Why does God create?

First of all, to dogmatically assert we really know anything about God that He doesn’t reveal to us would be the ultimate in pretentious hubris. The finite mind can no more fathom the infinite Source of Being than Hamlet could comprehend Shakespeare. We simply have no mental grid for anything outside of our “fishbowl” we call the cosmos, so there will always be a degree of mystery here. Yet, we can logically deduce the existence of this infinite Source of Being, and from that, infer the best answer for why God creates.

I’ve talked about this in various posts but usually in reference to other subjects, So I will attempt to lay out a logical summary of my view here. Also understand that this does not address how God creates. That’s another subject.

First, we must understand what we theists mean by “God.” There are a lot of possible answers but the one that seems most cogent to me is that of Classical Theism understood by the early church fathers. I won’t elaborate on that here (you can click on the link for that), but to help us not confuse this with Theistic Personalism, which would be how many in the modern West seem to think about God, here’s David Bentley Hart to explain the difference:

“The most venerable metaphysical claims about God do not simply shift priority from one kind of thing (say, a teacup or the universe) to another thing that just happens to be much bigger and come much earlier (some discrete, very large gentleman who preexists teacups and universes alike). These claims start, rather, from the fairly elementary observation that nothing contingent, composite, finite, temporal, complex, and mutable can account for its own existence, and that even an infinite series of such things can never be the source or ground of its own being, but must depend on some source of actuality beyond itself. Thus, abstracting from the universal conditions of contingency, one very well may (and perhaps must) conclude that all things are sustained in being by an absolute plenitude of actuality, whose very essence is being as such: not a “supreme being,” not another thing within or alongside the universe, but the infinite act of being itself, the one eternal and transcendent source of all existence and knowledge, in which all finite being participates.” (from article here *)

The Bible would say it this way:

28 for in Him we live and move and have our being….” (Acts 17:28)

16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (Col.1:16-17 NASB *)

God IS Love

One axiomatic definition of God in Scripture is that “God is love” (1 John 4:8). This is not to be confused with an attribute. God does not just have love; His very essence is love and He is the source and being of love.

Love, here, does not mean emotional affection but willing the good of the other (benevolence). Therefore, love is necessarily relational. And, in order for God to be love, He must be able to express it within Himself, apart from His creation. This other-centered, self-giving agape is expressed perfectly between the Father, Son, and Spirit within the trinitarian life of God.

You can read my post, “The Classical Argument for Christ” for a fuller explanation.

God creates because He is love!

If God’s essence is love, which is willing the good of another, it follows that He is self-diffusive, self-communicative, willing to share Himself, and we would ultimately have to apply that to God’s relationship to His creation. Here we can turn again to theologian C. Baxter Kruger for a beautiful explanation of this expression of love.

The stunning truth is that this Triune God, in amazing and lavish love, determined to open the circle and share the trinitarian life with others. This is the one, eternal and abiding reason for the creation of the world and of human life. There is no other God, no other will of God, no second plan, no hidden agenda for human beings. Before the creation of the world, the Father, Son and Spirit set their love upon us and planned to bring us to share and know and experience the trinitarian life itself. Unto this end the cosmos was called into being, and the human race was fashioned, and Adam and Eve were given a place in the coming of Jesus Christ, the Father’s Son himself, in and through whom the dream of our adoption would be accomplished.” (from “The Summary of the Trinitarian Vision“)

This is what turned broken humanity’s world upside-down in the first century. Love has come down to all humankind. Love has a human face—Jesus Christ!

For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (2 Cor.4:6 *)

And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. (John 17:3 *)

24 “Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. (John 17:24 *)

This glorious unveiling is what compelled Paul to suffer beatings, betrayals, shipwreck, imprisonment, and finally, beheading at the hands of the Romans.

And he chose us to be his very own, joining us to himself even before he laid the foundation of the universe! Because of his great love, he ordained us, so that we would be seen as holy in his eyes with an unstained innocence.

5–6 For it was always in his perfect plan to adopt us as his delightful children, through our union with Jesus, the Anointed One, so that his tremendous love that cascades over us would glorify his grace—for the same love he has for his Beloved One, Jesus, he has for us. And this unfolding plan brings him great pleasure!

Since we are now joined to Christ, we have been given the treasures of redemption by his blood—the total cancellation of our sins—all because of the cascading riches of his grace. This superabundant grace is already powerfully working in us, releasing within us all forms of wisdom and practical understanding. 9 And through the revelation of the Anointed One, he unveiled his secret desires to us—the hidden mystery of his long-range plan, which he was delighted to implement from the very beginning of time. 10 And because of God’s unfailing purpose, this detailed plan will reign supreme through every period of time until the fulfillment of all the ages finally reaches its climax—when God makes all things new in all of heaven and earth through Jesus Christ. (Eph.1:4-10 TPT *)

Beloved of God (which is every human being), God has set His love upon you. His arms are open wide. He has invited you and me into His life. Nothing satisfies the deepest longings of the human heart more than love. And the ultimate love is a Person!

You can believe whatever you want. You can call me a fool. It doesn’t matter what you think of me; it matters what God thinks of you. The Cross of Christ is His answer (John 3:16-17). We were created for something profound, beautiful, absolutely stunning and glorious—nothing less than intimacy and fellowship with Ultimate Love. And, from this Love, we live and move and have our being…today, tomorrow, and forever!

* New King James translation unless otherwise noted. All emphasis added.
Advertisements

About Mel Wild

God's favorite (and so are you), a son and a father, happily married to the same beautiful woman for 38 years. We have three incredible adult children. My passion is pursuing the Father's heart in Christ and giving it away to others. My favorite pastime is being iconoclastic and trailblazing the depths of God's grace. I'm also senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in Wisconsin.
This entry was posted in Father Heart of God, Love, Sonship and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

96 Responses to Why does God create?

  1. john zande says:

    Thanks for the post, but for the 1,300 words, you haven’t actually answered the question.

    You’re simply describing the speculative arrangement between the actual and synthetic worlds. That’s fine, you’re free to propose this presumptive architecture, this hypothetical configuration, but you’re not actually addressing Why the synthetic world exists—in the manner that it exists—in the first place.

    That, Mel, is the question. Why?

    Given the Creator didn’t need to create this synthetic, evolving world, Why did the Creator create it? For what purpose was the world intended? If we’re to assume aseity, which is basic Christian theology, then we know Aquinas’ suggestion (that creation was some sort of an inevitable accident) is wrong. The synthetic world was created deliberately, wilfully, so what function does it (and evolution) serve? What was the Creator’s motivation in creating this sealed-off, evolving material scape?

    • Mel Wild says:

      JZ, if you actually wanted to know my answer, you wouldn’t be asking such an asinine question. I gave you my take on WHY God creates. It’s very clear. You can either accept it or reject it. Good-bye.

      • john zande says:

        Unless you believe the Creator (Yhwh) is material, finite, and evolves over time, then no Mel, you have not addressed Why the synthetic world exists—in the manner that it exists—in the first place.

        Your suggestion (self-diffusive love) is nothing but a play on Aquinas’ bonum diffusivum sui: goodness spilled out. Given aseity, we know this is wrong. It is both logically and historically incoherent. This world was not some sort of an inevitable accident. Ours is a synthetic world quarantined from the actual world (all that which is the aseitic Creator), and we know this because this world is sealed between the three things an aseitic being could never directly experience, but could impose on an artificial scape: a beginning, a middle, and an end.

        You know this is true.

