Why were we created?

realizing that nothing was created, nothing matters, there is no 'reason' for anything; 'creates' (choice of word intended) a new perspective in which everything falls into place, and things start making sense.

somewhat epiphanal!

0 Replies

Bogowo,

Enjoyed your last response. Smile

I don't think that there was an initial "reason". We're just trying to create one.

I believe that most occurences lack reason and then we busy ourselves trying to attach reason to them.

I'm going to go get some food to bring back to the anthill now.

Have a good day.

0 Replies

thanks jer; all days have the capacity for being 'good' if one reacts to the fact that there is no 'guarantee' they will be! Laughing

0 Replies

When science rejected Aristotles search for final cause, as it did systematically and completly in the Renaissance, we, as scientists, decided that science cannot determine the final cause of any object, or being.

Science, since then, has agreed to stop attempting to define why something occurs and start defining that something occurs.

So, if you are looking for evidence as why we were created and what our purpose is, you cannot look to science for your answers.

Science simply cannot find evidence for purpose. So when Bogo, Jer, and others reply that they belief there is no purpose to humanity - they are giving a reply to something that is not in evidence. They simply believe that this is true.

An answer of purpose comes down to faith Some believe that thier science leads them to believe in a lack of purpose - and some believe that thier scripture leads them to believe in a purpose.

TF

0 Replies

you see tf; this is an area where i have no 'faith' in science! Cool

paring the evidence to its extreme limit renders 'nothingness' as the only possibility. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Not so for the believer. As long as there is a .0001% chance for God to come into the picture the theist is fine with that.

God never said this was the likely scenario - or even the probable scenario - just the one that happened.

Again, I am not arguing for creationism - I am simply setting the perameters of the debate.

If you are seeing nothingness as the only possibility then you are blinding yourself to a ton of other data that others use to see more possibilities. I think what you are saying is the likely possibility is that there is no purpose - and that likelyhood cannot even begin to be calculated using observable data - the very concept of a God is that he is un-observable.

Science has nothing to say about this.

TF

0 Replies

Well, within the parameters of the debate that TF has set out, I vote for: god created us because it was bored and needed a project. Hey, Attention Deficit Disorder was only properly diagnosed and accepted by the medical community recently, and we are apparently made in god's image.

0 Replies

Cav: Here is where I agree. Even amongst Christians and others - God needs nothing and thus believers must be comfortable with the possibility that God created us for his own amusment.

Read the story of Job - it is a bet between Satan and God to see if Job will turn - I am not sure if God was amuzed but a lot of Christians are not comfortable with being a 'bet' of an omnipotent being.

However, there has been much debate of the word 'image' or 'likeness' - of which we see both in the bible depending on the translation.

Image would be like photo copy and would assume a much more exact replication - however likeness would be like a stick figures likeness to me. You can see the likeness but exactness was never the point. Sound ad hoc - perhaps it is.

TF

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

Cav: Here is where I agree. Even amongst Christians and others - God needs nothing and thus believers must be comfortable with the possibility that God created us for his own amusment.

Read the story of Job - it is a bet between Satan and God to see if Job will turn - I am not sure if God was amuzed but a lot of Christians are not comfortable with being a 'bet' of an omnipotent being.

However, there has been much debate of the word 'image' or 'likeness' - of which we see both in the bible depending on the translation.

Image would be like photo copy and would assume a much more exact replication - however likeness would be like a stick figures likeness to me. You can see the likeness but exactness was never the point. Sound ad hoc - perhaps it is.

TF

Now this interests me, and I thank you for it. I am quite familiar with the story of Job, and I amuse myself at the remarkable coincidence that it spells "job". If, (and it's a big if for me) there is a god that created us in his image or likeness, I would have to assume that our faults are as much a reflection of god as our perceived strengths. I agree with you on bible translation. It's a mess, really.

0 Replies

"God created us in his likeness (his image)."

I thought about that one quite a bit. Okay, lets assume that is true.

Image and likeness are two very different things. I won't be picky, though.

Either way,
Isn't that like saying we are nearly like a god? In the same ballpark....?

And looking at the state of humanity today, I think it would be hard to argue we are god-like.

Do you feel like you were created to look like, or be like a god? Really?

0 Replies

I have a problem with the Book Genesis. Here we have a man blaming a woman blaming a snake. You know, God says do not eat of this tree, a set up if ever there was one. God is omniscient, this makes Him sound like a really evil bugger. Wait a moment people have free will. What if the test was not obedience but honesty. What if God was looking for both the man and woman to own up and take responsibility for their actions. They don't and God says get out and learn the hard way.
To me it looks like humanity has been operating under, "It's not my fault, look what you made me do." rules for most of history. I think the universe just might be a bit more explicable if we all took responsibility for our own actions and quit playing the blame game. It just wastes time and accomplishes nothing in the end.
Of course if the whole Universe is eternal or what-ever and neither God nor souls exist what difference does anything make? One way or another we all have a definitive answer presented in the end. Twisted Evil

Sam

0 Replies

tcis wrote:

"God created us in his likeness (his image)."

I thought about that one quite a bit. Okay, lets assume that is true.

Image and likeness are two very different things. I won't be picky, though.

Either way,
Isn't that like saying we are nearly like a god? In the same ballpark....?

And looking at the state of humanity today, I think it would be hard to argue we are god-like.

Do you feel like you were created to look like, or be like a god? Really?

