Thread: Purpose - An argument for belief in God

But if everything will turn out in the end to be pointless then there does not exist a possibility that there is some point to life, some goal to meet an end that will last forever.

It's a self defeating argument.

Life's not pointless because the things you do effect your experience and the experience of others. It matters in the short term, if anything is pointless it's the long term, what happens after humanity is gone. None of us will ever know it.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

This argument is not mine; I'm an atheist. This argument comes from someone I know. I have some thoughts on it, but I honestly have trouble forming a solid argument against it. I've wanted for months to see how others would respond to it - atheist or theist.

This is not an argument for the existence of God, nor is it an argument that we should believe in God. It's only the first step in an argument for the latter.

Living ordinarily, nothing we do in life has any lasting effect. All human accomplishments will end with the death of humanity, eventually. Everything will turn out to be, in the end, pointless. So, given that there exists a possibility that there is some point to life, some goal to meet an end that will last forever, we should live our lives assuming that such a purpose exists.

(I may edit this later after I get the person who came up with this argument to review it and make sure I represented it correctly.)

The argument is contradictory. If everything will turn out to be pointless, why (or how) does the possibility of a point to life exist? It's also a bit of a non-sequitur. It does not follow that because life is pointless, a point to life may exist and thus by extension God exists.

Furthermore, life being pointless is a purely subjective value judgment. One person may say life is pointless because there appears to be no greater purpose for humans, while another person, such as myself, would say that the higher purpose for humans is to fully understand the universe, and everything in it.

Originally Posted by stonedape

But if everything will turn out in the end to be pointless then there does not exist a possibility that there is some point to life, some goal to meet an end that will last forever.

It's a self defeating argument.

What's meant is, under the assumption that there's no lasting purpose, nothing we do matters in the end. The arguer obviously believes that there is a lasting purpose that we can choose to work toward if we assume the purpose exists.

Originally Posted by stonedape

Life's not pointless because the things you do effect your experience and the experience of others. It matters in the short term, if anything is pointless it's the long term, what happens after humanity is gone. None of us will ever know it.

To the person arguing, long-term is the only one that matters. It's an indisputable fact that, after humanity's end, it will have all been for nothing. If something ends, then there was no real point to it.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

Living ordinarily, nothing we do in life has any lasting effect. All human accomplishments will end with the death of humanity, eventually. Everything will turn out to be, in the end, pointless. So, given that there exists a possibility that there is some point to life, some goal to meet an end that will last forever, we should live our lives assuming that such a purpose exists.

As an agnostic, I can somewhat identify with this. I often live my life walking that "what if" line. However, that "what if" stance doesn't denote a belief in God, nor does it represent a step toward that end. It is simply a matter of being (genuinely) open-minded. I guess, putting it that way, you can take agnosticism as a "step toward" a belief in God, but I look at it as kind of the quintessential "half full / half empty" situation. All one really has to do is not take the pro-active step in believing there isn't a God, to identify with the above quote. But I wouldn't say it's an argument for the believe in him/her/it.

I take things such as established "sin" into consideration, but I have my own beliefs about organized religion, and some of the things it labels as "damnable sin." It is my belief that, if some of the things considered damnable sins are actually against the will of God, then I believe the good I do in this world far outweighs the bad. If that is the case, and this God doesn't accept me into his realm, because of the few questionable acts this 'wayward sheep' has committed (not out of a blatant disrespect, but maybe a lack of perspective), then I'm not sure his/her/its realm is where I want to be...

Purpose can be attributed to anything. Some people I know derive purpose from the idea of evolution, even to an almost spiritual level. Thinking about it as a grandiose, holistic machine of which we are but mere cogs. Thinking that everything we do is unconsciously driven by the biological forces of natural selection...and that everything we do, no matter how seemingly insignificant on the face of it, is still either mentally or physically pushing human culture, and by extension the universe at large, forward.

