Biblical proof God doesn't exist

[shnarkle]

Just what do the biblical authors mean by "God" anyways? We all know that all gods are imaginary, right? So what makes the biblical god any different than, oh let's say the 330 million deities that populate the Hindu pantheon of gods?

Well for starters, the biblical authors distinguish their "God" from the rest by pointing out that if you're imagining anything about "God", you're not imagining God at all. You're just looking at the product of your own imagination. They even have a word for it. They call it idolatry.

An idol is any object that is viewed as a god itself. In other words, the biblical authors don't believe in objectifying "God" at all. They can imagine all sorts of gods just like the next guy, and they can admit that these gods are all imaginary. In fact, they would be the first to point out that they aren't gods at all. They're simply imaginary ideas. That's not what they mean by "God", and whatever meanings or definitions they do come up with aren't God either. They're just meanings and definitions for the word "God", which they will be the first to admit is simply a symbol for its meaning. Again, words and meanings are not gods; they're words with associated meanings.

Paul also points out that Christ isn't God when he refers to him as "the image of the invisible God"(Col.1:15). The word he uses for "image" is the Greek "eikon" which is where we get words like 'icon';"iconography"; "iconoclastic" etc. An icon should not be confused with an idol. As noted previously, an idol is worshipped as god, but an icon is a representation of God, and representations are not gods themselves.

Some would hasten to note that these two terms are synonymous, but this is only in relation to "things", and the biblical authors don't include God as any thing.

Given that the word "God" is essentially undefinable, unimaginable, and unknowable, thats what Jesus represents. He is an immanent representation of transcendence.

The biblical authors have a name for their "God" which they call "YHVH" which means "I will be", or "I will be what I will be", and what will be doesn't exist. Potentiality is not actuality.

They use words like "incomparable" or "there is none beside me". In other words, there is no referent for transcendence. There is no essential difference between the word "God" and nothing. There is no referent for God other than the word "God" itself.

The New Testament's gospel of John points out essentially the same thing. The introduction doesn't begin with "in the beginning was God". Why? Because God doesn't exist. He begins with "in the beginning was the word". That's all there is to begin with.

He then continues by pointing out that everything that exists is created(vs. 3), and at no time does he or anyone else ever suggest that God is created. Therefore, for those who are lacking even rudimentary reading comprehension skills, it logically follows that God doesn't exist. This is especially so given that the biblical authors view the objective world as the created world. So by definition, God can't objectively exist in the created world.

Paul reaffirms this in his letter to the Corinthians when he points out that God is the origin (not to be confused or conflated with "beginning") of all that exists while Christ is the means by which everything exists (1 Corinthians 8:6).

For those who insist in asking the question, "Who created God?, Paul's argument refutes that by pointing out that the origin of existence cannot logically exist without creating an infinite regression. So he has simultaneously admitted that God doesn't exist and denied the need for an infinte regression.

[Divine Insight]

Just what do the biblical authors mean by "God" anyways? We all know that all gods are imaginary, right? So what makes the biblical god any different than, oh let's say the 330 million deities that populate the Hindu pantheon of gods?

Well for starters, the biblical authors distinguish their "God" from the rest by pointing out that if you're imagining anything about "God", you're not imagining God at all. You're just looking at the product of your own imagination. They even have a word for it. They call it idolatry.

Wrong Taoism is the religion that claims that God cannot be known.

If some of the authors of the Bible have made this claim then this only places then in grave contradiction with what other authors within the Bible have claimed. So all we end up with in this case is an inconsistent undependable and contradictory theology.

An idol is any object that is viewed as a god itself. In other words, the biblical authors don't believe in objectifying "God" at all.

Sorry but that is inconsistent with the first commandment of the Ten Commandments that we are supposed to place no other Gods before this God. If there is no meaningful definition for this God then it would be utterly meaningless to make such a commandment.

They can imagine all sorts of gods just like the next guy, and they can admit that these gods are all imaginary. In fact, they would be the first to point out that they aren't gods at all. They're simply imaginary ideas. That's not what they mean by "God", and whatever meanings or definitions they do come up with aren't God either. They're just meanings and definitions for the word "God", which they will be the first to admit is simply a symbol for its meaning. Again, words and meanings are not gods; they're words with associated meanings.

