What does God obtain from creation?
-
Hello Idolfree,
You have not answered our previous questions. If God needs us to have experience then he must lack something? If he lacks something then he would not be perfect will he?
What does God obtain from creation? only love seems to answer this question, for "Love seeketh itself not to please..."
Regards,
-
Peace be upon you Lote Tree,
You have not answered our previous questions. If God needs us to have experience then he must lack something? If he lacks something then he would not be perfect will he?
What does God obtain from creation? only love seems to answer this question, for "Love seeketh itself not to please..."
So does the God lack love?
We are PART OF the God, just like the human eyeballs SERVE the human to experience sight, we are the physical manifestations of the God that SERVE the experience.
-
Hello Idolfree,
You have not answered our previous questions. If God needs us to have experience then he must lack something? If he lacks something then he would not be perfect will he?
What does God obtain from creation? only love seems to answer this question, for "Love seeketh itself not to please..."
Regards,
I think I've said this before, but this line of questionning is inherently flawed because humans can never understand god's will. Having said that, god 'needing' anything is a contradiction of his perfection. Also, god 'obtaining' love from creation also implies a fulfillment of sorts. 'Love' doesn't answer nor address this question in any way, just puts you in the midst of another loop of questioning.
-
Also, god 'obtaining' love from creation also implies a fulfillment of sorts. 'Love' doesn't answer nor address this question in any way, just puts you in the midst of another loop of questioning.
I said only love seems to answer this question. God does not obtain love from creation but Creation is an expression of God's Love for "Love seeketh not itself to please. Love is sufficient unto Love". This is perhaps a better answer from the ones I have heard so far, better than God using us to have Experience. God does not lack love. Creation is an expression of God' love...
Regards.
-
I said only love seems to answer this question. God does not obtain love from creation but Creation is an expression of God's Love for "Love seeketh not itself to please. Love is sufficient unto Love". This is perhaps a better answer from the ones I have heard so far, better than God using us to have Experience. God does not lack love. Creation is an expression of God' love...
Regards.
By this notion, what stops me from assuming that creation is an expression of god's hate? Or god's apathy?
-
Good question is universe an expression of God's hate or apathy? Which do you think is true?
Regards,
-
Good question is universe an expression of God's hate or apathy? Which do you think is true?
Regards,
I don't know, I thnk it's an irrelevent question (as I've stated many times). But, if 'love' can be the cause of the universe, then why can't hate? It's just the other end of the same spectrum of emotion/quality; whereas apathy is the anti-thesis of 'love'. So, if the universe was born out of 'love', according to you, what stops me from assuming that the universe was born out of hate?
Peace Neo,
You stated,
By this notion, what stops me from assuming that creation is an expression of god's hate? Or god's apathy?
I think you would need to provide a solid example of the existence of this hate or apathy.
Peace,
TayI need not, for I'm going off the assumption that the universe was supposedely created out of 'love', and if 'love' exists in an objective sense, then hate and apathy must also exist. From what I can decipher, the universe just is, without a reason. I don't see anything wrong with existing without reason; we don't need love, or experience, or a journey to justify my nor the universe's existence.
-
Peace Neo,
if 'love' exists in an objective sense, then hate and apathy must also exist
Yes, but only as by-products of love, or lack thereof. They are not co-dependant, not ying-yang. Ying-yang is an expression of the lower self. The higher self is transcendant of co-dependant expressions.
From what I can decipher, the universe just is, without a reason.
I don't see anything wrong with existing without reason;That is certainly your perogative, and I don't see anything wrong with it either. Nor do I see anything right with it. I guess the safest place is in the middle, but personally, I'm not after safety.
we don't need love, or experience, or a journey to justify my nor the universe's existence.
We don't need anything, for that matter. We can lie around in complacency and joylessness. Nothing is stopping us. But who wants that? To experience love in it's full grasp is certainly the makings for a better life. I've yet to hear anyone complain about too much love. Have you?
