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]

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.

This is important to understand your position.

1. Did God create himself? If not, then what God is, is what he IS and has ALWAYS been. For example, if there is no God, the basic, Brute Fact of the Universe (not just our local universe, but the entirety of Reality) is what is has always been. There is a basic reality that is unchanging.

For example, in order for God, or the Universe, to have Created our local universe, or Life, there would have to be "Laws" in place that make it possible for God to "speak" things into existence, or for quarks to form. This is a basic fact that we must acknowledge together - correct?

2. If God changed himself into a Creator, one would have to accept that the original form of God allowed for the thought of God to bend towards the idea of Creation.
If you claim God has never changed, then he was "born" with the idea that he must Create - for whatever reason.

3. At the very core, we are taking about the very substrate of existence. Call it God or the Universe, Cosmos, Reality, et al - whatever first existed had to have a basic structure that would allow creation of, at least, a quantum particle. (I propose that the original substrate of the Cosmos was undifferentiated energy).

BUt, if you believe in God, you can't believe he created himself out of nothing and gave himself power: like my view of the Cosmos, you'd have to believe he was "hardwired" by forces beyond his control to be a Creator.

Just think about it. The Bible says God said, "Let there be Light and there was light."

What allowed that to happen? What conditions that God already had allowed him to speak light into existence? I know it's metaphor, but you still have to account for the concept.

Explain to me God's attributes - and then admit (or argue against) that God had no control over his Being. He had no ability to change who he is. Even if he changes his mind, he still can't literally change his mind (aka, brain) in a literal way: He can't change from being a jealous God to a non-jealous God, Loving to non-Loving, etc. He can't change from being a non-Creator God to a Creator God.

Or would you argue he can?

[boatsnguitars]

An aside. It's interesting to see the Theists responses to this. I am of the opinion (as science suggests through many studies) that Theists reference their Ego when thinking about what God thinks. That is, God is an expression of a Theists self.

So, to see how people process the thoughts of God is actually insight into how they actually process thoughts.

For example, they believe God has a Subjective purpose, but that anything God creates has an objective purpose. How human! Yes, we create our own purposes, and our tools are designed for a purpose - if they fail in that purpose, we feel justified in destroying them, or consider them bad. Perhaps even Evil (See HAL in 2001: A Space Odyssey, et al.)

It might also explain how Authoritarians act towards those who fail to do what the Authoritarian thinks they should do, even to the point of killing their wives for not obeying, shunning their children for being gay, etc.

I suspect the Theists here who believe God makes us for a purpose have very strong feelings about what people do, and if it varies from what they believe God meant for them, they consider it either misguided or evil - not an expression of Freedom, Free Will, Self-Possession.... (Possession.. there's a word the Theists will latch onto!)

Further it explains to me why Theists think Atheists make themselves out to be God. If the Theist believes that only God can create justified purpose for himself, an atheist who defines his/her own purpose is taking the role of God. They believe only God can give purpose.

[The Tanager]

This is important to understand your position.

1. Did God create himself? If not, then what God is, is what he IS and has ALWAYS been. For example, if there is no God, the basic, Brute Fact of the Universe (not just our local universe, but the entirety of Reality) is what is has always been. There is a basic reality that is unchanging.

No, God did not create himself. I agree that God is what he is and has always been.

For example, in order for God, or the Universe, to have Created our local universe, or Life, there would have to be "Laws" in place that make it possible for God to "speak" things into existence, or for quarks to form. This is a basic fact that we must acknowledge together - correct?

I’m hesitant to agree to the term ‘laws’ without knowing more what you mean. For instance, on the atheistic view would you be saying the natural laws precede the organization of the energy to where it’s the laws that are the brute fact, not energy/matter? Or are they two sides of the same coin, so to speak?

2. If God changed himself into a Creator, one would have to accept that the original form of God allowed for the thought of God to bend towards the idea of Creation.
If you claim God has never changed, then he was "born" with the idea that he must Create - for whatever reason.

I don’t agree. This seems to assume that he first had the thought that he wasn’t going to create, but then changed his mind. I don’t see why it couldn’t be that God had the freedom to choose to create or not and decided to create. This isn’t being born with the idea that he must create.

3. At the very core, we are taking about the very substrate of existence. Call it God or the Universe, Cosmos, Reality, et al - whatever first existed had to have a basic structure that would allow creation of, at least, a quantum particle. (I propose that the original substrate of the Cosmos was undifferentiated energy).

BUt, if you believe in God, you can't believe he created himself out of nothing and gave himself power: like my view of the Cosmos, you'd have to believe he was "hardwired" by forces beyond his control to be a Creator.

I believe he had certain capacities “hardwired” (i.e., he didn’t choose them), but not hardwired to choose one possibility over the other.

Just think about it. The Bible says God said, "Let there be Light and there was light."

What allowed that to happen? What conditions that God already had allowed him to speak light into existence? I know it's metaphor, but you still have to account for the concept.

Hardwired abilities/capacities and free will.

Explain to me God's attributes - and then admit (or argue against) that God had no control over his Being. He had no ability to change who he is. Even if he changes his mind, he still can't literally change his mind (aka, brain) in a literal way: He can't change from being a jealous God to a non-jealous God, Loving to non-Loving, etc. He can't change from being a non-Creator God to a Creator God.

Or would you argue he can?

I agree God is loving by nature. (I think his jealousy is an application of that love to a specific situation). I don’t believe the same about being a creator. I think God can love without creating (I’m a trinitarian).

I suspect the Theists here who believe God makes us for a purpose have very strong feelings about what people do, and if it varies from what they believe God meant for them, they consider it either misguided or evil - not an expression of Freedom, Free Will, Self-Possession.... (Possession.. there's a word the Theists will latch onto!)