So if we think of "God" in this way then it would be impossible to place any gods before any other gods because they would all be equally undefined.

So once again, the first of the Ten Commandments invalidates your claim that this could be applied to the Biblical God.

Given that the word "God" is essentially undefinable, unimaginable, and unknowable, thats what Jesus represents. He is an immanent representation of transcendence.

But if Jesus represented this supposedly undefinable, unimaginable, and unknowable God then Jesus could not have described what this God expects from anyone or even what this unimaginable God thinks. But Jesus did just the opposite and tried to claim all manner of things by claiming that he was speaking the words of this God.

So that analogy doesn't work. By representing God Jesus would have violated the anonymity that you are attempting to assign to the God.

Paul reaffirms this in his letter to the Corinthians when he points out that God is the origin (not to be confused or conflated with "beginning") of all that exists while Christ is the means by which everything exists (1 Corinthians 8:6).

And now you've just placed Christ as God by claiming that Christ is the means by which everything exists.

For those who insist in asking the question, "Who created God?, Paul's argument refutes that by pointing out that the origin of existence cannot logically exist without creating an infinite regression. So he has simultaneously admitted that God doesn't exist and denied the need for an infinte regression.

So what are you trying to say?

That the Bible was written FIRST by a bunch of men who claimed that God does exist and gives direct commandments to men even coming down to a mountain and carving his laws in stone tablets.

And then much LATER the authors of the NEW Testament have become Taoists and start claiming that God doesn't exist at all except in Jesus? A contradictory claim right there.

Sorry, I don't think your led zeppelin is going to get off the ground.

At the very best all you can argue for is that the some of the authors of the New Testament where Taoists.

But your arguments will never hold up when examining what the authors of the Old Testament had to say. They had God carving his commandments in stone. How are you going to explain that away by claiming that the Biblical God doesn't exist?

And have you forgotten about the story of Adam and Eve and the rib an so forth?

You seem to be just focused on a couple things that Paul and John said. That's far too little too late to be saving this ancient religion. The authors of the Old Testament had already created a "Real God" who does "Real Things". It's too late to try to erase that now.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Taoism is the religion that claims that God cannot be known.

So does Paul. He actually starts out to say that we can know God, but then corrects himself by saying, "or rather we are known of God.."

When the biblical authors point out that "God's ways are not our ways...", or describe God as "incomparable" etc., they are pointing out that God cannot be known. Taoism doesn't have a monopoly on truth, or unknowable gods. Paul also preached to pagans by pointing to the alter they erected to "The Unknown god". See how that works? Paul doesn't have to pretend that unknown gods are the sole property of the people of Israel, and I suspect Lao Tzu would say the same thing.

In other words, one needn't be a Taoist to have no knowledge of God.

If some of the authors of the Bible have made this claim then this only places then in grave contradiction with what other authors within the Bible have claimed.

Not if the other authors are familiar with those other authors and understand what they are saying. Then they can be seen not only agreeing with them, but continuing to affirm the fact that God doesn't exist.

So all we end up with in this case is an inconsistent undependable and contradictory theology.

This is what many end up with, but not 'us'. This is definitely what you end up with, but that isn't because of what the texts are saying, but because that is how you choose to interpret them.

An idol is any object that is viewed as a god itself. In other words, the biblical authors don't believe in objectifying "God" at all.

Sorry but that is inconsistent with the first commandment of the Ten Commandments that we are supposed to place no other Gods before this God. If there is no meaningful definition for this God then it would be utterly meaningless to make such a commandment.

No need to apologize. It's easy to become confused when conflating what one imagines when there's nothing to imagine in the first place. You seem to be ignoring the fact that whatever one imagines is meaningful, and they have clearly pointed out that it isn't possible to imagine nothing. Perhaps it would be easier to understand if we look at the fact that it doesn't take much of an imagination to imagine nothing. If we take it to its logical conclusion, one simply ceases from imagining such things to begin with. There is nothing to imagine.

They can imagine all sorts of gods just like the next guy, and they can admit that these gods are all imaginary. In fact, they would be the first to point out that they aren't gods at all. They're simply imaginary ideas. That's not what they mean by "God", and whatever meanings or definitions they do come up with aren't God either. They're just meanings and definitions for the word "God", which they will be the first to admit is simply a symbol for its meaning. Again, words and meanings are not gods; they're words with associated meanings.

