Take the 2-minute tour ×
Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in logical reasoning. It's 100% free, no registration required.

There are two extremes known as creationism vs evolutionism. Let's consider creationism for a moment, and imagine that God exists, and he/she has created us. The question that obsesses my mind after that is simply, why? What was the purpose of God creating us?

How has philosophy and philosophers addressed this issue?

To be more specific, I mean actions we do have reasons. I drink water because I want to survive. I play games because I want to enjoy. Now let's put ourselves in place of God. What is the x in this sentence?

I want to create humans, because x.

share|improve this question
12  
You seem to assume we could comprehend God's purpose or plan; and perhaps furthermore that he even HAS one... –  Joseph Weissman Jul 26 '11 at 18:18
1  
Dear @Joseph. No, it's not like that. I just want to know that is there any philosophical analysis on teleology of creation? In religion, there are many claims. Islam for example claims that God has created us, so we pray him, then get close to his satisfaction. :) –  Saeed Neamati Jul 26 '11 at 18:25
8  
The fallacy here lies in assuming that God acts with the same motivations (desires, needs, feelings, etc.) as humans do. All religions that I know of would fundamentally disagree with that notion. God acts for "higher" purposes than our own, and is not constrained by humanist approaches. Alternatively, the reductionist approach is to say that God created humans because he was lonely, or because he wanted someone to worship him. –  Cody Gray Jul 27 '11 at 4:17
1  
You cant question religious things with reasons like why?.. those are more apt for science.. In religion, you need to belief and follow your belief..! –  Sai Jul 27 '11 at 9:38
4  
I'm not sure I understand where creationism vs evolutionism comes into play here. Neither have anything to do with purpose. In regards to your question, Joseph Weissman hit it right on. I'm pretty sure this question is outside the scope of human investigation. When you get an answer, please let me know. :) –  stoicfury Jul 28 '11 at 0:15

21 Answers 21

up vote 18 down vote accepted

You may be interested in this recent collection of short essays by prominent theologians and scientists, each responding to the question: "does the universe have a purpose?"

The question does seem to assume an anthropomorphic God, at least in some respects. Yet after all, who is to say our desires are analogous to whatever moves/motivates God himself? And why should we suppose we would have any chance of understanding the mind of God in this or any respect?

In passing, I might also suggest another interesting question to explore might be: why should we assume creation itself has a purpose or meaning, even to God? More pointedly, perhaps -- granting that Creation did stem from certain "motivations" -- how much more complex and intricate (and possibly beyond the reach of our understanding) must God's motivations for creating the universe be than even the most complex and profound of human motives?

It seems the only chance we might have here to truly provide an answer would be direct revelation. Many religions explicitly invoke the limits of the capacity of our minds to truly understand Creation or it's meaning, more or less along the lines I am suggesting above -- that God transcends human understanding. Hence, at least for some, the answer is simply that: we are incapable of really knowing, though I can see why this might be somewhat unsatisfying. (Other sorts of faith traditions, as you suggest, supply various stories explicating God's motivations.)

Interestingly, there seems to be a split among physicists on this issue. Many are on the side of "no, there is no purpose" or "it is unlikely there is a purpose"; their critiques stem from many places, including a critique on the basis of a lack of analogy between the human concept of purpose and the forces driving the universe, as well as critiques based on the intellectual uncleanliness involved in a creator hypothesis, which does not really seem to explain or predict very much. (On the other hand, some physicists draw conclusions in the other direction, convinced by their studies that a purpose is driving the universe.)

From another angle, we may contrast the scientific and theological kinds of answers to this question with a very different sort of answer. Consider the early metaphysics of the young Nietzsche, who writes in The Birth of Tragedy (38) (my emphasis):

only as aesthetic phenomenon are existence and the world justified

share|improve this answer
2  
The young Nietsche quote reminds me of an excellent novel by the name of 'Star Maker', written by a quaker named Olaf Stapledon in the early part of the last century. As much a piece of narrative philosophy as a work of science fiction, it walks in the pseudonihilistic footsteps of Nietsche and Schopenhauer, but finds a solution to the problem of evil in a complex and vivid depiction of creator-as-aesthete, author of multiple worlds, learning by them and embodied through them. Beautiful and eminently readable- much recommended as an exploration of this point of view. –  Tom Boardman Jul 28 '11 at 12:48
    
CS Lewis apparently called the last chapter 'sheer devil worship', though, so I suppose Star Maker isn't for everyone. –  Tom Boardman Jul 28 '11 at 12:55
    
I think that "does the universe has a purpose?" is a VERY different question than "what is the purpose of the Universe?" –  Geoffroy CALA Aug 2 '11 at 1:48
1  
@Geoffroy, at the very least I hope you would concede we need to agree there is a purpose in the first place in order to discuss what it might be. That's part of the basic problem here which the linked essays address -- though if you read it you will see several of the essays DO address what the purpose of the universe might be. (I should point out that I do think they are silly, because I think purpose only makes sense in the context of human affairs...) –  Joseph Weissman Aug 2 '11 at 1:51
1  
+1 for the great link. –  Sniper Clown Jul 3 '12 at 20:10

Your question has the unspoken assumption that the universe has a purpose at all. Why would that be?