Peace,
Tay -
So, if the universe was born out of 'love', according to you, what stops me from assuming that the universe was born out of hate?
Which do you see Universe full of hate or Universe full of love?
When you look at a Rose do you see hate?
Creativitity is not borne out of apathy. The impulse to create is borne out of love...
we don't need love, or experience, or a journey to justify my nor the universe's existence.
Perhaps you need to experience love first then decide if you need love or not...
Regards,
-
Yes, but only as by-products of love, or lack thereof. They are not co-dependant, not ying-yang. Ying-yang is an expression of the lower self. The higher self is transcendant of co-dependant expressions.
That is certainly your perogative, and I don't see anything wrong with it either. Nor do I see anything right with it. I guess the safest place is in the middle, but personally, I'm not after safety.
We don't need anything, for that matter. We can lie around in complacency and joylessness. Nothing is stopping us. But who wants that? To experience love in it's full grasp is certainly the makings for a better life. I've yet to hear anyone complain about too much love. Have you?
Peace,
TayI didn't refer to a ying-yang relationship between love and hate. What I'm refering to is a spectrum of emotion/quality where apathy is the middle ground, with 'love' and 'hate' on opposite ends
hate ------------------- apathy --------------------- love
hate/love are different manifestations of the expressive quality; 'love' is usually associated with benevolent actions and 'hate' is associated with the malevolent. However, to assume that the universe is created out of 'love' is inaccurate because it presupposes that everything we have around us is somehow benevolent - whereas the terms benevolent/malevolent only take meaning once it is interpreted by us. That is, these are humane terminologies and values which hold no meaning when associated with god. This is akin to saying 'god is righteous', because it implies that god is trying to satisfy a criterea set out by us humans.
As for the 'need' for a creation, I should explain what I meant. I didn't mean 'need' in the context of our persuit of knowledge. What I meant is there 'needing' to be an underlying reason behind the creation. There's no reason to assume that there is an underlying reason, an ultimate purpose for creation. The universe is perfectly logically stable in just 'being', I don't see the point in attaching a purpose to it.
Which do you see Universe full of hate or Universe full of love?
Er. I see creation. One doesn't need to see it as 'love' or 'hate' for it to have value /
When you look at a Rose do you see hate?
I see a rose.
Creativitity is not borne out of apathy. The impulse to create is borne out of love...
Highly disagree. The impulse to create can come out of many things.
Perhaps you need to experience love first then decide if you need love or not...
Regards,Who are you to assume I haven't?
-
Er. I see creation. One doesn't need to see it as 'love' or 'hate' for it to have value
I thought you said Universe "just exists" - so why say creation?
Apathatic God does not create anything. Only a loving God can.When you look at a Rose do you see hate?
I see a rose.
Well I am different. I react with joyfulness at the beauty of the Universe.
Creativitity is not borne out of apathy. The impulse to create is borne out of love...
Highly disagree. The impulse to create can come out of many things.
But the impulse is always borne out of love.
Perhaps you need to experience love first then decide if you need love or not...
Who are you to assume I haven't?
Because you said you don't need love.
Regards,
-
Peace Neo,
You stated,
I didn't refer to a ying-yang relationship between love and hate. What I'm refering to is a spectrum of emotion/quality where apathy is the middle ground, with 'love' and 'hate' on opposite ends
hate ------------------- apathy --------------------- love
My point is, Neo, that if you take love out of the spectrum, the spectrum ceases to exist. Apathy and hate are degrees of love or lack thereof. Love is the energy.
'love' is usually associated with benevolent actions
Yes, but not limited to.
whereas the terms benevolent/malevolent only take meaning once it is interpreted by us.
The same can be said of the universe itself. The nuts and bolts of the universe is "nothing", yet in that nothing, we find meaning. Meaning is a human phenomenon. Something must be generating it.
these are humane terminologies and values which hold no meaning when associated with god
Humans have a zero quality if not for God. Therefore the meanings and terminologies we generate must be in direct relationship with God. It can be no other way.