Personally I don't see it that way, although it is a nice thought. I view it in terms of language. In my view any idea of purpose is but definition, and the universe by nature defies any definition we attempt to brand on it.

Originally Posted by Speesh

Purpose can be attributed to anything. Some people I know derive purpose from the idea of evolution, even to an almost spiritual level. Thinking about it as a grandiose, holistic machine of which we are but mere cogs. Thinking that everything we do is unconsciously driven by the biological forces of natural selection...and that everything we do, no matter how seemingly insignificant on the face of it, is still either mentally or physically pushing human culture, and by extension the universe at large, forward.

Personally I don't see it that way, although it is a nice thought. I view it in terms of language. In my view any idea of purpose is but definition, and the universe by nature defies any definition we attempt to brand on it.

Yeah. In the same vein as this, I forgot to mention that I don't believe that life has any objective purpose. I'm open to the possibility, but as of this point, I haven't been shown enough to believe it to be so. I believe life is given purpose by the people that live it.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Furthermore, life being pointless is a purely subjective value judgment. One person may say life is pointless because there appears to be no greater purpose for humans, while another person, such as myself, would say that the higher purpose for humans is to fully understand the universe, and everything in it.

Let's say that in a person's subjective opinion, nothing has a real point to it unless it lasts forever. Would you assume that, on that basis, that person is justified in assuming that a purpose (to meet some goal that is eternal) exists? That for them, whatever other conclusions they derive from that, are valid? That if someone formed some logically valid connection between a lasting purpose existing, and a God existing, that the person is justified in believing in God?

(Anyone can answer this)

Originally Posted by Dianeva

Let's say that in a person's subjective opinion, nothing has a real point to it unless it lasts forever. Would you assume that, on that basis, that person is justified in assuming that a purpose (to meet some goal that is eternal) exists? That for them, whatever other conclusions they derive from that, are valid? That if someone formed some logically valid connection between a lasting purpose existing, and a God existing, that the person is justified in believing in God?

(Anyone can answer this)

I think that would depend on how solid their basis for believing life has a purpose really is.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I think that would depend on how solid their basis for believing life has a purpose really is.

They don't have any basis for believing it, apart from believing that anything that doesn't last has 0 value. It's like saying, you have a choice: you can either do nothing, or press this button and have a 0.01% of winning a million dollars, with no chance of loss. You would press the button.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

Let's say that in a person's subjective opinion, nothing has a real point to it unless it lasts forever. Would you assume that, on that basis, that person is justified in assuming that a purpose (to meet some goal that is eternal) exists? That for them, whatever other conclusions they derive from that, are valid? That if someone formed some logically valid connection between a lasting purpose existing, and a God existing, that the person is justified in believing in God?

(Anyone can answer this)

I said it was subjective as a pre-emptive strike toward anyone who tried to claim that life being pointless is objective. Now, could they be justified in thinking there is a purpose, and that the purpose is by extension being with God? Well, if they provided solid evidence for such a conclusion (as in, evidence for a creator), then they might be justified. Or they could simply take it on faith, which would make it easier for them to believe, but harder to falsify, and thus not particularly convincing.

But I think forming a connection between a lasting purpose (whatever it may be) and God is a bit of a non-sequitur as well. What is the lasting purpose? Being with God?

Note: If this is disjointed and confusing, it's because I'm not entirely sure what your post entailed (it confused me a bit).

Originally Posted by Dianeva

They don't have any basis for believing it, apart from believing that anything that doesn't last has 0 value. It's like saying, you have a choice: you can either do nothing, or press this button and have a 0.01% of winning a million dollars, with no chance of loss. You would press the button.

