Does God Need Me? Hmmm…
September 19, 2007 by TJM Admin
Let’s say, just for a second, that a god (pick one, it really doesn’t matter which) did create man. Hell, let’s say that he/she created the whole universe (or multi-verse, for those of us interested in theoretical astrophysics). Could someone please enlighten me as to what the purpose would be? And no, I am not asking for the meaning of life here.
Generally, when one creates something, it is for a specific (sometimes general) purpose. Doesn’t really matter what it is, there is usually a reason for the invention or creation. The reason could be to perform menial tasks or to provide momentary entertainment. There is always a reason.
Usually we try to create something that is eihter greater than ourselves, performs a task that we cannot do or performs a task that we can do, just more efficiently. Let me see if we can figure this out.
God created us to perform a task that he himself cannot do. Doesn’t seem very god-like, if you ask me. What exactly could we do or achieve, either singly or as a whole, that god could not do? I doubt greatly that this would be the purpose of creation.
God created us to perform a task or achieve a goal more efficienty than he could without us. (Could there really be a more efficient means of attaining a goal that simply thinking it into being?) Again, doesn’t sound very god-like.
Did god need us? Or were we simply created to worship him? If the latter is true, I still have to ask the question; why? Is god’s egomania so advanced that he had to create creatures infinitely lesser than himself to simply hear their praises? I mean, if you should die and enter the gates of heaven, that is what is in store for you, an eternity of praising god. No thanks, I’m good.
First and foremost I have to try and imagine that I believe in a God here - it has been so long that I find it almost impossible
As a believer I thought God created us for his joy only. Of course that’s a flawed argument, because then the question then begs why an omnipotent creator would create so many imperfections? Only a sadist would create breathing, feeling beings who can get sick, die of terminal illnesses, famine, wars, crime; you name it.
None of it makes sense. Believers have to scramble to explain it all, fortunately for them, the mythical Satan enters the room. For us to have a god, we must have a devil as well. God’s flaws are being explained away by blaming Satan.
The biggest fairy tale ever told: God, Satan and us. Some of us grow out of it, some don’t.
[Reply]
Well, I hope that a Christian will show up here and answer that question. I’ve honestly never asked myself that question and find myself dumbfounded by it.
You got me thinking here.
[Reply]
You ask some good questions.
Yes, there are a lot of Christians who say foolish things and have ideas that cannot withstand the slightest bit of scrutiny.
Of course, a position cannot be judged by those who misunderstand it and misrepresent it.
The Christian answer to why God created the world (the whole time-space complex) is simply “because he wanted to.”
There is no reason why it must have been created. It was entirely gratuitous.
You are right to point out that any God worthy of the title would not need to create beings, either to do something he cannot do himself or to fulfill some emotional need he might have. Furthermore, a real God would not need someone to shower his affection upon.
This may seem like an odd answer. But I think you will agree that it can be the only reason that an almighty, omnipotent, self-sufficient God could have for creating other beings.
Rod
[Reply]
Rod,
Thank you for your answer. I have to admit that I find it lacking slightly, though. Bear with me for a moment and I think you will see why.
“Because he wanted to” does seem to be the ultimate “out” for the question at hand. But this opens the floodgates to a whole host of suppositions that we could make using this statement. Saying that an almighty, omnipotent god created us “because he wanted to” means that he also wanted to sacrifice himself to himself. After all, if god is omniscient, we knew that this would occur eons before he uttered the words, “Let there be light.” This gives rise to the idea that Jesus did not have to die for the sins of mankind. God could simply forgive us “because he wanted to.” Yet, this is not the case. God requires not only the blood sacrifice, but a belief of that sacrifice in order for you to be saved. In effect, god wants to forgive you but can’t; unless you believe in it. So, this makes it appear as though god cannot simply do what he wants; rather, there are requirements that have to be met in order for god to get what he wants.
Even if I could accept the answer of “because we wanted to,” I would still have a problem with a god that strives to create only that which is less than himself.
[Reply]
Let me start at the end of your reply.
I would still have a problem with a god that strives to create only that which is less than himself.
I don’t get the nature of your objection. If God is an uncreated being, then how could he possibly create something equal to himself? If your objection is that God should have created us to be more than we are right now, that’s exactly what he did (according to the Christian perspective).
This makes it appear as though god cannot simply do what he wants; rather, there are requirements that have to be met in order for god to get what he wants.
There certainly are limitations upon God. He cannot do anything that is logically impossible (create a rock so big that he cannot move it). He cannot act in any way that is inconsistent with his nature (tell a lie). And he cannot ignore limitations he has placed upon himself (granting humans the ability to make real choices).
But that doesn’t mean that God cannot do things that are superfluous. The created order is important, even necessary to us, but it was entirely unessential to him.
Of course, once he created it, things changed dramatically. And he knew what he was getting in for when he did this.