        You have stated in the past: “God is NOT the Universe” and “I believe the “world” is a construct.”. Both those statements contradict bonum diffusivum sui. A “constructed” world is a false world. It is a synthetic contrivance , and its existence—and the evolutionary processes that drive it—demands an explanation.

        If you cannot explain Why this world exists, in the manner that it exists, then according to your own words, repeated hundreds of times, your worldview is incoherent.

        So, given the Creator didn’t need to create this synthetic, evolving world, Why did the Creator deliberately create this synthetic, evolving world? For what purpose was the world intended? What function does it (and evolution) serve? What was the Creator’s motivation in creating this sealed-off, evolving material scape?

        • I propose you seek professional psychological help Zande. If you can’t see the reason “why” in a clear and stated blog post such as this and you continue to circle back around to why (clearly not accepting the plain answer given) you are exhibiting real mental issues. It is actually scary. I am sad and scared for you. With people doing so many sad and horrible things in this world these days I have to say they were clearly disturbed people having given warning signs on the internet before doing something horrible. You are showing such warning signs. So, please. Seek help.

        • john zande says:

          Perhaps you should actually *read* my comments, with the explanations provided?

          The proposed answer (self-diffusive love, a play on Aquinas’ bonum diffusivum sui) is both logically and historically incoherent. An aseitic being has neither the capacity to grow, nor the means to leak and spread out into something new, for that would contradict the very definition of aseity. Accidental or not, an aseitic being cannot “spill out,” and even if it could somehow increase its size (its being) then any ‘new space’ would simply be part of the maximally good/aseitic being, indistinguishable, and that is inconsistent with our world which is a material, finite, and evolving scape.

          What that means, of course, is that ours in an artificial world; a construct that was deliberately created some 13.8 billion years ago, entirely separate from the Creator.

          An explanation for Why this synthetic world exists, in the manner that it exists, world has not been given.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Probably a good advice, misterkiddo456. 🙂 But you’re wasting your time saying anything to Zande. He’s a troll. He’s proven that over and over again here. He has absolutely no intention of engaging in honest conversation. Best to ignore him.

        • john zande says:

          You’re calling me a “troll” on a post you wrote for me, as you promised you would?

          That’s a novel angle… Invite the person in, then slander them in front of others.

          And don’t blame me if your ontology is incoherent. You, Mel, were the one who proclaimed literally hundreds of times that if you can’t answer the Why question then your worldview is incoherent.

          Your worldview is incoherent.

        • Mel Wild says:

          I didn’t write this post to you, Zande. You think way too much of yourself. I don’t write any posts to you directly. I write and wrote to people who are honestly wanting to know, which is NOT you. You are the one who kept whining about me not answering this question that I have several times now (so you’re lying). I just let you know that this post addressed your question (again). But your responses here only prove that you’re a disingenuous troll. Sorry you don’t like being called out on what you are, but that’s the truth.

        • john zande says:

          In response to me enquiring specifically about the answer you *claimed* you’d given in the past, but I certainly had never seen, you said on Oct 30th “I will post (again) my take on why God creates later this week.” In referencing me, you repeated this promise later on the 30th to Branyan (at 8.23). The title of that particular post was “Moving on…” in which you declared your intention to completely stop posting articles concerning arguments for God. Well, this post, Mel, is an argument for God, and it’s here (contradicting your stated intention of never again) because of my question which you refused to answer on that post:

          Given the Creator didn’t need to create this synthetic, evolving world, Why did the Creator deliberately create this synthetic, evolving world? For what purpose was the world intended? What function does it (and evolution) serve? What was the Creator’s motivation in creating this sealed-off, evolving material scape?

          So, Yes, you did post this for me.

          And No, you have not answered Why.

          You pretty much declare just that in this post’s opening remarks. The truth is, You have absolutely no idea Why this artificial world even exists—in the manner that it exists—in the first place.

          So again, don’t blame me if your ontology is demonstrably INCOHERENT. Hand-waving is not a rebuttal. Tantrum-throwing and slander certainly isn’t, either.

        • Mel Wild says:

          You are the one hand-waving and being dismissive, Zande. I really don’t care about how you describe the universe. I answered why God creates. Why did God create? Because God is love, and love wants to share itself with others. So, stop lying here. You are one playing games here. Give it up.

        • john zande says:

          Share itself with others, so it consciously created a quarantined artificial material world full of suffering in which it cannot be seen or heard or directly experienced.

          Like I said: Incoherent.

          Good, though, that it appears you’ve dropped your re-working of Aquinas’ logically (theologically) incoherent suggestion.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Share itself with others, so it consciously created a quarantined artificial material world full of suffering in which it cannot be seen or heard or directly experienced.

          Like I said: Incoherent.

          Those are your incoherent words, Zande, not mine. And what’s funny about that is here you are, breathing air, setting yourself up as God’s judge, saying any foolish thing that comes into your futile thoughts about something you clearly have no understanding of. Talk about pretentious hubris! LOL!

          Good, though, that it appears you’ve dropped your re-working of Aquinas’ logically (theologically) incoherent suggestion.

          You wish. But it’s hardly dropped. Aquinas’s arguments already exposes your ontology as incoherent. But ontology doesn’t address why God creates. It only addresses being. Why He creates is about intention. He creates because of other-centered, self-giving love, which is evidenced by giving you life. You should be thankful for the next breath you take. I’m getting off your merry-go-round now.

          I’ve already given you more time than you deserve. As I said before, believe whatever you want.

        • john zande says:

          If Aquinas’ suggestion was correct then this evolving, finite, material world would not exist.

          It’s really as simple as that.

          Or are you jettisoning fundamental Christian theology of aseity?

        • Mel Wild says:

          If Aquinas’ suggestion was correct then this evolving, finite, material world would not exist.

          Really, Zande? This is just more proof that you have no idea whatsoever what Aquinas’s argument was about. It has absolutely nothing to do with evolution or chronology of events or when the universe began or anything like that. It only deals with how things exist at this moment. I’m not going to explain it to you again since you clearly don’t want to understand it.

        • john zande says:

          bonum diffusivum sui: goodness spilled out.

          That is Aquinas’ suggestion for why this world exists.

          Given aseity, we know this is wrong. It is both logically and historically incoherent. This world was not some sort of an inevitable accident. Ours is a synthetic world quarantined from the actual world (all that which is the aseitic Creator), and we know this because this world is sealed between the three things an aseitic being could never directly experience, but could impose on an artificial scape: a beginning, a middle, and an end.

          You know this is true.

          You have STATED in the past: “God is NOT the Universe” and “I believe the “world” is a construct.”. Both those statements contradict bonum diffusivum sui. A “constructed” world is a false world. It is a synthetic contrivance, not an accidental spill over, and its existence—and the evolutionary processes that drive it—demands an explanation.

          If you cannot explain Why this world exists, in the manner that it exists, then according to your own words, repeated hundreds of times, your worldview is incoherent.

          Your worldview INCOHERENT.

          Deal with it.

        • Mel Wild says:

          You’re just copying and pasting and repeating yourself again. No, that’s not Aquinas’s ontological argument. And you’re also now conflating intention with the ontological arguments, which are not the same things. You’re not addressing WHY God creates at all.
          So, you deal with it. Good-bye.

        • john zande says:

          OK Mel. You know what I’m saying is correct, which is why you’re not addressing any of the points demonstrating the INCOHERENCY of your answer.

          Aquinas was demonstrably wrong, and you’re demonstrably wrong right along with him.

