what motivated god ?

[Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine]

Assalamo alaikum, faryal

Thank you for posting those portions of the Qur'an and where to find them. I shall try to open a discussion up with one or more of the members of the Muslim Students Association here on campus who might help me understand your scriptures better.

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

[faryal]

Originally Posted by Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

Assalamo alaikum, faryal

Thank you for posting those portions of the Qur'an and where to find them. I shall try to open a discussion up with one or more of the members of the Muslim Students Association here on campus who might help me understand your scriptures better.

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

walakumussalam, Phyllis

hey anytime you need help with Quran or want to disscuss it you can always mail me, i'll be happy to help you.

May Allah bless us all,
Assalamoalaikum.

[arthra]

"As a non thiest i have pondered many times the question of gods/dietys motive for creation ?"

My response:

Baha'is believe God created the universe so that man or sentient beings can know and worship God... So this is like a love:

"O SON OF MAN!
          
I loved thy creation, hence I created thee. Wherefore, do thou love Me, that I may name thy name and fill thy soul with the spirit of life."

( And)

"O SON OF MAN!
     
Veiled in My immemorial being and in the ancient eternity of My essence, I knew My love for thee; therefore I created thee, have engraved on thee Mine image and revealed to thee My beauty."

Man can seek to love God and return that love and we can love each other:

"This servant appealeth to every diligent and enterprising soul to exert his utmost endeavour and arise to rehabilitate the conditions in all regions and to quicken the dead with the living waters of wisdom and utterance, by virtue of the love he cherisheth for God, the One, the Peerless, the Almighty, the Beneficent."

In another place:

"But for man, who, on My earth, would remember Me, and how could My attributes and My names be revealed?"

When we think of "man" we need to understand that man as a sentient being has not always been in his present form on this earth and that "man" is not restricted to this earth:

"But the life of man is not so restricted; it is divine, eternal, not mortal and sensual. For him a spiritual existence and livelihood is prepared and ordained in the divine creative plan."

Finally,

"God has created man in order that he may be a dove of the Kingdom, a heavenly candle, a recipient of eternal life. God has created man in order that he may be resuscitated through the breaths of the Holy Spirit and become the light of the world."

The above quotes are all from the Baha'i Writings.

- Art

[sachetm]

I've pondered this, too and had to laugh at the response of "boredom" as that makes a lot of sense to me and indicates a sense of humor, which I can't imagine God as not having.

However, after thinking more about it, the best I've come up with is the principle of recursion, where at some point "isness" and "non-isness" become one and the same. The fact that we experience "isness," or creation, is simply a matter of where we sit when viewing things.

The closest explanation I can come to in a physical (isness) way is that of black holes, which appear to be non-isness or nothing. I'm sure there's some mathmatical corollary but not being a mathmatician, I've no idea what it might be.

The only other thing that's clear to me is that the primary distinction between isness and non-isness is time. Time is required for isness but doesn't seem to be necessary for God--the whole shebang. Subtract time from the equation and I suspect you might just have God.

Where's some weed when you need it to get to the next level?

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by sachetm

I've pondered this, too and had to laugh at the response of "boredom" as that makes a lot of sense to me and indicates a sense of humor, which I can't imagine God as not having.

However, after thinking more about it, the best I've come up with is the principle of recursion, where at some point "isness" and "non-isness" become one and the same. The fact that we experience "isness," or creation, is simply a matter of where we sit when viewing things.

The closest explanation I can come to in a physical (isness) way is that of black holes, which appear to be non-isness or nothing. I'm sure there's some mathmatical corollary but not being a mathmatician, I've no idea what it might be.

The only other thing that's clear to me is that the primary distinction between isness and non-isness is time. Time is required for isness but doesn't seem to be necessary for God--the whole shebang. Subtract time from the equation and I suspect you might just have God.

Where's some weed when you need it to get to the next level?