This is akin to saying 'god is righteous', because it implies that god is trying to satisfy a criterea set out by us humans.
The criteria is instilled. The parameters are there. We're the ones struggling to satisfy it, not the other way around. Nevertheless, I would word it, 'God is righteousness'. Either way, slapping a word on a concept does not limit the concept, it only limits our scope of understanding the concept.
What I meant is there 'needing' to be an underlying reason behind the creation.
I agree. Not everyone needs a reason and I'm open to the possibility that there may be no reason at all. But my experience thus far tells me different. Life is moving, not in a chaotic whirlpool of stagnation, but in a forward progression. Everything I experience involves some sort of progression.
The universe is perfectly logically stable in just 'being', I don't see the point in attaching a purpose to it.
Fair enough. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a reason, and it certainly doesn't remove love as a possible answer.
I don't see the point in attaching a purpose to it.
I don't see the point in having no purpose. Everything in my house has a purpose, from the picture on the wall, to the candles on my dresser, to the books on my coffee table. And when something I own no longer serves a purpose, I throw it out, and it serves another purpose elsewhere. And then I look around at the world, from mountains, to mosquitoes, from rain to forest fires, everything plays a role, serves a purpose. I can think of nothing that is purposeless. This, to me, indicates an implicate order, an ultimate purpose. But I guess that's where we differ.
Peace,
Tay -
LoteTree
I thought you said Universe "just exists" - so why say creation?
Apathatic God does not create anything. Only a loving God can.Really? Does it say so in the 'valid reasons to create the creation' rulebook? Okay, sarcasm aside - I don't see how you can add that conjecture in there as fact. Your view of a only a 'loving' god being able to 'create' the universe is just that - your opinion, and is not based on objective logic whatsoever. As for the universe/creation thing, the universe is that which was created so I used it in a synonymous context, sorry for the confusion.
But the impulse is always borne out of love.
Again, how do you know this?
Because you said you don't need love.
No, I cleared that up in my response to Tay. Here it is
"As for the 'need' for a creation, I should explain what I meant. I didn't mean 'need' in the context of our persuit of knowledge. What I meant is there 'needing' to be an underlying reason behind the creation. There's no reason to assume that there is an underlying reason, an ultimate purpose for creation. The universe is perfectly logically stable in just 'being', I don't see the point in attaching a purpose to it. "
Tay
My point is, Neo, that if you take love out of the spectrum, the spectrum ceases to exist. Apathy and hate are degrees of love or lack thereof. Love is the energy.
Well, I can make 'hate' transcendant just like you made 'love' transcendant. So, instead of it reading 'hate is the void of love', I can just as easily say 'love is the void of hate'. Thus, going back to my question 'why can't the universe be born out of hate'?
Regarding the 'nature' of love, I said it is benevolent because it is usually the agreed partial-definition of 'love' since it is such an abstract concept. I know love may encompass more things to different people, but that's a matter of pure interpretation.
The same can be said of the universe itself. The nuts and bolts of the universe is "nothing", yet in that nothing, we find meaning. Meaning is a human phenomenon. Something must be generating it.
Meaning and existence are different. 'Meaning' implies a value, whereas existence implies simply existing. The nuts and the bolts of the universe can simply exist without ever having to be observed by humans and it wouldn't change at all, unless we humans intend to observe it and set arbirtrary values to the nuts and bolts. This is what I mean regarding the apparent purpose of the universe - we only think there's a purpose because we're observing it, the universe would be perfectly stable without us putting our noses into anything.
Humans have a zero quality if not for God. Therefore the meanings and terminologies we generate must be in direct relationship with God. It can be no other way.
The only association with god they may hold is one of creation, for example 'god created us, and we interpreted red to be beautiful'. Other than that, our human values and qualities hold no meaning when attributed to god. Just because we say something, doesn't make it so. This is the same principle at work here; just because an atheist chooses to not believe in god does not void god's existence.