          Pretend all you like. Hand wave all you like. Try and muddy the water all you like. It doesn’t change the fact that you HAVE NOT answered Why this world exists in the manner that it exists.

          As such, your worldview is demonstrably INCOHERENT.

        • Mel Wild says:

          OK Mel. You know what I’m saying is correct, which is why you’re not addressing any of the points demonstrating the INCOHERENCY of your answer.

          That’s rich. So, incoherency, to you, must mean whatever you disagree with. LOL!

          Aquinas was demonstrably wrong, and you’re demonstrably wrong right along with him.

          How can you say that when you clearly don’t understand his ontological arguments at all? A pretty ignorantly foolish thing to say. So you should stop pretending that you have refuted what you don’t understand. Furthermore, now you’re changing the question to why does the world exist in the manner it does, which was not the question I said I would answer. The question was, why does God create, which I gave my answer. So…deal with it.

          As such, your worldview is demonstrably INCOHERENT.

          You know, repeating this over and over doesn’t make it true. And how would you know since you clearly don’t understand the argument? But, go on with your pantomime, Zande, I really don’t care what crazy thing you believe. Praise TOOAIN. I’llbe ignoring you from now on.

        • john zande says:

          Look, it’s clear you truly hate people pointing out the logical inconsistencies in your belief system. So you can’t explain Why this world exists, in the manner that it exists. You can’t explain 13.8 billion years of evolutionary history. If you’re happy with this incomplete worldview, then fine. Good for you. Stick to your plan: stop trying to present failed arguments for god. Write posts which will attract people who share your logically incoherent ontology, and don’t want to be challenged.

          Take care.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Look, it’s clear you truly hate people pointing out the logical inconsistencies in your belief system.

          You wish! Now you’re just stroking your own ego. Just go back to your godless echo-chamber and tell all your pals how you really showed me a thing or two. I’m sure you’ll all congratulate yourselves. But it doesn’t change the fact that you ridicule what you don’t understand, which is the very height of ignorant foolishness. And, sorry, but you won’t get away with your fallacious red herrings here, bringing up all kinds of irrelevant points. And repeating “incoherent” doesn’t make your argument any more cogent. It’s just childish. You seem to be the one that can’t stand a different view of the world because you won’t let it go.

          All you had to say is that you disagree with my view. Fine. No surprise there. But you don’t. I’m wondering if you ever actually just shut up or must you always have the last word? Because you just about have more comments on my blog than I do. I think misterkiddo456 was right about you. You have issues. Good-bye now. Let it go.

        • john zande says:

          I did say that I “disagreed with your view,” and then I carefully explained my reasons, demonstrating that your worldview is incoherent.

          As you haven’t addressed any of those points, I must assume that you recognise that your worldview is incoherent, too.

        • john zande says:

          And no Mel, I have not changed the question. That has always been the question, and explaining WHY this world exists in the manner that it exists will, if it’s accurate, also explain the history of the world, which we know is 13.8 billion years. That’s inevitable. So you cannot explain one without also arriving at a coherent, non-contradictory explanation for the other. The first point, though, is the critical question, and it’s what I’ve Asked from the very beginning: Why does this quarantined synthetic world exist in the first place?

          The answer you gave is logically incoherent.

        • Mel Wild says:

          And no Mel, I have not changed the question. That has always been the question,

          Yes, you did, Zande. You are lying now. You said in my post, “Moving on”, and I quote:

          “The truth is, you can’t answer the question, can you. You have absolutely no idea Why the Creator created.”

          I answered that question, now move on and stop lying.

        • john zande says:

          By all means, go back through the comments on this post, and the comments on the post “Moving on…” and you’ll see an unchanging uniformity in the question.

          I don’t lie. Unlike many apologists, I don’t have to lie.

        • Mel Wild says:

          JZ, if you’re not lying you’re deeply misinformed. Your explanation (comment from “Moving on”) assumes a lot of things you think I agree with because you never bothered to actually understand the argument I gave for the existence of God. You are NOT describing what I believe, but describing Theistic Personalism with the following explanation:

          “If we’re to accept the general Christian theological stance on the nature of the god named Yhwh (aseitic, maximally good, etc.) then we know Aquinas’ answer was wrong: bonum diffusivum sui (goodness spilled out) is not only demonstrably inconsistent, but also logically impossible. An aseitic being has neither the capacity to grow, nor the means to leak and spread out into something new, for that would contradict the very definition of aseity.”

          You’re not only taking Aquinas’s quote out of context and conflating things but describing ONE particular argument for the existence of God, not the “general” argument. The Thomistic ontological argument (or classical argument) does not agree with this. “Maximally Good” is an Anselmian term, and the way you’re using it is an argument from Theistic Personalism. I would not agree with this at all. As Hart put it, Classical Theism doesn’t make God “a “supreme being,” and not another thing within or alongside the universe, but the infinite act of being itself, the one eternal and transcendent source of all existence and knowledge, in which all finite being participates.” But this participation doesn’t change God. We don’t become part of God’s essence or change anything about Him. As the early church fathers put it, we participate with His “divine energies” but not His essence.

          Accidental or not, an aseitic being cannot “spill out,” and even if it could somehow increase its size (its being) then any ‘new space’ would simply be part of the maximally good/aseitic being, indistinguishable, and that is inconsistent with our world which is a finite and evolving scape filled with pain, suffering, scarcity, errors, death.”

          Here, you are conflating a particular ontology (God’s infinite being) with why God creates (intention). Again, God doesn’t get bigger! He’s not the first or biggest being in the universe! That’s totally absurd and certainly would contradict aseity. He holds the universe together but the universe is not part of God’s essence. “Spilling out” is a metaphor, describing His self-diffusive love. This is speaking of His intent for relationship to His creation because He is other-centered, self-giving love.

          You would save yourself a lot of time if you actually sought to understand the argument before you make all your assumptions. I have to go now.

        • john zande says:

          Why are you trying to change the subject?

          I was not, and am not, litigating ANY argument for a Creator. Not here. And not back there on “Moving on…”

          What we’re talking about is WHY this world exists, in the manner that it exists.

          However, given the Creator is (assumed to be) aseitic, then it is impossible to NOT take that quality into consideration when assessing the logical coherency of any proffered answer.

          Yes, intention is the central question, but the answer CANNOT be logically incoherent with the quality of the Creator. If it is incoherent, then, self-evidently, the answer is wrong. Given aseity, Aquinas’ answer is wrong. Your version on Aquinas’ answer is wrong for the same reasons… as already explained.

          So, given the Creator didn’t need to create, WHY did the Creator create? WHY does this world exist in the manner that it exists? WHY did the Creator deliberately create this quarantined, evolving, artificial world 13.8 billion years ago?

          That is and has always been the question, WHY, and you have not answered it. Therefore, according to you, your worldview is incoherent.

        • Mel Wild says:

          I was not, and am not, litigating ANY argument for a Creator. Not here. And not back there on “Moving on…”

          Zande, I was quoting your description verbatim of what you think God is like so, yes, you were not only misrepresenting my definition of God and ontology, but conflating that distortion with intention. You obviously haven’t listened to a thing I said. I was stupid to think you might. Good-bye. Good luck with our maximally great being, TOOAIN.

        • john zande says:

          I’m giving you basic Christian theology: Aseity.

          Are you rejecting this theological position?

          If so, tell me.

          If not, then everything I’ve said is logically coherent.

          Deal with it.

