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?

[The Tanager]

Assume I've already made those arguments as a Christian, then struggled with them, and then started arguing against them for about 25 years. Because I have.

The reason you struggle with answering so many of my specific questions is because those were the questions that plagued me as a Christian, and I had desperately searched for while trying to stay a Christian, and, now I'm simply asking those questions to Christians.

You are welcome to avoid answering all my questions, and not think hard about the issue. I don't care, but I think it's important everyone see how Apologist answers never measure up.

Avoid your questions? What am I avoiding? I’ll talk about any question or doubt because I struggled with them as a young Christian as well and they helped me tremendously, ever enlarging my view of God and His love. Your previous post shared general conclusions (apologetics don't measure up and vague assertions like that), they weren’t anything to specifically respond to and they didn’t describe my Christianity at all.

[boatsnguitars]

Assume I've already made those arguments as a Christian, then struggled with them, and then started arguing against them for about 25 years. Because I have.

The reason you struggle with answering so many of my specific questions is because those were the questions that plagued me as a Christian, and I had desperately searched for while trying to stay a Christian, and, now I'm simply asking those questions to Christians.

You are welcome to avoid answering all my questions, and not think hard about the issue. I don't care, but I think it's important everyone see how Apologist answers never measure up.

Avoid your questions? What am I avoiding? I’ll talk about any question or doubt because I struggled with them as a young Christian as well and they helped me tremendously, ever enlarging my view of God and His love. Your previous post shared general conclusions (apologetics don't measure up and vague assertions like that), they weren’t anything to specifically respond to and they didn’t describe my Christianity at all.

For example, I keep asking for specific qualities of OMVs. I ask for specific evidence of the Supernatural. I've asked for you to explain the philosophy behind something being able to create matter from non-matter. I've asked for specific processes you used to arrive at your conclusions, and you offer a general "I don't like echo chambers"(as if others do) and "I've used logic and reason" (as if others don't). 've asked for specific explanation on how God communicates to you, or your 'heroes' and how that differs from other religious people. I've asked for specifics on how God puts Life into stuff. I've asked for specifics on why you feel you've addressed both horns of Euthyphro when you haven't.

Perhaps we are fated to talk past each other, but I am convinced by this, at least: that you have not provided any compelling reason for me to reconsider my move from Theist to Atheist. I am not trying to turn you into an Atheist, so I don't feel any obligation to support my belief - other than showing that your position is not believable. Further, that your belief is no different than any other Theist: based on Faith, selective logic, etc.

I get frustrated, and I think religious thinking is horrible for humanity, but I don't fault you for it nor do I get angry at you personally, or Theists in general - other than the damage that is being wrought by Theists globally. But I understand Theism is a drug that is hard to kick.

Read through page 3 of this discussion. I've asked for specific examples of how you feel you've applied reason and logic to a subject you agree is irrational - and somehow have some to conclusions that some 70% of the globe disagrees with. But, far be it that I commit an ad populum fallacy, that most philosophers and scientists have not come to. And far be it that I commit an Argument from Authority fallacy, that have not been addressed in any number of posts, forums, philosophical papers, etc.

And, far be it from me to rely solely on your ability to explain your rationale, have you addressed the psychology of Belief? Have you provided methods to test your own belief - have you ever found yourself wrong about any of your religious beliefs that you can demonstrate by objective facts and not "I chose to interpret a passage differently, so that shows I'm willing to change my belief."

Go back over page 3 of this discussion.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #32]

First, I’ve tried to clarify if you are truly a subjectivist. Do you look at a Christian priest’s abuse of a little child and say “yep, that’s like the priest liking to eat cookie dough ice cream, while I don’t like the taste of it”? The answer to that question provides where the next step goes.

Second, I’ve given evidence of the supernatural to you in the Kalam. If you want to go through that step by step, let’s do it to see where you specifically disagree. (This includes your view question about how God creates matter from nothing, which I’ve shared why it isn’t relevant to the question the Kalam is addressing).

