Return to Answer

The presumptions in the question are incongruous.

The question first presumes a creator, but then presumes that such a being might be "addicted to admiration due to an ego weakness."

If there is a creator, it is a force or being mighty enough to have created the entire universe and all living things within it. It would have been capable of bringing everything into existence from nothing. Such a being would be in full command of all matter, all energy, and all laws of nature and physics. From the smallest sub-atomic particle, to DNA, to ocean tides, to planetary orbits, to uncountable galaxies. This would include the 96% of our universe consisting of dark matter and dark energy, as well as the quantum realm - bizarre things beyond current human understanding. (and possibly out of reach of our ability to ever fully comprehend...)

To presume that such a being might also have an "ego", or be afflicted any weakness at all, (as we define it...) especially simple human psychological disorders or addictions, is completely at odds with the first presumption of its existence.

Next, it is logical to presume that a person believing in the existence of a creator would seek to understand the nature of this being. And in doing so, that they would seek an explanation in the scriptures of traditional religions, and so come to believe that this being is knowable, and has communicated through revelations to various prophets throughout millennia, and would likely grow to believe and accept the theological reason at the heart of this question.

While skepticism is normal, discarding an entire worldview over not understanding the precise rationale behind the decision making process of a divine creator prior to the big bang doesn't fit within the reasonable thought processes of a believer.

Then there is the presumption that someone seeking glory does so because they might be "addicted to admiration due to an ego weakness". This is an unsubstantiated psychological diagnosis without any citations or real credibility. Oxford defines glory as "high renown or honor won by notable achievements." While it is likely that some people seek glory for the reason in question, to say that all do is a sweeping generality. Certainly many seek glory only as a healthy byproduct of success.

And finally, there is the presumption that motive determines greatness. Michael Phelps was a great swimmer, but the motives that drove him to Olympic competition glory are irrelevant. Whether for money, fame, or inward satisfaction, nothing can take away from the greatness of his achievements in the pool and the numerous gold medals he won.

Therefore, to seek to discredit the greatness of a divine creative entity due to questioning an uncertain motive in the context of a personal interpretation of human motives and behavior is both illogical and disingenuous.

The presumptions in the question are incongruous.

The question first presumes a creator, but then presumes that such a being might be "addicted to admiration due to an ego weakness."

If there is a creator, it is a force or being mighty enough to have created the entire universe and all living things within it. It would have been capable of bringing everything into existence from nothing. Such a being would be in full command of all matter, all energy, and all laws of nature and physics. From the smallest sub-atomic particle, to DNA, to ocean tides, to planetary orbits, to uncountable galaxies. This would include the 96% of our universe consisting of dark matter and dark energy, as well as the quantum realm - bizarre things beyond current human understanding. (and possibly out of reach of our ability to ever fully comprehend...)

To presume that such a being might also have an "ego", or be afflicted any weakness at all, (as we define it...) especially simple human psychological disorders or addictions, is completely at odds with the first presumption of its existence.

Next, it is logical to presume that a person believing in the existence of a creator would seek to understand the nature of this being. And in doing so, that they would seek an explanation in the scriptures of traditional religions, and so come to believe that this being is knowable, and has communicated through revelations to various prophets throughout millennia, and would likely grow to believe and accept the theological reason at the heart of this question.

While skepticism is normal, discarding an entire worldview over not understanding the precise rationale behind the decision making process of a divine creator prior to the big bang doesn't fit within the reasonable thought processes of a believer.

Then there is the presumption that someone seeking glory does so because they might be "addicted to admiration due to an ego weakness". This is an unsubstantiated psychological diagnosis without any citations or real credibility. Oxford defines glory as "high renown or honor won by notable achievements." While it is likely that some people seek glory for the reason in question, to say that all do is a sweeping generality. Certainly many seek glory only as a healthy byproduct of success.

And finally, there is the presumption that motive determines greatness. Michael Phelps was a great swimmer, but the motives that drove him to Olympic competition glory are irrelevant. Whether for money, fame, or inward satisfaction, nothing can take away from the greatness of his achievements in the pool and the numerous gold medals he won.

Therefore, a believer who would seek to discredit the greatness of a divine creative entity due to questioning an uncertain motive in the context of a personal interpretation of human motives and behavior is illogical.

The presumptions in the question are incongruous.

The question first presumes a creator, but then presumes that such a being might be "addicted to admiration due to an ego weakness."

If there is a creator, it is a force or being mighty enough to have created the entire universe and all living things within it. It would have been capable of bringing everything into existence from nothing. Such a being would be in full command of all matter, all energy, and all laws of nature and physics. From the smallest sub-atomic particle, to DNA, to ocean tides, to planetary orbits, to uncountable galaxies. This would include the 96% of our universe consisting of dark matter and dark energy, as well as the quantum realm - bizarre things beyond current human understanding. (and possibly out of reach of our ability to ever fully comprehend...)

To presume that such a being might also have an "ego", or be afflicted any weakness at all, (as we define it...) especially simple human psychological disorders or addictions, is completely at odds with the first presumption of its existence.

Next, it is logical to presume that a person believing in the existence of a creator would seek to understand the nature of this being. And in doing so, that they would seek an explanation in the scriptures of traditional religions, and so come to believe that this being is knowable, and has communicated through revelations to various prophets throughout millennia, and would likely come to believe and accept the theological reason at the heart of this question.

While skepticism is normal, discarding an entire worldview over not understanding the precise rationale behind the decision making process of a divine creator prior to the big bang doesn't fit within the reasonable thought processes of a believer.

Then there is the presumption that someone seeking glory does so because they might be "addicted to admiration due to an ego weakness". This is an unsubstantiated psychological diagnosis without any citations or real credibility. Oxford defines glory as "high renown or honor won by notable achievements." While it is likely that some people seek glory for the reason in question, to say that all do is a sweeping generality. Certainly many seek glory only as a healthy byproduct of success.