          You have not answered the question: WHY did the Creator deliberately create this quarantined, evolving, artificial world 13.8 billion years ago?

        • Mel Wild says:

          I’m giving you basic Christian theology: Aseity.

          No, you’re not! You are giving an abysmal distortion of ONE VERSION of the argument for God, among several, which I don’t agree with at all. So, to bring it up here is not only irrelevant but fallacious. If you ever bothered to read any of my posts on the subject and tried to actually understand the historic and classical theistic argument instead of throwing out your knee-jerk reactions, you wouldn’t say such an ignorant thing.

        • john zande says:

          Aseity is NOT an argument for God. It’s a description of God.

          Please stop trying to change the subject and, if you can, answer the question:

          WHY did the aseitic Creator deliberately create this quarantined, evolving, artificial world 13.8 billion years ago?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Yes, of course. And your description of what you think I believe about God totally contradicts aseity. You would know that if you actually understood my position.

          I don’t have more time to waste with you. And I will not go further with you if you can’t even get my position right. Everything thing you said about my position is wrong, so your conclusion is wrong. And your question is fraught with speculation and bias, so answer it yourself. You’re the only person you listen to anyway. You’ve proven that.

        • john zande says:

          Just so we’re perfectly clear on this: are you saying you REJECT the fundamental Christian doctrine of aseity? You DON’T BELIEVE the Creator is aseitic?

          Is this correct?

        • Mel Wild says:

          No. Don’t you understand plain English? I said YOUR description contradicts aseity.

        • john zande says:

          Aseity means aseity, Mel.

          WHY did the aseitic Creator deliberately create this quarantined, evolving, artificial world 13.8 billion years ago?

        • Mel Wild says:

          We’re done here until you can demonstrate you actually understand my position (Classical theism).

        • john zande says:

          For the last time: we’re not litigating any argument for the existence of a Creator. It’s assumed, and it’s also assumed the Creator is aseitic.

          An aseitic being CANNOT leak out. Ours is an evolving, artificial world, deliberately created.

          Why?

          WHY did the aseitic Creator deliberately create this quarantined, evolving, artificial world 13.8 billion years ago?

        • john zande says:

          Mel, you think the “circle opened” (deliberately, as opposed to Aquinas’ accidently) and from that our world came. You think the Creator did this because it wanted to “share itself with others.”

          It’s really not a complicated presentation. Please stop trying to pretend it is. And also please stop pretending not to see the logical incoherence in it.

          If you’d bothered to *read* and actually *think* about the first and then second comments I made on this thread then you’d know the reasoning for why BOTH this speculative configuration AND the motivation behind creation are logically untenable.

          Alas, I have to repeat this yet again:

          1. An aseitic being has neither the capacity to grow, nor the means to leak and spread out into something new, for that would contradict the very definition of aseity. Accidental or not, an aseitic being can not “spill out” OR “open itself up,” as you suggest, and even if it could somehow increase its size (its being), then any ‘new space’ would simply be part of the maximally good/aseitic being, indistinguishable, and that is inconsistent with the historically verifiable corporeality of our world. As you yourself have said: “God is NOT the universe!” I agree. So either you don’t understand the definition of aseity, or you’re just making stuff up and hoping no one notices.

          2. This means this world is a QUARANTINED SYNTHETIC CONSTRUCT; an evolving, artificial contrivance, and we KNOW this because this world is sealed between the three things an aseitic being could never directly experience, but could impose on an artificial scape: a beginning, a middle, and an end.

          3. Although impossible, an opened aseitic circle CANNOT logically accommodate a beginning, a middle, and an end, let alone the brutal evolutionary forces that drive this world. An aseitic being DOES NOT evolve. That means this world was wilfully created, and it exists in the manner that it exists because the Creator made it this way. Deliberately. Unique. Isolated.

          4. For these reasons, your suggested intent, “to share itself with others,” is demonstrably wrong. Sharing implies contact, physical exchange, certainty. That would be reasonable IF we could detect the Creator. You yourself have said NO EVIDENCE CAN EVER BE FOUND. So, what we have instead is an aseitic being who consciously created a quarantined, artificial cell from inside of which the Creator cannot be seen or heard or directly experienced. Ever. Hardly setting the stage for “sharing,” is it.

          In all these comments you have NOT addressed any of these points. Not one. That tells me you realise the incoherency of your position and the best you can muster is to pretend I “don’t understand” your argument.

          I understand it perfectly. It’s incoherent, and it does not support your proffered answer concerning motivation. Your answer is wrong. It is demonstrably wrong, as I have demonstrated. Again.

          You have not answered the Why question, Mel.

          Why?

          WHY did the aseitic Creator deliberately create this quarantined, evolving, artificial world 13.8 billion years ago?

          If you cannot answer this, which it’s clear you can’t, then your worldview is incoherent.

          Sorry.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Zande, you are just making stuff up now. I never said any of these things about God, nor is this my position, proving again that you don’t bother to understand anything I actually say but only want to hear yourself talk. I honestly have no idea who you’re talking to here.

          Again, until you can demonstrate that you’ve even understood my position there’s no point in wasting my time with you.

        • john zande says:

          Making stuff up?

          In the post you wrote share Himself . You quoted Kruger repeating the same thing twice. On November 1, 2018 at 4:06 pm, you said “ Why did God create? Because God is love, and love wants to share itself with others.”

          Self-evidently, I’m not making anything up.

          You know what, Mel? If you spent a little less time simply telling people they’re mistaken, and a little more time actually explaining where and how you think they’re mistaken, in detail, demonstrating that you actually *understand* presented critiques/observations/criticisms, then methodologically responding to each and every point, with supporting rationale (evidence, if you have it), then a person watching on could well begin to suspect (if not believe) that your position rests on something other than vapour.

          I gave you four numbered points.

          Show me how they’re wrong.

          And just to remind you, the question has nothing at all to do with your speculative arrangement between the actual and synthetic worlds. You’re free to propose this presumptive architecture—weak panetheism, strong panetheism, whatever—but you’re not actually addressing Why the synthetic world exists—in the manner that it exists—in the first place.

          That, Mel, is the question, and the answer cannot be logically incoherent. You suggestion, as demonstrated in detail, is logically incoherent.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Everything you said about my position is wrong. God’s essence is infinite act of being. You cannot make God bigger, smaller, or change anything about Him. Furthermore, He is not a physical or material being, nor is He part of the cosmos (He holds the cosmos together by His power), so yours is a fallacious category mistake at its core. He shares of Himself like the sun shares its radiance with us (except He is infinite in nature). It doesn’t make Him bigger or change Him in the least. That’s absurd.

          So, again, until you can demonstrate to me that you understand my position, we’re done here.

        • john zande says:

          I agree with everything you’ve said! You cannot make God bigger, smaller, or change anything about Him…. Agreed! He is not a physical or material being, nor is He part of the cosmos… Agreed!

          NONE of these things, however, explains Why the synthetic world exists—in the manner that it exists—in the first place.

          That, Mel, is the question. Why?

          I presented four numbered points demonstrating the logical incoherence in your suggested answer.

          If you think I’m wrong, take them apart; show me you actually understand what’s been written, and, if you can, where I’m mistaken.

          And while you’re at it, tell me how do you reconcile the stunning inconsistency between your suggestion (the Creator created because it wanted to share itself with others), and the CORPOREALITY of what it consciously created: a quarantined cell from inside of which the Creator cannot be seen or heard or directly experienced? It wants to share itself, but it creates something that guarantees it’ll never be detected; guaranteed because it’s not even in the world? And an aseitic being does not evolve, so why impose evolution on contingent beings? What is the meaning behind this? Why?

