|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: God's purpose | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member  Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
kuresu writes: A common argument against evolution, and for that matter quite a bit of science, is that science removes God from the equation. Unfortunately, I don't have any links or whatnot, but it's one that has been known to be used. Evolution does not remove God from the equation. Evolution is a scientific theory with considerable scientific support behind it. There are those who would say that evolution make a creator unnecessary, whereas I would be among the group that believes that a complex process such as evolution requires a creator. Neither of these two positions fall within the bounds of science. Francis Collins writes:
Evolution as a mechanism, can and must be true. But that says nothing about the nature of its author. For those who believe in God, there are reasons now to be more in awe, not less. kuresu writes: A corollary, then, is that if God has no purpose, why does he exist? The reason this is a logical corollary concerns God's purposes. Everything that exists, even events, supposedly, have a purpose (especially with the religious worldview). If something has no purpose, why would it exist? I can see no reason to think that God has no purpose. I think that in context the Bible is correct when it says that we are made in God's image. I'd like to try applying that thought to this question. As humans we seem to have a built in desire to explore, to design, to build and to expand our horizons. Why did the explorers risk death and endure incredible hardship? Why do people like Einstein spend a life time trying to solve scientific riddles? Science is showing us more and more that our world, and our universe, is incredible in its complexity. Certainly the creation of a universe this complex would serve similar desires in God giving him purpose. Humans have a need to give and receive love and affection. If we are made in the image of God then I believe that we can assume that God has similar desires. Why do we marry, have friendships, have children etc. This need for love and affection is hard-wired into us. You can argue that all of those things are relationships between equals, whereas we would hardly be equal to an intelligence capable of creating the universe. Let's consider why we have pets. This is an example of an unequal relationship, and maybe a good parallel for God's relationship with us. I suggest that we largely have pets not so much as to receive love, but more so that we have a recipient on which we pour out our love and affection. I'm suggesting that we are the object of God's love and that provides purpose. That ultimately doesn't provide a full answer either though. As a Christian I believe this life is merely a precursor to a fuller reality after this one. (Reading about quantum mechanics gives something of an indication of how little reality there is in our current universe.  ) I suggest that we won't find out our greater purpose until we leave the womb of this existence for whatever lies next.
kurseu writes: My question here, is are creationists (those that make such arguments) afraid of removing all purposes for God, or afraid of believing in something that has no purpose? I dislike the term creationist because I am one, (as are all Theists), and yet I don't fit the definition that is generally used, at least on this forum. I do agree however, that I would have trouble accepting a purposeless deity.
kurseu writes: My take on it is that for those who believe, it only makes sense to believe in an entity that has a purpose. So we need God to have a purpose, which does not necessarily mean that God does have a purpose, only that we ascribe him one to make his existence more palatable. I agree that faith requires God to have a purpose, which does not necessarily mean that He doesn't have one. I basically believe that God has given us three scriptures; the Bible, the creation and human reason. I contend that all of these three scriptures support the contention, as I outlined above, that God does indeed have purpose and that there is no need for us to invent one. (None of this is scientific of course. I see science as the exercise of our gift of reason to study the gift of His creation.) Greg Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
straggler writes: Following on from my last hypothetical question...Lets say that in the far flung future of science we get to the point whereby we can actually instigate abiogensis (i.e. life from non life). Lets also say we theoretically and practically understand the creation of space and time to the point that we can actually create "baby universes" in the lab..Hypothetical but not impossible! If we could do that wouldn't it be something of an indication that we required a creator in the first place? Say we could instigate abiogenesis. Where did the basic material come from in order for us to be able to do that? Why was there something in the first place? Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
stragglerActually the very nature of your question implies that whatever created us also needs a creator otherwise where did they get their stuff from? Your logic presumably applies equally to our creator no? If not why not? (This is in danger of going badly off topic) This is in the "Faith and Belief" forum so I think we are ok. You are talking about the hypothitical idea that we create a universe. The difference once again is the same as for abiogensis. We have been given the basic ingredient which is time. Abiogenesis requires matter and a new universe requires time. We cannot replicate what the creator of this universe accomplished because this universe was created without those basic ingredients, being availble. (At the time. ) When you are considering the concept of the creator of time, then the question of what came before has no meaning. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
straggler writes: You are right that science does not have adequate answers to these questions. That is my point. These are the only areas left for religion to lay any claim to, exactly because science has not yet provided sufficeint insight. However to say science is silent on these issues is just wrong. There is good reason to believe that science will have much more to say on these issues in the not too distant future - Sure sounds like a belief in "Science of the Gaps" to me. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Straggler writes: This thread is about Gods purpose. My argument is that science impinges on "Gods purpose" by ultimately removing any physical role for God. I use the historically shrinking role of religion(s) to explain physical phenomenon to support this assertion. Aside from "why anything exists instead of nothing" wouldn't any spiritual involvement have an impact in the physical world. For example Mother Theresa believed that God led her spiritually to do what she did and I'd say that by God working through her He made quite an impact on the physical world. You may not accept that as truth but the fact still remains that adherents such as myself believe that God has an enormous impact on the physical world by His influencing the actions of the people in it. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Ringo writes: I like the parent/child analogy: a parent doesn't decide what his child's "purpose" is. That would make the child a mere commodity. A parent wants his child to find it's own purpose in life. I don't think your analogy fits. The question is not what the child's purpose in life is, the question is what was your purpose in having the child in the first place. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Ringo writes: Our "purpose" in having children is that that is what living organisms do - they reproduce. You might as well ask, "What was your purpose in breathing?" Many people decide not to have children, although everybody breathes. I'm only talking about those who consciously plan to have children.