What would you consider to be 'godlike' in humans, barring supernatural powers? I am considering the effect of hubris here on our part, just so you know. I'm also interested in seeing how this thread moves along.

0 Replies

cavfancier wrote:

tcis wrote:
"God created us in his likeness (his image)."

I thought about that one quite a bit. Okay, lets assume that is true.

Image and likeness are two very different things. I won't be picky, though.

Either way,
Isn't that like saying we are nearly like a god? In the same ballpark....?

And looking at the state of humanity today, I think it would be hard to argue we are god-like.

Do you feel like you were created to look like, or be like a god? Really?

What would you consider to be 'godlike' in humans, barring supernatural powers? I am considering the effect of hubris here on our part, just so you know. I'm also interested in seeing how this thread moves along.

Thats a good one. What would you consider to be godlike in humans?

Maybe something like: The ability to forgive someone who has done you wrong. The ability to have compassion.

0 Replies

Perhaps we are all Gods in training? Why does there have to be only one universe? Why not many universes each with it's own God? Or if there is only one universe then why not many Gods? That concept worked for centuries. (Those Gods were all created in mans image, spoiled brats the lot of 'em.)

Sam

0 Replies

tcis wrote:

cavfancier wrote:
tcis wrote:
"God created us in his likeness (his image)."

I thought about that one quite a bit. Okay, lets assume that is true.

Image and likeness are two very different things. I won't be picky, though.

Either way,
Isn't that like saying we are nearly like a god? In the same ballpark....?

And looking at the state of humanity today, I think it would be hard to argue we are god-like.

Do you feel like you were created to look like, or be like a god? Really?

What would you consider to be 'godlike' in humans, barring supernatural powers? I am considering the effect of hubris here on our part, just so you know. I'm also interested in seeing how this thread moves along.
Thats a good one. What would you consider to be godlike in humans?

Maybe something like: The ability to forgive someone who has done you wrong. The ability to have compassion.

I happen to agree, with both you and Sam.

0 Replies

Sam, That's the reason why buddism makes a lot of sense. Christians can't become god, but buddhists can become buddha. Wink

0 Replies

ci,

In Lakota belief once a soul has learned and accomplished all it needs to, it passes beyond the Star Nations to a place of eternal happiness. Sounds a lot like Buddhism to me. IMO with out european or Christian intervention North American Native beliefs would have become very nearly identical to Buddhism.

Sam

0 Replies

It would be very inconsistent with the usual notion of God as one who is without need and ignorance of any kind to consider ourselves made in His visual image. Would god need eyes to see, a mouth to chew food with and talk, a nose to breathe (air?), a butt to crap with with, hair to keep the sweat out of is eyes, etc. etc.? Of course not. But what if we take the metaphor of God as depicting something that distinguishes us from all other creatures, say, our AWARENESS of the world, in the sense of consciousness? I was looking at a documentary on public television last night about the findings of neurology regarding the process of sight. It mention a strange phenomenon called "blind sight". This oxymoron refers to a condition where an individual (due to traumatic injury) can see objects on the left side of his visual field and be AWARE of what he is seeing. On his right side, however, he can see objects but not be aware of his seeing them. Therefore he can remember what he saw on the left side but not what he saw on the right side. You can ask him to touch something on his right side and he can do so. But he cannot remember having seen the object he touched. The point is that on his right side, his blind sight is similar to the vision of all other animals. They can see for the purposes of hunting and certain other activities needed for survival. But they are far more dependent on smell and hearing to meet the perceptual requirements of survival.
Is it not meaningful (I did not say "true") that we are like a metaphorical God in this distinguishing characteristic: the awareness (and ability to remember and reflect upon) events, as in the subject's left side? Just a thought.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

It would be very inconsistent with the usual notion of God as one who is without need and ignorance of any kind to consider ourselves made in His visual image. Would god need eyes to see, a mouth to chew food with and talk, a nose to breathe (air?), a butt to crap with with, hair to keep the sweat out of is eyes, etc. etc.? Of course not. But what if we take the metaphor of God as depicting something that distinguishes us from all other creatures, say, our AWARENESS of the world, in the sense of consciousness? I was looking at a documentary on public television last night about the findings of neurology regarding the process of sight. It mention a strange phenomenon called "blind sight". This oxymoron refers to a condition where an individual (due to traumatic injury) can see objects on the left side of his visual field and be AWARE of what he is seeing. On his right side, however, he can see objects but not be aware of his seeing them. Therefore he can remember what he saw on the left side but not what he saw on the right side. You can ask him to touch something on his right side and he can do so. But he cannot remember having seen the object he touched. The point is that on his right side, his blind sight is similar to the vision of all other animals. They can see for the purposes of hunting and certain other activities needed for survival. But they are far more dependent on smell and hearing to meet the perceptual requirements of survival.
Is it not meaningful (I did not say "true") that we are like a metaphorical God in this distinguishing characteristic: the awareness (and ability to remember and reflect upon) events, as in the subject's left side? Just a thought.

"a butt to crap with". Now you're talking my kind of philosophy, butt (sp.) you knew that already. I equate 'hidden eye' with 'third eye', the eye that sees the unseen. Personally, I feel that the whole god concept is just our way of figuring things out. I think of philosophy the same way.

0 Replies

I find philosophy to be much tougher than trying to figure our whether we were created by god. There ain't no god, so what's the next question about philosophy?

0 Replies

Why were we created?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know