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?

[boatsnguitars]

What is God's Purpose, and what made it his Purpose?

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #2]

In short, Brute Facts, such as God (under Theism) or the Universe (under Atheism), have no reason for their existence.
If God has a purpose, the he created himself - something Theist deny can be done by humans under Atheism.
If there is no God, we can create our own purpose, as there is nothing to say we can't.

Under Theism, however, if God created us, he created us with an imposed purpose - but with no purpose for himself, other than self-imposed.
That is, he allowed himself the freedom of choosing his own purpose, but denies that to us. He literally takes away our most precious freedom to satisfy his whim.

[The Tanager]

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.

I agree that this would mean that humans have no autonomy to shape their own 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.

I agree that it is for no deeper purpose 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.

I don’t see why this follows. Yes, the will isn’t free to choose its own purpose/meaning, but it could still be free to live into that purpose or not and to make choices on other fronts.

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.

I can’t speak for all theists, but that’s not what most theists I know of argue. First, I believe that an atheistic universe can’t give purpose because it doesn’t have intentions, not because it would, itself, have no objective purpose imposed upon it.

Second, I don’t think God makes his own objective purpose. God makes his own subjective purpose. But so can humans. The difference is that I think humans also have an objective purpose while God doesn’t.

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?

I prefer to live into the purpose God created me with because that purpose was designed with the knowledge of what would make me truly happiest. When I try to create that for myself, my limitations come into play and I settle for second best.

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.

Genesis seems to me to say that God created humans to multiply, fill the earth, and reign in his image/way. Worshiping God is (to me) about trusting God, seeking God’s guidance, for how best to live, which means recognizing God’s goodness. Praise is a natural overflow of that. I don’t see this as a selfish requirement because of that. It’s not that God needs our praise, but that we need to follow God and praise results because it is right to praise things that help us and those who love us.

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?

If you mean why do we believe this is true, my arguments would be the kalam, the moral argument, the applicability of mathematics, the historicity of the resurrection, etc.

[boatsnguitars]

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.

I agree that this would mean that humans have no autonomy to shape their own 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.

I agree that it is for no deeper purpose 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.

I don’t see why this follows. Yes, the will isn’t free to choose its own purpose/meaning, but it could still be free to live into that purpose or not and to make choices on other fronts.

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.

I can’t speak for all theists, but that’s not what most theists I know of argue. First, I believe that an atheistic universe can’t give purpose because it doesn’t have intentions, not because it would, itself, have no objective purpose imposed upon it.

Second, I don’t think God makes his own objective purpose. God makes his own subjective purpose. But so can humans. The difference is that I think humans also have an objective purpose while God doesn’t.

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?

I prefer to live into the purpose God created me with because that purpose was designed with the knowledge of what would make me truly happiest. When I try to create that for myself, my limitations come into play and I settle for second best.

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.

Genesis seems to me to say that God created humans to multiply, fill the earth, and reign in his image/way. Worshiping God is (to me) about trusting God, seeking God’s guidance, for how best to live, which means recognizing God’s goodness. Praise is a natural overflow of that. I don’t see this as a selfish requirement because of that. It’s not that God needs our praise, but that we need to follow God and praise results because it is right to praise things that help us and those who love us.

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?

If you mean why do we believe this is true, my arguments would be the kalam, the moral argument, the applicability of mathematics, the historicity of the resurrection, etc.

Your opinion is one data point. But, let's review it:

1. Under Brute Fact: "humans have no autonomy to shape their own purpose."
God exists by Brute Fact. There are things God can't change: who he is, what he is, why he is, etc.
2. God has a subjectively determined purpose: "I don’t think God makes his own objective purpose. God makes his own subjective purpose. But so can humans. The difference is that I think humans also have an objective purpose while God doesn’t."
3. Humans can make their own subjective purpose, but they have an objective purpose (known or unknown to them) under Theism.
4. You seem to say that your objective purpose is something you've invented for yourself - which is the definition of subjective.
5. Likewise, any purpose created by God would be subjective.
6. If a human made something that had a specific purpose, and that purpose was 'hardwired' into the thing as an objective purpose, would that thing be a robot, or have free will?

[The Tanager]

Your opinion is one data point. But, let's review it:

1. Under Brute Fact: "humans have no autonomy to shape their own purpose."
God exists by Brute Fact. There are things God can't change: who he is, what he is, why he is, etc.
2. God has a subjectively determined purpose: "I don’t think God makes his own objective purpose. God makes his own subjective purpose. But so can humans. The difference is that I think humans also have an objective purpose while God doesn’t."
3. Humans can make their own subjective purpose, but they have an objective purpose (known or unknown to them) under Theism.
4. You seem to say that your objective purpose is something you've invented for yourself - which is the definition of subjective.
5. Likewise, any purpose created by God would be subjective.
6. If a human made something that had a specific purpose, and that purpose was 'hardwired' into the thing as an objective purpose, would that thing be a robot, or have free will?