Namaste sachetm,

thank you for the post and welcome to the forum.

black holes are indeed something... what makes them hard to measure and so forth is that they don't radiate... no light, eh too much gravity. however... in the 70's Stephen Hawking showed that Black holes, do indeed, emit radiation, thus rendering them not entropy sink holes.

as for time.. well.. that's an interesting thing, isn't it. it can be rightly said that time only exists as an adjunct to the universe... i.e. no universe, no time. now... where this gets a bit tricky is when we start to talk about imaginary time. though it sounds like it's make believe, it's not. imaginary time is analgous to imaginary numbers in maths. i will confess to a rudimentary understanding of the issue at this point, however, if you'd like, i can provide some reference material that may be of benefit to people with a better grasp of theoretical physics than i.

perhaps... your black hole analogy could be summed up as, what is known as an "empty set" in math?

[Adamante]

I find it interesting that every single living organism in the known universe, has one purpose in it's lifetime: To reproduce. From the simple to the complex, to ensure it's survival.

Evolution is interesting here. God made us in His image, so it is said. He had a purpose...he "reproduced"? It is noticed that God is not as involved with us as he once was in the days like the Old Testament. Maybe he created us, knowing he would pass on, like all living things...(even if after billions of years.)

Today some may argue there is just enough evidence to suggest God is still with us...but obviously not in force as in the days of the Old Testament. But maybe he is either surviving through each one of us, or is gone and we will eventually evolve or grow up (in many many many years) into something similar to what He is/was. If we are children of God, maybe in a large amount of time, we will be adults of God. Perhaps...the God as we know it, came from another God just like Him.

I think this opinion is way out there! I'm sure someone somwhere has thought of it before. I don't know if I believe it! But it makes some kind of sense when compared to all things in our universe...as we know it.

[Avinash]

Namaskar,

Originally Posted by mikie8

As a non thiest i have pondered many times the question of gods/dietys motive for creation ?

I agree with Stormdancer that if there is a reason, it must be that God was feeling lonely or bored with having no creation to play around with.

[I, Brian]

Ah, but that sounds so anthropomorphic.

[Thomas]

Ask not why God does, but why should God not?

And metaphysically whatever reason one chooses that causes God to act makes God subject to some governing principle. God does not act, God is Act.

As Brian states, the anthropological answer refutes God's existence outside of time - he cannot 'become' anything nor be conditioned by anything because that would be imply change and change is dependent upon a temporal condition.

Eckhart touches on this 'creation is as old as God' because if God can create, what prevented him from creating before? Answer nothing, so as soon as God was (albeit in a non-temporal condition), creation was also - and so was I - (as Ephesians tells us). This manifesting I, the being that knows itself as 'me' is a contingent and provisional subsistent being - the realisation of a possibility of being in all its essence (one, simple and universal) and its accidents (multiple, complex and particular).

Thus I am a drop in union with the ocean, but I am not the ocean (the pantheist error) the ocean being infinitely more than the drop can conceive, and the more I perceive myself as a drop (ie the more I hold on to the notion of self - which is what pantheism does) the less I percieve the ocean.

St Catherine of Siena was told "I am He who Is; you are she who is not."

The age of this creation, btw, does not posit the age of God. This creation need not necessarily be the first, nor the only, but might be one in a number of creations - the Cosmic Cycles of the East and the Age of Ages of the West - all of which might well be simultaneous.

Thus every person represents a Divine Possibility - a mode of being - but God is not obliged to realise every mode of being all at once as a reality (although it is realised potentially in the cosmos) and precisely because we do not happen 'all at once' is a clue to the relative reality of the finite.

Scientists acknowledge that the laws that govern the functioning of the eye - not just the optics of the lens but the whole process of transfering an image from outside to the mind - were there right in that very first nano-moment, which we can put down either to the universe repeating itself infinitely until this particular throw of the dice comes round, or that there is a guiding hand - an Artificer - behind it all...

In fact Christian doctrine and Stephen Hawking's notion of time have many correspondences - especially his notion of not an expansion from a point, but an immediate appearance in fullness, if not completion.

It's like St Augustine said (of time) - when no-one asks, I know, but when someone asks, I don't know'

Sorry for the ramble. . .

Thomas

[Avinash]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Ah, but that sounds so anthropomorphic.

That's also why I added the "if". But maybe we're more like Him than we tend to think?

[arthra]

Originally Posted by Avinash

That's also why I added the "if". But maybe we're more like Him than we tend to think?

