What is the point of searching for a purpose of life?

[sthitapragya]

Let us assume that God exists and It created the universe. Let us also assume that It created us for a purpose. It seems to me absolutely ridiculous that IT created us for a purpose and then sent us to this world without telling us what that purpose is. So now we are not only supposed to look for our purpose but to fulfill it once we find it.

Doesn't it seem like a very inefficient system? Can you imagine how many people have not fulfilled their purpose because they could not figure out what it was before they got run over by a manic truck or mammoth before trucks were invented? Why would an omnipotent all knowing God do something like that? How can the search for such a purpose be considered noble? God did not do ITs job properly otherwise, the purpose would be well defined and known to us so that we could fulfill it.

Why would a search for a purpose be considered a noble pursuit? Isn't it a blunder on God's part that IT wishes us to do something on earth but forgot to tell us what that something is? If your child wants you to do something, it tells you what it is. When a child cannot communicate it's needs it results in chaos all around. That is why a child quickly learns to communicate because it understands that to get what it wants, it needs to communicate its requirements clearly.

If a child can understand this in a span of a few years, why has God not figured this out in all these millions of years since we arrived?

Doesn't it make more sense to demand from God that our purposes be very well defined if IT wants that purpose fulfilled? Why is it our fault if we cannot fulfill a purpose that we were not even told about?

[Lacewing]

Let us assume that God exists and It created the universe. Let us also assume that It created us for a purpose. It seems to me absolutely ridiculous that IT created us for a purpose and then sent us to this world without telling us what that purpose is. So now we are not only supposed to look for our purpose but to fulfill it once we find it.

Doesn't it seem like a very inefficient system?

Yes... absurd.

Can you imagine how many people have not fulfilled their purpose because they could not figure out what it was before they got run over by a manic truck or mammoth before trucks were invented?

Like a cruel game.

Why would an omnipotent all knowing God do something like that?

It wouldn't. But a manmade god would because humankind can be that twisted and cruel.

How can the search for such a purpose be considered noble?

Because people like to worship themselves for what they choose to believe and do.

Isn't it a blunder on God's part that IT wishes us to do something on earth but forgot to tell us what that something is?

Yep, it makes no sense.

If a child can understand this in a span of a few years, why has God not figured this out in all these millions of years since we arrived?

Because the manmade god makes no sense.

Doesn't it make more sense to demand from God that our purposes be very well defined if IT wants that purpose fulfilled?

It would if god existed... but even those who believe in god don't demand/expect these most basic, obvious, logical things. And I think that's because god actually serves a purpose other than being god -- and that purpose (for an individual) requires/prefers NO ANSWERS or challenges that might make it dissolve. It needs to be maintained at all costs (for its own private purposes).

Why is it our fault if we cannot fulfill a purpose that we were not even told about?

It's not. We're doing our best in dealing with all of this... and there's clearly nobody at the helm. We are a free-floating ship across the ocean of space... and the sooner we accept that, the sooner we can hang over the bow and let the cosmic wind whip through our hair!


Even though I'm guessing your questions were aimed at theists... it was fun responding!

[Obvious Leo]

How are we to understand the concept of freedom if the purpose of our existence was written before we existed? How do we reconcile the notion of a benevolent god with a quest for a divine purpose which has never been made clear to us? This is simple sadism.

It is cowardly to reach for the hand of an invisible best friend to define the purpose of our own existence for us. Even worse, it is both cowardly and intellectually bankrupt to allow fellow self-appointed humans to claim to possess a superior ability than us to interpret such a divine purpose on our behalf and then mandate the actions we must perform in order to fulfill it. When we do this we enslave ourselves by our own gullibility and become pawns in the manipulative power games of others. We get what we deserve.

Gutless wonders, is an old-time Aussie pejorative, and I reckon it applies perfectly to people who haven't got the balls to define the purpose of their own existence for themselves.

[Dubious]

If God wanted you to have a purpose he would have supplied a manual but since God didn't write one it's up to his emissaries to supply the missing directives which means anyone with a brain malfunction.

[The Inglorious One]

The spirit of this thread is indicative of how far the “atheist camp” will go in order to sow confusion or “muddy the water.” With so much information easily available, it's hard not to imagine that this kind of straw man argumentation is more out of vindictiveness than genuine questioning.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Let us assume that God exists and It created the universe.?

If you are going to take that tack then you might as well consult a priest for the purpose of life.

Otherwise you might better assume that there is no god and so free to chose your own.

[bobevenson]

Over 4.5 billion years of evolution leading up to modern Cro-Magnon man 50,000 years ago, and you're asking about a so-called purpose in life, like this fucking anthropomorphic universe actually gives a shit? Please, give me a break!

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

"Suck it up Sthitapragya. That's the way it is."

(A riff off of Leo's motto).