The criteria is instilled. The parameters are there. We're the ones struggling to satisfy it, not the other way around. Nevertheless, I would word it, 'God is righteousness'. Either way, slapping a word on a concept does not limit the concept, it only limits our scope of understanding the concept.
You misunderstand me. I'm not saying we're limiting god or anything; I'm saying that we don't harbour the capacity to understand god, thus attributing humane values to god is ultimately pointless because it is a fruitless endeavor.
Fair enough. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a reason, and it certainly doesn't remove love as a possible answer.
Well, nor does it remove hate and apathy and an infinite other possible reasons
-
So what is it is Universe "Just Is" or is it created?
If Universe is just is then thats Buddhist conception of the Universe. But in Islam God created the Universe. The question is why did he create the Universe? and the question here is asked what does God obtain from Creation?
Do you have answer for that or not? By saying Universe is just is not answering anything or saying the question is irrelevant is not answering the question either since the context of the question is asked is based on the basis the God created the universe.
Again, how do you know this?
How do you know that Universe is Just Is? Big Bang says Universe is expanding?
Impulse to create is borne out of love. Ask any artist why they create any works of art.
No, I cleared that up in my response to Tay. Here it is
"As for the 'need' for a creation, I should explain what I meant. I didn't mean 'need' in the context of our persuit of knowledge. What I meant is there 'needing' to be an underlying reason behind the creation. There's no reason to assume that there is an underlying reason, an ultimate purpose for creation. The universe is perfectly logically stable in just 'being', I don't see the point in attaching a purpose to it. "
Well thats your understanding and your entitled to it. But when Universe is created then there must be a purpose behind the creation.
It is upto each individual to use their God-given reason, intuition and imagination to come an understanding of this purpose.
Regards,
-
So what is it is Universe "Just Is" or is it created?
They aren't mutually exclusive. Just because it's created doesn't mean it's created with a purpose, refer to my dialogue with Tay for more information.
Do you have answer for that or not?
Yes. My answer is that there is no answer, and if there is, it is beyond our capacity to understand it. You keep reiterating that the universe was borne out of love, and I keep showing you that by that notion the universe could have been created out of hate, or apathy, or any other range of 'emotion', yet you keep reinstating that the universe was created out of 'love' to satisfy some romantic criterea behind everything. It's fine if you wish to see the universe as such, but just realise that your view is not objective, and nor does it take us any closer to understanding the apparent purpose of the universe.
By saying Universe is just is not answering anything or saying the question is irrelevant is not answering the question either since the context of the question is asked is based on the basis the God created the universe.
This question is essentially the same as 'what is god?' or 'what is god thinking?', and as stated in the Qur'an, it is beyond us humans. Not every question has an answer, just cause I'm pointing it out I'm being irrelevant?
How do you know that Universe is Just Is? Big Bang says Universe is expanding?
So...? Just because it's expanding it has to expand to satisfy some humane critera of 'purpose'?
Impulse to create is borne out of love. Ask any artist why they create any works of art.
Hah, you don't know a thing about art if you think it's solely borne of love. Art is a form of expression, which can range from hatefulness, to indifference, to anguish, to dispair, to happiness, state-of-being, etc. Art is a result of the human need to express. Love is just one of many children of mother expression.
Well thats your understanding and your entitled to it. But when Universe is created then there must be a purpose behind the creation.
No. There musn't. Again - if it's logically stable without a purpose, then that's all it must require and attaching any other attribute is 'wishful thinking'.
-
Peace Neo,
You stated,
Well, I can make 'hate' transcendant just like you made 'love' transcendant.
If you can do this without any connection to love, I'd love to hear about it. Show me how hate is a transcendental energy, and how love is a degree of hate.
Thus, going back to my question 'why can't the universe be born out of hate'?