Third, I’ve shared specifics about my processes in discussions with you, such as trying to get you to follow along with the Kalam and analyze that. Yes, I read people who disagree with me and use logic and reason. You continue to assume I’m saying that means others don’t and I keep clarifying that I’m not. Obviously EVERYONE thinks their view is following logic and reason and that means others are not. You and me and everyone does this.

Fourth, I have shared how God communicates with me in prayer and study in ways that I know aren’t coming from me…but, as I’ve said, that is not provable to those outside, just like any subjective experience we all undergo (that you love person X, for example).

Fifth, I’ve addressed Euthyphro’s horn multiple times in different ways. One horn is arbitrariness. In my worldview, God isn’t arbitrarily deciding on whether murder is bad or not, God is loving by nature and, therefore, designs humans in a certain way where certain things are damaging to them. Being arbitrary would include not having a design or not following it. The other horn is a loss of sovereignty, but there is nothing outside of God that determines the way God should act. God doesn’t determine it either, but that’s not a loss of sovereignty.

Sixth, I welcome you trying to turn me into an atheist. Truth matters. If you want good for me and think atheism is true, then you should want to turn me into an atheist. You should especially want me to since you think religious thinking is horrible for humanity. As to my positions being based on Faith, that is so frustrating. I give you reasons for everything I believe. I can understand you believing I’m just not following logic that well, but that’s different than my beliefs being based on Faith. I never appeal to Faith; I appeal to reasons.

Seventh, I’m not sure what on page 3 you are referring to. What subject did I agree is irrational? What 70% thing are you talking about? Be specific instead of just saying read back over page 3; if I didn’t catch it the first read through, just help a brother out.

If you really want to have a conversation, then choose one thing to focus on at a time and let's have it. In detail, not sharing vague conclusions and all that. Where do you want to start?

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #32]

First, I’ve tried to clarify if you are truly a subjectivist. Do you look at a Christian priest’s abuse of a little child and say “yep, that’s like the priest liking to eat cookie dough ice cream, while I don’t like the taste of it”? The answer to that question provides where the next step goes.

It's shocking that after I have repeatedly pointed out that Theists seem to have no understanding of moral values, that you would continue to display a lack of understanding: That even if morals are subjective, you would equate raping a child with ice cream preference. As if that reductionist response exposes some flaw on my part and not yours.

In your mind, do you really think that raping a child is of the same type of moral issue as ice cream? Because if so, it explains a lot of the problems in the Catholic Church.

I imagine this comes from the Christian view that all sins are equal in God's (Christians) mind, so if you reduce morals to mere preferences they are all alike in your mind.

I know you will try to recover and say, "No! I'm saying under OMVs that rape is clearly worse than ice cream choice because God says so!"

But you haven't established that OMVs exist! Right now, it appears you are supporting the Catholic Church and saying, "under Subjective morals, raping kids and ice cream are equal - and we'd all want to rape children if we didn't choose a God to believe in."

Because the problem you still face is that you don't know if God doesn't like the rape of children. You don't know, but you do know he doesn't like people eating certain foods....

This angle you have taken is rather absurd, don't you think?

I'd really question why you feel that child rape is similar to ice cream preference. Are you as concerned about the harm to the ice cream as you are the child? Do you not recognize the rational difference between the two actions? I really must have you answer this:

If OMVs don't exist, can you not find reasons to not rape children?

[The Tanager]

It's shocking that after I have repeatedly pointed out that Theists seem to have no understanding of moral values, that you would continue to display a lack of understanding: That even if morals are subjective, you would equate raping a child with ice cream preference. As if that reductionist response exposes some flaw on my part and not yours.

In your mind, do you really think that raping a child is of the same type of moral issue as ice cream? Because if so, it explains a lot of the problems in the Catholic Church.

I imagine this comes from the Christian view that all sins are equal in God's (Christians) mind, so if you reduce morals to mere preferences they are all alike in your mind.

