Assuming God is real, the purpose of life is easily identifiable from basic bible study. Devotion, worship and obedience...That's what we owe to God, and that's what God expects. God made all intelligent creation to worship him.

I have more to write on this but i'll wait for a few replies

References:
Gen 2: 15-17
All gospels [shows Jesus' devotion to God] but Matt 22:21 and Mark 12:17 relevant here

Welcome to the forum.

If God creates us to worship him, does that mean that God needs our worship? Why would a self-sufficient being need anything from anyone?

Haven't you completed this argument with what you said? God is a self-sufficient being, therefore god needs nothing.

Maybe he likes being worshiped the same way that I might enjoy creating and then watching the busy scurrying activity of an ants nest without actually needing that.

This does raise the interesting question though of why god created us which is actually a question I've never really devoted any time to, mostly I'm discussing why people think a god created us without ever getting into his motivations. Since I don't believe in any of the gods it seems a little pointless normally to wonder why they do things, bit like wondering why Spiderman prefers red and blue to green and black. (Interesting how so many Marvel charcaters have red and blue outfits isn't it, never really thought about that before either. Probably patriotic, red and blue = good, thing.) In any case, the 'mysterious ways' and 'god is unknowable' thing tends to get in the way.

God needs nothing from us* to sustain his existence, but maybe he wants and expects us to be loyal, obedient and devoted to him. In the gospel verses i mentioned, Jesus says "Pay God's things to God". Does God expect something from us? People pray for help, salvation etc give give give but hang on does God want something from us?

As parents we expect our children to respect us, heed our advice, be obedient to us...we don't need them to but does it not make us happy when they do? As God is perfect, if we take his advice and follow his ways surely that example of devotion and obedience has to make him happy. And as we're not robots who are compelled to do his will, but creatures of free will our decision to accept his rules must bring him great joy. Using the parent-child example again, is it not a great sense of joy when our children lovingly accept our counsel instead of forcing them to do it?


*God 'needed' something from Jesus but it is not relevant for this question

Yes, good answers. If I ask you then in one phrase to explain why God created us, what would you say?

There are some animals who only engage in sexual activity for the purpose of reproduction. Humans however engage in sexual activity for not just reproduction but also for pleasure. These animals would probably look at us with raised eyebrows "they are having sex but the goal is not reproduction?? I don't understand it..."

Humans are higher in intelligence than animals but lower in intelligence than gods. There will be some things which are just out of the scope of our understanding - i'm not saying this is but you get the picture.

I don't have a definitive answer of why. Having all that power and doing nothing with it though? I can only imagine it would be like being a fantastic software developer and deciding never to do any programming with it.

I'm pretty sure a lot of the popular characters were some form of propaganda, see Captain America.

I think it's fair to say that some of God's motives are unknowable, it's also far safer this way than to start making claims as to God's reasoning. With that said, given that there are things God must not do, it also follows that there are things God must do. God's character requires that he love, and he made us with this in mind, to share existence with us and to love us.

This is a bit of a leap. How do you know animals are engaging in sexual activity for reproduction and not just pleasure? We have examples of animals indulging in masturbation so we know they are doing that for pleasure.

Like I said, the 'mysterious ways' thing gets in the way.

Seems quite likely to be true. I've never seen a baddy with a red and blue outfit.

I though that god was just unknowable. Which also seems a convenient way to deal with awkward questions about why things happen. Simply put, 'we don't know why god does or doesn't do things, but god is unknowable, so there's no point asking why god does or doesn't do things' (so stop asking....)

I prefer knowable gods although maybe the reason no one really believes in gods of that type anymore (like Zeus or Athena) is that they weren't protected from analysis and criticism by a 'they are unknowable' clause, better known of course as the 'mysterious ways' get out of jail free card.

Such as? I think there are things that he can't do because they're logically impossible, but that's not the same as 'mustn't do' which implies some external force or set of rules that act as a restraint on god, independently of him. I mean, I'm happy to go with that idea if you are...