1. Yes, humans have no autonomy to shape their own objective purpose.
2. Yes
3. Yes

4. I’m not sure why you think I am saying this. I, as a human, cannot invent an objective purpose for myself. I’m either inventing a subjective purpose or aligning myself with my objective purpose (if I truly have one).

5. Is this referring to a purpose for God created by God or a purpose for humans created by God? If the former, then I agree (but that would be a repeat of 2 it seems). If the latter, then I don’t see why that would be the case.

6. I’m not sure humans have the ability to grant free will to its creations. But assuming a human did have that power and gave their creation an objective purpose, I don’t see how that decides the robot vs free will question. The purpose could include being a robot. The purpose could include having free will. The purpose could be unrelated (it seems) to that issue.

[William]

We each are witness to our own unique version of The Universe.

Brute Facts, such as God (under Theism) or the Universe (under Atheism), have no reason for their existence.

Brute facts be they God or the Universe are (under Agnosticism) are considered to be fundamental aspects of reality that exist without any further explanation or reduction to something more basic. They are basic, unanalyzable features of the world that serve as foundational elements in our ongoing understanding of reality. These facts are not explained by anything deeper or more fundamental; they simply exist as brute, irreducible features of the universe. The concept of brute facts is a way of acknowledging that there may be certain aspects of reality that are inherently basic and cannot be further broken down or explained.

[boatsnguitars]

Your opinion is one data point. But, let's review it:

1. Under Brute Fact: "humans have no autonomy to shape their own purpose."
God exists by Brute Fact. There are things God can't change: who he is, what he is, why he is, etc.
2. God has a subjectively determined purpose: "I don’t think God makes his own objective purpose. God makes his own subjective purpose. But so can humans. The difference is that I think humans also have an objective purpose while God doesn’t."
3. Humans can make their own subjective purpose, but they have an objective purpose (known or unknown to them) under Theism.
4. You seem to say that your objective purpose is something you've invented for yourself - which is the definition of subjective.
5. Likewise, any purpose created by God would be subjective.
6. If a human made something that had a specific purpose, and that purpose was 'hardwired' into the thing as an objective purpose, would that thing be a robot, or have free will?

1. Yes, humans have no autonomy to shape their own objective purpose.
2. Yes
3. Yes

4. I’m not sure why you think I am saying this. I, as a human, cannot invent an objective purpose for myself. I’m either inventing a subjective purpose or aligning myself with my objective purpose (if I truly have one).

5. Is this referring to a purpose for God created by God or a purpose for humans created by God? If the former, then I agree (but that would be a repeat of 2 it seems). If the latter, then I don’t see why that would be the case.

6. I’m not sure humans have the ability to grant free will to its creations. But assuming a human did have that power and gave their creation an objective purpose, I don’t see how that decides the robot vs free will question. The purpose could include being a robot. The purpose could include having free will. The purpose could be unrelated (it seems) to that issue.

1. Unless the Universe gives them it, much like God did.
2. check
3. check
4. You said God gives humans objective purpose. I don't think there is a problem here.
5. You are right that any purpose created by the Creator would be subjectively decided. I'm not so sure about, then, the purpose of the Created being Objective - true, regardless of the subject viewing it. In fact, I'm sure it's not - if the Created had Free Will. On could argue, as I'm sure you will, that a robot has a specific purpose (designed by its creator) and if it were to malfunction it would simply fail in achieving its purpose, but that purpose is still locked into the fiber of its being.
6. God wasn't created and, on a whim, decided it would create things. You believe this is a magical and special gift, however, it sounds like God had no reason not to - it was hardwired (as the atheistic universe was) to create things.It seems this is a Brute Fact regardless of our world view. God's purpose was to create - saying that it wasn't would ignore reality. You can claim it's a subjective purpose, but it appears to be an objective fact. God - by evidence of God creating the Universe - seems to have had no other choice. Call it love, or whatever, but God's love was also hardwired into it - as you agree he did not create himself to be loving, a creator, etc.
Therefore, any purpose he has is hardwired. You may claim he has Free Will, but I'll let you argue for the existence of a God that Freely chooses not to create.

Now, it comes to the Created - the robots. Whether they have Free Will or not is interesting enough, but their purpose transcends that discussion. Like OMVs, Theists love to argue that we have things we can't prove - like a Purpose given to us by God. (We know this is just a religious mantra without truth, but you won't admit to that).
Let's say we make a toaster. The presumption is that the purpose of the toaster is to toast bread. If it doesn't do that, it is not fulfilling its purpose. However, if you put AI into that toaster, and it decides that while it will continue to toast bread, it's real purpose in life is to sit on a countertop in between toastings.