This has nothing to do with all sins being equal. It has nothing to do with those Christians who think we’d all be raping each other if we didn’t believe in God or even if God didn’t exist. Of course one would have reasons to not rape a child. I’m not saying any of that nonsense.

You think my critique is absurd because you are acting like an objectivist about morality but are trying to maintain that you believe in subjectivity in morals. The reason you are okay with people eating ice cream you don’t like is because you believe food taste is a subjective feature of reality. What tastes good to you and what tastes good to me is different, and that’s okay because there is no ultimate truth about what the best flavor of food is.

Yet, with morality, you don’t follow that same logic. That’s because you are acting like an objectivist. Only if there is a Truth about rape can one moral opinion be right or wrong. You claim to believe there is no Moral Truth (OMV), but feel that raping children is actually wrong in a way that it’s not wrong to eat pistachio ice cream (or whatever you dislike).

[boatsnguitars]

It's shocking that after I have repeatedly pointed out that Theists seem to have no understanding of moral values, that you would continue to display a lack of understanding: That even if morals are subjective, you would equate raping a child with ice cream preference. As if that reductionist response exposes some flaw on my part and not yours.

In your mind, do you really think that raping a child is of the same type of moral issue as ice cream? Because if so, it explains a lot of the problems in the Catholic Church.

I imagine this comes from the Christian view that all sins are equal in God's (Christians) mind, so if you reduce morals to mere preferences they are all alike in your mind.

This has nothing to do with all sins being equal. It has nothing to do with those Christians who think we’d all be raping each other if we didn’t believe in God or even if God didn’t exist. Of course one would have reasons to not rape a child. I’m not saying any of that nonsense.

You think my critique is absurd because you are acting like an objectivist about morality but are trying to maintain that you believe in subjectivity in morals. The reason you are okay with people eating ice cream you don’t like is because you believe food taste is a subjective feature of reality. What tastes good to you and what tastes good to me is different, and that’s okay because there is no ultimate truth about what the best flavor of food is.

Yet, with morality, you don’t follow that same logic. That’s because you are acting like an objectivist. Only if there is a Truth about rape can one moral opinion be right or wrong. You claim to believe there is no Moral Truth (OMV), but feel that raping children is actually wrong in a way that it’s not wrong to eat pistachio ice cream (or whatever you dislike).

As I said in another post:

Therefore, your position is that if God says raping kids is Good, you would be morally bound to rape kids?

[The Tanager]

As I said in another post:

Therefore, your position is that if God says raping kids is Good, you would be morally bound to rape kids?

That is not my position. Let me try another attempt to explain it. My position is that raping is bad because of the physical-emotional nature humans were made with (where we can be damaged in ways, like raping), as well as being given free will so that we are moral agents. God is responsible for those two things and that is how God grounds moral facts. If an Evil God made us in those exact same ways and then turned around and said “it’s okay to rape kids,” we’d have a logical contradiction with those two facts. While Evil God would be commanding us to do X, He would be commanding us to be immoral.

Do you have any further response to how you are, in fact, acting like an objectivist while trying to claim morality is subjective? You claim there is no moral Truth about rape, but it’s still wrong…not just different (like ice cream flavors we call good), but wrong. That’s inconsistent.

[boatsnguitars]

As I said in another post:

Therefore, your position is that if God says raping kids is Good, you would be morally bound to rape kids?

That is not my position. Let me try another attempt to explain it. My position is that raping is bad because of the physical-emotional nature humans were made with (where we can be damaged in ways, like raping), as well as being given free will so that we are moral agents. God is responsible for those two things and that is how God grounds moral facts. If an Evil God made us in those exact same ways and then turned around and said “it’s okay to rape kids,” we’d have a logical contradiction with those two facts. While Evil God would be commanding us to do X, He would be commanding us to be immoral.