Ringo writes: Similarly, why can't God "reproduce" - i.e. create us "in His own image" - just because that is His nature? I believe he did, although I'm not about to say how, and if he used the evolutionary process that's fine by me. So why do we purposely have children? For that matter why do we have pets? My view is that we have them, as we sub-consciously have a need for a recipient of our love and we hope to be loved and needed in return.
Ringo writes: Why do you feel obligated to seek a "purpose"? I have a hunch that the creation of the universe was a pretty large undertaking even for God. It is logical for us to ask why, and the fact that we even ask the question is an indication of that there was purpose. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Ringo writes: So you're assuming the conclusion: God must have consciously planned to create us - therefore He had a purpose? Sure
Ringo writes: And many people have children without making a concious decision. Why not God? It is one thing to get pregnant without meaning to; it is another thing altogether to create something. Creation requires a conscious decision.
Ringo writes: So God created us out of "need"? Not out of need, but out of love.
Ringo writes: How does the scale of your God compare to the scale of His creation? The more you try to "divine" His "purpose" - or even assume that He had a purpose, the more you diminish Him. Do you really expect anyone to answer that. Of course I don't know. I am only saying that God created this universe, which from our vantage point seems to be something of a major undertaking, but there isn't anyone who knows how much or how little more He is capable of. I don't for the life of me see how God is diminished by having purpose. It certainly would diminish Him if I believed it was all done on a whim. Edited by GDR, : No reason given. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Ringo writes: I didn't say that. You diminish the concept of God by suggesting that you can "understand" His purpose, by suggesting that He "must" have had a purpose. I'm not a literalist but I take the phrase from the Bible that we are created in God's image seriously. The Bible supports the concept of being created out of love, but it is also supported by the beings (us)that are created in his image. Certainly the desire to love is often perverted in humans but it I contend a basic feature of our consciosness. Who am I to say to the creator of the universe that He must have a purpose. I am saying though that if I have to decide between purpose/no purpose the argument for purpose is far more compelling. One thing to consider of course is that I don't believe that this physical life is the end of the story, so even though I suggest the purpose for our creation in the here and now is love, I believe on faith that there is greater purpose in what comes next.
Ringo writes: Not at all. Much of creativity involves "noticing" what happens accidentally. Creation from "scratch" is almost diametrically opposed to working from a blueprint. I see this as a strawman, but I'm curious as to how you create something from scratch without it being a conscious decision. You might through experiment come unexpectedly to a result that allows for creation but that doesn't happen without conscious thought. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Ringo writes: That's like saying, "I'm curious as to how you can ride a horse without ice cream." You have two separate concepts there - creation and conscious decision. If you think there's a connection, you'll have to explain it more thoroughly. For a start we assume that we are living in a created universe. Taking that as a given I don't see how you can get around the point that the creator would require intelligence. Can you give me an example of anyone who with intelligence created something without conscious thought? Creation requires something to be done on purpose and if it is done on purpose then it has to be done with purpose.
Ringo writes: Yes, I get that that is your opinion. I just haven't seen that "compelling" argument in this thread. You admitted in Message 87 that you are assuming a purpose. I don't see how an assumption is a "compelling" argument. It depends on what you mean by compelling. If you only accept empirical evidence I have no case. This is what I wrote in a previous post which you either ignored or don't accept as evidence."I'm not a literalist but I take the phrase from the Bible that we are created in God's image seriously. The Bible supports the concept of being created out of love, but it is also supported by the beings (us)that are created in his image. Certainly the desire to love is often perverted in humans but it I contend a basic feature of our consciosness." I experience love and I have a desire to love. Where does that come from? I contended earlier as well that there is a parallel betwen our desire to have children and even pets so that we have a recipient for our love and affection. We appreciate the beauty of our created world. We can use all of our senses in ways that bring pleasure. It seems to me that we have been given a gift by a creator that cared very much about us. Now you can say that is all based on assumption but if that is the case then what can we know that isn't assumption. Even something that can be tested empirically cannot be proven absolutely. Every time I've dropped something it has fallen down and not up , so I ASSUME that next time it will fall down as well. It might not. My assumption is not based on science and it also assumes that we are created beings in a created universe. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Ringo writes: For one thing, I know it isn't assumption that I can create with no "purpose" in mind. I do it all the time.GDR writes: Can you give me an example? Ringo writes: Sorry, I don't have anything in digital format, if that's what you mean. I don't mean anything digital. If you are talking about a drawing you had at least the purpose of seeing what you could come up with. I was just asking for you to give an account of something that you created without purpose. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Well I still maintain that it takes conscious thought to doodle but I'm not sure that it’s relevant. I don't see you or the universe as being the Divine equivalent of a doodle. Do you?
Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Ringo writes: The "bigger" God is, the more difference there is between Him and us, the more insignificant we are, the less likelihood of "purpose" in our creation. Humility denies purpose. Philosophically it also seems that we run the risk of understanding God to be so far beyond us that He becomes unknowable. From a Christian perspective we are told to understand God as Father. As I mentioned earlier we are created in his image. Obviously we don't have His technical expertise when we consider creation. I do believe though that spiritually we are much closer to the mind of God. I believe that some where along the line we have been given the moral code. (I believe that is the main point of the Adam and Eve story.) This I believe is our connection to the mind of God and what it means to be made in His image. It is partly through this understanding that I come to my conclusion about purpose. With the moral code implanted in our consciousness we have been given the choice to choose God or to choose the self. By choosing the way of God to the way of the self we can build relationship which starts in this life and continues into the next. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