So if we think of "God" in this way then it would be impossible to place any gods before any other gods because they would all be equally undefined.

No, because you're still thinking of "God" as if God exists. Just because these authors point out that there is no such thing as what can't be imagined, it doesn't then follow that it is impossible to be an idolater.

It needs to be pointed out that one cannot "think of 'God'". Thoughts exist as thoughts, and while one may think of many things, none of the things one may think of are what they are thinking of. They are simply the thoughts of those things, and God is not any thing. You are simply pretending that no thing is some thing. That is the only contradiction you need concern yourself with. Once you can see that error in your argument, it should all fall into place.

So once again, the first of the Ten Commandments invalidates your claim that this could be applied to the Biblical God.

And just what do you think I'm applying to the biblical God? If I point out that the biblical God doesn't exist, there is nothing that can be applied in the first place.

if Jesus represented this supposedly undefinable, unimaginable, and unknowable God then Jesus could not have described what this God expects from anyone or even what this unimaginable God thinks. But Jesus did just the opposite and tried to claim all manner of things by claiming that he was speaking the words of this God.

The authors would go so far as to portray Christ as the word of God, but you're still missing out on what he actually says which is that he only does what he see's the father doing, and he then does what? He manifests self denial. He negates his own existence. How does that point to a god that exists?

Jesus essentially points out that there is only "the way", and the way is true as well as life itself.

Paul reaffirms this in his letter to the Corinthians when he points out that God is the origin (not to be confused or conflated with "beginning") of all that exists while Christ is the means by which everything exists (1 Corinthians 8:6).

And now you've just placed Christ as God by claiming that Christ is the means by which everything exists.

According to your ideas of God which I am not presenting. If one keeps in mind that your ideas are not in any way, shape, or form close to who or what God is, but are just ideas; then we can look at the fact that Paul is distinguishing between God and Christ; rather than conflating the two. When he further points out that "God" is the origin of all that exists, logic dictates that God cannot exist without creating an infinite regression.

So what are you trying to say?

I'm saying that your assumptions are false as well as the conclusions you draw from them.

the Bible was written FIRST by a bunch of men who claimed that God does exist

They came up with a name (e.g."I will be") that is about the most clear evidence one can imagine that God can't exist.

At the very best all you can argue for is that the some of the authors of the New Testament where Taoists.

This is neither here nor there. Your labels don't negate my argument. If a Taoist and a Christian are indistinguishable one from another, it doesn't matter what you call them.

They had God carving his commandments in stone. How are you going to explain that away by claiming that the Biblical God doesn't exist?

Simply by pointing out the easily identifiable figures of speech employed by the authors. Present the passage in question, and I will provide you with the figure used and prove why it is that figure and not any other figure.

And have you forgotten about the story of Adam and Eve and the rib an so forth?

No, are you going to make a point, or just toss some more pointless irrelevant references with no explanation?

You seem to be just focused on a couple things that Paul and John said.

Not really. I'm pointing out things that they said that most people tend to ignore, hence my reason for spotlighting them.

That's far too little too late to be saving this ancient religion.

I am in no way attempting to save any religion. I am simply pointing out that the biblical authors understood that potentiality can't be manifest, and that no thing is potential.

The authors of the Old Testament had already created a "Real God" who does "Real Things". It's too late to try to erase that now.

I'm not erasing anything. You're welcome to keep all of your gods. I'm just pointing out that they're nothing but creations of your own imagination, including the ones you imagined in the bible.

You're not alone, most Christians imagine that these authors are actually asking their audience to believe that these gods exist as well, but they clearly are doing no such thing. Your preconceived ideas are just that; preconcieved ideas. The way you tell it, clearly indicates this is what you were taught. It's the standard script I hear from most Christians everyday so it's no surprise you still have these latent ideas.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Taoism is the religion that claims that God cannot be known.

So does Paul. He actually starts out to say that we can know God, but then corrects himself by saying, "or rather we are known of God.."

You've already shot yourself in your own foot right there. No need to read any more of your post.

In the OP you said:

Well for starters, the biblical authors distinguish their "God" from the rest by pointing out that if you're imagining anything about "God", you're not imagining God at all.

