Was it necessary that Humans were created? Things would be so much less complicated for a deity if there was no universe or life to manage and scriptures to write/inspire, right? So, what does a deity gain from creating life (Humans)?

These are all questions that I've grappled with for some time and first one (about Humans) is one that I would want to put to Theists that approach me. Recently, I watched a video where somebody wanting to spread the lies of Abdul Waahab asked an irreligious person to compare a Human to a shoe: "Which is more complicated?", they asked. Then, obviously, this lead into: Well, Humans have a purpose.

And I thought to myself: Shoes were created because there is a need for them, as Humans traveled ever greater distances, whereas Humans were not (according to the Abrahamic religions at least). And this lead to the question: Was it necessary that Humans were created? Surely, (insert preferred deity here) can live without Humans? Why does (insert preferred deity here) want/need Humans to exist?

How do you think a believer would react if I asked the question: Was it necessary that Humans were created? If they answer yes then I will ask why and it should follow that, yes, the deity is egotistical. One might say: "My favourite deity wanted to share their creation with Humans". But that begs the question: Why make a creation in the first place? If the person answers no to the question then it still begs the question of why. And some will inevitably sit on the fence and say: "I don't know"

Also, do you think it's fair to compare shoes to Humans? I think it may not be a fair comparison because Humans have had million/billions of years of evolution whereas shoes haven't. Also, the creators of shoes are always striving to create the best shoes possible whereas Humans are stuck with this faulty design.

(March 25, 2015 at 5:14 pm)MrNoMorePropaganda Wrote: So, what does a deity gain from creating life (Humans)?

Maybe god is just lonely.

The countless religious texts all seem to point to some kind of narcissist so maybe he just wanted a bunch of people to suck his dick.

I've talked on this issue in another thread and if we reason from within the myth my best quess that God wanted to entertain himself.

But the most logical answer is still that it is God who was created. It was necessary for humans to have him (and other types gods) created in a given historical period.

I suppose that after being bored for literally an infinite amount of time, God one day decided that this infinity had become tedious and did something for entertainment.

As Smaug says: playing within the myth I think He was bored.
After humans were created yes because every actualized eventuality becomes necessary after it happens. Unless he can take it all back in which case we'd never know it (not being here) and the question is void.
Before: depends on whether or not a perfect being has freedom of action. There would have to be more than one perfect course of action for there to be an option.
I find this speculation, like all about the ineffable- silly and not to be taken seriously.

A perfect being would have no need of anything, as it would be sufficient in itself. Creating something implies the desire to create, and a desire implies that the thing in question lacks something that it wants. Otherwise, it would not create anything. Lacking something that it wants shows imperfection.

So, a perfect being would never create a universe, as it would be sufficient in itself.

(March 25, 2015 at 5:50 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: A perfect being would have no need of anything, as it would be sufficient in itself. Creating something implies the desire to create, and a desire implies that the thing in question lacks something that it wants. Otherwise, it would not create anything. Lacking something that it wants shows imperfection.

So, a perfect being would never create a universe, as it would be sufficient in itself.

If I were a Christian mystic apologist, I would circumvent this by saying that the universe with us in it is not a separate creation per se but a part of the mind of God.

(March 25, 2015 at 6:02 pm)Alex K Wrote:

(March 25, 2015 at 5:50 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: A perfect being would have no need of anything, as it would be sufficient in itself. Creating something implies the desire to create, and a desire implies that the thing in question lacks something that it wants. Otherwise, it would not create anything. Lacking something that it wants shows imperfection.

So, a perfect being would never create a universe, as it would be sufficient in itself.

If I were a Christian mystic apologist, I would circumvent this by saying that the universe with us in it is not a separate creation per se but a part of the mind of God.

Do you mean that the universe has always existed? Otherwise, you will have a problem, with God thinking of something new, that He previously had not considered. After all, that would mean that He lacked something at some time, that He later had. Either that thing is an improvement, or it isn't. If it is an improvement, it means God was imperfect, and if not, then it is unnecessary and unimportant, unworthy of a perfect being.

(March 25, 2015 at 6:16 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:

(March 25, 2015 at 6:02 pm)Alex K Wrote: If I were a Christian mystic apologist, I would circumvent this by saying that the universe with us in it is not a separate creation per se but a part of the mind of God.

Do you mean that the universe has always existed? Otherwise, you will have a problem, with God thinking of something new, that He previously had not considered. After all, that would mean that He lacked something at some time, that He later had. Either that thing is an improvement, or it isn't. If it is an improvement, it means God was imperfect, and if not, then it is unnecessary and unimportant, unworthy of a perfect being.

[Apologist]
It is not sensible to say that God lacked a thing at some time, and had it at another. This is our interpretation as creatures living in time. God though is not constrained by our concept of time: what is past, present and future for us are just different parts of His mind, and he has them all.
[/Apologist]

(March 25, 2015 at 6:22 pm)Alex K Wrote:

(March 25, 2015 at 6:16 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Do you mean that the universe has always existed? Otherwise, you will have a problem, with God thinking of something new, that He previously had not considered. After all, that would mean that He lacked something at some time, that He later had. Either that thing is an improvement, or it isn't. If it is an improvement, it means God was imperfect, and if not, then it is unnecessary and unimportant, unworthy of a perfect being.

[Apologist]
It is not sensible to say that God lacked a thing at some time, and had it at another. This is our interpretation as creatures living in time. God though is not constrained by our concept of time: what is past, present and future for us are just different parts of His mind, and he has them all.
[/Apologist]

I see you are getting into the spirit of things, becoming more nonsensical and divorced from reality. Good job!

But back to the point: If it is in the mind of God, then you should have no problems with the idea that the universe has always existed. Hell, I am an atheist, and I have no conceptual problems with the idea that the universe has always existed. What is the problem with it, for a believer in a perfect God? How does the eternity of some part of the mind of God constitute a problem for a believer?

Indeed, this seems all for the believer's benefit, that we are not independent real things, but just thoughts in the mind of God, that have always been, and always will be. What are you, some sort of atheist?