I would also argue that your understanding of the atonement (though it is not that unlike the view held by many Christians) is rather naive and simplistic. I don’t mean to say that you are naive and simplistic. But the atonement is not about some arbitrary requirement that he set up before he would grant forgiveness.
I respect your right to reject the answers of Christianity. But you owe it to yourself to make sure that what you are rejecting is not just a caricature or over-simplification of the real thing.
Yes, there is a lot of nonsense travelling under the banner of Christianity. But true Christianity has robust answers to the difficult questions, answers that have the resilience of quantum mechanics and general relativity.
[Reply]
I am not pursuing the “omnipotence paradox” with this statement. This statement is based solely on the idea that god loves us and wants to forgive us. (Please do not let this statement become confused with the notion that god has already forgiven us, we just have to accept it.) However, in order to be “saved” from eternal damnation, one must accept salvation and live accordingly. This simply does not seem to sync up with justice, but that is a different argument entirely.
Hopefully, I am not taking this out of context. What you are saying here is that god, knowing in advance what was to come, continued in his plans to create knowing the futility of it all? Surely this cannot be considered ethical by any standards. To put this into perspective in terms of today’s numbers, that means that god knowingly is allowing some 4 billion of of us (out of the 6+ billion here on this speck we call earth) to live out our lives only to arrive in hell for eternity. How on earth could I willingly serve such a being? I mean punishment is one thing, but eternal damnation for 75 years of life as a sinner? And, this is premeditated.
As far as the understanding of atonement goes, it (Jesus’ “sacrifice”) is a continuation of Torah law; except that Jesus plays the part of the “sheep without blemish.” This is what Jesus meant when he said that he did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. Yes, I placed the word “sacrifice” in quotes. It hardly seems like a sacrifice when you know that you will be resurrected 1.5 days later. Is it truly a sacrifice when you lose nothing? (as far as physics go, if Jesus had resurrected bodily into heaven, even traveling at the speed of light, he has not even made it to the edge of our galaxy yet. Let alone the universe.)
[Reply]
This has been an interesting conversation so far.
However, in order to be “saved” from eternal damnation, one must accept salvation and live accordingly. This simply does not seem to sync up with justice, but that is a different argument entirely.
The point of the atonement is that it allows mercy and justice to coexist. We can get into the details of that later, if you wish. Don’t confuse a naive and simplistic explanation with the real thing. I don’t quite agree with your characterization of “what we must do to be saved.”
What you are saying here is that god, knowing in advance what was to come, continued in his plans to create knowing the futility of it all?
Who said anything about futility? The Christian view hardly sees creation as an exercise in futility.
To put this into perspective in terms of today’s numbers, that means that god knowingly is allowing some 4 billion of of us (out of the 6+ billion here on this speck we call earth) to live out our lives only to arrive in hell for eternity. How on earth could I willingly serve such a being?
The important question is why those who go to hell end up there. God did not set up some arbitrary system that people must figure out and comply with in order to receive “eternal life.” What if every single person who ends up in hell demands to be sent there? What if the purpose of hell is to allow people the choice to be “free” of God and his influence? What if the reason that it is such an undesirable place is because every positive and good thing in the universe ultimately comes from God himself?
Is it “unethical” to provide something to those who want it knowing that many will reject it to their own harm?
As far as the understanding of atonement goes, it (Jesus’ “sacrifice”) is a continuation of Torah law.
There is much more to the atonement than a sacrifice. The biblical view of the atonement is quite detailed and multifaceted. To say that electrons orbit the nucleus of the atom is not exactly wrong. But it is naive and simplistic.
as far as physics go, if Jesus had resurrected bodily into heaven, even traveling at the speed of light, he has not even made it to the edge of our galaxy yet. Let alone the universe
Who says that heaven must be in three-dimensional space? Jesus ascended into the cloud and then went to heaven. It doesn’t take much imagination to see how a four-dimensional heaven fits quite easily with the biblical narrative.
[Reply]
I’ve heard it said that the Christian God created us because He is Life and Love — so much so, that by creating us, we are extensions of that. This goes right in line with the idea of a “personal” God. I’m not talking about the God that affects you personally, but the one that has personality. By calling God “Father” and that he loved us so much he gave his only begotten son (John 3:16) yadda yadda, we ascribe human features to God. If we were created in God’s image, then God probably also has emotions and desires — He hurts when we do and is happy for us when we are happy, etc. His desire is for us to be eternally happy, hence the sacrifice of his son. His desire to create us, then, may be similar to humans’ desire to have children.
Granted, a lot of stuff still breaks down if you’re omnipresent, since joys of parenting are attained through pleasant surprises and seeing change over the course of time, but God-as-parent might come close to explaining any “needs”.
Just because He’s omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient doesn’t mean He’s happy and self-actualized!
[Reply]
Tom,
I would argue that an unhappy and unfulfilled god isn’t much of a god.
[Reply]