What is the purpose of God?

[Immanuel Can]

Oh. It's not just four, though. But okay.

They are all really corollaries of First Cause. So there is really just one. But the other 3 are very similar -- first cause of motion in space, first cause of artistic design, and first cause of purposeful design.

Only in a very extended and tangential way, and not necessarily so, in the majority of cases.

Take "Irreducible Complexity": it is not at all a premise of, say, the Cosmological Argument. The Cosmological Argument doesn't reject the idea, of course, nor bother to affirm it either; it has no need of it at all to get going or to sustain its own case -- in fact, it doesn't even address the design question at all. And, of course, "irreducible complexity" has nothing at all to do with prudential arguments like Pascal's, or with the Ontological Arguments, or the Moral Arguments, or the Argument from Evil, or the Argument from History, or...etc.

I can recommend the best available volume on the topic, if you want to check me on that. The Blackwell Guide to Natural Theology is put out by the famous Blackwell company, of course, one of the top publishers of philosophy, as you probably know. The tome is a heck of a great read, and covers all the major pro-Theism arguments in a very advanced and intelligent way, using some of the world's greatest experts in each of the arguments in question. It is well worth the investment (which is substantial) if you're truly interested.

[Necromancer]

Why does God exist? What is the purpose of his existence?

Why? Somehow, beyond the good and bad, beyond the pains of being in flesh, I think the reason is perfection!
What? The same, from a perfect being, there is a mystical path to God's production of what is perfect!

There are of course a number of premises to this such as the soul of each and everyone. Perhaps you can identify the others, one might be the wholly good God. Some may be of the original sin. This and that. Or make up something that makes it so?

After 35 years of searching, this is what I've found (to be true).

[Immanuel Can]

thedoc:

So from where did you learn it, and why do you think it's true?[/b]

"Many years ago (over 30) I had an experience ...those I would have difficulty describing at this time. It was a long time ago, and I have retained the impressions more than the actual feelings."

Just an afterthought. Let's grant that God can use a personal, mystical experience of a supernatural kind to reveal Himself. Let's accept that as genuine, for the moment, even if we're one of those who may be reading this strand and holding a skeptical view of that possibility. Let's accept it, so to speak, "for the sake of argument," if nothing more...

May I I then pose a further question?

Granted that the experience you had was genuine, what would lead you to believe that an experience of that sort was necessarily the ONLY way in which God was able or permitted to make Himself known?

It was not part of the experience itself that you discovered your conviction about that, was it? But if it was not, then from whence came your belief that your experience must be replicated to all genuine Christians or Theists? Did someone else later tell you that this was entailed by your experience? Did you assume it yourself? Or did you read it somewhere?

I'm ask because while I respect the integrity of your account, I have different accounts -- not contradicting yours, but different from it -- in the case of other people, others who I would take to be very genuine Theists. Consequently, I see no necessity of saying everyone has to come precisely the same road as I came, so long as their road is consonant with the character and actions of God Himself. But it seems to me that you believe God can only speak through personal, mystical, supernatural experience, rather than some other avenue: is that correct?

If so, may I submit to you the possibility that God could indeed speak in many and diverse ways...as, for example, the Bible says in Hebrews chapter 1. In any case, I need to ask why you think we would have assume otherwise.

[sthitapragya]

Oh, and don't talk to me of a bigger picture. Humans need that excuse. A God with unlimited powers can CREATE a new bigger picture.

No, I wouldn't do that. I'm aware of the Leibnizian argument, but like you, I find it leaves me a bit cold. At best, I would say it is one...rather insufficient, and certainly not entirely satisfying...piece of a bigger puzzle.

Okay, I guess I see what you're saying now. What confused me is that we were getting two problems mixed up:

1. The Ontological Problem of God -- Does a God exist?

2. The Moral Problem of God -- Can a good God exist?

The second problem is much more existential and emotional; the first is generally a theoretical kind of question.

I was thinking you were dealing with the first one, and you were really concerned with the second...and then only derivatively with the first, as in, "If the world is so messed up, is there a reason to believe God exists at all?" Is that right?

Well, I'm content to stop talking about the first one and move on to the second...with your permission, of course...

I have no issues with any discussion. You must understand though that I am assuming the first only to discuss the second. After we are done, we will have to go back to the first question.

[sthitapragya]

I believe I may have related the incident here, but if not, I had an experience that I could only explain as the presence of the Holy Spirit, and if the Holy Spirit existed then so must God. It was a case of God revealing God's-self to me and not of my proving that God existed by any human means. Here is the description of the event,...

I find that very interesting. I would be fascinated to hear how others present at the time perceived things as well.

Now, float that sort of thing by an Atheist and he'll tell you it cannot have happened. HOW he can say that with any degree of certainty, he cannot tell you; he'll just say you've no right to have such an experience, unless you allow him to explain it away as a neurotic episode, and emotional fit, as spasm of unconscionable credulity or the effects of a drug. But he won't accept it as evidence for anything.