        • Mel Wild says:

          1. An aseitic being has neither the capacity to grow, nor the means to leak and spread out into something new, for that would contradict the very definition of aseity….then any ‘new space’ would simply be part of the maximally good/aseitic being, indistinguishable, and that is inconsistent with the historically verifiable corporeality of our world.

          Category mistake. God is not a physical or material being, so “growing” is irrelevant. He has a relationship with us through His “energies,” in the spiritual realm. He doesn’t take up “space” so your conclusion is fallacious. He doesn’t, nor can He, get bigger, and you can’t measure Him in the natural realm.

          2.This means this world is a QUARANTINED SYNTHETIC CONSTRUCT; an evolving, artificial contrivance….

          That doesn’t necessarily follow that the world is “quarantined” unless you don’t believe in the spiritual world. You cannot say that just because God is self-existing (aseity) that He cannot have relationship with His physical creation. You conclude that because of your naturalist bias. We can be intimately connected with Him through the spiritual realm without changing anything about His aseity.

          3. Although impossible, an opened aseitic circle CANNOT logically accommodate a beginning, a middle, and an end, let alone the brutal evolutionary forces that drive this world.

          Another category mistake. Again, God is not a physical being in the universe, so He is not opening some physical circle. God is Spirit, so an evolving universe has no affect whatsoever on the essence or size of God. Whether there’s a beginning, middle, and end, or not, is totally irrelevant to God’s being. The physical world does not change God, and it cannot change Him because He is fully actualized and infinite Being itself.

          4.For these reasons, your suggested intent, “to share itself with others,” is demonstrably wrong. Sharing implies contact, physical exchange, certainty.

          More conclusions based on a fallacious category mistake. Again, an inference of necessary physical contact is only true if the physical world was all there was. But that has never been my position, nor that of Christianity itself. God is not a physical being. He reveals Himself through His Spirit. Of course, you cannot detect the spiritual world with scientific method because that method only detects physical or natural phenomenon. So, claiming there’s no evidence is another category mistake. That’s like Hamlet claiming there’s no Shakespeare because he looked all over his world and found no evidence of him.

          Zande, all your suppositions and conclusions are based on your naturalist bias, which you cannot prove either. Certainly not with the scientific method, because its methodology cannot measure anything outside the natural world. You could rightly say we cannot prove anything beyond the natural world. Yes, with scientific method this is so but, yet, you have no coherent explanation for what holds this physical world together. You have no fully actualized Source of being. So, science will never answer your question. You’re just going to have to be satisfied with mystery.

          Finally, the only way we’re going to know an author or creator’s intent is if they reveal what they intended to do. Especially, if they are spiritual beings. God chose to reveal Himself as love and the reason He creates is because of His self-diffusive love. Again, you can disagree with it, that’s my position.

        • john zande says:

          1.

          Category mistake. God is not a physical or material being, so “growing” is irrelevant.

          Well, truth be told, it’s completely absurd, which is precisely what I was saying. If you’d actually *read* what was written, as opposed to simply hovering over the text with your finger on the trigger, you would have easily understood that. So, No, not a category mistake. And you’re not off to a particularly good start I’m afraid to say.

          In this point I’m stating an aseitic being CANNOT grow, cannot evolve , and cannot take up space. That point is here to demonstrate that Aquinas’ suggestion (goodness spilled out) is wrong. It’s impossible for the VERY REASONS you’ve stated. The reasons I’ve stated, repeatedly. An aseitic being cannot leak out into something new.

          Now let’s be clear about something: your creation because of “self-diffusive love” is dangerously close to Aquinas’ bonum diffusivum sui, if not an actual re-wording of it, which is why the above is critical. Diffusion (Def.) is the movement of a single material from a region of high concentration to a region of low concentration. You can see, I hope, why I say your suggestion is virtually a re-wording of Aquinas’ suggestion, and therefore incoherent.

          If, however, we’re to ignore the apparent problem and take your suggestion as something possible via some imagined conduit, an umbilical, then an observer would expect to see “Love” and ONLY love diffusing into the created world through this bridge. That’s only logical, correct? First and foremost, the world should be raised up on a foundation of this Love. Its existence should be a perfect and undiluted representation of love, correct? Well, what we actually see is a 13.8 billion years old world driven by slow, painful, bloody, error-rich Evolution. There was never an armistice between all living and not-so living things. This world is underwritten by the emergency of survival. At its heart it is driven by a repulsive force, a repulsion to extinction, which is hardly a foundation of Love.

          So even if we’re to accept your “self-diffusive love” to be possible via an imagined conduit, it is simply not supported by the historically verifiable corporeality of this world.

          2.

          That doesn’t necessarily follow that the world is “quarantined” unless you don’t believe in the spiritual world.

          It does actually follow that it’s quarantined because this world is EVERYTHING you say the Creator IS NOT: material, hungry, evolving, error-rich, finite, full of suffering, predation, disease, decay, death. Indeed, you even state that the actual and synthetic worlds have to be connected via a conduit along which you say “energies” flow, which I won’t even bother asking you to prove.

          Long story short: You’ve described a quarantined world, Mel.

          And as to this proposed arrangement I refer you to my very FIRST comment:

          You’re simply describing the speculative arrangement between the actual and synthetic worlds. That’s fine, you’re free to propose this presumptive architecture, this hypothetical configuration, but you’re not actually addressing Why the synthetic world exists—in the manner that it exists—in the first place.

          That, Mel, is the question. Why?

          WHY evolution? What possible rational reason could the Creator have had to invent—LITERALLY INVENT—that slow, messy, painful, error-rich process? What conceivable purpose does this predatory petri dish serve to a fully complete, supposedly gentle, loving entity? If the Creator wanted a relationship, why 13.8 billion years before that could even be possible, and even then it can only ever be based on faith, not evidence? As for life on this planet, 3.5 billion years passed before life (just 210 million years ago) stumbled upon the chemicals (enkephalin) and cellular structures (opioid receptors) with which it could begin to even recognise the first spasms of something not unlike ‘happiness.’ If the Creator is “Love” then why was happiness not possible from the very beginning?

          You have not addressed any of these critical questions.

          Put simply: If your worldview is to be taken seriously, if it is to be considered coherent, then it must explain the world that is, not stand in contradiction to it.

          3.

          God is not a physical being in the universe, so He is not opening some physical circle.

          As far as aseity goes, I fully agree. “Opened circle” were your words, repeated quite a few times. I can’t be bothered trying to find where you’ve said this, but I’m happy to leave it alone if you’re not going to own it, or at least try to explain what you meant. I’m assuming you must have meant the conduit, which is technically an opening that bridges the immaterial and the material. If we’re to assume an aseitic Creator, then there has to be some sort of unique connection, after all.

          Whether there’s a beginning, middle, and end, or not, is totally irrelevant to God’s being.

          Technically correct, and I never said it was relevant. What is relevant is the fact that OUR WORLD is sealed between these three things an aseitic being could never experience (a beginning, a middle, and an end), and this is PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that this evolving, quarantined petri dish was created deliberately… created wilfully… and created this way on purpose.

          A Beginning, a Middle, and an End were INVENTED by the Creator. Hence the question: Why?