I think a very good frame into which address this question is the one of Animism. In the words of David Hume:

There is an universal tendency among mankind to conceive all beings like themselves, and to transfer to every object those qualities with which they are familiarly acquainted, and of which they are intimately conscious

In other words:

  • the universe has no a-priori meaning because meaning is a human construct. What is the purpose of a rain drop? It just is.
  • Any purpose of the universe must then be a subjective interpretation. There is no objective purpose.
  • God is not a human, does not have to think like a human or have a human-like need to give meaning to things and actions.
  • Attributing human-like qualities to God, is yet again a sign of animism.

Note, I am purposefully trying to answer, avoiding to touch topics like: "I know that nothing can go faster than light, however what will happen if I went faster than light?".

share|improve this answer
    
Exactly what I had in mind when I first read this question! If one thinks the Universe has no purpose, then we can't answer this specific question or we can just answer another question, does the Universe have a purpose?, which you just answered. –  Geoffroy CALA Aug 5 '11 at 15:53
2  
Purpose of a rain drop, It's a step in Water Life-cycle, which returns Water back to earth, which's a vital resource for all living creatures. The rain drop has a role in life, do you think Human came with no role, for no purpose, for on use? –  Waheed Sayed Aug 24 '12 at 4:43
    
@WaheedSayed In fact its the opposite: living creatures are sustained from the rain drop, they adapted to take advantage of it, but without them the rain drop will continue to fall. It still has no purpose. –  Natxo Dec 17 '13 at 10:17

This answer will have vastly different answers according to what the person world view is. This is greatly influence by what the person religion is and what he believes to be the meaning of life. A few quotes to illustrate.

Pluto

Pluto was one of the earliest, most influential philosophers to date—mostly for realism about the existence of universals. In the Theory of Forms, universals do not physically exist, like objects, but as ghostly, heavenly forms. In The Republic, the Socrates character's dialogue describes the Form of the God. The Idea of the God is ekgonos (offspring) of the God, the ideal, perfect nature of godness, hence an absolute measure of Lostops.

Enlightenment philosophy

The Enlightenment and the colonial era both changed the nature of European philosophy and exported it worldwide. Devotion and subservience to God were largely replaced by notions of inalienable natural rights and the potentialities of reason, and universal ideals of love and compassion gave way to civic notions of freedom, equality, and citizenship. The meaning of life changed as well, focusing less on humankind's relationship to God and more on the relationship between individuals and their society. This era is filled with theories that equate meaningful existence with the social order.

Classical liberalism

Classical liberalism is a set of ideas that arose in the 17th and 18th centuries, out of conflicts between a growing, wealthy, propertied class and the established aristocratic and religious orders that dominated Europe. Liberalism cast humans as beings with inalienable natural rights (including the right to retain the wealth generated by one's own work), and sought out means to balance rights across society. Broadly speaking, it considers individual liberty to be the most important goal,[27] because only through ensured liberty are the other inherent rights protected.

Kantianism

Kantianism is a philosophy based on the ethical, epistemological, and metaphysical works of Immanuel Kant. Kant is known for his deontological theory where there is a single moral obligation, the "Categorical Imperative", derived from the concept of duty. Kantians believe all actions are performed in accordance with some underlying maxim or principle, and for actions to be ethical, they must adhere to the categorical imperative.

Utilitarianism

The origins of utilitarianism can be traced back as far as Epicurus, but, as a school of thought, it is credited to Jeremy Bentham,[28] who found that "nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure", then, from that moral insight, deriving the Rule of Utility: "that the good is whatever brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people". He defined the meaning of life as the "greatest happiness principle".

Nihilism

Nihilism suggests that life is without objective meaning. Friedrich Nietzsche characterized nihilism as emptying the world, and especially human existence, of meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, and essential value; succinctly, nihilism is the process of "the devaluing of the highest values".[30] Seeing the nihilist as a natural result of the idea that God is dead, and insisting it was something to overcome, his questioning of the nihilist's life-negating values returned meaning to the Earth.[31]

Pragmatism

Pragmatism, originated in the late-19th-century U.S., to concern itself (mostly) with truth, positing that "only in struggling with the environment" do data, and derived theories, have meaning, and that consequences, like utility and practicality, are also components of truth. Moreover, pragmatism posits that anything useful and practical is not always true, arguing that what most contributes to the most human good in the long course is true. In practice, theoretical claims must be practically verifiable, i.e. one should be able to predict and test claims, and, that, ultimately, the needs of mankind should guide human intellectual inquiry.