All cultures have cosmological myths to describe how they came to be here, on the surface of the Earth. Each of those stories encapsulates a truth, a way of seeing and understanding.

Now, and at least here on this thread, the preference is for a different explanatory system since the older ones 'no longer function'. Evolution. Random possibility. No sense to anything except what men invent. This very much has its roots in a shift in desire, in a new sense of how to go about gaining material power. It is a system with predicates, with exclusive declarations, and is a belief-system. A system that requires assent, agreement.

Except there are whole other ways to look at the question and the problem.

Man proposes ... the universe disposes.

[The Inglorious One]

Let us assume that God exists and It created the universe.?

If you are going to take that tack then you might as well consult a priest for the purpose of life.

Otherwise you might better assume that there is no god and so free to chose your own.

News flash: the "father" of existentialism (what you are proposing here) was a theist.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Let us assume that God exists and It created the universe.?

If you are going to take that tack then you might as well consult a priest for the purpose of life.

Otherwise you might better assume that there is no god and so free to chose your own.

News flash: the "father" of existentialism (what you are proposing here) was a theist.

News Flash: You don't know what the fuck you are talking about...... as usual.

[sthitapragya]

"Suck it up Sthitapragya. That's the way it is."

(A riff off of Leo's motto).

All cultures have cosmological myths to describe how they came to be here, on the surface of the Earth. Each of those stories encapsulates a truth, a way of seeing and understanding.

What truth? A way of seeing and understanding what?

Now, and at least here on this thread, the preference is for a different explanatory system since the older ones 'no longer function'. Evolution. Random possibility. No sense to anything except what men invent. This very much has its roots in a shift in desire, in a new sense of how to go about gaining material power. It is a system with predicates, with exclusive declarations, and is a belief-system. A system that requires assent, agreement.

What are you talking about? I am simply asking you that if there is a purpose, why has God not told you what it is so that you can fulfill it? Do you have an explanation for that? Can you imagine sending someone on an errand without telling them what it is? How on earth do you expect the errand boy to do his job if he does not even know what it is? And then can you imagine the errand boy thinking, " Wow! What a boss! He wants me to figure out what I am supposed to do! This is truly a superior intellect at work. Let me be noble and figure out what I am supposed to do and then do it! He must have sent so many people on similar errands and they could not have accomplished it. I am different. I will find it and do it for my marvelously amazing boss!"

Except there are whole other ways to look at the question and the problem.

Okay. Let us here them.

Man proposes ... the universe disposes.

What does man propose? I am asking about why God did not tell you what your purpose is. What did man propose? It is a question.

[Scott Mayers]

Let us assume that God exists and It created the universe. Let us also assume that It created us for a purpose. It seems to me absolutely ridiculous that IT created us for a purpose and then sent us to this world without telling us what that purpose is. So now we are not only supposed to look for our purpose but to fulfill it once we find it.

Doesn't it seem like a very inefficient system? Can you imagine how many people have not fulfilled their purpose because they could not figure out what it was before they got run over by a manic truck or mammoth before trucks were invented? Why would an omnipotent all knowing God do something like that? How can the search for such a purpose be considered noble? God did not do ITs job properly otherwise, the purpose would be well defined and known to us so that we could fulfill it.

Why would a search for a purpose be considered a noble pursuit? Isn't it a blunder on God's part that IT wishes us to do something on earth but forgot to tell us what that something is? If your child wants you to do something, it tells you what it is. When a child cannot communicate it's needs it results in chaos all around. That is why a child quickly learns to communicate because it understands that to get what it wants, it needs to communicate its requirements clearly.

If a child can understand this in a span of a few years, why has God not figured this out in all these millions of years since we arrived?

Doesn't it make more sense to demand from God that our purposes be very well defined if IT wants that purpose fulfilled? Why is it our fault if we cannot fulfill a purpose that we were not even told about?

I understand your inquiry. See the response I just gave in Can Robots Be Ethical? where I thought of this indirectly too. That OP discusses whether it is wise for us to devise beings (robots) that can be advanced using programming that enhances their capacity to 'feel' in order to judge what they should do. In this way, I think this is a related topic in an inverse way where WE are the god(s) creating another to potentially evolve against us.

I don't think there is any resolution to this as I believe the essence of life itself is based on necessary contradiction. That is, any essences that evolve to 'feel' can only do so in contrast to nature itself risking our survival. If we did not have to struggle, we'd devolve to the very robotic like state we think of our own computers represent and lose a need for both 'feeling' as well as even a need for consciousness.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

If you do a search under The Myths of Plato you will come across a recent artticle in Philosophy Now on the topic of Plato's myths. The article, as I suspect is true across the board in PN, is critical of mythic thinking or the mythologising of reality. I was able to read the article when it came up through Google but could not access it directly through my browser. I am not sure you have familiarity with the presence and function of mythos within Occidental ideas and philosophy. But to understand the function of myth I think a good place to start would be the myths of Plato.