          If the relationship can only be had in a “spirit world,” as you say, why not then just create a spirit world in the conduit you claim exists? Would that not make sense, giving everything direct access to the Creator, as opposed to this purposefully arranged hiddenness?

          4.

          He reveals Himself through His Spirit. Of course, you cannot detect the spiritual world with scientific method because that method only detects physical or natural phenomenon.

          This is the height of incoherency.

          We are physical. We exist in a DELIBERATELY CREATED PHYSICAL WORLD (where all life is contracted by birth to prey upon the other in order to steal the proteins and fats and sugars and minerals they need just to stay alive one more day in what amounts to a daily apocalypse of obliged bloodletting), yet you claim the relationship the Creator apparently wants and desires cannot actually occur in the very world the Creator DELIBERATELY CREATED so he could, apparently, have a relationship.

          That’s a stunning design flaw. It speaks to madness, not competence.

          Again, if we’re to accept that your conduit is possible, then isn’t that the logical *space* (realm) for the stage?

          Again, you can disagree with it, that’s my position.

          I accept that, and as demonstrated, it’s logically, historically, and architecturally incoherent.

          You have not explained (without becoming logically absurd) Why this evolving artificial world exists, in the manner that it exists. And the corollary of this is, of course, that you therefore have no explanation (free from logical absurdity) for why You exist in this created, quarantined, material world.

          A test (bloody and painful and cruel as it is) would be a rational and defendable suggestion, but I suspect you don’t want to suggest that as it stands in complete contradiction to the very essence of the being you want to believe exists.

          *(As a passing note; doesn’t your belief that the Creator physically walked the earth, talking and performing tricks to prove himself some 2,000 years ago render every excuse for hiddenness absurd?)

        • Mel Wild says:

          Well, JZ, from your 1,200 word reply it’s obvious to me that you have a very depressing view of life and blame it all on God. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be so vehement about all this. I can’t help you there. But I answered your question why I believe that God creates. You disagree. Fine. Some of these why’s of nature will remain a mystery and you or I will likely never figure out why they are the way they are. That’s useless speculation. All we can do is observe it and make the best of it. You think it’s cruel and this world is quarantined from God. I think it’s quite the opposite. God gives us a life to live and sustains it, He gives us air to breathe, adventure and discovery, beauty and art to appreciate, passion to pursue, and yes, even suffering to endure. That’s all part of this life. And we try to make it the best world we can. That’s our responsibility (Gen.1:28; Psalm 115:16). He even lets you deny Him or hate Him. It’s all part of love because love requires free choice and risk. But it’s also what makes life worth living. A perfect world, according to what you seem to want, would be a robot world devoid of all these things. However, even this life is just a blip on a radar screen in context of eternity.

          The thing you won’t accept is that God did cross the chasm to rescue us from our despair, our flawed thinking about Him, and even death itself. Jesus Himself said that “in this world you’ll have trouble and suffering, but I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33). We live and move and have our being, and overcome these things in Christ. We are not quarantined from God at all. He has joined Himself to us through His Son. We have His Spirit living in us. He’s closer than your breath, metaphorically speaking, as Paul said. But it IS a category mistake to look for Him in the physical world.

          God has not hidden Himself. As you said, He revealed Himself in Jesus Christ. You have just rejected His testimony, so now you’re left with your cruel and bloody world. Good luck with that. I can’t help you there. I do wish you well.

        • john zande says:

          But I answered your question why I believe that God creates.

          You offered a suggestion, yes, but your suggestion, as demonstrated, is logically, historically, and architecturally incoherent. In other words, your answer is demonstrably wrong.

          Have you noticed, Mel, that you NEVER actually address the specifics of this world; its details, its history? It’s quite obvious that you can’t without your worldview collapsing into a soup of incoherency.

          So, your “explanation” for the world can’t actually draw any supporting references from the world. Does this absurdity even register with you?

          Some of these why’s of nature will remain a mystery and you or I will likely never figure out why they are the way they are. That’s useless speculation.

          By your own words, Mel, if you cannot explain WHY, then your worldview is incoherent. Self-evidently, your worldview (your entire ontological foundation) is incoherent, and no amount of hand waving is going to change that fact.

          And just to clarify: The world IS NOT a mystery, rather unambiguously CONTRADICTORY.

          God has not hidden Himself. As you said, He revealed Himself in Jesus Christ.

          Oh, so absolutely EVERYTHING you said about the impossibility of the Creator directly and physically interacting with this material world, as himself, was a carefully presented lie.

          I see. So your worldview is not only incoherent, but also premised by a lie.

          Well done.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Zande, I have given you how God has revealed His intent for us in Scripture. You are simply dismissing it and giving your judgment on how you see the world. Those are not the same things. In other words, intent and results are NOT the same thing. I never was explaining history. That doesn’t prove intent. Just one example. God’s intent was that everyone know Him, but that obviously isn’t what has happened. Why? Because people are free to reject Him and ridicule and ignore Him even though they are sustained by Him, yet His intent is love. Your argument from history is bogus. It doesn’t prove intent. I answered why, you’re talking about how.

          God has not hidden Himself. As you said, He revealed Himself in Jesus Christ.

          Oh, so absolutely EVERYTHING you said about the impossibility of the Creator directly and physically interacting with this material world, as himself, was a carefully presented lie.”

          No, absolutely not! Sheesh, Zande! Why don’t you get this? Nobody really knew God for thousands of years. Jesus Christ came in the flesh to explain the invisible, infinite God to us. He was both fully man and fully God (called hypostatic union). That’s the very center of Christology. But the man, Jesus Christ, who walked on the earth 2,000 years ago is not a human being on the earth right now. And God, IN HIS ESSENCE, is not a physical being that you can detect by physical means. He is infinite being itself. He is Spirit. THAT is what you won’t find in the physical world. And I never said that God doesn’t interact with us. You said that. I said that God interacts with us very intimately THROUGH HIS SPIRIT.

          You seem to have very flat, one-dimensional thinking, Zande. You don’t seem to be able to grasp anything beyond the physical, how a spiritual dimension would interact with the material world. So just because you don’t understand this mystery doesn’t mean you have to call me a liar. That’s just dismissive ignorance.

          I’m really done here. I’ve explained all I can to you. I’ve tried to reason with you. But you’re obviously only looking for something to ridicule in what I’m saying and want to blame God for everything you see in nature. You have make yourself the judge. That’s fine. You can go over to Ark’s echo-chamber circus and do that. I’m sure you guys can congratulate each other about how smart you are. I don’t like wasting my time.

        • john zande says:

          God’s intent was that everyone know Him

          As already pointed out, this is both historically and architecturally incoherent. You have not addressed either of these observations.

          Historically: because you can neither explain 13.8 billion years of cosmic history, or 3.8 billion years of terrestrial evolution. The corporeality of the world not only contradicts your claim, it renders it patently absurd. Your suggested intent is incoherent.

          And you still haven’t answered, WHY evolution? What possible rational reason could the Creator have had to invent—LITERALLY INVENT—that slow, messy, painful, error-rich process?

          Architecturally: because we are physical. We exist in a DELIBERATELY CREATED PHYSICAL WORLD, yet you claim the relationship the Creator apparently wants and desires cannot actually occur in the very world the Creator DELIBERATELY CREATED so he could, apparently, have a relationship. As you yourself said: “He has a relationship with us through His “energies,” in the spiritual realm.”

          This is the high-water mark of incoherency. The “spirit realm” is not the “physical world,” is it, Mel?