I think it’s both, actually. It’s damaging as well as an expression of one’s freedom.

Further it explains to me why Theists think Atheists make themselves out to be God. If the Theist believes that only God can create justified purpose for himself, an atheist who defines his/her own purpose is taking the role of God. They believe only God can give purpose.

I don’t believe God creates ‘justified’ purpose for himself. There is no higher standard with which one can justify it against. But I do think only God can justify an objective purpose for humans. When we (atheist or theist) try to replace that purpose we aren’t actually taking that role away and we are just frustrating our happiness and that of others.

[boatsnguitars]

I believe he had certain capacities “hardwired” (i.e., he didn’t choose them), but not hardwired to choose one possibility over the other.

Could the desire to leave humanity up to evolution be hardwired?
Could the desire to run a long con game in which he lies about there being an afterlife be hardwired?

If you agree there are things beyond his control (either beyond his ability, or, as you would agree, beyond his ability because it implies changing his character) then what are they?

And how do you verify them?

I understand you don't have much to go on, beyond the writings of Men you claim were speaking for God, but he could have been hardwired to confuse those men, no? We certainly have to agree whatever God intended to convey, it has not been received without confusion - clearly, this implies he intended there to be confusion, if one were to simply assess the empirical evidence.

[The Tanager]

Could the desire to leave humanity up to evolution be hardwired?
Could the desire to run a long con game in which he lies about there being an afterlife be hardwired?

It logically could, yes. It logically couldn’t be as well.

If you agree there are things beyond his control (either beyond his ability, or, as you would agree, beyond his ability because it implies changing his character) then what are they?

I think God is hard-wired to be loving, omniscient, omnipotent. Do you mean that sort of thing? I don’t have an exhaustive list worked out. Do you have specific characteristics in mind?

And how do you verify them?

My beliefs there come far down the reasoning line, hinging on the reasonableness (or lack thereof) of Jesus’ resurrection actually having happened.

I understand you don't have much to go on, beyond the writings of Men you claim were speaking for God, but he could have been hardwired to confuse those men, no? We certainly have to agree whatever God intended to convey, it has not been received without confusion - clearly, this implies he intended there to be confusion, if one were to simply assess the empirical evidence.

I certainly understand you having that question; it’s a good one. Yes, he could have been “hardwired” any number of ways, including desiring to confuse everyone. I do agree there is room for confusion. I don’t think that means he intended for there to be confusion, but that he desired free creatures, with which confusion must be a possibility.

[boatsnguitars]

Could the desire to leave humanity up to evolution be hardwired?
Could the desire to run a long con game in which he lies about there being an afterlife be hardwired?

It logically could, yes. It logically couldn’t be as well.

If you agree there are things beyond his control (either beyond his ability, or, as you would agree, beyond his ability because it implies changing his character) then what are they?

I think God is hard-wired to be loving, omniscient, omnipotent. Do you mean that sort of thing? I don’t have an exhaustive list worked out. Do you have specific characteristics in mind?

And how do you verify them?

My beliefs there come far down the reasoning line, hinging on the reasonableness (or lack thereof) of Jesus’ resurrection actually having happened.

I understand you don't have much to go on, beyond the writings of Men you claim were speaking for God, but he could have been hardwired to confuse those men, no? We certainly have to agree whatever God intended to convey, it has not been received without confusion - clearly, this implies he intended there to be confusion, if one were to simply assess the empirical evidence.

I certainly understand you having that question; it’s a good one. Yes, he could have been “hardwired” any number of ways, including desiring to confuse everyone. I do agree there is room for confusion. I don’t think that means he intended for there to be confusion, but that he desired free creatures, with which confusion must be a possibility.

And these thoughts and ideas about God come from your belief in a Dying and Rising Savior myth figure that you discovered through the indoctrination of church when you were young, no? So, I have to wonder why you apply all these thoughts to God, instead of where your beliefs truly formed: from men?

[The Tanager]

And these thoughts and ideas about God come from your belief in a Dying and Rising Savior myth figure that you discovered through the indoctrination of church when you were young, no? So, I have to wonder why you apply all these thoughts to God, instead of where your beliefs truly formed: from men?

Since I didn't grow up being taught Christianity or going to church, I'd have to say no.

[boatsnguitars]

And these thoughts and ideas about God come from your belief in a Dying and Rising Savior myth figure that you discovered through the indoctrination of church when you were young, no? So, I have to wonder why you apply all these thoughts to God, instead of where your beliefs truly formed: from men?

Since I didn't grow up being taught Christianity or going to church, I'd have to say no.

Then I have to ask, where did you get the idea? If not from the men who wrote the Bible and the men who taught you about the Bible, did you get it straight from God?

[The Tanager]

Then I have to ask, where did you get the idea? If not from the men who wrote the Bible and the men who taught you about the Bible, did you get it straight from God?

Let's make sure we aren't talking past each other with our terms. You talked of me being indoctrinated to this idea. Here it sounds more like through what means was I introduced to the idea. Those are two different things to me. I was introduced to the idea via other humans, but I wasn't indoctrinated. I didn't buy it for awhile.

[boatsnguitars]

Then I have to ask, where did you get the idea? If not from the men who wrote the Bible and the men who taught you about the Bible, did you get it straight from God?

Let's make sure we aren't talking past each other with our terms. You talked of me being indoctrinated to this idea. Here it sounds more like through what means was I introduced to the idea. Those are two different things to me. I was introduced to the idea via other humans, but I wasn't indoctrinated. I didn't buy it for awhile.

So, through men, not God. How do you know those men are telling you the truth? Don't Muslims believe their Imams tell them the truth?