You will keep asking this sort of question: "What truth? A way of seeing and understanding what?" and though answers will be given you, and have been given, you do not have the foundation to be able to take them in. I suggest that you gain more familiarity with the topic. There is no other way to respond to you.

Then you ask "What are you talking about?" when I state that the notion of evolution (the tenets of scientism generally) have replaced a mythic approach to understanding our existence here, in this place, in this plane, within this dimension of experience, as it might be called. You are asking me, a person who has seen his life moulded through his relationship with 'the invisible', or (to satisfy some here) who imagines this is the case, and who has, in a real sense, been given the life he has through his relationship with this 'invisible', to talk about how the invisible has NOT interacted with him and why I have not been provided with guidelines so to 'fulfil' a purpose in my life. But let's get clear here: This is your position. You do not have nor understand that relationship nor is it real for you. It can only be phantasy, delusion or delirium.

The rest of what you write is a sort of frustrated 'Letter to God' (I am making fun a little, don't get visciously upset and please - please! - don't destroy the thread) (and obviously I am still making hay with Lacewing's wicked and destructive act, please excuse). Again, you have next to zero background in the philosophy (true? or not true?) of ideas and the history of religious thinking, so how could you understand any part of it? And yet - in sincere fairness to you - I do not think your questions are at all irrelevant. I think you are only working to build your case for your grasp of the atheistic platform. This knot of issues I feel I confronted - and resolved - a long time ago.

It might be instructive to examine one of the Platonic myths and to use it as a base for conversation. Which one?

[Scott Mayers]

If you do a search under The Myths of Plato you will come across a recent artticle in Philosophy Now on the topic of Plato's myths. The article, as I suspect is true across the board in PN, is critical of mythic thinking or the mythologising of reality. I was able to read the article when it came up through Google but could not access it directly through my browser. I am not sure you have familiarity with the presence and function of mythos within Occidental ideas and philosophy. But to understand the function of myth I think a good place to start would be the myths of Plato.

You will keep asking this sort of question: "What truth? A way of seeing and understanding what?" and though answers will be given you, and have been given you do not have the foundation to be able to take them in. I suggest that you gain more familiarity with the topic. There is no other way to respond to you.

Then you ask "What are you talking about?" when I state that the notion of evolution (the tenets of scientism generally) have replaced a mythic approach to understanding our existence here, in this place, in this plane, within this dimension of experience, as it might be called. You are asking me, a person who has seen his life moulded through his relationship with 'the invisible', or (to satisfy some here) who imagines this is the case, and who has, in a real sense, been given the life he has through his relationship with this 'invisible', to talk about how the invisible has NOT interacted with him and why I have not been provided with guidelines so to 'fulfil' a purpose in my life. But let's get clear here: This is your position. You do not have nor understand that relationship nor is it real for you. It can only be phantasy, delusion or delirium.

The rest of what you write is a sort of frustrated 'Letter to God' (I am making fun a little, don't get visciously upset and please - please! - don't destroy the thread) (and obviously I am still making hay with Lacewing's wicked and destructive act, please excuse). Again, you have next to zero background in the philosophy (true? or not true?) of ideas and the history of religious thinking, so how could you understand any part of it? And yet - in sincere fairness to you - I do not think your questions are at all irrelevant. I think you are only working to build your case for your grasp of the atheistic platform. This knot of issues I feel I confronted - and resolved - a long time ago.

It might be instructive to examine one of the Platonic myths and to use it as a base for conversation. Which one?

Where did this come from and how does it relate to this topic? Did you accidentally post thinking of some other thread of the OP's?

As for my own take on your Platonist "myth" points, I'd actually like to hear if someone other than myself who has read all of his works as I'm confused at how others interpreted him. I read into his works as quite secular and skeptical of his day. He DID use the myths (=religion) of his day often but actually was relatively blaspheming with respect to them and used them only because others related a defaulted position of beliefs to them to which he questioned. It was this 'questioning' to which was embraced by the later uses by those like Christians only as it helped to displace the multi-cultural/multi-religious ideologies that prevented their eventual monopoly as a political union.

But I think you are just on the wrong thread here. This seems to be a question sthitapragpa posed apparently conditionally of a god, should it exist, to have purpose. Am I right? Or is my own viewing of this site being hijacked to appear different?

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Not at all, Scott. Myths define ways of visualising reality, and are very linked to the sense of purpose. Now, as mythic understanding of reality has been challenged, what challenges it is the general model of physical evolution. This was mentioned some posts up.

There IS in a sense no sense in searching for purpose when - as Sthith himself has stated - the 'purpose' of existence is procreation and conveyance of genetic stuff.