Existentialism

Each man and each woman creates the essence (meaning) of his and her life; life is not determined by a supernatural god or an earthly authority, one is free. As such, one's ethical prime directives are action, freedom, and decision, thus, existentialism opposes rationalism and positivism. In seeking meaning to life, the existentialist looks to where people find meaning in life, in course of which using only reason as a source of meaning is insufficient; the insufficiency gives rise to the emotions of anxiety and dread, felt in facing one's radical freedom, and the concomitant awareness of death. To the existentialist, existence precedes essence; the (essence) of one's life arises only after one comes to existence.

Absurdism

In absurdist philosophy, the Absurd arises out of the fundamental disharmony between the individual's search for meaning and the apparent meaninglessness of the universe. As beings looking for meaning in a meaningless world, humans have three ways of resolving the dilemma. Kierkegaard and Camus describe the solutions in their works, The Sickness Unto Death (1849) and The Myth of Sisyphus (1942):

Suicide (or, "escaping existence"): a solution in which a person simply ends one's own life. Both Kierkegaard and Camus dismiss the viability of this option. Religious belief in a transcendent realm or being: a solution in which one believes in the existence of a reality that is beyond the Absurd, and, as such, has meaning. Kierkegaard stated that a belief in anything beyond the Absurd requires a non-rational but perhaps necessary religious acceptance in such an intangible and empirically unprovable thing (now commonly referred to as a "leap of faith"). However, Camus regarded this solution as "philosophical suicide".

Secular humanism

Per secular humanism, the human race came to be by reproducing in a progression of unguided evolution as an integral part of nature, which is self-existing.[42][43] Knowledge does not come from supernatural sources, but from human observation, experimentation, and rational analysis (the scientific method): the nature of the universe is what people discern it to be.[42] Likewise, "values and realities" are determined "by means of intelligent inquiry"[42] and "are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience", that is, by critical intelligence.[44][45] "As far as we know, the total personality is [a function] of the biological organism transacting in a social and cultural context."[43]

Logical positivism

Logical positivists ask: "What is the meaning of life?", "What is the meaning in asking?"[48][49] and "If there are no objective values, then, is life meaningless?"[50] Ludwig Wittgenstein and the logical positivists said:[citation needed] "Expressed in language, the question is meaningless"; because, in life the statement the "meaning of x", usually denotes the consequences of x, or the significance of x, or what is notable about x, etc., thus, when the meaning of life concept equals "x", in the statement the "meaning of x", the statement becomes recursive, and, therefore, nonsensical, or it might refer to the fact that biological life is essential to having a meaning in life.

Postmodernism

Postmodernist thought—broadly speaking—sees human nature as constructed by language, or by structures and institutions of human society. Unlike other forms of philosophy, postmodernism rarely seeks out a priori or innate meanings in human existence, but instead focuses on analyzing or critiquing given meanings in order to rationalize or reconstruct them. Anything resembling a "meaning of life", in postmodernist terms, can only be understood within a social and linguistic framework, and must be pursued as an escape from the power structures that are already embedded in all forms of speech and interaction. As a rule, postmodernists see awareness of the constraints of language as necessary to escaping those constraints, but different theorists take different views on the nature of this process: from radical reconstruction of meaning by individuals (as in deconstructionism) to theories in which individuals are primarily extensions of language and society, without real autonomy (as in poststructuralism). In general, postmodernism seeks meaning by looking at the underlying structures that create or impose meaning, rather than the epiphenomenal appearances of the world.

Christianity

Though Christianity has its roots in Judaism, and shares much of the latter faith's ontology, its central beliefs derive from the teachings of Jesus Christ, as presented in the New Testament. Life's purpose in Christianity is to seek divine salvation through the grace of God and intercession of Christ. (cf. John 11:26) The New Testament speaks of God wanting to have a relationship with humans both in this life and the life to come, which can happen only if one's sins are forgiven (John 3:16–21; 2 Peter 3:9).