Do you have any further response to how you are, in fact, acting like an objectivist while trying to claim morality is subjective? You claim there is no moral Truth about rape, but it’s still wrong…not just different (like ice cream flavors we call good), but wrong. That’s inconsistent.

That's your subjective opinion about things. The fact is, that you must accept, as it's the truth about Divine Command Theory, is that God could (and may have already) command - because he embodies it as an Objective Good - that one ought to kill gay people, sacrifice animals, slice children's penises, kill witches, kill people who work on Sunday, kill people who don't worship him properly, etc.

The morality of the OT and NT are very clear, so if that God is the one that embodies OMVs then we have a clear idea of what is Good and Bad.

The way you explained why raping children is bad is the atheist position of reducing harm and using logic and reason. You are borrowing from Humanism to defend your morals.

There is nothing in your response that addresses the philosophical and evidential problem that I have presented. If God says raping kids is good, then you must concede it is good. We'd all have to - or else suffer the wrath of God.

It's no different than if God declared murder Bad: if someone wanted to murder, they'd incur the wrath of God. That's the big reason Theists love DCT (especially Lane Craig) because it gives them a bully to enforce the morals they believe in. Why was Hell invented?

So, it's like when you say to Subjectivist: Well, if morals are subjective, then it's just up to each person. Yes, they'd have to accept that (if morals are subjective). It's a bitter pill, but it follows logically.

Likewise, you need to recognize what follows logically for your belief system: that God determines what is Good and Bad - whether you like it or not. (And isn't that the claim by Theists? That people reject God because they don't want to follow his rules? They just presume God's rules are truly Good - even when Calvin is killing Servetus, or they are burning witches, or killing gay people, etc.)

[The Tanager]

That's your subjective opinion about things. The fact is, that you must accept, as it's the truth about Divine Command Theory, is that God could (and may have already) command - because he embodies it as an Objective Good - that one ought to kill gay people, sacrifice animals, slice children's penises, kill witches, kill people who work on Sunday, kill people who don't worship him properly, etc.

The morality of the OT and NT are very clear, so if that God is the one that embodies OMVs then we have a clear idea of what is Good and Bad.

I do not have to accept that; it’s not my view. If you think that means I’m not a divine command theorist, then change the term instead of claiming I believe something I don’t. And then respond to my view, not what you think my view should be so it’s easier for you to critique. My view is about how God makes something, not arbitrary commands disconnected from how God makes things.

The secondary question as to what the Hebrew and Christian scriptures show of God’s morality is just that, a secondary question, and one we would have some disagreements on. Assume it is all nonsense for this part of our discussion and nothing I’ve said so far changes.

The way you explained why raping children is bad is the atheist position of reducing harm and using logic and reason. You are borrowing from Humanism to defend your morals.

It’s the exact opposite. This only works on theism because there is an objective foundation in God creating things the way they are. On atheism, there is no objective purpose and so there is no way to say harming is always bad. You are the one borrowing from theism to defend your moral view.

There is nothing in your response that addresses the philosophical and evidential problem that I have presented. If God says raping kids is good, then you must concede it is good. We'd all have to - or else suffer the wrath of God.

Conceding it is good and conceding it to try to avoid such a God’s wrath are two different things. It is good/bad based on God’s act of creation, not on God’s later command that goes against that act of creation.

It's no different than if God declared murder Bad: if someone wanted to murder, they'd incur the wrath of God. That's the big reason Theists love DCT (especially Lane Craig) because it gives them a bully to enforce the morals they believe in. Why was Hell invented?

Some theists are definitely like that, but to treat us all with that motivation is irrational. There are other motivations available to us. And there are other reasons behind Hell.

So, it's like when you say to Subjectivist: Well, if morals are subjective, then it's just up to each person. Yes, they'd have to accept that (if morals are subjective). It's a bitter pill, but it follows logically.

Likewise, you need to recognize what follows logically for your belief system: that God determines what is Good and Bad - whether you like it or not. (And isn't that the claim by Theists? That people reject God because they don't want to follow his rules? They just presume God's rules are truly Good - even when Calvin is killing Servetus, or they are burning witches, or killing gay people, etc.)

