It seems to me that if we require an infinite, infinitely powerful being to create everything, then nothing would ever have been created. First of all, there would never have been any motivation to create anything, since that being would have no reason to create creating, and, it wouldn't have wanted to create creating since it wouldn't have created wanting.
Its impossible for humans to understand the concept of God. I wouldn't even attempt to try and figure it out.
Possibly, but that's also something that could be said about almost any possible claim that could ever be made.
Well I can't say that you are wrong. But how do you know God didn't have motivation to create us? I would argue that the very fact we exist is because he was motivated by something to do so. Or consider this; We were not the sole focus of what God was doing. Maybe he was doing something else and said, "If I do this it will cause life to spring up on that planet over there", he thinks about it, "ok, I will allow that to happen and make myself known to them".
Well, why would a god ever make anything? I'm not talking about ascribing motive, I'm talking about can you conceive of any possible motive.
We don't know why but it goes back to what I said earlier, we don't know what its like to be God. We don't know anything about the realm he exists in, its rules, boundaries......anything. Are there more Gods? Does He have a God? Its impossible to know until we get up there and hopefully fills us in on the details.
Well, I agree, but that means there is nothing to distinguish that idea from random chance. And from all available logic, if something like that existed, then it would never do anything, let alone create a universe.
Not really, I mean maybe an infinitesimal amount, but really its most likely just pareidolia. It's not enough to distinguish it from background noise.
your question presumes human motivations of an entity with the power to create the universe who would logically have to exist outside space and time to begin with. I just can't accept that kind of being would possess any human qualities or motivations. God as defined by religion it is a wholly man made construct. It presumes human motivation of intent and action. I'm an agnostic who rejects all religious dogma, but not necessarily all religious wisdom. the notion of a creator of the universe doesn't appeal to me, but that doesn't mean there wasn't. If there was a creator I only believe he created the universe by setting into motion the inconceivable processes and energies and behavioral laws that resulted in our observable universe and the habitable planet where life evolved into our existence. but then again, who knows? Nobody, despite how many people truly believe they do.
It does say that He created man in His image. I doubt that is referring to physical looks. The few instances we can read about that talk about "His" world show that many human traits such as Love and Jealousy certainly do exist. And yes, the theory that he started it all and left it to blossom as it will is certainly a viable one. I adhere to that a little bit myself although I do believe there is ultimately a plan in motion also.
I think the questions sort of revolves around the fact that it would have no human motivations whatsoever. That is why it would never have any motivation or reason to create anything or do anything. I don't think I have any problems with that. Oh oh lol, I just had a very long and unproductive discussion with a couple of BS agnostics lol, let's hope this is more productive. That's true, but I never accept an argument from ignorance. If you get right down to it, there is nothing we know for 100% certain, therefore, we can argue absolutely anything with equal authority if we just say that we don't know.
I disagree. The absence of human motivations does not mean lack of motivation. Something so far removed from the human experience means humans have no capacity to understand it. I don't know. I fall into the agnostic atheist camp. I concede that a creator could exist, but I ain't counting on it all. I prefer scientific explanations for all things material. Not sure what "agnostic" bs you are referring to. I believe that is a false equivalency. Theists standards of evidence are nowhere near the equivalent of scientific standards. It is only in the areas where scientific evidence does not exist or is inadequate to support the conclusion, that "equal authority" could be claimed.
I am familiar with what scriptures say. My contention is that it was men who determined that it was his image in the first place. since I reject scriptures as the 'word of god", I also reject the notion that he "annointed" humans with life, sentience and emotion by direct an deliberate action to create worshippers to his glory. Gods character is a stylized reflection of the humans who defined him and his works. REligious faith is a personal thing. I recognize that the effects of faith have given comfort to billions and motivated many many positive and good works. I do not possess religious faith so I don't understand how believers can believe in what I consider to be a false premise from the get go.
I'm not sure if we are talking past each other, but here is what I'm saying. If we are just going to appeal to the idea that it is beyond our ability to experience or understand, I don't see how that then doesn't mean you can make any claim with equal validity by simply saying we can't understand. That is different than say quantum mechanics which is something that we know is happening and can make predictions about, but fully being able to understand exactly what is happening may be beyond our ability to understand. We may never understand how existence came to be, but we don't need a supernatural intelligence to make it happen even though in the purest sense, it could possibly be the cause. However, saying we don't understand how that happened adds nothing to the conversation or philosophy. For example we can say clapping your hands charges a cell phone in tibet, but our brains can't understand how nor can we perceive that it happened, so it appears that it didn't. However, given all logic we have available, it wouldn't make sense. Things like motivation would have to have been created by that intelligence if we are to argue that that intelligence was required to set the universe in motion. If it created everything, then it would probably have to have created whatever 'motivation' it might have had, otherwise, who did create it? If something like motivation can be intrinsic to existence, so can the energy and constants that make up fundamental physics. Well, I meant they were full of bs, and weren't really agnostic. I think technically agnostic would be the best way to describe me as well.
I'm fine with the simple argument "Humans cannot understand".. IIRC, every scripture claims no man can know the mind of god and then proceed in the following hundreds of pages of dogmatic nonsense doing exactly that. I confess that sometimes when discussing "gods motivation" or "creation" I often salaciously think maybe the creator/s motivation was something as simple as perfectly natural bowel movement equivalent. Ah philosophy, elevated above facts and dependent on creative conceptualization and imagination as much as anything else.
I don't disagree that it's possible, but really at that point, we are pretty much arguing that all logic is up for grabs. I think really we are talking about logical paradoxes that would arise with the idea of such a thing. It's sort of like 'can god make something so heavy he can't lift it?'
how many angels on that pin again? Philosophy is like that. Whatever fits. Either you buy off the rack and maybe alter a bit, or ya get that form fitting custom number.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this is idle inane mental masturbation. I am saying this is (along with the question of whether or not god can make something so heavy it couldn't lift it) areal paradox that would arise if such a being existed. To say 'we don't know' is true, but if this paradox could be resolved in a way that we can't think of, then any paradox can also be resolved.
