Why did God create the universe?

[Cato]

Unfortunatly George thought that the picture of God painted by religion was the same picture of God painted by scripture. Unfortunatly for him it does not seem that he ventured very far beyond the religion he attributed to God, and when he found fault in it. he attributed to God rather than to the efforts of the men who created and supported said religion.

Carlin did not conflate religion and god; religion does this well enough on its own. The above quote had nothing to do with religion.

His body of work on this subject blamed religion of assigning attributes to a deity and then spending time convincing people of the veracity of their ridiculous claims (oh, and constantly asking for money).

Your claim is either unsubsantiated opinion or you are using the ubiquitous gambit of saying he (god or Carlin) is unknowable, but then proceed to tell me what he (god or Carlin) thinks without proof.

[Drich]

Carlin did not conflate religion and god; religion does this well enough on its own. The above quote had nothing to do with religion.

I was a big fan of carlin for a very long time and I know without doubt that his views on god were based on the cathloic views which is far and away from the stated biblical views on God.
So to correct this statement Carlin did indeed conflate religion and God, for He thought the Cathoic/religious interpertation of god was indeed How God protrayed himself and His/our roles in this world.
His entire act was based on a very strong understandng of the precepts of the catholic faith.

His body of work on this subject blamed religion of assigning attributes to a deity and then spending time convincing people of the veracity of their ridiculous claims (oh, and constantly asking for money).

You are correct here in that he was able to make the distinction between God and religion, but even so his perception or understanding of God was still based on the catholic model and not the bible. there by squewing any seperation he was able to make.

Your claim is either unsubsantiated opinion or you are using the ubiquitous gambit of saying he (god or Carlin) is unknowable, but then proceed to tell me what he (god or Carlin) thinks without proof.

What I am saying is that without a more complete understanding of God you are stuck with a singular perspective of God, as George was. at best with your perspective you can only ever to hope to further explain goreges intentional jabs, all based off of the perspective Carlin himself thought to be accurate. One that was completely based off of the religious views of the version of the church he knew.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

You're thinking of God in temporal terms.

Aside from identifying 'temporal terms' do you really understand what it is to be outside of time? We do not even have the ablity to be able to verbalize existance outside of ordered time as we know it. so how else can one truly express the nature of existence outside of liner time with out referencing liner time if he is bound by it? So the cloest we can describe an existance outside of time is by pointing to eternity.

What I meant was that you seemed to have conceived of God who is eternal as experiencing problems that can only be experienced in temporality. When you said "...put yourself in a state of nothingness, and ask yourself would you remain there? if so how long before you decided to make a change well with in your ablity to do so?" you're picturing God waiting (a temporal concept), becoming impatient (temporal concept) with "nothingness" (as indicated by "how long before..."), imagining a future time in which there isn't nothingness, and then creating something to alleviate the present loneliness.

Same problem, how can one describe a concept of absolute nothingness is all we know are point of creation with nothing in it? It is a concept forgein to us if you are honest with yourself. For even in the nothingness of space you are still apart of creation. so how else can one describe the void in which creation was spoken out of, without pointing to or treating 'nothing like something."

Good observations though. However I do not see any other way to communicate the state and existance in which inspired creation aside from what was said. If you have suggestions I am open to them.

I was pointing out that if God existed but the universe didn't, then it's not true to say that that means "nothing" exists. God is something unless you conceive of him as being "nothing." When you said "...put yourself in a state of nothingness, and ask yourself would you remain there?" you're making what appears to me to be a completely senseless statement. Something cannot be put "into" nothing.

And from what I'm gathering you seem to be saying that God got lonely?

Yes.

This is the biggest problem I see with your answer. It seems to contradict God's self-sufficiency. From your answer, God apparently was in a negative emotional state of loneliness which he needed to alleviate by creating other beings.

[Welsh cake]

Pretty simple question that I've never gotten an answer to while I was a Christian. For what reason did God create the universe?

He didn't create anything.

Matter and Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

The pandeists are smart enough to recognise the universe is more complicated and profound than a tribal deity myth and our expectations of causality don't apply to this awe inspiring cosmos. They remove that obstacle by just asserting the universe IS god.

[Anomalocaris]

[quote='Chuck' pid='295126' dateline='1338926399']

Since you claim god always was, it would then appear that he must have been fine with a state of nothingness for an infinite length of time.

As Capt. P said before creation there was no time.
This only leaves God.

What was he doing immersed in nothing, I wonder, before he finally decided to put an end to it all and conjure up some free-will to torment.

don't know. Maybe I will get to ask Him one day for you.

Did the heaven father pop into existence to answer you?

[Cato]

What I am saying is that without a more complete understanding of God you are stuck with a singular perspective of God, as George was. at best with your perspective you can only ever to hope to further explain goreges intentional jabs, all based off of the perspective Carlin himself thought to be accurate. One that was completely based off of the religious views of the version of the church he knew.

What is a non-singular perspective of god?

