Why live at all?

[Ken-1122]

Are you a metaphysical naturalist?

No! I am a skeptic.

Ken

 

[durangodawood]

You are either a metaphysical naturalist or you are a metaphysical supernaturalist.

Thats plainly false.

Surely you can think of a third way.

 

[Golden Yak]

If you can only have 'real' meaning and purpose through being created by another being who determines that meaning and purpose, does this mean God's existence has no meaning or purpose since God was not created?

 

[Davian]

It is not my intent to speak about evidence for God.
...

Why not? If there were evidence for gods, particularly your god, it would certainly change the nature of this discussion. Why not put the horse in front to the carriage, as it were?

 

[Chany]

If you can only have 'real' meaning and purpose through being created by another being who determines that meaning and purpose, does this mean God's existence has no meaning or purpose since God was not created?

I'm still waiting for a direct answer to this.

In fact, I don't think there was even an indirect answer to this.

 

[KitKatMatt]

Food is delicious. If I were dead, I might not be able to eat it.

Which is why I prefer living!

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm still waiting for a direct answer to this.

In fact, I don't think there was even an indirect answer to this.

I wouldn't hold your breath. My questions got ignored. This is less a discussion, more a sermon.

 

[daniel777]

If you can only have 'real' meaning and purpose through being created by another being who determines that meaning and purpose, does this mean God's existence has no meaning or purpose since God was not created?

This simple answer is that he and God aren't comparable in that way. Why would God even want or need purpose as we think of purpose? or maybe there should be a word for all purpose, idk i'm not a theologian.

To illustrate the point that there are differences that make comparisons like yours difficult, keep the structure but sub in purpose with learning. If a person can only know things through learning, does that mean that God doesn't know anything because god never learns?

the problem isn't with the structure, it's just that God and people aren't equivalent, the same. It leads to nonsense conclusions if you assume they are.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This simple answer is that he and God aren't comparable in that way. Why would God even want or need purpose as we think of purpose? or maybe there should be a word for all purpose, idk i'm not a theologian.

To illustrate the point that there are differences that make comparisons like yours difficult, keep the structure but sub in purpose with learning. If a person can only know things through learning, does that mean that God doesn't know anything because god never learns?

the problem isn't with the structure, it's just that God and people aren't equivalent, the same. It leads to nonsense conclusions if you assume they are.

Which sounds an awful lot like special pleading on the part of the apologist.

 

[daniel777]

Which sounds an awful lot like special pleading on the part of the apologist.

ok.

 

[Golden Yak]

This simple answer is that he and God aren't comparable in that way. Why would God even want or need purpose as we think of purpose? or maybe there should be a word for all purpose, idk i'm not a theologian.

To illustrate the point that there are differences that make comparisons like yours difficult, keep the structure but sub in purpose with learning. If a person can only know things through learning, does that mean that God doesn't know anything because god never learns?

the problem isn't with the structure, it's just that God and people aren't equivalent, the same. It leads to nonsense conclusions if you assume they are.

Honestly, I did expect an answer akin to this. I've never found 'well, it applies to everything except God because he's God' to be particularly satisfying or compelling, I'm afraid.

I don't think you should have to be God in order to derive meaning and purpose from yourself and your existence, or that externally imposed meaning and purpose should take precedent over your own, be considered more 'true', etc.

The only purpose a creator should compel from his creation, if that creation is sentient and has free will, is 'I made you to be you.' Anything else smacks of tyranny.

 

[quatona]

This simple answer is that he and God aren't comparable in that way. Why would God even want or need purpose as we think of purpose?

This leads me to asking my previous questions in a different way:
Whence the assumption that I want or need purpose as you guys think of purpose?

 

[durangodawood]

Which sounds an awful lot like special pleading on the part of the apologist.

So what?

Special pleading is a logical fallacy. But this is a matter of faith, not logic.

 

[KCfromNC]

Are you a metaphysical naturalist?

If that question is important to your claim, shouldn't you have figured out the answer before making the claim in the first place?

 

[daniel777]

Honestly, I did expect an answer akin to this. I've never found 'well, it applies to everything except God because he's God' to be particularly satisfying or compelling, I'm afraid.

To be honest with you, I never find that sort of thing compelling either. It's a simplistic solution to interesting problems. However, what I feel about it doesn't change the fact that if there is a God, there are a lot of things that do and do not apply to him because he is God.

I don't think you should have to be God in order to derive meaning and purpose from yourself and your existence, or that externally imposed meaning and purpose should take precedent over your own, be considered more 'true', etc.

That seems to be the gist of most of the responses.

I don't really view purpose as an imposition by an external force. I suppose that's true in a sense, but if that's true it's also true that we, ourselves, are the imposition by an external force.

We are who we are because of external forces, and who we are is a question purpose tries to answer. If an external force intentionally made us to be who we are, then that's who we are. If an external force arbitrarily made us to be who we are, then who we are is arbitrary.

I can get behind what you're saying if purpose is only arbitrary, but how can it be? I think the idea of purpose loses something there.

The only purpose a creator should compel from his creation, if that creation is sentient and has free will, is 'I made you to be you.' Anything else smacks of tyranny.

I thought that's what happens.

This leads me to asking my previous questions in a different way:
Whence the assumption that I want or need purpose as you guys think of purpose?

Good point.
People seem to want/need it, but I can't know if you're unique in that way.

 

[quatona]

Good point.
People seem to want/need it, but I can't know if you're unique in that way.

Just looking at the posts in this thread, I don´t seem to be unique when my reaction to "Without God your life doesn´t have a God-given purpose" is "So what?".

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

puposefulness is a property of created entities.

Since God is not a created entity, purposefulness cannot be said to be a property belonging to Him.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

if naturalism is true then nothing we do as humans is important, has any meaning, any significance. etc. etc.

Read Alex Rosenberg

 

[bhsmte]

if naturalism is true then nothing we do as humans is important, has any meaning, any significance. etc. etc.

Read Alex Rosenberg

If that is the way you look at it, fine. I would think people can find quite a bit of meaning and significance to life with or without God.

 

[Chany]

puposefulness is a property of created entities.

Since God is not a created entity, purposefulness cannot be said to be a property belonging to Him.

Yes, and something cannot give something one does not have. God can't endow purpose (at least, no more so than a man can) because purpose is a quality he does not have.