By Will GreenAssume there is a God who created the universe. Are there reasons to believe that 'It' is a loving God?
I think this is an interesting argument that may have potential. One could call it the 'motivation' argument.
The 'motivation' argument says that there aren't many motives that a God could have for creating the universe. There may be only one, because a lot of suggested motives are actually really implausible. This motive is that God is loving, and therefore belief in a creator God leads to belief in a loving God.
First of all, assume that if a God created the universe, then It would have a motivation for doing so.
Here is a list of possible motives that a 'God' might have for creating the universe:
1. Loving God: If God doesn't create then reality only contains one being who is happy - God. If God creates and makes billions of other beings happy, then there is a lot more happiness in reality overall. So out of love, God makes us so that beings other than God can be happy.
2. Amoral God: The universe is like a science project. God makes the universe to create and look at black holes, evolution, and other cool stuff. It watches and observes the universe, and species in the universe such as humanity like in an interesting scientific experiment.
3. Amoral God: God gets bored. God is hanging around in eternity and has nothing to do. So God creates the universe as something to do. It might whittle away some time.
4. Amoral God: God gets lonely, but Its not loving. Or at least, God is not very loving. Creating some other beings that go and do stuff would make God feel a bit less lonely and allow It to 'connect' with other sentient beings.
5. Evil God: God is actually malevolent. Creating sentient life, like humans, allows God to inflict pain and suffering. If God didn't make the world, then It couldn't inflict evil on us, and God couldn't be evil. So God made the universe to make us suffer.
6. Amoral God: Unknown motive. An amoral God could have a motive not on this list, because I didn't think of everything.
I'll go through them and hopefully eliminate all motives except 1 and 6. The conclusion will be that if we have to choose between 1 and 6 we should choose 1 because, I guess, it makes the most sense. This means that if a God did create the universe, then we should guess that He/She/It is a loving God, because it is hard to think of a motive for God to create the universe that isn't a loving motive.
Let's go through motives 2-5. Suppose an amoral/evil God created the universe.
How powerful and knowledgeable is this amoral/evil God? There are two possibilities:
1. An amoral/evil God who knows everything. An infinite God, probably.
2. A very powerful amoral/evil God, but not the most knowledgeable God that we can imagine.
If it's 2 then this doesn't seem like a very 'neat' view of reality. It means there's a God but He/She/It is not the greatest possible God, and it's a bit more appealing for some reason to talk about God in terms of absolutes, like the greatest possible. Also, it would mean that God isn't infinite as Its knowledge would be quite good but not quite the most you can get. But a God who created the universe would probably be a God who is so great that It 'grounds all of existence'. This implies an infinite God (
link). So there are two problems with the second view.
So it seems that any God who created the universe would probably be God no. 1 rather than 2. An infinite God, probably.
Now, if the amoral/evil God is no. 1 (infinite) then I do think there is something hard to explain about this God making reality for a 'science project' type of reason. This God already knows everything that It could possibly discover by making the universe. There is nothing that the infinite amoral/evil God can possibly learn. So it makes no sense God would make the universe for that reason. This seem to rule out motivation 2.
What about motivation 3? God gets bored. But isn't it a strange view of the greatest possible being to say It gets bored? It seems that the greatest possible being shouldn't get bored, otherwise It has problems. An infinite God should have so many things going for It that It would not get bored. Motivation 3 implies the second type of God, and that idea of God has problems. This can rule out motivation 3.
Motivation 4: God gets lonely. If God creates because It gets lonely, then it seems God isn't perfect. God isn't complete and happy in Him/Her/Itself. So it seems this God lacks things, and thus It isn't the greatest possible God. So if God is lonely we're talking about no. 2 God rather than 1, which is a view with problems. This might rule out motivation 4.
Motivation 5: God is evil. But looking at the universe, I don't think you can say that God is evil, I think the most you could say is that He/She/It is indifferent. I can certainly think of a lot of ways in which there could be more evil in the world. Such as if God created a billion people every second and tortured them with indescribable pain forever (by the way, hell isn't an example of this because hell is just giving people who want to be separated from God the right to do that). This might rule out motivation 5.
So assuming that a creator God needs a motive to create the universe, and that the creator is infinite, then we are left with motivation 1 (a loving God) or 6 (unknown purpose). These assumptions, which I think are reasonable, lead us to believe in a loving God if we believe that a God created the universe.
Comments (50)
honestly, if I were God I'd probably create a universe just to destroy it. destruction is fun.
all this to say, it's probably good I'm not God.
and of course, there is neither enough evidence in nature to make any assertions about God's existence or God's nature.