I do think God determines what is good and bad, but not in the way you are claiming. It’s by the act of creation, not a command unattached from how things are created. Sorry, but you’ve got to critique my view for this conversation to move forward, not what you wish my view was so that you could more easily dismiss it.

[boatsnguitars]

That's your subjective opinion about things. The fact is, that you must accept, as it's the truth about Divine Command Theory, is that God could (and may have already) command - because he embodies it as an Objective Good - that one ought to kill gay people, sacrifice animals, slice children's penises, kill witches, kill people who work on Sunday, kill people who don't worship him properly, etc.

The morality of the OT and NT are very clear, so if that God is the one that embodies OMVs then we have a clear idea of what is Good and Bad.

I do not have to accept that; it’s not my view. If you think that means I’m not a divine command theorist, then change the term instead of claiming I believe something I don’t. And then respond to my view, not what you think my view should be so it’s easier for you to critique. My view is about how God makes something, not arbitrary commands disconnected from how God makes things.

The secondary question as to what the Hebrew and Christian scriptures show of God’s morality is just that, a secondary question, and one we would have some disagreements on. Assume it is all nonsense for this part of our discussion and nothing I’ve said so far changes.

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...

The way you explained why raping children is bad is the atheist position of reducing harm and using logic and reason. You are borrowing from Humanism to defend your morals.

It’s the exact opposite. This only works on theism because there is an objective foundation in God creating things the way they are. On atheism, there is no objective purpose and so there is no way to say harming is always bad. You are the one borrowing from theism to defend your moral view.

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

There is nothing in your response that addresses the philosophical and evidential problem that I have presented. If God says raping kids is good, then you must concede it is good. We'd all have to - or else suffer the wrath of God.

Conceding it is good and conceding it to try to avoid such a God’s wrath are two different things. It is good/bad based on God’s act of creation, not on God’s later command that goes against that act of creation.

Not knowing god, you can't know if raping kids is in the best interest of God. How do you feel it goes against creation? Aren't girls capable of being pregnant at 9 or 10 - and doesn't the Bible say you are supposed to marry your rape victim? Seems it is encouraging the rape of children.

It certainly goes against all reason and science - just not religion, as well you know.

It's no different than if God declared murder Bad: if someone wanted to murder, they'd incur the wrath of God. That's the big reason Theists love DCT (especially Lane Craig) because it gives them a bully to enforce the morals they believe in. Why was Hell invented?

Some theists are definitely like that, but to treat us all with that motivation is irrational. There are other motivations available to us. And there are other reasons behind Hell.

Distinctions without a difference.

So, it's like when you say to Subjectivist: Well, if morals are subjective, then it's just up to each person. Yes, they'd have to accept that (if morals are subjective). It's a bitter pill, but it follows logically.

Likewise, you need to recognize what follows logically for your belief system: that God determines what is Good and Bad - whether you like it or not. (And isn't that the claim by Theists? That people reject God because they don't want to follow his rules? They just presume God's rules are truly Good - even when Calvin is killing Servetus, or they are burning witches, or killing gay people, etc.)

I do think God determines what is good and bad, but not in the way you are claiming. It’s by the act of creation, not a command unattached from how things are created. Sorry, but you’ve got to critique my view for this conversation to move forward, not what you wish my view was so that you could more easily dismiss it.

I have no Faith that you know how a God would determine what is good or bad. The act of creation would be secondary to the morals a God would hold: They'd create to meet a goal, based on the morals it was "born" with.

And, you have not provided one ounce of evidence Creation shows how we are to understand morality. People are able to be enslaved, children are able to be pregnant, men are able to domineer over women, men are able to murder, psychopaths are born, etc...

Your view is all conjecture wrapped up in pop-religiosity that you have developed in a vacuum. You don't even follow a strict religion - so it's hard to take your view of God seriously.