What is God's Purpose?
- Thread starter PsychoticEpisode
- Start date
Seeing that everything is of divine origin then God's purpose can only be to satisfy Himself. Paraphrasing, 'He saw that it was good' kind of hints that God's reason for everything is only designed to stroke His giant ego. I mean, why wouldn't it be good? God's purpose seems to be one of convincing Himself that He is worthy of the title.
Prior to the universe, when God was wherever He might have been, He obviously did some soul searching. Something triggered a divine epiphany of sorts. God could not have been happy with just being God. Thus God could not have thought that His purpose was to just be God, otherwise everything stays staus quo. If God exists, then there should be no doubt that God's actions indicate He believed there was more to Himself than just being God. Therefore God feels He has a purpose. Unfortunately the all knowing benevolence hasn't figured it out either.
Prior to the universe, when God was wherever He might have been, He obviously did some soul searching. Something triggered a divine epiphany of sorts. God could not have been happy with just being God. Thus God could not have thought that His purpose was to just be God, otherwise everything stays staus quo. If God exists, then there should be no doubt that God's actions indicate He believed there was more to Himself than just being God. Therefore God feels He has a purpose. Unfortunately the all knowing benevolence hasn't figured it out either.
Nope. They're not. Me and your ideals of your beliefs are completely seperate. You are also seperate from my beliefs. My beliefs are seperate from your beliefs. You and I are seperate. I think that about covers us, our beliefs, and what is seperate. Glad I could clear that up for you.
Then, can we conclude that anything criticized about your religion and your vicious god is a criticism against you?
I'm afraid that's your problem and not ours.
I'm afraid Hamstertastic exhibits the very thing I proposed in the OP. He speaks as if God is listening in. Personally I can't see any man's words upsetting to an eavesdropping God. So if God is the omnipresent fly on the wall then His reason for doing so is not to condemn me to hell for voicing an honest opinion. Again as I indicated in Post 42, actions such as digesting our conversations suggest that God is in search of His purpose.
Q-Yes.
PsychoticEpisode-Here's a brain-bender for you. It's one I wonder myself. Perhaps God is serving an even higher being. Perhaps he is finite, but so far in excess of our understanding, he may as well be infinite. Perhaps there is an entire social order of much greater, higher beings, that simply take no notice of us. Perhaps God was the being tasked with being caretaker of our particular sentience. Then again, perhaps not.
PsychoticEpisode-Here's a brain-bender for you. It's one I wonder myself. Perhaps God is serving an even higher being. Perhaps he is finite, but so far in excess of our understanding, he may as well be infinite. Perhaps there is an entire social order of much greater, higher beings, that simply take no notice of us. Perhaps God was the being tasked with being caretaker of our particular sentience. Then again, perhaps not.
You are subliminally impressionable. Were my words in Post #5 suggestive?
LOL I had forgotten that you had said that, actually. <puts tinfoil cap on head> Now stop sending me your thoughts!
sure
perhaps a word for purpose could be dharma - in the sense that to describe the innate quality (or purpose) of something is to describe its dharma - so for instance you could say that the dharma of water is to be wet (meaning that the moment that you start taking the wetness away from water is the moment you have something other than water)
so in regards to god's dharma (or purpose)
Katha Upanisad 2.2.13
The Supreme Lord is eternal and the living beings are eternal. The Supreme Lord is cognizant and the living beings are cognizant. The difference is that the Supreme Lord is supplying all the necessities of life for the many other living entities.
lol
generally people tend to sin when they forget god is watching them
God's dharma is not simply to "forgive"
His dharma is to direct, kind of like a parent, while exhibiting the quality of forgiveness, tends to operate out of a position of direction/overseeing
not sure why you would expect that trouble only visits the dead
as long as one is progressively sinful, god will remain an object of fear ... just like a law abiding citizen might feel secure or relieved to see a policeman but a person who is thoroughly criminal will run the other way
Wow. You know, if this were the 11th or 12th century, I'd be inclined to agree. It's not. There are scientists that are christians hard at work trying to figure out how God has put things together. Christians, in general, recognize that Science answers the How questions, while God answers the Why questions. They are simply different pieces of a bigger puzzle.