You're wrong on both counts.

1. This wouldn't distinguish the Biblical God from the rest since other religions make the same claim about their Gods.

2. You're also wrong when you claim that the Biblical authors in general do this. Thus far all you have pointed to was Paul and John. But clearly the authors of the Old Testament on not in agreement with that view.

So you're beating a dead horse here.

See SallyF's posts in this thread What distinguishes Non-Fundamental Christian beliefs?

You need to actually read the Bible if you are going to debate it.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Taoism is the religion that claims that God cannot be known.

So does Paul. He actually starts out to say that we can know God, but then corrects himself by saying, "or rather we are known of God.."

You've already shot yourself in your own foot right there. No need to read any more of your post.

It would seem more like you've shot yourself in the head because, this doesn't even address what I posted, much less refute it.

the biblical authors distinguish their "God" from the rest by pointing out that if you're imagining anything about "God", you're not imagining God at all.

1. This wouldn't distinguish the Biblical God from the rest since other religions make the same claim about their Gods.

I'm not referring to those who say the exact same thing. I'm referring to those who are by the biblical definition; idolaters. If others believe the same thing, then there is no difference in their beliefs. The biblical authors never claim that they're the only ones who are making this claim. Nor am I suggesting that they are the only ones who understand that the product of one's imagination isn't "God".

2. You're also wrong when you claim that the Biblical authors in general do this.

I'm not only correct in my claim, I provided evidence to support it. Are you going to provide anything other than, "You're also wrong..."?

Thus far all you have pointed to was Paul and John. But clearly the authors of the Old Testament on not in agreement with that view.

Here again, it should come as no surprise that not only have you not read the rest of my post, you haven't bothered to read the biblical texts either as they clearly point out that whatever you imagine about God isn't actually about God at all. The imaginations of idolaters are what make them idolaters in the first place.

[Divine Insight]

I'm not only correct in my claim, I provided evidence to support it. Are you going to provide anything other than, "You're also wrong..."?

I already did. I gave you the entire Old Testament what more do you want? Surely you don't expect me to copy and paste the entire Old Testament here?

You know where to find it.

Thus far all you have pointed to was Paul and John. But clearly the authors of the Old Testament on not in agreement with that view.

Here again, it should come as no surprise that not only have you not read the rest of my post, you haven't bothered to read the biblical texts either as they clearly point out that whatever you imagine about God isn't actually about God at all. The imaginations of idolaters are what make them idolaters in the first place.

If it makes people idolaters to imagine what their God is like, then the authors of the Old Testament are the greatest idolaters of all.

Moreover, I have no clue who you are talking about when you speak of idolators. Only theists can be idolaters. A person who sees no reason to believe in any Gods cannot be an idolater.

I don't "imagine" a God to worship. As a philosopher I can certainly speculate what the term "God" should mean. In fact, I don't even need to speculate. I'm pretty sure the term has already been defined in many dictionaries.

Yes, here's a couple definitions for you.

1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being

2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity

So there you go. Two definitions of the human-invented word spelled G-O-D.

I'm sure we could find many more definitions with very little effort.

So you are trying to argue that Paul and John have parted ways with the original Biblical description of their God.

I won't argue with that. But that hardly erases the fact that the authors of the Old Testament saw their "God" as a supreme ruler who interacted with Adam and Eve, cause plagues to befall the Egyptians. Parted the waters for escaping Jewish slaves, etc, etc, etc,

Let's not forget about Noah and the Ark adventure too.

If you are trying to argue that the Bible is trying to say that there is no "God" or that their God somehow doesn't exist I think you are barking up a very tall tree.

Go convince the Christians. When you have them all on board flocking behind you as obedient sheep let me know. I give your arguments another peek.

Until then, I don't see anything but a few hairs on the spot on the ground you are beating were there might have once been a dead horse. I don't think that horse is going to get back up and draw your cart.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 6 by Divine Insight]

I gave you the entire Old Testament what more do you want? Surely you don't expect me to copy and paste the entire Old Testament here?

You forgot to give me evidence that proves your fundamentalist interpretation is correct along with it. Here's just a few passages from the old and new testament that prove the distinction between "God" and idols.