Similarly to me not believing that there are things god mustn't do, I don't think it follows that there are things that he must do. God could do nothing at all, right? Just because he is loving doesn't mean that he must bestow that love so if he decides to love something, it wasn't because he must, but because he chose to. Or is the love that god feels something that god has no control over?

Light is quite mysterious. Is it a wave or is it a particle? It has properties of both yet it cannot be both a wave and a particle, since particles have mass and waves do not.

So it looks like light isn't either it's just something we don't understand at this moment. Just because we don't understand something, are we to deny it exists? Do you deny light exists?

The first sentence in this thread says assume God exists. If that's the case then the Bible says God>human>animal in intelligence (don't ask me to find the scripture, it requires simple reasoning from the Bible). It follows that there will be somethings God understands, that we do not (a very hard pill for most humans to swallow)


I'm not a scientist so refrain from attacking if any of my science is wrong. The point I'm making is more important.

I mistyped my statement, I meant that since there are things that God must do, it follows there are things he must NOT do.

I personally believe God is required (by his character) to do certain things. (I really hope to avoid Euthyphro here). Things like love. Biblically, God cannot sin, so there are things that he cannot do.

As for God doing nothing at all, I don't think that follows from his character, namely because we exist in the first place, so God felt the need to create us out of love. It's true that he may have had the choice, and decided to create us, but I believe that his creation occurred out of love, which his character dictates. This is not everyones interpretation, but it's a view some adhere to.

All this "required by his character stuff" seems like just rationalisations to get around euthypro. You cant know that its true, it seems like someone just thought it up to try and answer some of the things atheists have said.

Philosophy is not always interested in truth but in validity. Even if it were completely fabricated, that's not necessarily the point, I mean, you don't need to prove God exists to be able to ask questions about God. If that were the case, no one would present the dilemma in the first place.

This does happen to have some biblical support, but it's often irrelevant to the discussion, I think it's often just as much philosophical as it is religious.

That's how I understood it.

God is loving, and god must bestow that love, are two entirely different claims. One circumvents the problem of there being things that god can't do by asserting that god can't sin because his nature won't allow it for example, the other is simply an assumption on your part.

Again these are just assumptions by you. I don't think anyone can answer that question. We like to think that we matter to god, it would explain a lot in a way that would be satisfying, but we have no way of knowing that that is true do we. Again, the temptation is toward wishful thinking (faith) but I think that it's more sensible to just say 'we don't know'.

Why do you say things like this, what do you think it adds to your viewpoint? How much would it help my position with you if I said 'I don't believe in any gods, it's a view some adhere to'??

Not sure I agree that they are two different claims. If one is loving, by definition, will act lovingly . Of course these are just assumptions on my part, that goes without saying.

Sure assumptions, but somewhat biblically based. Not that it matters, just noting I'm now grabbing them from thin air.

It doesn't add to my position one bit, I only say it to explain that this has been dealt with in the past and that I didn't just think it up, and that if anyone disagrees with it, it's fine, because it's not an absolute statement. These are sensitive issues, after all, and I like to try to be a little sensitive, it has nothing to do with me trying to "win" a point, it's not always about that.

I often wonder of how it might have been in the garden for Adam and Eve. God only gave him one command to not do: eat from every tree EXCEPT the tree of the knowledge of good and bad. Maybe back then it was especially easy to obey god, to not sin, to only have good thoughts...maybe like breathing, we don't think about when to breathe we just do it automatically.

I haven't quite made my mind up whether eating from the tree represents our coming to know bad things or in eating from it humans decided for themselves what should be good and what should be bad. I can't find a verse in early genesis where Adam ever questioned God ("Why can't i eat from this tree? Why do i have to cultivate this garden? Why am I on my own?") but there isn't any mention of Adam and Eve's daughters and obviously there would of had to have been for creation to make sense, so i don't know maybe he did ask God some why questions. But let's assume he didn't for this argument

It would appear then that Adam had complete faith that God knew what was best for him - which makes sense. If God>Human in intelligence...well lets take this up a notch if God is perfect and has the perfect answer for any situation why would you have any reason to doubt him, to not completely trust that he knows best. You might seek advice from a marriage councillor for help in making your failing marriage work because they are experts in their particular field, or rather they have more knowledge in this area than you. Similarly God (the perfect councillor) knows how we can lead happy lives so why would we ever question one of his rules? We might naturally agree with his rule (by logic) or we might not be able to understand why BUT WE DONT NEED TO UNDERSTAND because we already know God knows best. So if he says we must do 50 press ups every morning, let's do it. If he says abstain from fornication, let's do it.

