So, one of the spurious claims made by theists is that because [they believe] God exists, they therefore have some kind of true, "objective" purpose while the atheist (nor anyone else) does not if their atheistic worldview is true.

I have some problems with this and I will offer what I think is a refutation of that idea, as well as show some problems with it if it were true.
Firstly, I'll run the following argument:

Argument for the Existence of Immediate Purpose Wrote:P1) For an agent to consider something its purpose, it makes a value judgement.

P1.1) In other words, something isn't considered a purpose unless it comforms to/entails something(s) that the agent values.

P2) If purpose is a value judgement, then an agent can choose what their purpose is provided at least some of their prior values cohere with said chosen purpose.

C) Since purpose is a value judgement, purpose can therefore be chosen by an agent.

The logic seems valid and the premise sound to me. You don't designate something to be your purpose unless something about what is being considered entails agreeing with at least some of your values. So for theists, serving God haa become their purpose because of some value, probably one or more of the following:

-Eternal life (minus torture)

-Being loved by the expression of Goodness itself (Christianity likes to pilfer Platonic concepts, as you can see)

-Recognizing when they are wrong and immoral, that is, acknowledging the Biblical concept of our sinful nature.

-Acknowledging that a higher being can imbue a lesser being with objective purpose


That last one in particular is of importance. If the theist makes the common claim that only by there being a supreme being can humans have objective purpose, then I can run this argument (taking into account the previous argument about purpose and value judgements):

Argument Against Divine Purpose Wrote:P1) For a being to have an objective purpose (OP) for its existence, there must be a greater being whom imbues them with that OP.

P2) A being who has no objective purpose in existing is an existential nihilist (EN).

P3) A being who does not have OP cannot imbue themself or anyone else with OP.

P4) God is - by definition - the greatest being conceivable, and thus is not lesser than any being.

C) Therefore God has no OP and is an EN, and cannot imbue objective purpose on other beings.

The only possible theistic response I can imagine is that as the supreme being, God can in fact imbue himself with objective, cosmic purpose, but other beings cannot. Firstly, this is nonsensical. To imbue someone with objective purpose, one would have to be the originator of that being, yes theists? After all, that's how theists conclude that God imbues US with objective purpose. Since no being can (by definition) be greater than God, God has no purpose. And given that theists believe beings without objective purpose cannot imbue objective purpose on other beings, God cannot do so.


Also to note, the first argument is using 'purpose' to mean immediate purpose, not 'objective', externally-imbued purpose.



*Waits for Genkaus/Apophenia/FallenToReason to burst his bubble, and ChadWooters to make me laugh*

I'm not entirely clear what you're trying to prove. When the theist is talking about objective purpose, what they really mean is a purpose determined by an external source. It is a purpose bestowed upon a being that isn't dependent upon that being, so in that sense, no, an atheist cannot have that.

Are you trying to show that an atheist can have an objective purpose?

"P1) For a being to have an objective purpose (OP) for its existence, there must be a greater being whom imbues them with that OP."

I am never sure how to argue philosophy as I never studied it and that usually means I get the wrong end of the stick.

The above is the problem for me. Does it have to be a greater being that imbues them with OP?

Whilst I would not argue that my life lacked OP prior to the birth of my daughter it certainly gained a great deal of OP on her arrival.

She was not, at that time, a greater being than me, yet she gave me what I would regard as objective purpose - bringing her up as well as I possibly can.

I'm guessing this is not what you were looking for.

But - if my daughter can give me OP could we give God OP?

(October 22, 2013 at 4:16 pm)Faith No More Wrote: I'm not entirely clear what you're trying to prove. When the theist is talking about objective purpose, what they really mean is a purpose determined by an external source. It is a purpose bestowed upon a being that isn't dependent upon that being, so in that sense, no, an atheist cannot have that.

Actually, notice the parts I underline above: they're possible for an atheist if by 'objective purpose' it is meant "purpose imbued by an external source/another being". Under that definition, you could give me OP, or my parents.

So theists cannot use that if they want to say that atheists must be nihilists while they do not, or that God can grant objective purpose since he is greater than us. But likewise, they have to affirm that only a higher being can grant objective purpose to a being, and a being cannot grant itself OP, otherwise we could to ourselves. So the only seeming option is special pleading.

Quote:Are you trying to show that an atheist can have an objective purpose?

No, read that last paragraph of mine above that quote.

Actually whilst I am here can I ask a philosophy 101 type question?

I am struggling with cause when it comes to creating things.

It appears that philosophically you need a minimum of efficient cause and material cause (sculptor an a block of marble for example). There can't be a single cause for something (sculptor with no marble or vice versa).

If that is that case what is the efficient cause in radioactive decay?

(October 22, 2013 at 4:23 pm)max-greece Wrote: "P1) For a being to have an objective purpose (OP) for its existence, there must be a greater being whom imbues them with that OP."

I am never sure how to argue philosophy as I never studied it and that usually means I get the wrong end of the stick.

The above is the problem for me. Does it have to be a greater being that imbues them with OP?

Whilst I would not argue that my life lacked OP prior to the birth of my daughter it certainly gained a great deal of OP on her arrival.

She was not, at that time, a greater being than me, yet she gave me what I would regard as objective purpose - bringing her up as well as I possibly can.

I'm guessing this is not what you were looking for.

But - if my daughter can give me OP could we give God OP?

I don't know much about philosophy myself.

I'm distinguishing the reason for why something was created from the reason an agent chooses to live its life for a certain goal.

What's wrong with us existing "just because?" I mean, when it comes down to it we are pretty much just a result of natural evolutionary forces, and if not for evolving a better-working brain than most animals, we'd be running around naked trying to kill other animals for food. It's those higher-order brain functions we evolved with which lead us to believe we have some special purpose on this planet.

(October 22, 2013 at 4:25 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Actually, notice the parts I underline above: they're possible for an atheist if by 'objective purpose' it is meant "purpose imbued by an external source/another being". Under that definition, you could give me OP, or my parents.

So theists cannot use that if they want to say that atheists must be nihilists while they do not, or that God can grant objective purpose since he is greater than us. But likewise, they have to affirm that only a higher being can grant objective purpose to a being, and a being cannot grant itself OP, otherwise we could to ourselves. So the only seeming option is special pleading.

You mean special pleading by allowing god to imbue himself a purpose, or by allowing god to be the only being allowed to imbue purpose onto others? Because I know how they would attempt to wiggle around the latter, and that is with their definition of god. The "go to" argument for the theist when attempting to get around special pleading is to contort the definition of god so he has all of these intrinsic properties that allow him to do as they claim.

Special pleading to allow God to imbue himself purpose. The only way around that is an ad hoc fallacy. If you can invent hitherto unspecified attributes that God possesses just to counter an argument then the theist demonstrates their belief can never be falsified.

(October 22, 2013 at 4:52 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: If you can invent hitherto unspecified attributes that God possesses just to counter an argument then the theist demonstrates their belief can never be falsified.

Otherwise known as "Apologetics 101."