistakes.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis

Not at all. Man can still be created by god. In fact, he had to be- man is different from all the other animals. (So goes the assumption.) One notable difference is that no one is surprised to hear that god made bees live in a way that works for bees or that wolves live in a way that work for wolves. Man is special. We're above animals, but we're not good enough: we aren't quite able to tame the world the way we are supposed to. That's where the idea of salvationist religions comes from- if we can't tame the world we live in maybe we're supposed to be better in the next one.

The motivation to create the world was Man, and that answer is the rationale for all the pollution and atrocities committed in the course of our culture's history- the last 12,000 years.

But for what purpose did God desire to create a world for men to tame it? Does he derive enjoyment from seeing men fail in their quest for 'taming the world'? After all, if he is indeed omnipotent, he must have been aware and, in fact, planned that something like that would happen. Is his motivation 'just because'? But, when a conscious being is involved, there must be something behind just because, don't you agree?

God could have planned for us to tame the world in a way that we were 'supposed to'; if we are incapable of achieving that, then it is because God planned and was aware of it. Bottom line, he's an *******.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
That wasn't Nazism. Your words and grammar/syntax were all correct but 'evolution' didn't really apply to the growth that you meant- you were looking for 'improvement' not 'gradual change'.

You suck.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis

Not at all. Man can still be created by god. In fact, he had to be- man is different from all the other animals. (So goes the assumption.) One notable difference is that no one is surprised to hear that god made bees live in a way that works for bees or that wolves live in a way that work for wolves. Man is special. We're above animals, but we're not good enough: we aren't quite able to tame the world the way we are supposed to. That's where the idea of salvationist religions comes from- if we can't tame the world we live in maybe we're supposed to be better in the next one.

The motivation to create the world was Man, and that answer is the rationale for all the pollution and atrocities committed in the course of our culture's history- the last 12,000 years.

That wasn't Nazism. Your words and grammar/syntax were all correct but 'evolution' didn't really apply to the growth that you meant- you were looking for 'improvement' not 'gradual change'. [/B]

I disagree! Humans are just as much of an animal as all other animals. Like you put it; "bees live in a way that works for bees or that wolves live in a way that work for wolves" humans live in a way that works for humans. This does not make us about other animals.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I disagree! Humans are just as much of an animal as all other animals. Like you put it; "bees live in a way that works for bees or that wolves live in a way that work for wolves" humans live in a way that works for humans. This does not make us about other animals.

Well, I don't subscribe to this belief but am articulating the cultural assumption.

As far as humans living in a way that 'works', the disconnect we're experiencing is one of perspective- namely the definition of 'humanity'. The culture that arose in the fertile crescent 12,000 years ago is not living in a way that works. It is headed to sociological and ecological collapse. The majority of humans are living this way now- using totalitarian agriculture to make a living. That way of life (civilization) definitely does not work.

If you define humanity as the entire conglomeration of people throughout the 3 million year history of our species then I have to agree- evolution arranged humans into tribes: it was an evolutionarily stable strategy. Tribalism is the only human way of life that has yet been viable.

The problem arises because we tend to think that humanity took up agriculture, while it was just one culture out of thousands that did so.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
But for what purpose did God desire to create a world for men to tame it? Does he derive enjoyment from seeing men fail in their quest for 'taming the world'? After all, if he is indeed omnipotent, he must have been aware and, in fact, planned that something like that would happen. Is his motivation 'just because'? But, when a conscious being is involved, there must be something behind just because, don't you agree?

[/b]
God could have planned for us to tame the world in a way that we were 'supposed to'; if we are incapable of achieving that, then it is because God planned and was aware of it. Bottom line, he's an *******.
[/B]

See, the idea is that we're supposed to tame it through agriculture- it is the one right way for humans to live. Peoples that didn't use our style of agriculture haven't even been considered human, historically.

It sounds like you're really just looking to reword the 'god allows evil..." argument by incorporating omniscience paradoxes. Make it sound good, alright?

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Peoples that didn't use our style of agriculture haven't even been considered human, historically.

umm... wut?

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Well, I don't subscribe to this belief but am articulating the cultural assumption.

As far as humans living in a way that 'works', the disconnect we're experiencing is one of perspective- namely the definition of 'humanity'. The culture that arose in the fertile crescent 12,000 years ago is not living in a way that works. It is headed to sociological and ecological collapse. The majority of humans are living this way now- using totalitarian agriculture to make a living. That way of life (civilization) definitely does not work.

If you define humanity as the entire conglomeration of people throughout the 3 million year history of our species then I have to agree- evolution arranged humans into tribes: it was an evolutionarily stable strategy. Tribalism is the only human way of life that has yet been viable.

The problem arises because we tend to think that humanity took up agriculture, while it was just one culture out of thousands that did so.

I made no claim of susses. Humans do what humans do. If that leads to collapse, then collapse is the natural outcome.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
No. The thought of salvationist religions like Christianity (and Buddhism and Islam and Hinduism and Judaism etc.) is that man is the reason. God didn't create the world for the beavers or the bees, did he? No. Jesus didn't come to save bears or trees. He came to save humans. All that matters is humanity. (According to our culture.)

Well, I can say that it hardly makes sense. God wants to create the world for humans to inhabit it; but for what purpose does he do so? In what way does it benefit him that humans existence? Why would he create a world for humans to tame? Just 'because'? Because he enjoys watching humans struggle towards taming the world?

That does not make sense; wanting humans to exist 'just because' does not work.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
See, the idea is that we're supposed to tame it through agriculture- it is the one right way for humans to live. Peoples that didn't use our style of agriculture haven't even been considered human, historically.

It sounds like you're really just looking to reword the 'god allows evil..." argument by incorporating omniscience paradoxes. Make it sound good, alright?

What do you mean with that agriculture point? I hope you don't mean to say that humanity is defined by the way we harness nature's resources, right?

As for 'God allows evil' stuff: now, let's accept the cultural viewpoint that God created the world in order to have men tame it. Let's also assume that he loves men. However, God is defined by monotheistic religions (the ones that support the 'created for men' viewpoint) as being an absolutely omnipotent, all-powerful being- he knows everything that will be, and all that will be is because God planned it. Because of this, he must have planned for humanity to fail. He must have planned for Adam and Eve to be seduced, and he must have planned for evil to rise- if all of that is true, then God simply does not love humanity. He is a sadistic being that revels in planning humanity's strive towards success and subsequently planning their (largely violent and explosive) failure. Because of this, God cannot be accepted as a being that loves human beings and created the world in order to do so- because he could simply have planned for evil to never have risen and for humanity to simply live in a constant paradise.

The religious often like to make a 'free will' argument when this is brought up, but, in fact, if an omniscient being has determined and planned everything that will be, then free will is an illusion anyhow.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
I'm willing to accept the possibility that God's motivations simply exist far beyond the scope of human comprehension

and are therefore pointless to debate.

But would that not, in fact, be supporting the sentiments of atheists and agnostics that not everything must have a discernible 'why' behind it, because that 'why' can never be backed up with proof?