Genesis 16:13; Joshua 3:10; 1 Samuel 17:26, 1 Samuel 17:36; Jeremiah 10:9-10, Hebrews 3:12 9:14 etc.

The term "living" was given to the true God to distinguish him from idols, that are dead, or lifeless blocks and stones. He is also the Source of life, temporal, spiritual, and eternal which I already pointed out, and you have already admitted you ignored. So much for exhibiting any genuine desire to debate the issue.

As a teacher, there is a certain sense of satisfaction in revealing facts to the uneducated, but there is a point of diminishing returns when those you're engaging are already aware of the facts. Those teachers must remain in the lower grades to retain those rewards. For those of us who continue to learn, those rewards can only be provided to college and university level professors. They don't need to point out that mountains don't actually have faces with eyes that see or ears that hear in order to point out that the ancients also know how to employ figurataive speech in their writings.

Insisting that a writer doesn't know how to use figurative speech when they're quite proficient in that ability is one thing. Insisting that those you debate are ignorant of that fact is quite another. Evidently you're having trouble finding fundamentalist Christians to debate. I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but I'm not going to take their position just so you can feel good about yourself.

If it makes people idolaters to imagine what their God is like, then the authors of the Old Testament are the greatest idolaters of all.

If they were imagining what God is like, that would be true. Assuming they do doesn't make it so. It's the fallacy of Begging the Question. Given that they attach a name, which means "I will be"; to the source of existence should be your first clue that your position lacks evidence. Logic dictates that potential can only become manifest or actualized when it is no longer potential. The fact is that potential doesn't actually exist.

Moreover, I have no clue who you are talking about when you speak of idolators.

Considering your candor in admitting you didn't bother to read my post, this doesn't come as a big surprise. Fortunately for me, your lack of interest in pursuing a discussion relieves me of any need to copy and paste the commonly accepted definitions of the word.

Only theists can be idolaters.

Coming from someone who admittedly has no clue, and believes copying and pasting the Old Testament proves much of anything, one can see why you might make this assertion. You haven't specified any particular theist either. Given that the authors have pointed out that one's imagination is the defining characteristic of an idolater rather than being a theist, it stands to reason that we should pay a bit more attention to what they actually wrote rather than coming up with our own imaginary attributes for them.

A person who sees no reason to believe in any Gods cannot be an idolater.

Believe in what Gods? How does one disbelieve in a god that doesn't exist in the first place? The god you imagine can only be imagined by an idolater, and when that idolater ceases from believing in that god, he is still an idolater if he hasn't been able to see beyond his own imagination. Case in point: you.

I don't "imagine" a God to worship. As a philosopher I can certainly speculate what the term "God" should mean.

Coincidently, neither do the authors of the bible. Why are you so reluctant to extend that priviledge to anyone else? This is all the more bewildering when those you accuse of being theists, or idolators have supplied us with a name synonymous with potentiality as well as pointing out that only those who do employ their imagination can be idolaters.

While all their neighboring idolaters are busy bowing to objects that objectively exist, those who you seem to believe are no different have nothing to bow down to in the first place. See the difference yet? It makes all the difference in the world what meaning we attach to words, and how we use them. When the meaning provides us with no indication of actual existence, then we're left only with the word itself. The biblical authors supply a name to the source of existence, and personify it just like a mountain climber does to the "face" of a mountain. To then assume mountain climbers must worship mountains or that they believe in fairy tales quite simply doesn't follow. It would be like claiming to be a philosopher just because one is proficient in using logical fallacies.(':D')

In fact, I don't even need to speculate. I'm pretty sure the term has already been defined in many dictionaries.

Right, and the biblical authors point out that God is essentially indefinable. There is no referent for God so one can come up with all sorts of definitions, but none of them have any referent in the objective world. Hence, they're all just still in your mind.

So you are trying to argue that Paul and John have parted ways with the original Biblical description of their God.

It would appear you have already begun reading other topics in some other forum. No, I pointed out that they're in perfect agreement with each other as well as the Old Testament. It is likely that John was familiar with Paul's writings as they predate his by a few decades. Paul's point that God is the source of existence fits perfectly with John's introduction which points out that it is not God that was in the beginning, but "the word".

the authors of the Old Testament saw their "God" as a supreme ruler who interacted with Adam and Eve, cause plagues to befall

As the cause; sure. That's exactly what they point to; i.e. God as source, origin, and cause of all that happens in the world. No surprise there. That's exactly what they see going on. The fact that they embelish it somewhat notwithstanding, it doesn't negate my argument. It supports it.

