The answer seems to be, at its simplest level, to create choices.
Quote:
The answer seems to be, at its simplest level, to create choices.
EOTdermdoc said:
To glorify God.
I like this, its short and sweet and was what I was told as a child.dermdoc said:
To glorify God.
DripDeW23 said:
dermdoc said:
To glorify God.
It is worth asking why, and I ask it all of the time. However, I am convinced that we cannot ever know the answer fully, not being God (and thus not having all of the facts or the mind to understand them, even if I did have the knowledge).Quote:
Or is it worth asking why?
Or snarky at all. I have no idea of the answer to your question.kurt vonnegut said:dermdoc said:
To glorify God.
I remember being given this answer in Sunday school when I was a kid and finding the answer unsettling I don't mean to sound snarky. . . . but . . . . God created the universe to glorify Himself? God was just hanging out in a different plane of existence thinking to himself, "you know, I really need some more glory. So, I should create this universe as a monument to my greatness."
Doesn't that seem strange? Or is it worth asking why?
DripDeW23 said:
I would understand how this would be weird to think about, especially from a human perspective. I've always looked at it more so as a painting. You don't see a beautiful painting and praise the painting, you praise the painter. In that way the painting brings the painter praise. It exists to evoke some sort of positive effect in the viewer so it would only be just that when that painting makes you happy you would desire to praise the painter… so to me saying the universe exists to give Glory to God is true but incomplete since God made the world out of Love for Love.
kurt vonnegut said:DripDeW23 said:
I would understand how this would be weird to think about, especially from a human perspective. I've always looked at it more so as a painting. You don't see a beautiful painting and praise the painting, you praise the painter. In that way the painting brings the painter praise. It exists to evoke some sort of positive effect in the viewer so it would only be just that when that painting makes you happy you would desire to praise the painter… so to me saying the universe exists to give Glory to God is true but incomplete since God made the world out of Love for Love.
Okay, but I don't normally associate an artists motivation with self glorification. The painting is an expression of the artist, but the artist does not create it for the purpose of demonstrating to others how great they are.
To glorify God is our purpose. It's not necessarily the reason God created everything which I don't think we can answer.kurt vonnegut said:DripDeW23 said:
I would understand how this would be weird to think about, especially from a human perspective. I've always looked at it more so as a painting. You don't see a beautiful painting and praise the painting, you praise the painter. In that way the painting brings the painter praise. It exists to evoke some sort of positive effect in the viewer so it would only be just that when that painting makes you happy you would desire to praise the painter… so to me saying the universe exists to give Glory to God is true but incomplete since God made the world out of Love for Love.
Okay, but I don't normally associate an artists motivation with self glorification. The painting is an expression of the artist, but the artist does not create it for the purpose of demonstrating to others how great they are.
Oddly enough, I think the "glorify God" answer and the answer from the video are the same. Above all else God is love. To fully express that love to a maximal extent, God created the universe and us. That allows Him to love people who hate Him, which is the absolute greatest form of love.kurt vonnegut said:dermdoc said:
To glorify God.
I remember being given this answer in Sunday school when I was a kid and finding the answer unsettling I don't mean to sound snarky. . . . but . . . . God created the universe to glorify Himself? God was just hanging out in a different plane of existence thinking to himself, "you know, I really need some more glory. So, I should create this universe as a monument to my greatness."
Doesn't that seem strange? Or is it worth asking why?
DripDeW23 said:
A lot of things we do can be said to conflict with natural selection. The fact that we don't let babies with disabilities just die, as an example. I'm curious as to why do you clearly want babies to die?Rusty Aha said:
For atheists and agnostics, does social justice and enabling social stagnation conflict with natural selection? It seems wokeness devolves humankind.
Atheists and agnostics are actually really great at natural selection. In fact, the Western ones have completely eliminated Downs Syndrome in just a few short decadesRusty Aha said:
For atheists and agnostics, does social justice and enabling social stagnation conflict with natural selection? It seems wokeness devolves humankind.
I think you're being facetious, but have such societies actually "eliminated" Downs Syndrome or rather simply kill babies with it? In other words, has aborting babies with Downs Syndrome eliminated that risk from the gene pool? I'd be surprised if that were true.ramblin_ag02 said:Atheists and agnostics are actually really great at natural selection. In fact, the Western ones have completely eliminated Downs Syndrome in just a few short decadesRusty Aha said:
For atheists and agnostics, does social justice and enabling social stagnation conflict with natural selection? It seems wokeness devolves humankind.
Okay, but those aren't 'real' atheists and agnostics.ramblin_ag02 said:Atheists and agnostics are actually really great at natural selection. In fact, the Western ones have completely eliminated Downs Syndrome in just a few short decadesRusty Aha said:
For atheists and agnostics, does social justice and enabling social stagnation conflict with natural selection? It seems wokeness devolves humankind.
Rongagin71 said:
The answer seems to be, at its simplest level, to create choices.