I hear a lot of people moan about how, even if the bible and God is real, that God is some egotistical tyrant and he has to be the centre of attention, so he's not very nice and loving. Can the 'logical' people out there (the evolution believers and atheists) expand on this a little just so I can understand a little more of your view point before I post a reply

I think it's easier said than done, Merton. It may make logical sense that everything God says is better, but it doesn't always seem better, and that is what makes it difficult. I think a good example of this is the Lord telling Ananias to go and meet Saul of Tarsus, but Ananias knowing how brutal Saul was and all of the persecution he was notorious for, was immediately hesitant, and objected to God. God then explained to him further, and he went, but why didn't he just trust God initially and go?

One thing about Adam and Eve. It doesn't say how long they were in the garden before they ate the fruit. I think we assume it happened almost immediately, but I think this is just an assumption. Perhaps it was longer than we imagine.

They are assumptions and they don't necessarily follow. A hungry person won't necessarily eat. A violent person won't necessarily act violently. First you assume that god can't be anything but all loving which is actually just a characteristic arbitrarily awarded to him to 'solve' the problem of why there are things that an all powerful being can't do, then you assume that he will actually act out that characteristic of his personality.

Why can't god sin?
Because he is all loving.
How do we know he is all loving?
Because he can't sin.
Why can't he sin?
Because he is all loving.
...

Which really boils down to 'god is all loving because god is all loving' doesn't it? We don't know that god is all loving, it's an assumed characteristic of 'all loving' and it supports the conclusion (and really IS the conclusion) that he can't sin because he is all loving. I'm starting to wonder if any subject results in more circular logic being offered as explanations than religion.

Ok. But if you accept that it's only your assumption that god has to do anything other than pass the time thinking mysterious thoughts, that he also doesn't have to act in a loving way, he doesn't have to act at all. I think this is more a projection by people who want to believe that they are loved by god, than a logical conclusion.

I didn't suggest that you were trying to win anything, I've just noticed that you have a tendency to make these vague appeals to the masses. In our recent conversations, can you think of a single time when I've pointed out that I'm not alone in my view? Hey, maybe I'm wrong and I should be doing that?

In the same way that fish always have a reason for their actions no matter how nonsensical they are, people always have a reason for saying things. To point out after describing your interpretation, that 'some people' hold the same interpretation that you do is presumably intended to support your holding that interpretation. But it doesn't.

Genesis 22 tells us that God requested Abraham's firstborn, Isaac, as a sacrifice. Abraham did not question God. He didn't start kicking off about how it's not fair, he's not a loving God. And we see what happens later on. Abraham is about to kill his son with the knife when one of God's angels appears and tells him to stop. Isaac lives and Abraham proves that he has complete faith in God no matter what. People often claim this is a prediction of what God does, in offering his firstborn Jesus, but for me i've always looked at this as Abraham trusting 100% in God and completely following him no matter what is asked - and how absurd it may seem.

Another example is Jesus in the garden just before he's arrested. Jesus knows he's going to be arrested, killed in a most gruesome way. He doesn't want to die as a blasphemer. Throughout the gospels there are examples of Jesus outwitting the pharisees, no doubt he had intelligence and wisdom far far greater than any man. Yet even in his darkest hour, he trusts not his own wisdom but God's. Matthew 26:39 says "...if possible, let this cup pass away from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will". If there is any other option, please, but not what I want what you want. How humble of Jesus to not do his own desires but that of his Father. And his faith was rewarded with a resurrection.