Because hate is a degree of love, not the other way around.
This is what I mean regarding the apparent purpose of the universe - we only think there's a purpose because we're observing it, the universe would be perfectly stable without us putting our noses into anything.
I vehemently disagree. We are "the universe". One can not seperate onesself from the whole. Can you?
I'm not saying we're limiting god or anything; I'm saying that we don't harbour the capacity to understand god, thus attributing humane values to god is ultimately pointless because it is a fruitless endeavor.
I agree that we are limited, but not completely hopeless. And love is far from a humane value. It is far greater than we can understand. But the bits that are understandable point to a magnificence.
Look bro, I'm not trying to say I completely understand our purpose. But I am willing to go out on a limb and say love plays a major role in our purpose. I'm not saying this because I understand love in all it's capacities, or because I'm some kind of a tree-hugger. I'm saying this because love is the only thing that makes sense in this world.
I've tried the rational, logical approach. You know what it got me? Emptiness a mechanical, calculated, measurable universe that still can't answer the simplest questions. The universe is not built on reason. It is sublime and it is flowing and there are energies and phenomena surrounding us in every facet of life.
To simply write off all the intangibles with a comment like, "'why can't the universe be born out of hate'?", to me, is a defeated voice. You can make peace with the universe however you wish. If you're happy with the idea that life is meaningless/purposeless, then, again, that's your perogative. I choose not to go down that, imo, very sad path.
Well, nor does it remove hate and apathy and an infinite other possible reasons
I would hope you'd atleast build a case for your comments, otherwise, you're just being argumentative.
May peace be upon you,
Tay -
They aren't mutually exclusive. Just because it's created doesn't mean it's created with a purpose, refer to my dialogue with Tay for more information.
If you can't see the purpose then thats your limitation. If you are stuck with Reason alone then you will never find the purpose. God has given us the power of intuition and imagination to go beyond logic and reason to grasp something of the divine purpose. All mystics agree that reason alone is not sufficient to understand Divinity. When we go beyond logic and reason that we encounter the divine and understand something of the Divinity.
Yes. My answer is that there is no answer, and if there is, it is beyond our capacity to understand it.
Ok. You have given up finding an answer or that your answer is that there is no answer and thats ok too. I am not sure of any answers but I have not given up, though for me love is becoming to make more sense.
but just realise that your view is not objective, and nor does it take us any closer to understanding the apparent purpose of the universe.
Thats it. There can be no "objective" proof of God or the purpose behind the Universe because God is not an objective fact but an subjective experience of the individual. Objective study may hint at a God but not prove it. You have to go beyond logic and reason to grasp something of the Divinity. Meditators all around the world have said that there is a another level of perception that lies above the ordinary thought processes and when we go beyond the ordinary thought processes we can glimpse perhaps something of the purpose behind it...
This question is essentially the same as 'what is god?' or 'what is god thinking?', and as stated in the Qur'an, it is beyond us humans. Not every question has an answer, just cause I'm pointing it out I'm being irrelevant?
You may not have an answer for Every question - but it should never stops us asking them. You are entitled to say that question does not have answer and thats ok too but a question is never irrelevant just because you say so it is. It may be irrelevant to you but to others struggling to answer these unanswerable questions is prelude to better understanding of Divine and the Universe and this can bring about spiritual and intellectual growth in an individual...
Love is just one of many children of mother expression.
I see you have very child-like understanding of Love. I am sure you will "grow" out of it. All true creativity is borne out labour of love or in the context of love. I should know I am an artist. You can disagree with it and thats your perogative.
No. There musn't. Again - if it's logically stable without a purpose, then that's all it must require and attaching any other attribute is 'wishful thinking'.
But just because you can't see a purpose, it does not mean it does not have a purpose does it?
Again if you are stuck in a rut of reason then you might never glimpse something of that purpose. Thats why God has given us intuition and imagination to go beyond logic and reason...