"God does not exist; He is eternal" -Kierkegaard
God is outside of our reasoning, and thus there is no reasoning that we can use to make any assertions about him at all. We must make a "leap of faith" and believe that He is good with no evidence to prove otherwise.
You still didn't provide any reason why possibility 1 (loving god) is more likely than possibility 6 (unknown motives). Please explain this. As far as I can tell, your only reason for believing in #1 rather than 6 is that 1 makes us feel better.
I personally like to think that God created the universe for the same reason that couples choose to have kids. I believe we are offspring of God and that we will be more like God one day.
that's just my personal view.
"God is outside of our reasoning, and thus
there is no reasoning that we can use to make any assertions about him
at all. We must make a "leap of faith" and believe that He is good with
no evidence to prove otherwise."
That's definitely true of 'theory' reasoning which is what reasoning usually means. But I would add we are like God, minus the fact that we do the wrong thing, when it comes to being a person, having intentions, free will, a moral sense, responsibility, desires and so on. So we can understand God very well in some sense if we're just talking about those areas (minus obviously our wrongdoing).
"You still didn't provide any reason why
possibility 1 (loving god) is more likely than possibility 6 (unknown
motives). Please explain this. As far as I can tell, your only reason
for believing in #1 rather than 6 is that 1 makes us feel better."
This needs to be explored a bit further for the argument to be more 'rigorous'. Whenever we imagine a mind we always imagine that mind with motives that are at least vaguely understandable from our point-of-view. This might be because 'minds' can't be vastly different from one another (which hasn't been established), or that we're blinded by the way our minds work to the way other minds could work. Having said that, there being only two options does help the religious picture a bit, and if someone could show 'minds' can't be vastly different from one another it would help a bit more.
god is beyond comprehension. don't think about it too hard, your brain might explode.
Luke 4:12- "Do not put the Lord your God to the test."
@willgreen - yes, but we have nothing to say that God is like that...
@foxes_have_holes@xanga - "God is outside of our reasoning"
Is this not an assertion about God?
@AndrenSairr - only as so much as it releases God from our understanding and reasoning and let's God be God.
@foxes_have_holes@xanga - Ok, how then do we come to the knowledge that God is outside our understanding? I agree God is a mystery to us, but surely there are things we can know about him.
@AndrenSairr - well, I ask you how we can know anything about God?
The really wonderful thing about being Christian is that we are touched by Jesus, Son of God, who completed the Revelation of God to mankind.
We know that God is loving. We know that God is family, Father, Son and the love the binds them, the Holy Spirit.
We know that we were created in the image of God. So that makes us family. We share with God his deepest mystery, the essence of Himself, family.
We know that God began to explicitly reveal Himself to mankind through that ancient nomadic tribe called Hebrew.
God is truly a mystery, but he has revealed enough of Himself to us that we know that he is a loving caring, benevolent Father. And we are his children.
@LoBornlyte@xanga - That's right, it's important to remember my post is just philosophy.
Also, I could add that if you can get to a 'loving God' then it's possible to move from there to Christianity by a tenuous connection. Think about why a 'God' would be loving - it doesn't make sense philosophically because love takes two or more people, and surely any 'God' would be singular. There'd just be one of them, surely. But in Christianity there's the trinity, where there is one God in three individual persons (3 = 1). This explains how there is one God, and also a community necessary for 'love'. These people are so close they are one, and you could call the closeness and bond between them 'love' if it acts like it acts with two humans who are close to one another. So you have the two or more people necessary for 'love' to exist, love, and also 'one' God (having your cake and eating it too). 3 doesn't = 1, it's true, but if we're dealing with infinite reality then all sorts of strange stuff might be the case for God's reality. Christianity is the only religion with a trinity so... there's a tenuous connection to Christianity here you can make.
@willgreen - That's right, it's important to remember my post is just philosophy.
For philosophy to serve us it must be grounded in reality. Jesus was a real person. The Hebrews were real people.
Modern philosophy is devoid of all that, so it is essentially empty and incoherent. If you read the writings of Pope John Paul II, for example, you will read philosophy grounded in reality. It is clear, understandable and beautiful because it is grounded in Jesus and his teachings.
@just_the_average_jane@xanga - You still didn't provide any reason why
possibility 1 (loving god) is more likely than possibility 6 (unknown
motives). Please explain this. As far as I can tell, your only reason
for believing in #1 rather than 6 is that 1 makes us feel better.