To use your example, a dog will never know how an engine works. Show me an auto mechanic or engineer that can tell me Why an engine works. Perhaps a physicist should be involved. I don't care anything about how it works. Tell me why. You will not be able to answer why the engine works. You will attempt to tell me that I am asking How it works. You will then tell me that I refuse to listen to science. Now that we know how this is going to go, assuming that you have attempted to tell me how an engine works and expected me to accept this as why it works. Science. cannot. answer. why. questions. For another fun thing to do try this experiment. Why can you see? There are blind people all over getting along just fine, so no argument that it is to better survive. Why can YOU see? Not how, with your anatomy of the eye and whatnot. Why?
Concerning the way things work, how & why are the same thing. At the present level of knowledge you call XYZ how & say why is something else but it is only a level of knowledge we haven't yet reached.
This thinking leads to how & why god works. You don't know that & god doesn't know that.
IF blind people all over are "getting along just fine",that doesn't mean sighted people aren't much better suited for survival.
Ok. I have two questions for you, then, Stranger.
1. How do you see?
2. Why do you see?
These seem to be very different questions to me. Could you take these questions and show me how and why they are the same?
Examples of how God might work: Creation, Evolution, Big Bang, M-theory
Examples of why God might work: dunno. He hasn't deigned to give me his reasons.
Science is not fact. All science requires an assumption to decipher the data gathered. That assumption may be right or wrong. It still dilutes the factuality of science to the level of an educated guess. Religion is not fact. It is decision-making based on speculation and assumption. I invite you to show me a fact, then tell me why it exists.
1. How do you see?
2. Why do you see?
These seem to be very different questions to me. Could you take these questions and show me how and why they are the same?
Examples of how God might work: Creation, Evolution, Big Bang, M-theory
Examples of why God might work: dunno. He hasn't deigned to give me his reasons.
Science is not fact. All science requires an assumption to decipher the data gathered. That assumption may be right or wrong. It still dilutes the factuality of science to the level of an educated guess. Religion is not fact. It is decision-making based on speculation and assumption. I invite you to show me a fact, then tell me why it exists.
1 - I'm confident we agree on this.
2 - Because my physical makeup is such that causes sight. That's it as far as you or I know.
Why do I look at the things I look at? Why do I use my eyes the way I do? Because that's the way I am. I am what I am. Why am I that way? Due to my physical & psychological makeup. Why/How did I come to be this way? Thru the process of nature. Is there something to this which science hasn't yet discovered? Probably. But the only way to discover it is thru science.
Examples of how God might work: Creation, Evolution, Big Bang, M-theory --- These aren't how, they're what.
Examples of why God might work: dunno. He hasn't deigned to give me his reasons. ---- It hasn't deigned to give you anything.
There are flaws in science as practiced by humans but it is trillions times better than religion.
I can't show you anything you refuse to see.
2 - Because my physical makeup is such that causes sight. That's it as far as you or I know.
Why do I look at the things I look at? Why do I use my eyes the way I do? Because that's the way I am. I am what I am. Why am I that way? Due to my physical & psychological makeup. Why/How did I come to be this way? Thru the process of nature. Is there something to this which science hasn't yet discovered? Probably. But the only way to discover it is thru science.
Examples of how God might work: Creation, Evolution, Big Bang, M-theory --- These aren't how, they're what.
Examples of why God might work: dunno. He hasn't deigned to give me his reasons. ---- It hasn't deigned to give you anything.
There are flaws in science as practiced by humans but it is trillions times better than religion.
I can't show you anything you refuse to see.
First off, I am sorry if I offended you, that was not my intent.
Second, value comes from you. There is no universal law, or rule, value is whatever you want to be valuable. Evolution, or the theory of evolution is of value to me for example because it explains something, sure I can still ask how- like, "how was the first cell created?" and obviously I do not know, but maybe someday someone will find out how and tell me.
Just like you value religion and its teachings, is it that unbelievable that I may value scientific discoveries and research? Just like an artist may value modern art? Just like a mother values her child beyond anything else in the world?
We all value different things, its all subjective.
A fact is something that many people can agree on to be true. Is it really necessary for me to show you one?
Fact: we both have an internet connection
why?
because we enjoy the benefits it gives us, like you getting educated on sciforums
First off, I am sorry if I offended you, that was not my intent.
You didn't, I just got my hackles up. Sorry about that.