Well I don't think that's quite the same. Because if you press the button, you're not losing anything. But if you force faith, simply for that .01%, what are you missing out on? Is that person strictly adhering to the Bible? If so, that person had best be prepared for quite a constricted life. Many of the things established as "sin" are really quite benign, and to just give it all up, for that .01% chance of the after-term(life) reward is quite an exercise in faith. I simply don't know that I'm able to make such a decision - that is going to affect the rest of my life - for something I'm not sure of. I will walk a line, sure, but I won't jump.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

What's meant is, under the assumption that there's no lasting purpose, nothing we do matters in the end. The arguer obviously believes that there is a lasting purpose that we can choose to work toward if we assume the purpose exists.

But they are wrong in assuming this. The purpose of life is clearly not something that happens after life is gone. Why would it be? It defies the notion of purpose. The purpose of me making a sandwich is to eat it. If I knew I would be dead tomorrow I wouldn't make 5 sandwiches and put them in the fridge for next Tuesday, there would be no purpose(unless I was giving them to someone in my will).

The reasons you do something do not effect the causality. They might effect they way you do something, but whether you punch someone in the face because their a jerk or you punch them in the face because your a jerk, they still end up with a broken nose.

Just because it doesn't matter in the end doesn't mean it doesn't matter. It matters now. Nothing can matter in the future since the future doesn't exist yet. The fact that something matters is a value judgment which can only be made by human beings in the present. Things matter at the time because they effect people, this is why they matter. Why does it matter if things do not matter in the end?

What is the lasting purpose this person believes in?

Originally Posted by Dianeva

To the person arguing, long-term is the only one that matters. It's an indisputable fact that, after humanity's end, it will have all been for nothing. If something ends, then there was no real point to it.

It will not all have been for nothing, it will all have been for the experience, right now, in the moment, the only thing that matters, the only thing that's real.

If there was a future big-bang and this world no longer existed and a future world existed where the causality was completely independent from this world(if this world had no effect on that world) it would not negate the value of this world to the people in it, or who were in it.

How can something that will happen after humans are gone matter to a human? It doesn't make sense.

If this person believes there is some purpose we can works towards, all that is is a justification for why they do what they do, it's in no way a convincing argument.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

Let's say that in a person's subjective opinion, nothing has a real point to it unless it lasts forever. Would you assume that, on that basis, that person is justified in assuming that a purpose (to meet some goal that is eternal) exists? That for them, whatever other conclusions they derive from that, are valid? That if someone formed some logically valid connection between a lasting purpose existing, and a God existing, that the person is justified in believing in God?

(Anyone can answer this)

no, the first axiom(nothing has a real point unless it lasts forever) is clearly wrong, it isn't subjective, it's insane. You can't base your beliefs on things that aren't true and expect the conclusions to come out right. From this reasoning you get: If I eat a sandwich I will be hungry again later therefore it is pointless for me to eat a sandwich.

But let's skip that. They still haven't given any reason as to why there is any eternal goal or even said anything about what that goal is.

This is the kind of thinking that leads to crusades. Doing it for the glory of God, rather than looking at it as what it is, right now.

Sorry for repeating myself so much, I should really go to sleep.

Originally Posted by stonedape

Just because it doesn't matter in the end doesn't mean it doesn't matter. It matters now. Nothing can matter in the future since the future doesn't exist yet. The fact that something matters is a value judgment which can only be made by human beings in the present. Things matter at the time because they effect people, this is why they matter.

I completely agree with this.

I'm probably just reiterating, but:

1. How can something that has no purpose if it lasts for any finite time have purpose if it lasts for a longer time? It's like multiplying 0 by x and getting 1.

2. Why is purpose something which must necessarily arise?

1. That something had no purpose exactly because it lasted a finite amount of time. So that something is only 0 because of the assumption that it will only last a finite amount of time. If you go from the assumption that it lasts for ininfity, it wouldn't be 0 to start with.

2. Because we are all in this game of evolution whether we like it or not. You could either A. Choose to have no purpose, let the DNA devolve into a society like the movie Idiocracy. or B. Choose to have purpose, and actively live our life so that our DNA will improve over the long run, and thereby actively improving our society.