In the Christian view, humankind was made in the Image of God and perfect, but the Fall of Man caused the progeny of the first Parents to inherit Original Sin. The sacrifice of Christ's passion, death and resurrection provide the means for transcending that impure state (Romans 6:23). The means for doing so varies between different groups of Christians, but all rely on belief in Jesus, his work on the cross and his resurrection as the fundamental starting point for a relationship with God. Faith in God is found in Ephesians 2:8–9 – "[8]For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; [9]not as a result of works, that no one should boast." (New American Standard Bible; 1973). People are justified by belief in the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus' death on the cross. The Gospel maintains that through this belief, the barrier that sin has created between man and God is destroyed, and allows God to change people and instill in them a new heart after His own will, and the ability to do it. This is what the term reborn or saved almost always refers to. This places Christianity in stark contrast to other religions which claim that believers are justified with God through adherence to guidelines or law given to us by God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_of_life

share|improve this answer

I think the idea of purpose, intentional creation, is somewhat hard to define simply because the motive that drives the purpose can be questioned, and the motive that drives the motive that drives the purpose can be questioned, and so on. It's the classic "why, why, why..." childish questioning that becomes annoying and then becomes ignored. While many may argue that God created us for a specific purpose, where the motives for each step of reasoning ends is subjective. In reality, God's motives (assuming there is a God) can be questioned to the infinite (regardless of whether or not we can comprehend them). Where we stop questioning the motive is where the subjectivity and ambiguity of morals and ethics arises.

Let's take the example of playing video games for pleasure and eating food to survive. You see the two actions as having fundamentally different motivations, but I see them being one in the same. Do we not get pleasure while eating food? Any action that is ultimately not pleasurable (after accounting for all foreseeable consequences) will not be committed. Suppose it hurt to eat all of the time. If the pain of eating and the pain of hunger were the only factors considered, and the pain of eating was greater than the pain of hunger, then we wouldn't eat. However, those people who have pains of eating greater than of hunger would eventually reproduce at a lesser rate than those who don't. So, eating food is in fact pleasurable, whether or not you think its "fun" like playing a video game. For whatever reason, playing video games also seems to give some pleasure, simply because we do it. An evolutionist may analyze what evolutionary significance playing video games has, but the pleasure that we get from games is comparable to the motivation of eating. And, for some reason, humans are better off because of it (better off in terms of reproductive success).

Perhaps God has meddled with natural selection, which could be an argument for why humans have a "purpose". But, regardless, such an argument still doesn't address the question of motivation. That God could purposely choose an action such as "I want to create humans because of X" would be entirely reliant upon a motivation that is fundamentally different from that of humans. The only motivation for humans is one that could improve the human race in the long run, even if that means appealing to real or fictional deity. Thus, if God operates on a level that transcends survival (which many claim to be a force that doesn't affect God), then we cannot comprehend it. Furthermore, any motivation of God can be questioned to another deeper level of motivation that can also be questioned. Somehow, God would have to be able to understand an infinitely tiered string of motivations- something beyond our ability to understand but perhaps within his.

share|improve this answer
    
I gotta tell you you're really great at writing. Though I didn't got the answer yet, but I learned a lot and enjoyed reading your answer. +1, and many thanks. :) –  Saeed Neamati Jul 28 '11 at 15:18

To answer "What is universe for?", you have to answer "Why does universe exist?" or to be more philosophical "Why is there something instead of nothing?"

No matter how one will want to answer this last question, one would have to appeal, at least implicitly, to that which exists (or to what supposedly exists). Otherwise, one would put himself in the dubious position of assuming that the appeal to non-existence somehow explains existence. (The trend in philosophy since Plato, and perhaps long before him, is to posit some form of consciousness as the “answer” to such questions, even though this tactic is irrescindably incoherent.)

Thus, by posing this question and assuming that it is valid, you implicitly (but unavoidably) commits yourself to the fallacy of the stolen concept. If we ask why something is, but simply turn around and posit that something in our explanation of that something, what mileage have we gained? Indeed, we’re back to where we started, yet we don’t admit it to ourselves. This is what you do in assuming that the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” (or “Why does existence exist?”) is a valid question. One will have to assume the fact of existence in order to answer the question. But in so doing, he will have to deny the fact of existence in order to validate his assumption that there must be a reason why there is something rather than nothing. He must assume the very concept his argument wants to deny, thus ‘stealing’ it from the objective hierarchy of knowledge, and rendering invalid any conclusion he hopes to draw from his argument.

Existence exists. We must start somewhere. The theist wants to start with a form of consciousness. He wants to posit a mind (albeit supernatural) which is responsible for creating all its objects. This is called metaphysical subjectivism, a view which holds that existence finds its source in a form of consciousness.