If one were to study all christian sects and choose one, that is still singular. Reading the bible and arriving at one's own conclusion is also singular. Any ONE true way is singular.

The complete understanding/singular perspective of god dichotomy begs the question: 'Why wasn't or isn't god more succinct?'. Don't give me the mysterious ways canard. It's like being tossed an unpinned hand grenade, which has limited options: 1. Run like hell (my current physical condition prevents proper escape velocity) 2. Jump on it and suffer the consequences (I'm too enarmored with my limited existence) 3. Pray it doesn't explode (has never worked) or 4. Throw it back (highly successful).

[Drich]

What I meant was that you seemed to have conceived of God who is eternal as experiencing problems that can only be experienced in temporality. When you said "...put yourself in a state of nothingness, and ask yourself would you remain there? if so how long before you decided to make a change well with in your ablity to do so?" you're picturing God waiting (a temporal concept), becoming impatient (temporal concept) with "nothingness" (as indicated by "how long before..."), imagining a future time in which there isn't nothingness, and then creating something to alleviate the present loneliness.

Same problem, how can one describe a concept of absolute nothingness is all we know are point of creation with nothing in it? It is a concept forgein to us if you are honest with yourself. For even in the nothingness of space you are still apart of creation. so how else can one describe the void in which creation was spoken out of, without pointing to or treating 'nothing like something."

Good observations though. However I do not see any other way to communicate the state and existance in which inspired creation aside from what was said. If you have suggestions I am open to them.

I was pointing out that if God existed but the universe didn't, then it's not true to say that that means "nothing" exists. God is something unless you conceive of him as being "nothing." When you said "...put yourself in a state of nothingness, and ask yourself would you remain there?" you're making what appears to me to be a completely senseless statement. Something cannot be put "into" nothing.

You misunderstand the intention and focous of my statement. We are looking at a state of emotion that we share with God. Not his specific situation. The reason for the given circumstance was not to reproduce the situation God face but to invoke a emotional response given the cloest thing we can experience.

This is the biggest problem I see with your answer. It seems to contradict God's self-sufficiency. From your answer, God apparently was in a negative emotional state of loneliness which he needed to alleviate by creating other beings.

I'm not see the appearent problem you do.

For we must first establish "biblically' the terms of God's self sufficiency, and see if anything says He can not want compainionship. which I know of nothing..

If anything God saw the need for compainionship, and was the sole reason He created Eve for Adam. the fact that He empathized with Adam and created woman for him points to a God who knows what it is to be alone and sees that it is "not good."

[Mystic]

I believe it's due to benevolence. He created out of grace and love. As for why the world seems so messed up, I believe it's designed to bring about heroic hearts.

[Drich]

[quote='cato123' pid='295214' dateline='1338936300']
[quote]What is a non-singular perspective of god? [/quote]
A persepective of God that involves more than a singular persepective. In George's situation a perspective built on something other than what He knew of God through the Church.

[quote]If one were to study all christian sects and choose one, that is still singular. Reading the bible and arriving at one's own conclusion is also singular. Any ONE true way is singular.[/quote]Growing up Athiest is a singular perspective, then Going to a similar type of Church as George did where God is taught in such away as to reinforce alot of the atheist views of God is still a singular perspective, but the contrast the bible offers or even a bible teaching church posits a secondary perspective.

[quote]The complete understanding/singular perspective of god dichotomy begs the question: 'Why wasn't or isn't god more succinct?'.[/quote]
If God were, then where would choice be? If our ablity to choose is lessoned then what is the point of this life?

[Cato]

Growing up Athiest is a singular perspective, then Going to a similar type of Church as George did where God is taught in such away as to reinforce alot of the atheist views of God is still a singular perspective, but the contrast the bible offers or even a bible teaching church posits a secondary perspective.

Oh, do tell. Which catholic doctrines 'reinforce alot of the atheist views of God'?

You don't ever answer the question, do you? What is a non-singular perspective of god? I addressed a bible teaching church (the ONE true way taught by others that after investigation you chose or were simply indocrinated in) or biblical self discovery as both still singular. You still have yet to give what you mean by a non-singular or complete understanding of god. Just because you can parse and attack a very limited portion of someone's reply and comment doesn't mean that you have actually provided and answer to the original question.

Are you suggesting that the catholic church doesn't teach the bible? What exactly is a bible teaching chuch? Do all bible teaching churches agree on all matters of theology?

[quote}If God were (challenging my question of god's succinctness), then where would choice be? If our ablity to choose is lessoned then what is the point of this life?
[/quote]

Are you seriously positing that the reason that I have to make a decision in all matters of my existence is because of your creator's abiguity? I now have a vision of a less than curious eight year old holding a magnifying glass next to an ant hill on a bright sunny day. This child then concludes that if an ant turns left it will be incinerated, but if it turns right he will place it in a shoe-box to be carried off with all other right-turning ants to be placed on his night stand. The child likes the noise thinking that the surviving ants are worshiping him as their savior never knowing that they are just all scrambling to get out of the damn box.