Your example of Saul is one we can all relate to. We are scared of men, persecution and sometimes we lack faith. If God told you to go preach in front of an atheistic dictator who is known for throwing christians in prison and subjecting them to torture would you not be scared?? I would definitely be terrified!! But that's when you pray, realise God knows best and hey if we die we can always get resurrected

I agree with Adam and Eve being in the garden for a considerable amount of time. Especially Adam, he was busy off naming all the animals which would have took a considerable amount of time. Whether he was there for awhile or not isn't really that important to me, similar to the old earth/new earth argument and 6 literal days/6 'days' creation period. When you are a believer there are more important things to be bothered about learning!

Do you accept the OT as inerrant? I'm curious about this story. God lives in an eternal present (to solve the problem of us not having free will), so he knew both that Abraham would try to sacrifice his son and that he was going to send an angel to stop him. So when the angel stops him, why does he say '"now I know you fear God' when god already knew that?

Also, God gave us free will right? If god gave us free will, presumably he wouldn't then expect us to immediately abandon it when he requests that we do something so the choice was Abraham's. But, god already knew what Abraham was going to do, so it seems that he really wanted Abraham to realise it himself? Why? (I guess if you're a Determinist that these questions don't apply)

I don't think the version where Abraham is testing god holds water because for that to happen, for god to make the demand but then later decide he should actually retract it, god would have to have changed his mind and that's not possible. How can an omniscient being learn something that would change a decision he's made, in an eternal now where everything has already happened for him anyway.

These are all interesting points...

Yes I do consider the OT (and NT) as completely true. The bible is quite clear that God can predict the future to absolute perfection. Whether he only chooses to know certain things, I do not know. This is definitely something I can't wrap my head around - but i'm just a human, not the God. I'm not too concerned how he does these things. Just a quick note the fall of man in Eden happened because man desired to be like God, the serpent (Gen 3) claims that God is holding something back from us, that in eating from the tree we can decide for ourselves what should be good and what should be bad. Perhaps being like God would involve the answers to all the 'why' and 'how' questions behind God's power, things which are detrimental to us as humans. For me I don't need to know these things to convince me that whatever he says goes. Ever since humans got curious things got bad!

I can't answer the second paragraph. Maybe not just for Abraham but for us to realise that whatever God expects of us that we do it without any doubt in our minds and to go through right to the end.

The third paragraph isn't true. There are examples in exodus (see 32nd chapter) where God is going to wipe out the israelites, but Moses intercedes and 'changes' his mind.

If a person is hungry, he will be inclined to eat. If given the option to eat or not eat, it is his nature to eat. If God is loving it is in his nature to act lovingly.

I think your confounding how we know, with what makes sense. "How do we know he is all loving?" doesn't quite fit here. We take that as part of the definition of God, when you attempt to prove it, you've moved from theology to epistemology.

I think again your confusing a couple of things. You wouldn't interrupt a theological discussion with the objection that God has not been proved to exist, God existing is granted for the sake of the discussion.

I make these "vague appeals" because I'm trying to be sensitive to people who don't necessarily believe what I believe. For instance, there may be Christians who don't accept that God had to create us out of love, and I want to vocalize that this is just my opinion, albeit biblically based, and that my view is not the only one. I can see how it sometimes looks like I'm appealing to authority, or some such, but it's not my goal. Just being careful.

Do you believe that god gave us free will?

Do you regard curiosity as a bad thing?

Is it actually possible that god would ever need to change his mind? Why would a being that lives in an eternal now, that has access to all the knowledge that there ever is/was/will be, have a change of heart. Is it more likely that in instances where god has appeared, to us, to have changed his mind, that actually god knew exactly how is was going to play out and the appearance of a mind change was for our benefit?

I borrowed this from here;
It seems that it's logically impossible for god to change his mind, unless, he doesn't actually know everything.

Agree with you about everything here, although I would be careful in placing Abraham in a position of infallibility. He did make his mistakes, as well.

One thing about lacking faith, is that not everyone is the same. What is easy for me, may not be easy for you, and vice versa, so I don't think it's always useful to compare each other. Perhaps if I'm called to speak to an atheist dictator, I could do it with more ease than you, because my tests lie elsewhere, whereas you have an easier time in an other area I struggle with.