Some may object to my characterization of the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” as fallacious, contesting that there is no such thing as a fallacious question. However, it is true when we examine issues in epistemology and logic, that there is a such thing as an invalid question. The fallacy known as ‘complex question‘, for instance, is a species of invalid question. It is a question which operates on a false assumption and expects the reader to accept that false assumption in order to answer it. The typical example is the question “Have you stopped beating your wife?” The question assumes that one is a married man and that he beats or has beaten his wife; indeed, it implies such beatings are a regular occurrence. Contrary to these assumptions, however, it could be the case a) that he is not married, or b) that he is married but has never beaten his wife. Since the question is asked in a manner in which a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response can be the only appropriate reply, one cannot answer it on its own terms and avoid affirming its erroneous premises. One would implicate himself simply by answering. The question is fallacious because it leads one to accept a false premise, assuming either a) or b) are the actual case, if he should choose to take it seriously.

Likewise, a question which leads one to commit a fallacy in order to answer it is also invalid. If taken seriously, the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” will lead one to commit the fallacy of the stolen concept; indeed, the fallacy of the stolen concept is unavoidable on the question’s own terms, as we saw above. One would have both to assume and deny existence in order to address the question. If Martin Heidegger ,who originally asked this question, did not recognize this, it was principally because he was not operating on a fully rational philosophy. Yet, today we have theists assuming this question is valid all the time in the construction of their apologetic ruses. What is it that theists want to posit in response to their invalid questions so as to appear to satisfy them? Of course, they assume that the only logical answer is to assert a universe-creating, reality-ruling form of consciousness, which they call God, and delight themselves with this as their answer, never allowing themselves to recognize that the question leads them to accepting a stolen concept, and assuming that their arguments justifying this illicit move make it valid.

share|improve this answer
    
+1 for first two lines. Nice formatted questions :) –  NullPointer Jul 25 '13 at 13:38

In my view, the answer boils down to this:

  1. God has created universe (including living things and us humans) for Him to be recognized. Why do He wants to be recognized, can He exist without this ? Well that's what he decided and surely he is not dependent in any way on what He creates. If there were any dependency, there won't be the attribute of being Omnipotent for God. He creates because he desires, not because He needs.

  2. That recognition is in the form of worship. Again He doesn't need our worship (or that from Angels and other beings) to elevate His status or depend on it in any other way. The purpose of life (that includes animals and plants beside us) is to worship God and recognizing him as the ultimate creator of everything.

  3. So what is our purpose in the universe ? Its the same, to worship and obey God. Why do we care ? Because if we do there is a prize at the end i.e. Heaven. If we don't there is punishment awaiting us i.e. Hell. How will our reward/punishment help Him ? It doesn't in any way. It helps only us when this worldly exam is over and we finally confront Him on the day of Judgement. If it were to help Him in any way, there would be a dependency and He won't be omnipotent any more.

  4. Why the human race would be accountable among all His creation, why not animals and plants ? Human race in addition to its superior brain and intellectual abilities has been given a free will to choose between good and evil. To further harden this test of life, He has not proven himself to us in this world as a scientific law does. If He did, why won't we not believe in Him. After proving a fact to some one, would any sane person on this earth deny a recognized scientific fact? No he won't. Not knowing Him though absolute means give us the ability to disobey and divides people among believers and dis-believers.

  5. Wouldn't it be nice if He could just show Himself to us so that there won't be any one skeptical of His existence. Well it would be but then there won't be any test for any of us. Why would any one ever disobey Him if he knew that he is going to live only around 60 years in this world while the life in Paradise/Hell would be for eternity.

  6. But why do all of us are made to go through this test, how does all this helps God ? Because He desired and it doesn't help Him in any way, it only helps us :-)

share|improve this answer

it's simple. If you accept of hypothesis of God, then

I want to create humans, because the man will give names to each living creature.

see Genesis:

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

I think everything else is speculations

share|improve this answer
1  
This is not correct. If he accepted the hypothesis of God, then he should decided first which religion he'll follow, then start citing from its holy book :) –  Waheed Sayed Aug 24 '12 at 5:28
    
@WaheedSayed - Yury does not have to mean any particular book. He means that we have nothing to rely on but revelations through holy books and prophets. –  Vector May 24 '13 at 7:49

Kubrick's words are by far the most satisfying answer I have seen for this question.

The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile but that it is indifferent; but if we can come to terms with this indifference and accept the challenges of life within the boundaries of death — however mutable man may be able to make them — our existence as a species can have genuine meaning and fulfillment. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light.

-- Interviewed by Eric Nordern, Playboy (September 1968); later published in Stanley Kubrick: Interviews (2001)

share|improve this answer

The question is no doubt a starting point in many a spiritual seeker's mind. But, instead of asking what is the purpose of the universe or understanding the mind of God, just ask yourself a simple question - Who am I? To whom does this universe appear?