          He was both fully man and fully God

          And yet you were quite adamant when you said earlier:

          “God is not a physical or material being … He has a relationship with us through His “energies,” in the spiritual realm.”

          Curious, do you change your position on what is and what’s not possible according to the date, the time of day, or the weather outside?

          Ultimately, though, none of this actually matters because it has NOTHING to do with the actual question:

          Given the Creator didn’t need to create this quarantined, evolving, material world, Why did the Creator deliberately create this quarantined, evolving, material world? Why does this artificial world exist in the manner that it exists?

          By every meaningful measure, your suggested answer is, at best, incoherent, and at worst, demonstrably absurd. Your worldview is, therefore, incoherent.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Zande, the problem is not with me changing my position, it’s that you don’t care to actually try to understand my position, what I’ve been saying, over and over again about how God interacts with us. That’s why I’m wasting my time here. You’re not open to it in the least bit. That’s quite clear.

          Your questions about why evolution, etc., are not questions that you or I can answer. He had not told us why, so it’s pointless speculation and a waste of time. And science cannot answer that question either. And, frankly, those are not burning questions on most people’s hearts and minds. But we can know what He has told us. We can understand the value of relationship and other-centered, self-giving love. In fact, that’s one of highest values among humans. I wonder why that would be? Why is love so important to us?

          So, you can dismiss it as incoherent. But that’s a meaningless accusation when you don’t even understand my position. I really don’t care what you think about it. You have demonstrated again and again that you don’t care to understand, only argue.

        • john zande says:

          Mel, how God hypothetically “interacts with us” is irrelevant. Even with all your contradictions, all you’re doing is describing a speculative configuration between the actual and synthetic worlds, NOT addressing Why the synthetic world exists—in the manner that it exists—in the first place.

          Your questions about why evolution, etc., are not questions that you or I can answer … it’s pointless speculation and a waste of time

          Sorry, but a hand wave here is simply the most pathetic response imaginable. We were not created Mel, we evolved… and we’re still evolving. Evolution is the reality that envelops and binds and drives EVERYTHING. If you cannot explain that, then you cannot explain ANYTHING.

          So, whereas you’re quite happy to speculate about imagined realms, cosmic energies, chimerical conduits, and the nature of invisible beings, the truth is you can’t explain a SINGLE THING about the actual world. You have absolutely no idea as to “purpose.”

          Your worldview (your ontology) is therefore not only incoherent, but beyond useless. It is a confused PANTOMIME.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Thanks for your opinion, Zande. That’s all it is . I disagree. Get over yourself. Let it go.

        • john zande says:

          Not opinion, rather an Informed conclusion based on your words.

          I really don’t know how to make this point any clearer, but your supposed description of reality ignores reality.

          This is literally the apex of incoherency. You cannot get an any more useless description of anything if you tried. Congratulations, you have achieved the highest possible expression of worthlessness.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Trying to say that evolution brought itself into existence, or can even sustain itself in its own continuing existence, is the apex of INCOHERENCE. But continue on with your PANTOMIME if you want. See, I can use those words over and over, too. Let it go, Zande.

        • john zande says:

          A defintion of “incoherency” in six words:

          Your description of reality ignores reality.

        • Mel Wild says:

          No, it gives an explanation for intent. Your description of life is not only extremely dismal, it ignores the most fundamental aspect of ontology. You have no coherent explanation for your own continuing existence that doesn’t lead to infinite regress, which is an impossibility, which you would know if you ever bothered to understand the argument. Since you wish to go on in your ignorance, continue with your pantomime if you like. I just won’t be entertaining it. This conversation has gone beyond boring now. Let it go. We disagree.

        • john zande says:

          it gives an explanation for intent

          Which is both historically and architectually incoherent.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Zande, let me try to explain this to you. You said yourself that the cosmos ( you call artificial) is not necessary. Therefore, it’s contingent, it doesn’t have to exist. That means it CANNOT be the source of its own existence. And if there is nothing necessary (uncaused, infinite, unchanging, fully actualized), then existence itself is IMPOSSIBLE. Therefore, your ontological emperor has no clothes. You have no explanation for your own continuing existence. Your ontological theory is a non-starter. And, so, the rest is irrelevant. One last time, let it go. Good-bye.

        • john zande says:

          I believe we are talking here about your ontology, Mel.

        • Mel Wild says:

          No, I’m exposing your groundless argument for being. That is what ontology is. I have already given the logically deductive argument for the existence of God on other posts. You have not demonstrated that your ontology is coherent. So nothing you propose after this should be taken seriously. Your foundation is missing. Again, the emperor has no clothes. It never will have. Deal with it.

          I know you can’t ever let anything go, so I will be ignoring your further comments now. Again, goodbye. Good luck with TOOAIN.

        • john zande says:

          I have not “proposed” anything here, so I’m afraid you haven’t “exposed” anything.

          What has been exposed, in relation to the question underwriting this post, is that your description of reality ignores reality.

          As noted, you’re quite happy to speculate about imagined realms, hypothetical cosmic energies, chimerical conduits, and the nature of invisible beings, but the truth is you can’t explain a SINGLE THING about the actual world. You have absolutely no idea as to “purpose.”

          Your worldview (your entire ontological foundation) is therefore not only incoherent, but beyond useless. It is a confused PANTOMIME.

          I hope, though, that you enjoy your new blogging focus.

        • Mel Wild says:

          You’re right, you haven’t proposed anything. Bye…

        • john zande says:

          Listen, Mel, if you’re happy having settled on a description of reality that cannot account for reality, then great. Good for you. Onwards and upwards.

          Take care.

          And if you ever do dream up a logically coherent reason for why maximally good, omnipotent being (who wants to have a relationship) would invent something as slow and as brutal and as error-rich as evolution (effectively hiding itself behind a wall of impenetrable naturalism) then do be sure to let me know. I’d like to hear it.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Fair enough. And if you’re happy with having absolutely no coherent explanation for your continuing existence, let alone for the motive power behind evolution, good for you. Onwards and upwards.

          Take care.

        • john zande says:

          A combination of chemiosmosis and homeostasis (and a tendency to breathe, eat and drink) explains my “continuing existence.” It explains yours, too.

          Good luck with your answer.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Sorry, still incoherent. All those things are contingent. They cannot bring themselves in existence nor can they provide a fully actualized motive force behind your continuing existence.

        • john zande says:

          Like I said, good luck with your answer.

        • john zande says:

          And Mel, in case you didn’t notice; by your last comment, you’ve just increased the number of tasks before you. If you wish to persist with this notion that we inhabit an artificial world, then not only do you have to explain why a maximally “good,” omnipotent being would INVENT something as slow and as brutal and as error-rich as evolution (13.8 billion years ago), you have to now ALSO explain why a maximally “good,” omnipotent, supposedly omniscient being continues to fuel and support this slow, brutal, error-rich process where obscene levels of meaningless suffering are not just allowed for, but underpin everything. That is, after all, what you’re suggesting, isn’t it?

          Good luck.

        • Mel Wild says:

          No, you’re just repeating yourself again. I won’t lose any sleep over it. But thanks.

        • john zande says:

          No?

          Oh, OK, so you’re saying the Creator IS NOT the “fully actualized motive force” behind the “continuing existence” of this allegedly contingent, artificial world.

          Fair enough, but I could have sworn this wasn’t your position yesterday.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Sheesh, Zande. What is the matter with you. Let it go. Get some sleep.