And finally, there is the presumption that motive determines greatness. Michael Phelps was a great swimmer, but the motives that drove him to Olympic competition glory are irrelevant. Whether for money, fame, or inward satisfaction, nothing can take away from the greatness of his achievements in the pool and the numerous gold medals he won.

Therefore, to seek to discredit the greatness of a divine creative entity due to questioning an uncertain motive in the context of a personal interpretation of human motives and behavior is both illogical and disingenuous.

The presumptions in the question are incongruous.

The question first presumes a creator, but then presumes that such a being might be "addicted to admiration due to an ego weakness."

If there is a creator, it is a force or being mighty enough to have created the entire universe and all living things within it. It would have been capable of bringing everything into existence from nothing. Such a being would be in full command of all matter, all energy, and all laws of nature and physics. From the smallest sub-atomic particle, to DNA, to ocean tides, to planetary orbits, to uncountable galaxies. This would include the 96% of our universe consisting of dark matter and dark energy, as well as the quantum realm - bizarre things beyond current human understanding. (and possibly out of reach of our ability to ever fully comprehend...)

To presume that such a being might also have an "ego", or be afflicted any weakness at all, (as we define it...) especially simple human psychological disorders or addictions, is completely at odds with the first presumption of its existence.

Next, it is logical to presume that a person believing in the existence of a creator would seek to understand the nature of this being. And in doing so, that they would seek an explanation in the scriptures of traditional religions, and so come to believe that this being is knowable, and has communicated through revelations to various prophets throughout millennia, and would likely grow to believe and accept the theological reason at the heart of this question.

While skepticism is normal, discarding an entire worldview over not understanding the precise rationale behind the decision making process of a divine creator prior to the big bang doesn't fit within the reasonable thought processes of a believer.

Then there is the presumption that someone seeking glory does so because they might be "addicted to admiration due to an ego weakness". This is an unsubstantiated psychological diagnosis without any citations or real credibility. Oxford defines glory as "high renown or honor won by notable achievements." While it is likely that some people seek glory for the reason in question, to say that all do is a sweeping generality. Certainly many seek glory only as a healthy byproduct of success.

And finally, there is the presumption that motive determines greatness. Michael Phelps was a great swimmer, but the motives that drove him to Olympic competition glory are irrelevant. Whether for money, fame, or inward satisfaction, nothing can take away from the greatness of his achievements in the pool and the numerous gold medals he won.

Therefore, to seek to discredit the greatness of a divine creative entity due to questioning an uncertain motive in the context of a personal interpretation of human motives and behavior is both illogical and disingenuous.

The presumptions in the question are incongruous.

The question first presumes a creator, but then presumes that such a being might be "addicted to admiration due to an ego weakness."

If there is a creator, it is a force or being mighty enough to have created the entire universe and all living things within it. It would have been capable of bringing everything into existence from nothing. Such a being would be in full command of all matter, all energy, and all laws of nature and physics. From the smallest sub-atomic particle, to DNA, to ocean tides, to planetary orbits, to uncountable galaxies. This would include the 96% of our universe consisting of dark matter and dark energy, as well as the quantum realm - bizarre things beyond current human understanding. (and possibly out of reach of our ability to ever fully comprehend...)

To presume that such a being might also have an "ego", or be afflicted any weakness at all, (as we define it...) especially simple human psychological disorders or addictions, is completely at odds with the first presumption of its existence.

Therefore, to seek to discredit the greatness of such an entity due to questioning an unknowable motive in the context of a personal interpretation of human motives and behavior is both illogical and disingenuous.

The presumptions in the question are incongruous.

The question first presumes a creator, but then presumes that such a being might be "addicted to admiration due to an ego weakness."

If there is a creator, it is a force or being mighty enough to have created the entire universe and all living things within it. It would have been capable of bringing everything into existence from nothing. Such a being would be in full command of all matter, all energy, and all laws of nature and physics. From the smallest sub-atomic particle, to DNA, to ocean tides, to planetary orbits, to uncountable galaxies. This would include the 96% of our universe consisting of dark matter and dark energy, as well as the quantum realm - bizarre things beyond current human understanding. (and possibly out of reach of our ability to ever fully comprehend...)

To presume that such a being might also have an "ego", or be afflicted any weakness at all, (as we define it...) especially simple human psychological disorders or addictions, is completely at odds with the first presumption of its existence.

Next, it is logical to presume that a person believing in the existence of a creator would seek to understand the nature of this being. And in doing so, that they would seek an explanation in the scriptures of traditional religions, and so come to believe that this being is knowable, and has communicated through revelations to various prophets throughout millennia, and would likely come to believe and accept the theological reason at the heart of this question.

While skepticism is normal, discarding an entire worldview over not understanding the precise rationale behind the decision making process of a divine creator prior to the big bang doesn't fit within the reasonable thought processes of a believer.

Then there is the presumption that someone seeking glory does so because they might be "addicted to admiration due to an ego weakness". This is an unsubstantiated psychological diagnosis without any citations or real credibility. Oxford defines glory as "high renown or honor won by notable achievements." While it is likely that some people seek glory for the reason in question, to say that all do is a sweeping generality. Certainly many seek glory only as a healthy byproduct of success.

And finally, there is the presumption that motive determines greatness. Michael Phelps was a great swimmer, but the motives that drove him to Olympic competition glory are irrelevant. Whether for money, fame, or inward satisfaction, nothing can take away from the greatness of his achievements in the pool and the numerous gold medals he won.

Therefore, to seek to discredit the greatness of a divine creative entity due to questioning an uncertain motive in the context of a personal interpretation of human motives and behavior is both illogical and disingenuous.