Baha'is see God as creating as part of the nature of God..so God is a creating God...all the time, not just in the "beginning":

"God is eternal and ancient; not a new God. His sovereignty is of old, not recent; not merely existent these five or six thousand years. This infinite universe is from everlasting. The sovereignty, power, names and attributes of God are eternal, ancient. His names presuppose creation and predicate His existence and will. We say God is creator. This name creator appears when we connote creation. ...

"If we acknowledge that there is a beginning for this world of creation, we acknowledge that the sovereignty of God is accidental--that is, we admit a time when the reality of Divinity has been without dominion (lit. "defeated"). The names and attributes of Divinity are requirements of this world. The names the Powerful, the Living, the Provider, the Creator require and necessitate the existence of creatures..."

- Abdul-Baha

"The Promulgation of Universal Peace", Pages 156-160: 159

I also read this scripture last night from Isaiah 29:16-

"How you turn things upside down, as if the potter ranked no higher than the clay!

Shall the thing made say to it's maker, 'He did not make me'?

Shall the pot say to the potter,

'He has no skill'?"

- New English Bible

- Art

[Avinash]

Originally Posted by arthra

Baha'is see God as creating as part of the nature of God..so God is a creating God...all the time, not just in the "beginning":

This infinite universe is from everlasting. The sovereignty, power, names and attributes of God are eternal, ancient. His names presuppose creation and predicate His existence and will. We say God is creator. This name creator appears when we connote creation. ...

The names the Powerful, the Living, the Provider, the Creator require and necessitate the existence of creatures..."

Namaskar Artha,

So am I then right to conclude that you don't believe in the "Big Bang" when the universe and the dimensions of time and place began? And you don't believe that God is beyond His created universe and its time and place dimensions, but instead eternally associated with it?

[arthra]

Originally Posted by Avinash

Namaskar Artha,

So am I then right to conclude that you don't believe in the "Big Bang" when the universe and the dimensions of time and place began? And you don't believe that God is beyond His created universe and its time and place dimensions, but instead eternally associated with it?

Not necessarily... maybe a cyclic universe(?)...Here's a quote from a Baha'i site that relates to the issue:

"Bahá'ís believe that the universe has always existed in some form, but that it evolves from state to another. Any reference to "creation" in the Bahá'í Writings does not imply an instant appearance in a static form. Scientific theory has likewise concluded that the universe has no beginning, because the current "Big Bang" theory can only trace the history of the universe to a fraction of a second after the "Bang", and is not yet able to discover what form the universe took before the "Bang" or why the "Bang" occurred."

God's attributes are associated with the universe but there is still the Unknowable Essence of God:

"So perfect and comprehensive is His creation that no mind or heart, however pure, can ever grasp the nature of the most insignificant of His creatures; much less fathom the mystery of Him Who is the Day Star of Truth, Who is the invisible and unknowable Essence."

- Baha'u'llah

[Mus Zibii]

I liked Faryal's answer.

I was going to say that God like truth is finite. It starts at the beginning and once it ends, it ends. So like Brian said (or how I interpreted it) the original question is answered by its irrelevance.

Now, for the specific question of what motivated God in creation of humanity, go back to Faryal's answer.

[Quahom1]

For all HIS might and all HIS reign, the King was alone. So why not bring forth a companion to speak, and spar, and sup with HIM, and give HIM comfort...not just a companion, but one who could be close to HIS heart...was it possible?

unknown

The angels were tye dyed. (most of them are happy with their lot in existance...but not all). GOD wanted a strange and unpredictable type. Enter Humans. Don't know what GOD is about, but are curious. He says, "I'll tell you, but you listen to me". What do we say (with free will and a bad attitude), ;-)

Yeah, you get the picture. The five states of death...and we go through them every damn day. Shock, denial, rebellion, negotiation, acceptence. But then we can revert to any one of the stages in a New York second. Angels don't do that.

GOD is like a man, and we (collectively), are like His woman, his loved and chased and cherished, and (oooooh I could get in trouble here), precious love. Don't you get it? GOD is in love with US. Not only does HE love us, HE is in love with us. (ok, keep the macho crap on the side of the road). Maybe it is like the love of the father for his child. Scriptures state that we (humans) will one day rule over the Angels (who are now a bit higher than we are). We will stand in judgement over all dominion.


hmmm. How did a backwater/backwoods, ignorant fisherman ever dream of that, let alone write about it?

v/r

Q