Argument Against Divine Purpose
October 22, 2013 at 3:56 pm
(This post was last modified: October 22, 2013 at 4:14 pm by MindForgedManacle.)
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:
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):
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 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*