Second, value comes from you. There is no universal law, or rule, value is whatever you want to be valuable. Evolution, or the theory of evolution is of value to me for example because it explains something, sure I can still ask how- like, "how was the first cell created?" and obviously I do not know, but maybe someday someone will find out how and tell me.
I agree wholeheartedly. I follow evolution from a distance, because I'm not very good at biology, not from lack of interest or disbelief.
Just like you value religion and its teachings, is it that unbelievable that I may value scientific discoveries and research?
Not at all.
Just like an artist may value modern art?
Perhaps.
Just like a mother values her child beyond anything else in the world?
That's a mighty big leap to take in comparison, there, friend.
We all value different things, its all subjective.
We sure do.
A fact is something that many people can agree on to be true.
Wait a minute. A fact requires evidence, not faith. It would be awfully silly of me to suggest that God exists-in fact. It would be awfully silly of you to get a group of people together, decide that I have blue boots, then to declare it as fact, with no measurable evidence.
Is it really necessary for me to show you one?
Yes
Fact: we both have an internet connection
I can only declare that I do have an internet connection. For all you know I could be at a friend's house.
why?
because we enjoy the benefits it gives us, like you getting educated on sciforums
It seems that, at best, we are educating each other, at worst, we are tossing about speculative statements trying to "score points" off one another. I choose to believe it is the former.
That was the point of my post 27. Namely to make clear that Christians ASSUME that their god wants believers to accept things told to them by authorities even if there is no supporting evidence.
A more reasonable assumption, I think, is that god would prefer people to use the critical evaluation and judgmental facilities he (presumably) gave to humans.
That is why in post 27, God's first rule for admission to heaven was stated to be:
With the conclusion that anyone who prayed to a god (or gods) for which there was no evidence even for their existence would surely not be admitted into heaven. - Recall, God was being shunned by the other Gods and thus was lonely for some intelligent conservation. - Why he created man and is only letting a very select few into heaven - those who can use their intellect to have a different POV, and not simply repeat God's POV back to him as that is useless and too boring for God.
SUMMARY: All ideas about god are assumption, but the Christian assumptions are very implausible compared to even the ones above and in post 27. None the less, the point of post 27 was to expose what you state: Religion is ONLY assumption, but science is also based on observations, experiments and mathematical modeling. Science is even able to correct prior false assumptions* it has made. - Something no religion is able to do except when borrowing from science.
For example, now that even the religious know the sun only appears to orbit the Earth due to the science discovered fact that Earth is spinning, the Biblical statement that the sun stood still (For Joshua to have more time for battle of Jericho, I think was why) is not believed anymore. Yes religion can evolve, but usually it is some splintering off of a new group, with slightly different POV** in some internal power struggle for control of the congregation (and their contributions).
---------------
*Science, for example, once assumed the existence of an “either” for the propagation of electromagnetic waves. It also false assumed the existence of a mass less invisible fluid, called Phlogiston which flowed from warmer body to colder bodies. That the stars had orbit of God’s perfect form, the circle. Etc. etc. Science can and has purged itself of false assumptions. Religion never has as it cannot. (Or only can by accepting ever more the assumptions of science.)
**For example, a "real baptism" requires total emersion, not just a few drops of water sprinkled on the head.
Last edited by a moderator:
BillyT-All speculative valuated thoughts are equal in objective value. Thus, if you believe the religion you have suggested, then it is of equal value to you as christianity is to me. However, christianity will be of less value to you, as well as what you have suggested is of less value to me. A neutral third-party, with no predisposition to either thought, would probably throw them both out, or keep them both for equal consideration.
DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND: Religion is not greater than science. Science is not greater than religion. They are two OBVIOUSLY different things.
As for what you mentioned about Joshua ch. 10, vs 10-14: It was the Amorites. Jericho is where he marched around the outer walls for a week, they yelled, and the walls fell. If God is Omnipotent, why would he be unable to a:alter the way time was experienced for those involved, b: (more incredible)stop the earth's rotation and prevent all ill effects potentially caused by this? God can multitask!
DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND: Religion is not greater than science. Science is not greater than religion. They are two OBVIOUSLY different things.
As for what you mentioned about Joshua ch. 10, vs 10-14: It was the Amorites. Jericho is where he marched around the outer walls for a week, they yelled, and the walls fell. If God is Omnipotent, why would he be unable to a:alter the way time was experienced for those involved, b: (more incredible)stop the earth's rotation and prevent all ill effects potentially caused by this? God can multitask!