I fully agree. I think this is a fascinating subject that Christians gloss over most times so I was excited when I started reading this post.But I must admit I was rather disappointed with the conclusion.
@LoBornlyte@xanga - I think that philosophy can be most helpful even when it's not grounded in Jesus when it clarifies the limitations of human reason. So for example, I'm really interested in the philosophy around infinity at the moment because I think it shows clearly how inadequate 'theory reason' is at comprehending God.
"I fully agree. I think this is a
fascinating subject that Christians gloss over most times so I was
excited when I started reading this post.But I must admit I was rather
disappointed with the conclusion."
To eliminate motive 6 one would need to show that there's something about the nature of 'minds' that mean that any mind has to have motives that are comprehensible to us. So when we are unable to think of a motive 6, one would need to show that means there are no motives because we have a good handle on what there can possibly be. I feel that this is the case - the reason why we find it so hard to imagine alien minds totally different to us is that we have a pretty good handle on what all minds are like from being a mind. But I don't know how to argue it right now, if it can be argued.
@foxes_have_holes@xanga - Probably the only fair answer to that would be through divine revelation. Either directly, or indirectly (through scripture, written by many who had direct revelations from God). This I should add, is how we can say God is a mystery, as well as how St. John could say something like "By him all things were created, that have been created", or "God is love".
@willgreen - So for example, I'm really interested in the philosophy around infinity at the moment because I think it shows clearly how inadequate 'theory reason' is at comprehending God.
But I knew that back in high school never having studied philosophy. You are expressing sophistry not philosophy.
I highly recommend Pope John Paul's Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason). In this work he models the proper use of philosophy.
The purpose of philosophy is to discover and express truth. All you're doing is turning thoughts into pretzels.
@LoBornlyte@xanga - My experience with philosophy is that it's about clarifying our concepts and ideas, so in that sense, we aren't discovering anything because we're just understanding our own concepts better. But sometimes that leads us to redefining a concept or changing our interpretation.
I think there's an argument that motive 6 can't work:
Assume that there are only two basic substances in reality: non-mental substances and mental substances. So a God can only have a motive related to a non-mental substance, or a mental substance, or a combination of the two. An infinite God contains everything, and needs nothing, so the motive can't relate to a 'non-mental' substance alone. So the motive would have to relate to a mental substance or a combination of non-mental and mental. By definition, a 'mental substance' motive needs to relate to creating other minds. And it has to be a 'mental substance' motive where the motive is for the benefit of the other minds, not the God, because an infinite God is completely fulfilled mentally and non-mentally. This means the motive has to be no. 1, loving God.
I have no trouble at all in believing that 2 is the most plausible answer. God created because it wanted to, and it might or might not be interested in its creation. Sometimes it appears to take an interest, and other times it seems completely indifferent. I find it easier to believe this, than in a loving God, because all I have to judge a so called loving God by are it's followers and while some of the ones I have met demonstrate a loving attitude, quite a few more do not...and some of them seem to be parrots incapable of saying anything that they didn't find in some book that was supposedly written by this God and which contribute exactly nothing to the discussion.
This essay assumes that one must prove God's motive without resort to Scriptures, i.e. where God reveals Himself. Of course, Jesus Christ manifests God in flesh, but that's too easy as well. Ultimately, though, and apart from Scriptures or Christ, we cannot use reason or scholasticism as those require some frame of reference. Who is to say what is good and what is evil without a reference? Foxes_have_holes' post demonstrates an interesting aspect there with an admitted destructive tendancy. Left to ourselves, we try to rationalize and settle upon our stance-du-jour; at least until we get bored and change our mind (or do so to try and be 'fair' or 'open' or 'acceptable to others'). Consequently, we must rely upon faith, trust in God, and not our prideful pseudo-wisdom. Job probably gives a good insight where God questions mankind's 'right' to judge a/k/a determine.
here's a question....... why is #1 the only option where God is moral?
7. Not a completely all-powerful god. (Which would explain some of the amoral possibilities.)
8. Nonexistant god.
@AndrenSairr - yes, but I easily say, "how do we know this comes from God?" At some point, we have made the decision that Christianity's teachings are divine revelation and other religions' teachings are not. The real question is, "why?"
I don't see how motivations three and four are disproved at all. You say that because God is infinite, he shouldn't be able to get so bored because there is so much going for him. However, creation could in theory be one of the many things going for him.
As for motivation four, just because God is perfect would not mean that he is incapable of certain emotions. The bible is rife with instances of God being jealous, angry, regretful, and sorrowful as well as happy and pleased. God is capable of a range of emotions so why should loneliness not factor in?