The purpose of the universe is nothing. You seem to be of the opinion that all that exists is true and if a stone blocks your way, what is the purpose of that stone!

An analogy for the universe creation is - Dreams. We create dreams with the impressions gathered in our minds over the period of our life. Is it because of some effort from our part that the dream was created or was it just spontaneous or rather, was it for some purpose? And moreover, the characters in the dream, are they anything apart from you? And if in the dream, the characters seem to converse with each other on the lines of this question, is there a meaning to it?

We humans experience three states namely - Waking, dream and deep sleep.

For more into these, kindly see this.

After analyzing the three states, a fantastic help to you would be the Hindu text Yoga Vasishtha, which goes on to prove through parables and logic that the universe is just an illusion and the real purpose of our lives is to find our identity with God himself.

And God has not created humans for him to be worshipped, it is just misconstrued in that fashion. This creation is just a projection on the vast canvas of Consciousness. And we take ourselves to be other than the projection and find a meaning to it. Devotion and service to fellow beings is a tool in enabling us see the presence of God in everything or in other words, to effect a paradigm shift - turning the focus from the finite to the Infinite. Gradually, the person proceeds on to Godliness.

share|improve this answer

The question is a classic example of circular reasoning.

Origin of PURPOSE

Middle English purpos, from Anglo-French, from purposer to intend, propose, from Latin proponere (perfect indicative proposui) to propose — more at propound First Known Use: 14th century

I cite this so as to interchangeably use 'purpose' and 'intent'.

Now the hidden tautology in the sentence form:

I want to create humans, because x.

is the fact, what is x? The statement "I want to create humans" can be rewritten as "I intend to create humans" or "There is an intention behind creation of humans" and thus the subsequent ",because x" begs the question really, since the phrase 'want to create' encapsulates the concept of purpose.

share|improve this answer

First, you have framed your question wrong. What does creationism vs evolutionism have to do with the 2nd part of your question? You are implying that if you have a creation, you must have a God. Second, that if you have evolution there is no God. Why cannot you have evolution and a God? You are also accepting a fallacy in the creationists argument. As described by Stephen Jay Gould (I think it was in either in one of 2 of his books, either Hens Teeth and Horses Toes, or Eight Little Piggies), that he says there is evolutionary fact and evolutionary theory. The creationists like to mix the 2 together evolutionary fact together with evolutionary theory. There is the fact that when we dig deeper and dig into older and older strata of rock, life becomes simpler and simpler. Then there is evolutionary theory, which is the explanation of these physical discoveries.

Further, these are artifical limitations. In the Hindu religion, no matter what the philosophical bent, monistic to dualistic, they all agree there is a God, and they all agree that there is no creation - the universe is projected out of God. The actual original Sanskrit word is projection. According to the monists, the universe does not exist, we are seeing God, but we don't see it as God. The world is God and is real, but that is not the world we see, just as we see silver in the mother of pearl where it is not. We see Reality, but mistake it for something which it is not.

Second, evolution was described in one of the early Hindu scriptures, in the Sankhya philosophy. Patanjali holds that the transformation of one species into another is effected by the "in-filling of nature" Evolutionary theory exists in some of the oldest recorded scriptures.

Finally, Why did God create the universe? There is no concept of creation in Eastern philosophy. Creation is a Judeo-Christian concept. Eastern philosophy says that that what we see as the universe is a 'projection'. What we see as the universe is a projection of God. You can't create something out of nothing, there is no logic in that. To see the universe as it truly is - God - is what is meant by enlightenment. The projection always was and always will be - it has no beginning and no end. It is eternal. You were born in a human body and your senses have been bombarding your mind since birth that what you senses present to your mind is real. The illusion is eternal, to escape the illusion is what is meant by enlightenment - to become aware of your true nature. When you achieve this you see the world as God, not what your senses have been mistakenly seeing it as. Control the mind, cut off the senses.

To ask why God created the world or why there is a projection is not a question that can be posed outside the sensual world. There is no why. "Why" only exists in the world of time space and causation. God is beyond the sensual world of time space and causation. For God to have a 'why' implies that God has a purpose in the creation - or projection - of the world, for God to have a purpose implies that God is not perfect. The syntax of your sentence is correct - Why did God create the world? - but good syntax does not imply good logic.

share|improve this answer

What is the purpose of the universe? The purpose of the universe was created for conscious beings. Created by a conscious being; and will be used by conscious beings at presant and into the future. Humans will have the conscious ability one thousand years from now to create a universe.

share|improve this answer

We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer; explain why your answer is right, ideally with citations. Answers that don't include explanations may be removed.