Thanks for correction of my Joshua error.
Likewise the Christian POV / assumptions seem more reasonable than those of the Islamic extremist who think God demands self destruction if it will kill some with a different religious POV.
But you are wrong to suggest that just because science has some fundamental assumptions (the most important being the universe has regularity or "follows some natural laws" -I.e. science assumes "miracles" do not exist.) that science is no better than religion. As I noted in last post, especially the first footnote, Science can correct its false assumptions and has done so many times. Religion totally lacks this ability to come closer to the truth. (except as already noted, by borrowing from truths science has discovered.)
To state it mathematically:
Let "A" be a rigid set of assumptions (Very likely to contain some errors. Christianity does not even have a self-consistent set of assumptions.).
Let A' be a smaller set of assumptions than A (because some false ones have been removed.)
Let T be a truth confirming or falsifying Testing process. (Includes observation, experiments, mathematical modeling that can at least eliminate internal inconsistencies)
Religion has only "A"
Science has A' + T
Do you honestly think these are equal? - Equally likely to lead to the truth? If so why is religion slowly revising "A" to more closely resemble A' ? (As illustrated in my last post with fact few Christian now believe that the sun stood still in its motion thru the sky. Almost all have now modified that original POV and adopted some new interpretation, such as your "a" and "b" to be less in conflict with the scientific POV.)
I agree that the assumptions of God being shunned by the other Gods etc. is of equal value to the Jewish assumptions of only one God or the Christian "three in one" God etc. - I.e. there is no evidence for any religious POV and no way to test any for being more true than another. Some do however seem to be more reasonable than others. For example, mine with God wants people to use their intellect, seem more reasonable than one assuming God wants them to ignore their intellect. If that were the case, why would God have provided any intellect?
Likewise the Christian POV / assumptions seem more reasonable than those of the Islamic extremist who think God demands self destruction if it will kill some with a different religious POV.
But you are wrong to suggest that just because science has some fundamental assumptions (the most important being the universe has regularity or "follows some natural laws" -I.e. science assumes "miracles" do not exist.) that science is no better than religion. As I noted in last post, especially the first footnote, Science can correct its false assumptions and has done so many times. Religion totally lacks this ability to come closer to the truth. (except as already noted, by borrowing from truths science has discovered.)
To state it mathematically:
Let "A" be a rigid set of assumptions (Very likely to contain some errors. Christianity does not even have a self-consistent set of assumptions.).
Let A' be a smaller set of assumptions than A (because some false ones have been removed.)
Let T be a truth confirming or falsifying Testing process. (Includes observation, experiments, mathematical modeling that can at least eliminate internal inconsistencies)
Religion has only "A"
Science has A' + T
Do you honestly think these are equal? - Equally likely to lead to the truth? If so why is religion slowly revising "A" to more closely resemble A' ? (As illustrated in my last post with fact few Christian now believe that the sun stood still in its motion thru the sky. Almost all have now modified that original POV and adopted some new interpretation, such as your "a" and "b" to be less in conflict with the scientific POV.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Glad to see that you too can rank alternatives as some more creditable than others. Do you agree God, if he exist, wants you to use the gifts, such as intellect, he has given, is more a creditable / reasonable POV, than that he does not want you to use these gifts and instead accept whatever authorities near you tell you to believe? - Please take that as a direct question and respond.
I am certainly no biblical scholar, but as I recall, it was not the way "time was experienced for those involved" but that the sun was experienced / perceived to stand still in the sky. Surely time was unchanged in their experience as they continued to kill each other in the battle, did they not? I.e. the bible, as I recall it, did not state anything resembling what you are suggesting could have happened. It said the sun stood still in the sky, not that time stopped or was perceived to stop. If time stopped how could the battle continue?
I am not trying to argue -It is just that my God requires me to use my intellect, not ignore it.
Last edited by a moderator:
1) - What is gods purpose?
> It is that his purpose gives everything else purpose
2) - Why did He/She make anything?
> Because He/She Needed to make something that gives Him/Her relative order.*
3) - What if God created nothing, and just He/She existed?
> Then there really is no God to talk about...
*) - What i mean here, is that as far as we know, intelligent life desires communication. His could be just as simple, as to create life, for his existence.