The purpose of "Purpose of existence"

[LBP]

I think it's obvious that existence can have a purpose apart from any belief in God in the sense that an individual who doesn't believe in God can certainly find reasons (often very good reasons) to keep on living. If we all simply die and go out like light bulbs, that doesn't mean that an individual's existence has no purpose or meaning to him and those around him or that his life isn't worth living. Some people would actually prefer that there not be an afterlife. Without some kind of theistic belief, however, there is no "larger purpose" to one's life - it has no meaning apart from its immediate context. Since someone mentioned William Lane Craig and I have just finished his Reasonable Faith, I will say that what I think the statement about "no purpose apart from God" is really referring to is the so-called Moral Law Argument for the existence of God, basically meaning that without God there can be no morality (see Craig's site at http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5344). In this sense, it does seem to me that a life premised on the existence of God is inherently more purposeful and satisfying than one without God, because with God life is viewed in a larger context and as having a deeper purpose. So I think it does boil down to the point that apart from God there is no common morality binding us together, no larger context, and no purpose apart from that which each individual finds for himself. (I'm not going to bog down in an argument with someone who insists "I can be just a moral without God as you can with Him!" No, without God there simply is no morality.)

 

[aiki]

Similar to above. The problem here is that if you don't believe in a god and don't see a purpose in life, then believing in god for that purpose would be self-delusion too. And I'm sure there are many more people (I know some) who believe in a god for this reason that atheists alive today.

Belief in God is only a delusion if there is no reasonable, objective basis for that belief. But there is such a basis for belief in Him; therefore, belief in God is not a delusion. The same cannot be said for the atheist who makes up his own life's meaning and purpose for himself. As I explained in my last post, doing so is a kind of self-deception for it simply obscures the objective emptiness of a naturalistic, atheistic worldview.

Selah.

 

[elman]

=mulimulix;56842421]But, see, in my position, as I said earlier, my purpose is to help humanity go on in whatever way I can. And if I die, so be it; I wouldn't know the meaningless of life after humans unless I was there to see it. What is important is now, not in however many years when humans die out.

If there is no loving Creator and no afterlife, then this life is ultimately meaningless. We all die and know nothing. Eventually it does not matter that we ever existed. Humanity will eventually die out so you are doomed to be frustrated in helping humanity to go on. If however there is a loving Creator and an afterlife, then our physical death is not the end of all meaning. This life can have a lot of meaning in conjunction with the purpose for which the Creator brought us into existence.

I said earlier that my purpose is not for personal satisfaction (I believe Christianity promotes this). My purpose is to help humanity, as said above. To answer your end question, I suppose it would be some way to make all humans have a good standard of living without any repercussions, but of course, this is almost impossible.

A good standard of living for everyone is a nice goal, but if there is a loving Creator it is not the ultimatly good goal. That goal would be to have a relationship and be of help to these people, not limted to raising their standard of living.

 

[mulimulix]

If there is no loving Creator and no afterlife, then this life is ultimately meaningless. We all die and know nothing. Eventually it does not matter that we ever existed. Humanity will eventually die out so you are doomed to be frustrated in helping humanity to go on. If however there is a loving Creator and an afterlife, then our physical death is not the end of all meaning. This life can have a lot of meaning in conjunction with the purpose for which the Creator brought us into existence.




A good standard of living for everyone is a nice goal, but if there is a loving Creator it is not the ultimatly good goal. That goal would be to have a relationship and be of help to these people, not limted to raising their standard of living.

But what's the difference if there is a creator or not? If, somehow, everyone just stopped believing in a god, that wouldn't change anything about day to day life; people would keep doing what they are doing. This is the point I am making. If people think we don't have an ultimate meaning which is given as a result of a creator, it doesn't mean we should go around with pitchforks and stab people, we wouldn't change a thing. This is why it is irrelevant

 

[elman]

But what's the difference if there is a creator or not? If, somehow, everyone just stopped believing in a god, that wouldn't change anything about day to day life; people would keep doing what they are doing. This is the point I am making. If people think we don't have an ultimate meaning which is given as a result of a creator, it doesn't mean we should go around with pitchforks and stab people, we wouldn't change a thing. This is why it is irrelevant

Hope is not irrelevant. Perhaps you are fine without hope or ultimate meaning. I am not. Hope is very relevant to me and increases my joy of living this life.

 

[aiki]

But what's the difference if there is a creator or not? If, somehow, everyone just stopped believing in a god, that wouldn't change anything about day to day life; people would keep doing what they are doing.

How do you know this? It seems to me you're making a pretty big assumption here. The fact is, the majority of the people on Earth have some concept of God that influences their living. If God is so unnecessary, why is the human race so inclined to invoke Him/It? I think it is in part because people inevitably ask the really important, fundamental questions in life:

Why is there something rather than nothing?
Why am I here?
Is there a purpose to my existence?
Why should I not serve myself before any other?

For the majority of people it seems the best answer to these questions comes from the understanding that there is a Creator and that He is working out His purposes in and through what He has created. He imparts eternal value and meaning to life. He asserts a binding, and over-arching, and objective morality upon us.

A naturalistic, atheistic worldview leaves the human being essentially with nothing. Life has no objective meaning. One's existence is simply an accident, a random, unguided event brought about through impersonal, mechanical, natural processes. No one is meant to be alive; we all just happen to exist. There is no objective moral code by which one should live, only varying social constructions. Death is the end of the individual forever.

Obviously, if people actually lived consistently with an atheistic/naturalistic worldview they would be profoundly unhappy. Thoughtful atheists realize this, which is why they espouse the adoption of illusion (or delusion) to cope. It matters not that doing so is highly inconsistent - even hypocritical. Such delusion and inconsistency is, it seems, preferable to atheists than the reality of God.

Selah.

 

[Daniel25]

Why do you assume that any purpose in life, apart from believing in a creator is "mundane"? This seems to be rather short sighted and theocentric IMO.

uh, because that is what mundane literally means.

Mundane | Define Mundane at Dictionary.com

1.
of or pertaining to this world or earth as contrasted with heaven; worldly; earthly: mundane affairs.
2. common; ordinary; banal; unimaginative.

3. of or pertaining to the world, universe, or earth.

anyway, the purpose arguement is a conditional one. Basically, everyone has many things that may be true, but we must assume to be true in order to act in a coherent manner. For example, you assume induction is valid, you assume properties are transitive, and you assume sensory data are not illusions. These very well may be false, but if they are you are now at a intellectual dead end. In the same manner, morals require an external rule-giver, otherwise today's righteousness is tommorow iniquity.