Now, given that it's Creator told it it's purpose, it Subjectively decided it had a more important purpose: one that created its own happiness and purpose.

Look at it another way: Fate. We can say that a person did something because they were Fated to do it. That means if they were to live to 100 and save babies from dying, or die int he womb and never live to breath the air God made: that is Fate.
Ones Free Will has nothing to do with it.
Agreed?

[The Tanager]

1. Unless the Universe gives them it, much like God did.

If such a thing is possible, yes.

5. You are right that any purpose created by the Creator would be subjectively decided. I'm not so sure about, then, the purpose of the Created being Objective - true, regardless of the subject viewing it. In fact, I'm sure it's not - if the Created had Free Will. On could argue, as I'm sure you will, that a robot has a specific purpose (designed by its creator) and if it were to malfunction it would simply fail in achieving its purpose, but that purpose is still locked into the fiber of its being.

I'm not sure I'm following you here. Humans subjectively decide to create computers to serve objective purposes (make quick computations, play games, etc.). Those are the objective purposes of the computer regardless of the subject thinking about it or wanting to use it as a doorstop or something it wasn't made for.

6. God wasn't created and, on a whim, decided it would create things. You believe this is a magical and special gift, however, it sounds like God had no reason not to - it was hardwired (as the atheistic universe was) to create things. It seems this is a Brute Fact regardless of our world view. God's purpose was to create - saying that it wasn't would ignore reality. You can claim it's a subjective purpose, but it appears to be an objective fact. God - by evidence of God creating the Universe - seems to have had no other choice. Call it love, or whatever, but God's love was also hardwired into it - as you agree he did not create himself to be loving, a creator, etc.
Therefore, any purpose he has is hardwired. You may claim he has Free Will, but I'll let you argue for the existence of a God that Freely chooses not to create.

Why do you think God would be hardwired to create? To be hardwired suggests something was doing the wiring, but you are already admitting (for the sake of argument) that God has no cause. It's an objective fact (for the sake of argument) that God did create, but not that God had to create.

Now, it comes to the Created - the robots. Whether they have Free Will or not is interesting enough, but their purpose transcends that discussion. Like OMVs, Theists love to argue that we have things we can't prove - like a Purpose given to us by God. (We know this is just a religious mantra without truth, but you won't admit to that).
Let's say we make a toaster. The presumption is that the purpose of the toaster is to toast bread. If it doesn't do that, it is not fulfilling its purpose. However, if you put AI into that toaster, and it decides that while it will continue to toast bread, it's real purpose in life is to sit on a countertop in between toastings.

Now, given that it's Creator told it it's purpose, it Subjectively decided it had a more important purpose: one that created its own happiness and purpose.

It can decide its subjective purpose all it wants. That doesn't change its objective purpose, if it had one.

Look at it another way: Fate. We can say that a person did something because they were Fated to do it. That means if they were to live to 100 and save babies from dying, or die int he womb and never live to breath the air God made: that is Fate.
Ones Free Will has nothing to do with it.
Agreed?

I agree that if all is fated (as I understand that term), then there is no free will. But why should I believe in Fate?

[William]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #8]

You are right that any purpose created by the Creator would be subjectively decided. I'm not so sure about, then, the purpose of the Created being Objective - true, regardless of the subject viewing it. In fact, I'm sure it's not - if the Created had Free Will. On could argue, as I'm sure you will, that a robot has a specific purpose (designed by its creator) and if it were to malfunction it would simply fail in achieving its purpose, but that purpose is still locked into the fiber of its being.

From the Agnostic Position any such entity in the position of aloneness (POA ) might go the dishonest way, but probably wouldn't since it has no other thing to bounce off of - so it would be at the very least a sincere attempt to understand ones self as one is.

Further to that, if it reached such a revelation (or in the case of it being an eternal being) is always fully aware of itself in an honest way - before it began to create things to reflect off of et all, then we can at the very least establish with some certainty the nature of that entity by examining the nature of this thing it created and we are experiencing,

The Agnostic Position starts off philosophically examining that possibility without inferring good or evil upon the nature of the creation understanding that to do so will give results fudged and feeding back misinformation.

We still all have a vast supply of information re the creation (the universe) no matter what our preferred position might be (as human personalities) on how we interpret said universe, but The Agnostic prefers the coloring rather than the dark or the light/good or the evil as part of the natural structures make-up if this is anything to go by re working out what such an entity is thinking/being et al.