Each action you take will result in a behavior.
The sum of your behavior is who you are.
Taking actions with no purpose is only going to fire back in your own face.

If you give purpose to each of your actions, then this will result in behavior that is going to improve your life style, just because you have a certain purpose, that purpose will reflect in your behavior.

If you have purpose in your life, your brain structure will be superior to those people who have no purpose.
Neuroplasticity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





I believe in God, and purpose, but I'm not really sure how these two are related? Can someone explain the connection here? Why is purpose an argument for God?

Okay, but just so long as you know I was asking the OP, and nothing you said was logically coherent or had anything to do with what I said. ;V

Originally Posted by Xei

Okay, but just so long as you know I was asking the OP, and nothing you said was logically coherent or had anything to do with what I said. ;V

Another way of saying you can't come up with any counter-arguments

I'm not arguing with you, as you have said many times before arguing with an illogical person is illogical.

I've read every post made on this thread (as has the person who came up with this argument, the ones made last night at least). I'm not responding to everyone's, but I have considered them all and thank everyone for their input. Also, it might be annoying to 'argue' against someone who you aren't directly addressing. The person is male (he is my boyfriend), so you can say 'he' and are no longer forced to say 'they' to describe a single person.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

I believe in God, and purpose, but I'm not really sure how these two are related? Can someone explain the connection here? Why is purpose an argument for God?

That part of the argument isn't being made here. I haven't yet heard his connection between the two, but that isn't what's being discussed.

Originally Posted by Xei

1. How can something that has no purpose if it lasts for any finite time have purpose if it lasts for a longer time? It's like multiplying 0 by x and getting 1.

As I discussed it with him again, it's become apparent that his argument involves something other than the eternalness issue. See the second-to-last paragraph of this post for his actual argument.

Originally Posted by stonedape

no, the first axiom(nothing has a real point unless it lasts forever) is clearly wrong, it isn't subjective, it's insane.

We had a long discussion after I showed him this thread, and after much confusion I realized that it comes down to him disagreeing with this point. He thinks it's objectively true that nothing has a real point unless its timeless. He thinks this fact can be established through pure reason, and is not subjectively true. He's planning on explaining to me why later. I think it has something to do with our foundation for logic.

But I just talked to him and figured out he doesn't exactly mean 'timeless' or 'eternal'. That's a necessary quality of what he's talking about, but what he really means is something 'ultimate'. To describe what he means by ultimate, he used the analogy of asking what an object is, and answering that it's made up of molecules, and those are made up of atoms, and those are made of energy, etc. and when you get down to the fundamental thing it's made of, that would be what it is 'ultimately'. I think he's using that as an analogy to purpose, and doesn't necessarily think the nature of the physical buildup of the universe is relevant to this argument. I'm honestly still not sure what he means by 'ultimate'. EDIT: I think he might mean, since the core 'reason' we do anything normally is to satisfy our own desires and instincts, there is no base point to it all. If you ask, "and why do you want to be happy? What's the purpose of that?" there is no reason for wanting to achieve happiness, it's just an instinct, a desire (I'm in agreement with this so far). So by 'utlimate purpose' I think he means, a reason to do things that is at the core something 'greater' than just having a desire to induce chemicals in the brain.

Anyway, I'm personally currently in agreement with most of you, and will have to remain so until I hear his argument for how it can be logically deduced that a purpose that isn't 'ultimate' has no point to it at all. Any further input is welcome, but I guess until I hear his reason, there's not much more than can be discussed.

Two points:

1) This is not an argument. It's this person's back-rationalization of the rightness of his belief. Anything having to do solely with subjective experience (in this case, the abstract concept of "purpose") is NOT a logical argument with measurable outcomes.