Wikipedia says

In Islam, man's ultimate life objective is to worship the creator Allah by abiding by the Divine guidelines revealed in the Qur'an and the Tradition of the Prophet. Earthly life is merely a test, determining one's afterlife, either in Jannat (Paradise) or in Jahannam (Hell).

For Allah's satisfaction, via the Qur'an, all Muslims must believe in God, his revelations, his angels, his messengers, and in the "Day of Judgment". The Qur'an describes the purpose of creation as follows: "Blessed be he in whose hand is the kingdom, he is powerful over all things, who created death and life that he might examine which of you is best in deeds, and he is the almighty, the forgiving" (Qur'an 67:1–2) and "And I (Allâh) created not the jinn and mankind except that they should be obedient (to Allah)." (Qur'an 51:56). Obedience testifies to the oneness of God in his lordship, his names, and his attributes. Terrenal life is a test; how one acts (behaves) determines whether one's soul goes to Jannat (Heaven) or to Jahannam (Hell).

The Five Pillars of Islam are duties incumbent to every Muslim; they are: Shahadah (profession of faith); Salah (praying 5 times a day); Zakah (charity); Sawm (fasting during Ramadan), and Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca). They derive from the Quran & the Hadith, notably of Sahih Al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.

I want to add also that, It is beyond the reach of created things about fully understand it's creators plan.

Another point is : Allah created this universe for showing his mercy, power and incomparable correctness, and free from any inconsistency in artistic creation, so that all the created beings can understand his blessings over them.

As He said in the Holy Quran:

You do not see in the creation of the Most Merciful any inconsistency. So return [your] vision [to the sky]; do you see any breaks? [Al-Quran:67:3] and Then return [your] vision twice again. [Your] vision will return to you humbled while it is fatigued. [Al-Quran:67:4]

share|improve this answer

The most core on our awareness are two:

  • in, it means: "i need something", and it's our ego (domination)
  • out, it means: "i share something" and it's our capability

Since God has awareness and i don't know for sure whether God has more than two distinctions as i mentioned, therefore according to both of those:

  • in => God creates human to surrender to God

    • God is dominant, therefore we will experience an event that represent "dominant": having kingdom, palace, army, command, hierarchy and similar to these
    • and many more
  • out => God creates human to make human having capability to aware and feel about how God is.

    • God is strong, therefore we will experience any event that represent "strong": touching steel, feeling strong, experience anything related to power and similar to these
    • God is soft, therefore we will experience any event that represent "soft": touching anything that soft, feeling soft, experience anything related to soft and similar to these
    • God is super smart, therefore we will experience any event that represent "smart": thinking, experience anything related to smart and similar to these
    • and many more

And God creates universe to support all of those events

But, if someone argue:

  • why should we understand God?
  • why should we consider ourselves understand God?
  • do we think we are at the level as God?
  • do we have capability to understand something (that can be considered) bigger than us?
  • isn't that lowering God to our level?
  • and many more similar to these ...

    If that so, how could we answer the question, since universe and ourselves is the closest to our thinking? It's meaningless and it should be followed by not questioning about God Using ourselves or anything as comparison are make sense (not in many cases, but permitted), since those are the closer way to learn on something.

    Or, do we have to think using modality that came from outside our capability to think of?

If we believe God should exist, or anything should exist on our reality, God or anything should be continued to our reality, and we can track that existence or any facts through any starting points.

Since, the answer for this question is debatable, then we should accept any possible thinking of it, or denial should be asserted with argument.

share|improve this answer

1- assume God exist.

2- as Joseph Weissman said:

It seems the only chance we might have here to truly provide an answer would be direct revelation.

3- God not necessarily like human and there is no need to God have purpose at all. it can be nature of God to create. for example assume one is donor naturally. when he donates to a poor, you may ask him: what is your purpose of donation? he replies: this is me! I have no purpose. its like asking what is purpose of sky for being blue?

4- according to Islam purpose of God for creating is to God be known. there is a Hadith (sayings of prophet) in Islam that God said to prophet:

I was a hidden treasure so I willed to be known.

it means for knowing God, human was selected and as human is not capable of knowing God, only can know God by knowing attributes of God like power, knowledge,... so God created universe with a set of good properties in it like knowledge, power, love, beauty,... to using them human can know God. life and universe is to human can understand what are attributes of God to using them then can know God. also in Islam it is said worship is needed to human can know God. i.e. worshiping is like homework of student or exercises of a sport man to get ready for a higher goal (which is knowing God). worshiping is mentioned in Quran as a purpose of creating human. but Islamic philosophers say it is a middle goal for a higher goal (knowing God)

share|improve this answer

Though I'm no way a philosopher, allow me to share my own answer to this question.