I've noticed this in other topics as well. I post a topic for debate, and instead of arguments against what I'm posting, I get people agreeing with me. This one is particularly strange in that usually people have no problem agreeing that there is no God, but when I post a topic showing that the biblical authors agree, I get arguments that support my claims, but with conclusions that don't; strange.(':-s')

If you are trying to argue that the Bible is trying to say that there is no "God" or that their God somehow doesn't exist I think you are barking up a very tall tree.

If you somehow believe you're presenting an argument, you're not. Given that you're the only one to respond to this topic, and only to voice your opinion rather than present a viable argument shows that it's not going to be tough to bring this sapling down with more than a raised leg. (';)')

Go convince the Christians.

Why? Do you think they might actually present an argument?

When you have them all on board flocking behind you as obedient sheep let me know.

Why? are you really that dependant upon the actions of mindless sheep?

I give your arguments another peek.

Don't you mean their arguments? I can assure you, they will be unable to provide you with any evidence to support your argument that the authors believed in gods that actually or objectively existed. So while, you're correct in assuming that it is the fundamentalist Christians who will take the same position you have, it simply doesn't follow that they will be able to provide you with anything to help your argument. You might as well believe in these gods yourself.

The surprme irony here, one which is lost to most; is that I have not only proven that God doesn't exist, but supplied logic to prove God can't exist, and the best thing of all...I've use the bible to do it. (':study:')

This is anathema to "believers" for obvious reasons, but it's also likely to call down curses from the skeptics because: a. they can't refute me, and b. there's no point in asking anyone to supply proof that God exists when I've already proven that God can't exist. It's just flat out idiotic to continue with that charade when there is irrefutable proof that God can't exist in the first place.

The only options left are to pretend that all opponents in a debate are fundamentlist Christians, or to redefine the basic meaning of words. Beyond that, one must turn to other pursuits. Perhaps telling small children Santa Claus doesn't really exist, or pretending people believe in Santa Claus so we can feel (':(')

[William]

[Replying to post 1]

shnarkle: Just what do the biblical authors mean by "God" anyways? We all know that all gods are imaginary, right? So what makes the biblical god any different than, oh let's say the 330 million deities that populate the Hindu pantheon of gods?

Well for starters, the biblical authors distinguish their "God" from the rest by pointing out that if you're imagining anything about "God", you're not imagining God at all. You're just looking at the product of your own imagination. They even have a word for it. They call it idolatry.

William: Having read the bulk of this thread, it appears to me that you are arguing ... that GOD do not exist as an object rather than GOD does not exist at all.
Would this be a correct assessment of your argument?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 1]

shnarkle: Just what do the biblical authors mean by "God" anyways? We all know that all gods are imaginary, right? So what makes the biblical god any different than, oh let's say the 330 million deities that populate the Hindu pantheon of gods?

Well for starters, the biblical authors distinguish their "God" from the rest by pointing out that if you're imagining anything about "God", you're not imagining God at all. You're just looking at the product of your own imagination. They even have a word for it. They call it idolatry.

William: Having read the bulk of this thread, it appears to me that you are arguing ... that GOD do not exist as an object rather than GOD does not exist at all.
Would this be a correct assessment of your argument?

You are definitely on the right track William. I am posing the question to atheists from their own perspective.

[William]

William: Having read the bulk of this thread, it appears to me that you are arguing ... that GOD does not exist as an object rather than GOD does not exist at all.
Would this be a correct assessment of your argument, shnarkle?

shnarkle: You are definitely on the right track William. I am posing the question to atheists from their own perspective.

William: I see. You will perhaps need to find a way in which to attract non-theists who are not conflicted (have resolved their conflicts) regarding religion in general?

I think though, that you are on the right track as far as subject goes...I have been saying as much - in my own way - since I started writing on this Message Board...the difficulty is in finding the right approach, which is even more difficult because there are different positions - often conflicting - so different approaches have to be developed in relation to that purpose...for indeed, it is a purpose.