Regards,
-
If you can do this without any connection to love, I'd love to hear about it. Show me how hate is a transcendental energy, and how love is a degree of hate.
Well that?s the thing. You can?t make ?love? transcendent without connecting it to hate and vice versa. So to say ?love? created the universe has the same implications as saying ?hate? created the universe because it could have been either ? we have no way of discerning between the two. Claiming that the universe is created out of ?love? is as logically sound as saying the universe is created out of ?hate?.
Because hate is a degree of love, not the other way around.
Says who?
I vehemently disagree. We are "the universe". One can not seperate onesself from the whole. Can you?
We are a part of the universe. We, humans beings, have only existed in the last 100,000 years ? and the universe existed a long time before that.
And love is far from a humane value. It is far greater than we can understand. But the bits that are understandable point to a magnificence.
Love is far from a humane value? How do you know this? Love is a romantic word with its origins entwined in poetry, it is very much a humane value. And even if you chose to look beyond its human connotations, it becomes a matter of pure subjectivity with little connection to logical realities.
The universe is not built on reason.
I?d vehemently disagree. Science and logic has proven over and over that the universe is grounded within reason, theories of cause and effect have persisted to this day. The fact that we?re even talking on the internet has to do with the cause-effect nature of the universe. The universe works in a logical way, we may not know the full details of all its logicalities yet, but judging from the fact that all our previous ?unknowns? have succumbed to the arms of logic, all the current unknowns will too.
I would hope you'd atleast build a case for your comments, otherwise, you're just being argumentative.
I didn?t say I believed the universe was borne of hate ! I?m commenting against the idea of the universe being borne of love. I?m saying that if the universe can be borne of ?love?, then it is equally-likely it can be borne of hate, and also equally-likely it can be borne of many other emotions. Therefore, saying that the universe is borne of love doesn?t really get you any closer to the answer because you?re just back where you started.
-
If you can't see the purpose then thats your limitation. If you are stuck with Reason alone then you will never find the purpose.
If there is one.
God has given us the power of intuition and imagination to go beyond logic and reason to grasp something of the divine purpose.
Logic > intuition and imagination.
All mystics agree that reason alone is not sufficient to understand Divinity. When we go beyond logic and reason that we encounter the divine and understand something of the Divinity.
Well, I?d say the quest of the mystics is futile because they are trying to use the finite mind in an attempt to comprehend the infinite. This is akin to the 17th century?s version of the 4th dimensions when the so-called scholars believed one could attain a deeper understanding of the universe if they could understand the fourth spatial dimension. Guess what happened to that idea? It got replaced by the scientific correct notion of a time-dimension, is what. So again, logic > intuition and imagination.
I am not sure of any answers but I have not given up, though for me love is becoming to make more sense.
Exactly. To you. The line of reasoning you?ve used thus far is extremely subjective, which is why we can?t come to any sort of understanding.
There can be no "objective" proof of God or the purpose behind the Universe because God is not an objective fact but an subjective experience of the individual.
Objective study may hint at a God but not prove it. You have to go beyond logic and reason to grasp something of the Divinity.Eh?I won?t go any further than this because obviously our perception of reality is extremely different. I don?t believe ?imagination? can bring us any closer to ?understanding? divinity. Nice talking.
But before parting I?m going to address something
I see you have very child-like understanding of Love. I am sure you will "grow" out of it. All true creativity is borne out labour of love or in the context of love. I should know I am an artist. You can disagree with it and thats your perogative.
- Don?t make presumptions unto my character because I haven?t made any unto yours.
- And I do disagree with it, vehemently even. Art can be the result of many things, love being one of them. Just because you claim to be an artist doesn?t mean your opinion of ?art? is the end-all be-all. Art is a form of expression, the process of art isn?t ?love?, it?s another way of expressing. That?s like saying talking is borne of ?love?. No, it?s not. I may not be a professional artist such as thee but I know what art is and what art isn?t.