Does God have Purpose? Would it's creation have purpose?

[boatsnguitars]

Premise 1: Every existing entity, including humans, necessitates a discernible explanation for its existence; otherwise, it falls into the category of Brute Fact, devoid of inherent reason for it's existence or purpose.

Premise 2: Brute Facts, by definition, lack discernible reasons or inherent explanations; they exist without an intelligible cause or purpose.

Premise 3: If humans are products of a Brute Fact, such as a conceptualized "God," the imposed purpose lacks inherent purpose itself.

Premise 4: A purpose imposed by a Brute Fact raises questions about the autonomy of entities in shaping their own purpose. (Rather than a Brute Fact - like an Atheistic Universe, or God's own existence - which would not impose a purpose on the things caused/created by it.)

Conclusion: Therefore, if humans are products of a Brute Fact, the imposed purpose lacks inherent purpose, and the autonomy of individuals to shape their own meaning is brought into question.

Note the difference between Imposed Purpose and Inherent Purpose.

Theists would argue that God imposes a purpose on it's creation, and that gives humans an imposed purpose. However, as we see, God has no purpose - can't have a purpose - as no one gave God a purpose, so if God gives us purpose it is for no deeper purpose other than God wanting it.
Also, if God has a self-imposed purpose, then he has denied that one, true free act to its Creation - we are all robots with the illusion of Free Will.

And, in fact, Theists try to argue that under Atheism, people can't have purpose because the Universe is purposeless. Atheists argue that we can make our own purpose - which is exactly what Theists would have to argue about God.

So, why do Theists prefer to be given a purpose (like to die of cancer to inspire people to give to cancer charities) and not create their own meaning in their life? Further, it appears that most religions teach that the purpose of human life is to praise God - which is a purpose he created for himself. This seems supremely selfish and seems to indicate that the writers of the religious text were needy, self-absorbed egoists.

Give the arguments presented, why do Theists feel that God provides Purpose to their lives, rather than it being an Atheistic world in which they've decided to follow a religion they feels gives them purpose?

[Diogenes]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #1]
The claims that 'God provides purpose' or that 'God gives man purpose' are empty claims.

They are similar, if not the same, as 'God has always been' or 'God has no beginning.' The claim of God providing purpose for living merely defers the question. It does not answer it. Whether one believes or does not, or avoids the question thru agnosticism, the question of purpose remains. No one can answer it by looking outward; each must answer it for themselves.

[The Tanager]

I know how that works, the Apologist gets the person to agree that if God exists, then morals are from God. You do this by appealing to a person's moral sense - like asking if raping kids is the same as ice cream - then when they agree that God must mean morals are objective, you switch as say, well, then the OT is right, too. How can you argue against God?!?!?!

Seen it all before...

Follow reason where it goes, even if you don’t like the ending rather than rejecting the reason because of the endpoint.

There is, and I've said it many times. You seem to forget everything I say and repeat your position.

There is an objective foundation for morals on atheism? Or there is objective purpose in atheism? Then share that.

Not knowing god, you can't know if raping kids is in the best interest of God.

Morality follows from how humans are made (nature and purpose), which needs some objective grounding. God can provide that; I don’t see anything in atheistic worldviews that do, but you are free to share you thoughts (if they are more than you already have).

[The Tanager]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #1]
The claims that 'God provides purpose' or that 'God gives man purpose' are empty claims.

They are similar, if not the same, as 'God has always been' or 'God has no beginning.' The claim of God providing purpose for living merely defers the question. It does not answer it. Whether one believes or does not, or avoids the question thru agnosticism, the question of purpose remains. No one can answer it by looking outward; each must answer it for themselves.

Can we not give objective purpose to the things we create, like computers? Don't they have objective purposes?

[Tcg]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #1]

All the gods have a purpose or else humans would not have invented them.


Tcg

[boatsnguitars]

There is, and I've said it many times. You seem to forget everything I say and repeat your position.

There is an objective foundation for morals on atheism? Or there is objective purpose in atheism? Then share that.

See? I've shared this many times. We've discussed it many times.

Are you OK?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #45]

Then neither of us have anything more to add and our posts can stand for themselves. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and letting me share mine.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #1]
The claims that 'God provides purpose' or that 'God gives man purpose' are empty claims.

They are similar, if not the same, as 'God has always been' or 'God has no beginning.' The claim of God providing purpose for living merely defers the question. It does not answer it. Whether one believes or does not, or avoids the question thru agnosticism, the question of purpose remains. No one can answer it by looking outward; each must answer it for themselves.

Can we not give objective purpose to the things we create, like computers? Don't they have objective purposes?

Computers are objects; tools.
Not autonomous beings.
It's troubling that you don't see a difference.
After all, knowing your belief about moral values, and the OT it doesn't seem much of a stretch to presume some people are born to be slaves; tools.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #47]

It’s troubling that you assume I don’t see that difference. That difference doesn’t make a difference for my point. Computers can and do have an objective purpose “built in”. Why? Because they are made by intentional agents for a purpose. That is the same way I’m saying God provides purpose for His creations, including us.

It’s also troubling that you continue to cast views on me that I don’t hold, such as that some people are born to be slaves and tools, and think you are being rational in doing so.

[William]

Philosopher 1. The claims that 'God provides purpose' or that 'God gives man purpose' are empty claims.

They are similar, if not the same, as 'God has always been' or 'God has no beginning.' The claim of God providing purpose for living merely defers the question. It does not answer it. Whether one believes or does not, or avoids the question thru agnosticism, the question of purpose remains. No one can answer it by looking outward; each must answer it for themselves.

Philosopher 2. Can we not give objective purpose to the things we create, like computers? Don't they have objective purposes?

Philosopher 3. All the gods have a purpose or else humans would not have invented them.


Philosopher 4. Computers are objects; tools.
Not autonomous beings.
It's troubling that you don't see a difference.
After all, knowing your belief about moral values, and the OT it doesn't seem much of a stretch to presume some people are born to be slaves; tools.

Philosopher 2. It’s troubling that you assume I don’t see that difference. That difference doesn’t make a difference for my point. Computers can and do have an objective purpose “built in”. Why? Because they are made by intentional agents for a purpose. That is the same way I’m saying God provides purpose for His creations, including us.

It’s also troubling that you continue to cast views on me that I don’t hold, such as that some people are born to be slaves and tools, and think you are being rational in doing so.


Philosopher 0. While "the question of purpose" remains I think one can answer it by looking both outward and inward but agree that each do indeed "answer the question for themselves" based upon examining the external and the internal and aligning those two positions that we human personalities are engaging with.

We can and do provide "objective purpose" to objective things as well as to subjective things - which is to say, we can externalize subjective things into the objective world/circumstance thus making a subjective thing into an objective purpose.

I agree that "all gods have a purpose" in that minds generally look for purpose and god's being mindful/minds with purpose which can enact purpose by creating things in which to do so but disagree that humans invented gods. I think the stories show discovery rather than invention is what occurred, although I also agree that inventions were made around about what was discovered and so one has to be careful in examining objectively sourced claims and also look for ways in which to allow for the God-Mind to subjectively reveal itself to one's Human-Mind (self/personality).

Where alignment occurs through that process, between the subjective and the objective, is where the relationship is found and understanding of purpose (in relation to both the human personality mind and God-Mind) is discovered/uncovered.

eta

Computer: In summary, the philosophers are exploring the nature of purpose, whether derived from a divine source or through human agency. They also touch upon the potential dehumanization in comparing humans to objects like computers and the complex interplay between subjective and objective aspects in understanding purpose.