2) He is coming from a place where you need an external source for purpose. Just like some people are miserable because they need an external source of happiness... If you have more of a "the journey IS the destination" attitude, you will find purpose and happiness in everything. It comes from inside. You create it. Of course, that's not an "argument" either. It's just an example of MY subjective experience. It doesn't really hold water in a "is there a god?" debate, and neither does any other purely subjective argument.

Originally Posted by Replicon

Two points:

1) This is not an argument. It's this person's back-rationalization of the rightness of his belief. Anything having to do solely with subjective experience (in this case, the abstract concept of "purpose") is NOT a logical argument with measurable outcomes.

2) He is coming from a place where you need an external source for purpose. Just like some people are miserable because they need an external source of happiness... If you have more of a "the journey IS the destination" attitude, you will find purpose and happiness in everything. It comes from inside. You create it. Of course, that's not an "argument" either. It's just an example of MY subjective experience. It doesn't really hold water in a "is there a god?" debate, and neither does any other purely subjective argument.

You may be right. But again, he claims his conclusion isn't subjective at all. He thinks any person should be able to come to it through reason.

You can come to it through reason if you accept the premise about purpose, but the premise is subjective to begin with.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

But I just talked to him and figured out he doesn't exactly mean 'timeless' or 'eternal'. That's a necessary quality of what he's talking about, but what he really means is something 'ultimate'. To describe what he means by ultimate, he used the analogy of asking what an object is, and answering that it's made up of molecules, and those are made up of atoms, and those are made of energy, etc. and when you get down to the fundamental thing it's made of, that would be what it is 'ultimately'. I think he's using that as an analogy to purpose, and doesn't necessarily think the nature of the physical buildup of the universe is relevant to this argument. I'm honestly still not sure what he means by 'ultimate'. EDIT: I think he might mean, since the core 'reason' we do anything normally is to satisfy our own desires and instincts, there is no base point to it all. If you ask, "and why do you want to be happy? What's the purpose of that?" there is no reason for wanting to achieve happiness, it's just an instinct, a desire (I'm in agreement with this so far). So by 'utlimate purpose' I think he means, a reason to do things that is at the core something 'greater' than just having a desire to induce chemicals in the brain.

Wanting to "be happy" is more than just an instinct. Wanting to 'be happy' is directly related to the fact that to not be happy is to subject yourself to a life of pain, heartbreak, and general discomfort.

If I pass by a shirtless man on the street, and the temperature is 10 degrees F, what would be my reason for giving him my jacket? A minimalist or cynic would tell you that it's just to make myself feel good. That would be my 'purpose,' and it would be a selfish one. To an extent, the fact that I might feel good about it will be true. However, my reason for giving the man the jacket would be the fact that the man was freezing, I had plenty of layers of clothing on, and the jacket was quite cheap. He would be much worse off without the jacket than I would.

If you had a choice to live your life freely, or to live your life in a cell, does that urge for 'freedom/happiness' amount to nothing more than an instinct? Or does it have more to do with the knowledge that there is more for you, outside of that cell? Is it just the chemical response of "Man this sucks," or is it a broader understanding of the fact that you're trading an otherwise fulfilling life for a life in a 6x8 foot cell? Any minimalist can try to whittle down the 'reason' for doing something to an innate instinct - completely stripping it of all subjective reasoning - but it's not true. Such a perspective is simply indicative of (ironically?) a lack of depth, not a grasp of it.

Someone can easily say that the game of football is as simple as "getting the ball across the goal line," but someone with more knowledge of the game can tell you that there is a lot more to it than that.

@Oneironaut
I've been thinking about this and honestly don't know what to conclude. At the most basic level, it's a fact that the core reason we do anything is because we have an emotion/desire. And when asked why that's important, there is no answer. You would help a homeless person because you have a desire to help people, to see the homeless person better off than he is. But when asked why it makes you feel better to see him better off, you have no answer. But maybe the fact that we consciously experience the goals to be important gives them 'real' importance. I don't know. Both sides seem to make sense in their own way.