        • john zande says:

          Mel, if you think I’m wrong, take my four numbered points apart; SHOW ME you actually understand what’s been written, and, if you can, where I’m mistaken. I actually think you’ll agree with most of it. If, however, I’m wrong about reading you as saying God opened his circle, then tell me what God actually did, and more importantly, Why. What was the intent, and how do you reconcile the apparent inconsistencies between your suggestion and the corporeality of what was deliberately created. Why invent slow, bloody, painful, error-rich evolution? What purpose does it serve, especially considering it hides the Creator behind a wall of impenetrable naturalism? Doesn’t this contradict your allusion to wanting to be known/to share? If you don’t think it is contradictory, then don’t just hand wave, show me how it’s not contradictory. Show me how your worldview is not incoherent.

        • john zande says:

          And to remind you, your earlier suggestion is both logically and historically incoherent.

          “Share itself with others,” so it consciously created a quarantined, artificial cell (where suffering is inescapable and growing in complexity over time) from inside of which it—the Creator—cannot be seen or heard or directly experienced. Ever.

          That is Incoherent.

        • Mel Wild says:

          And don’t blame me if your ontology is incoherent.

          LOL! Another “trollish” comment that means absolutely nothing other than being a puerile playground taunt because I’ve already exposed your ontology as logically incoherent in the past. What, are you 12? This is exactly why it’s a waste of time to talk to you, Zande. I guess I can thank you for making my point.

        • john zande says:

          I see.

          So demonstrating exactly why your worldview is incoherent (with explanations that you have failed to even attempt to address) is being “trollish.”

          Again, that’s an interesting angle…

        • Mel Wild says:

          No, you are being trollish because you ask questions and ignore or dismiss the answers. And you just sound like you’re whining now because you won’t let it go.

        • john zande says:

          I did not dismiss your proffered answer, I demonstrated (with careful explanations, which YOU are ignoring) that it was logically incoherent and thus didn’t answer the question.

      • john zande says:

        OK, so it’s apparent by your silence that you have absolutely no idea Why the Creator created this sealed-off, material, evolving, synthetic world… Everything the Creator is not.

        The best you can do (before contradicting the general aseitic thesis) is to suggest a hypothetical division in reality. Beyond that speculative configuration you have no idea Why this artificial material world actually exists—in the manner that it exists—in the first place… and that is the all-important question, isn’t it.

        Why? Why create something so diametrically opposed to what was, allegedly, perfect?

        So, Mel, provided you stand by your own words, repeated hundreds of times, your worldview—the ontological foundation on which you earn a living—is, therefore, thoroughly INCOHERENT.

  2. John Branyan says:

    I think we get a glimpse of God when we look into ourselves. Why do we create?
    There is something satisfying about the creative process. I don’t think it’s unreasonable that God feels toward His creation the same way we feel when we finish a painting or write a poem.

  3. “Because of his great love, he ordained us, so that we would be seen as holy in his eyes with an unstained innocence.” Will definitely dwell on this, thanks for the post.

  4. Oh, I almost missed this post and it is my favorite question of all! Well said, Mel, well stated all the way through.

    I’ve pondered that question often, from little things like painting a room, to having children. My hubby is one of those guys who just doesn’t understand why we have dozens of throw pillows and curtains and flowers in the bathroom. It’s truth and beauty I tell ya, it’s the drive to create, to make the ugly things beautiful and to express our love. He doesn’t get it, but he too is a carpenter and takes great pride in how things look, and not just in their form and function. He too makes beautiful things, even though it isn’t really necessary, it isn’t vital to their design. I’m always fascinated by our desire to create beauty in the world. We could all live in a totally practical beaver dam or something and yet we so often create grand architecture.

    Zande’s perception is sadly skewed, and darkly jaded, because he actually speaks of a malevolent creator. It is a bent and perverse cornerstone, and it makes him unable to answer his own question. When one perceives God as malevolent or sadistical, a taker, then “why did He create,” becomes an exercise in futility. It is only when you understand the goodness of God, that you can see how He wished to share, to express His own truth and beauty, to love us, to have a family. God is steadfast and unchanging, but perhaps in a way, His love is also infinite and ever expanding.

    There is still a great deal of mystery around God, and we are invited into His mystery, into His surprise. I suspect He keeps it that way, keeps us guessing and just a bit off center, to delight us, to keep us excited and in pursuit of Him. Zande, as annoying of a troll as he actually is, is also very sad, because he cannot receive that kind of mystery with some childlike trust and wonder.

    • Mel Wild says:

      I’m always fascinated by our desire to create beauty in the world. We could all live in a totally practical beaver dam or something and yet we so often create grand architecture.

      Very true. Like you said, men and women express it differently but we’re both taken by beauty and grandeur. And this cannot be explained away by natural selection. A minimally functional beaver dam home would be adequate for us to pass on our DNA. Yet, it’s beauty, transcendence, adventure, art, music, love, even the pursuit of science and mystery that makes our life meaningful.

      Zande’s perception is sadly skewed, and darkly jaded, because he actually speaks of a malevolent creator. It is a bent and perverse cornerstone, and it makes him unable to answer his own question.

      Sadly skewed is right. David Robertson (weeflea) calls this being a “cacangelist” (messenger of bad news) as opposed to an evangelist (messenger of the good news). “It’s the really depressing news that doesn’t bring anyone any joy!” It reminds me of a point my wife and I make in marriage counseling. With most couples, there’s usually 90% about your spouse that you love and 10% you’re not so keen on. When you focus on the 90%, the marriage is usually healthy and the couple is happy, the rest isn’t a problem. People tend to only focus on the 10% when they’re not doing well. Zande focuses on the 10% and forgets the 90% with God (which is why he divorced Him). The 90% includes that God loves him so much that He lets Him breathe air…every moment of every day! God gives him existence, He lets him live and even enjoy life, make choices, and even go on ignoring or dismissing Him! God doesn’t react to His “angry ex’es” like we might. 🙂 I see God like a rejected and hated parent, still providing for his or her ungrateful child, loving them, sustaining their life, and hoping one day they’ll come home. I know He’s been extremely patient with me.

  5. I can’t jump into the middle of the conversation above, but this from Zande gave me a chuckle.

    “That’s a stunning design flaw. It speaks to madness, not competence.”

    LOL! Well, people far smarter than me have rationalized that love is indeed, madness. Perhaps so, but if a world without love is the definition of “sanity,” it’s so not worth it. Embrace the madness, welcome it even! You can close your eyes, feel the music, fall madly in love, or avoid all that and snatch the consolation prize of clinging to human pride and your own alleged perceptions of sanity.

    We do that, we people. We are unable to trust, we refuse to fall in love, we fear God is incompetent, and then we proceed to congratulate ourselves for being so intelligent, so rational, and sane.

    • Mel Wild says:

      I agree with what you’re saying about love, IB. It was thought to be a form of insanity in the ancient world.

      Zande doesn’t get the spiritual realm AT ALL. He is obsessed with what’s wrong in nature and blames it on God, so he invented his cruel monster god, TOOAIN. Well, good luck with that. I tried to explain how the spiritual world and the natural world are not the same yet they interact but he refuses to understand that. He conflates intent with results and prefers to dismiss me as a liar. Oh well, what else is new! I don’t have time to entertain such mulish obstinance. I have better luck talking to a wall. Foolish me for thinking I could have an honest conversation with him. That’s why it’s time to move on.

  6. https://daughterof.design.blog Yes! God created out of an abundance of His love. So that his love may be manifested in new ways on earth! please add some insight to my blog!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.