In your search of an answer, you started with an assumption that there's a God then you couldn't find an answer for "Why?". This is very logic, because you didn't know Him so sure you cannot understand why He did/does so. If there's a god, so sure He will explain his will & rules & goals & outcomes of this life and what should we expect after. If we cannot see him everyday or anywhere -like my CEO :)- so sure He'll send a message or messenger to convey His words. Otherwise, He's just playing!!! Considering how huge this universe is, and it has been created solely by an Almighty God, so there's no way to be that trivial & just having fun! Sure He has a proper message and reason for this, otherwise he is not wise enough! Which contradicts with his massive knowledge.

For me, it's not logic that life came from an explosion because simply explosion needs ingredients to explode at first place. Hence, it's not possible also to say that life came from nowhere because everything we know in life has a source & owner & life-cycle! Only in religions, you can find that there's only One who says I came from nowhere and I created this life and here you are lots of evidences. But It's not that simple though :) Because you know there are many religions & all of them claim to be the Truth! So finding the correct answer is really difficult. We can use the search for a needle in haystack as a metaphor. You may not find it & You'll claim that there's no needle here and you may be just lucky and find it just under your feet, or may be you are still lucky and find it after a long search & you'll be very happy that your search came to result. The real only true answer will be revealed by end of the test (life) like all exams.

The complement to this, If I assumed the opposite that there's no God or purpose, then who care?! If this is my belief, I would do whatever I like to do regardless if it has purpose or benefit or not. If this massive universe doesn't have a purpose why should I?! Why should I care to do the right? and who dares to tell me what's right or wrong?! may be what you think is right, is wrong from my point of view? or at least I'm "free" I want to do the wrong things.. You know, life is short & I want to enjoy since there's nothing after to care about when I die! ----> I believe this kind of thinking sure will generate a great mess which I actually see in communities with similar believes.

share|improve this answer

I have what they call it here "personal philosophy" (but it is partially confirmed by my observations and interpretation of those observations) that there exists the general law of nature, which could be expressed in short as: "The development is Nature is driven by the necessity to gain knowledge of itself" See http://operettalover.wordpress.com/article/alexander-r-povolotsky-quantitative-1sykrr8i661bq-2/

share|improve this answer

A compromise most folks have missed is Hegalianism or (Dialecticalism in the sense of Marx).

The purpose of creation supposed by Hegel is working out the conformance of the ideal world and the material world. Evolution is the consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and ideas are injected into our material world from God as the result of Evolution (in a slightly more general sense than Darwin's). But the overall sweep of history is God injecting himself more and more explicitly into reality and conforming himself to the material.

It is extremely anthropomorphic, but it captures what a lot of history and psychology mark out as the purpose of human life.

share|improve this answer

Our conscious (the way we think) is a unity of particles(molecules and smaller particles) so basically your way of thinking : logic,behavior,philosophy ... everything is just a complex motion of particles so if we assume God exists and he made us his consciousness will be far more comlpex than others = the unity of particles and the way they move will be more big and complex so i guess we will never imagine the way God think the logic,the meaning ,...

We can't understand this complex consciousness due to our lack of complexity

share|improve this answer
1  
Whose opinion is this? If yours, this site isn't the place to just ventilate it. If another's, please provide references. –  Camil Staps Sep 18 '13 at 22:41
    
the opinion about God and the way he would think is mine but the facts that everything is just a complex gravitation of particles is the physics laws humanity have constructed so far –  Flux Sep 18 '13 at 23:19
1  
Hi Flux, sorry for the frosty welcome. @CamilStaps somehow missed that we should review first posts of new users and help them learn to use the site. However, this question is old and already has many answers, and I have the impression that the essential content of your answer was already present in the heavily up-voted comment by Joseph Weissman: "You seem to assume we could comprehend God's purpose or plan". Perhaps you should keep in mind that this is primary a question and answer site, and another answer without any significant new insight to a two year old question isn't much help. –  Thomas Klimpel Sep 23 '13 at 22:28

Considering that holy texts (whatever major religion) are consistent, and that humans are required to pray/praise etc., you can easily see the reason: a narcissistic one. Not that I agree myself with the premise about consistency.

share|improve this answer
    
Troll harder... –  Juann Strauss Jul 19 '13 at 10:44

Creationism: your question already shows a god created in your own image and understanding - why just 'he/she' and leave off 'it/them/etc'. .
Really, instead of asking "I want to create humans, because x" the question would be better phrased "humans wanted to create god/s, because Y" - it is much easier to formulate answers to this query when you consider humanities primitive origins, and the urge to make sense of a very hostile environment (yet lacking the science to offer real answers). -bryce.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.