That's unfortunate, in a way: because if he could verify your experience it would surely count as evidence. But other people's experience are not subject to external verification. And they're all too susceptible to being explained away by reductive reference to the sorts of things I've listed above.

As for me, I'm content to say I have no way to speak judgmentally or favourably of your experience in that regard. I simply find it very interesting to hear about. Thank you for sharing it.

Actually it happened to me in college so I am definitely not going to say it did not happen.

[Immanuel Can]

I have no issues with any discussion. You must understand though that I am assuming the first only to discuss the second. After we are done, we will have to go back to the first question.

I'm assuming that.

But I wonder, if the Moral Problem goes away, would you even have an Ontological Problem anymore? In other words, is the only reason you struggle with the issue of God's existence is your view of the moral condition of His world? Or is the Moral Problem merely secondary to you, and if you knew for sure that God did exist, would that question be less pressing?

And I'm asking only because I want to find the starting point you really want, whatever is really of first concern to you, rather than to end up missing the essential issue.

So if you could help me map your real concern a bit I'd be grateful. I'm happy to get right to whatever you regard as the meat of the matter.

[Immanuel Can]

Actually it happened to me in college so I am definitely not going to say it did not happen.

Oh, that's intriguing....was it exactly the same? Or was your experience somewhat different?

[thedoc]

I believe I may have related the incident here, but if not, I had an experience that I could only explain as the presence of the Holy Spirit, and if the Holy Spirit existed then so must God. It was a case of God revealing God's-self to me and not of my proving that God existed by any human means. Here is the description of the event,...

I find that very interesting. I would be fascinated to hear how others present at the time perceived things as well.

Now, float that sort of thing by an Atheist and he'll tell you it cannot have happened. HOW he can say that with any degree of certainty, he cannot tell you; he'll just say you've no right to have such an experience, unless you allow him to explain it away as a neurotic episode, and emotional fit, as spasm of unconscionable credulity or the effects of a drug. But he won't accept it as evidence for anything.

That's unfortunate, in a way: because if he could verify your experience it would surely count as evidence. But other people's experience are not subject to external verification. And they're all too susceptible to being explained away by reductive reference to the sorts of things I've listed above.

As for me, I'm content to say I have no way to speak judgmentally or favourably of your experience in that regard. I simply find it very interesting to hear about. Thank you for sharing it.

It was a long time ago and the only person that was also present at the time was my wife, and she agrees with my assessment of the event.

[yiostheoy]

thedoc:

So from where did you learn it, and why do you think it's true?[/b]

"Many years ago (over 30) I had an experience ...those I would have difficulty describing at this time. It was a long time ago, and I have retained the impressions more than the actual feelings."

Just an afterthought. Let's grant that God can use a personal, mystical experience of a supernatural kind to reveal Himself. Let's accept that as genuine, for the moment, even if we're one of those who may be reading this strand and holding a skeptical view of that possibility. Let's accept it, so to speak, "for the sake of argument," if nothing more...

May I I then pose a further question?

Granted that the experience you had was genuine, what would lead you to believe that an experience of that sort was necessarily the ONLY way in which God was able or permitted to make Himself known?

It was not part of the experience itself that you discovered your conviction about that, was it? But if it was not, then from whence came your belief that your experience must be replicated to all genuine Christians or Theists? Did someone else later tell you that this was entailed by your experience? Did you assume it yourself? Or did you read it somewhere?

I'm ask because while I respect the integrity of your account, I have different accounts -- not contradicting yours, but different from it -- in the case of other people, others who I would take to be very genuine Theists. Consequently, I see no necessity of saying everyone has to come precisely the same road as I came, so long as their road is consonant with the character and actions of God Himself. But it seems to me that you believe God can only speak through personal, mystical, supernatural experience, rather than some other avenue: is that correct?

If so, may I submit to you the possibility that God could indeed speak in many and diverse ways...as, for example, the Bible says in Hebrews chapter 1. In any case, I need to ask why you think we would have assume otherwise.

It seems to me that the Philosophy-God can do whatever He pleases.

He can speak to you face to face like Abraham, or from a burning bush like Moses, or from the clouds like Peter, James and John with Jesus on the Mount Of Transfiguration, and also at Jesus' baptism with John The Baptist at the Jordon River, or from a bright light in the sky with a voice such as with Paul and Constantine.

To some He sends the Holy Spirit.

You don't hear about it because few people ever speak about it. James, Peter, and Paul spoke about it and they were killed for it.

Good reason not to talk about it.

[yiostheoy]

Why does God exist? What is the purpose of his existence?

God has not told us why.

I guess He figures it is none of our business.

I am guessing there are rules.

We first must prove worthy before we can be given more.

That's just my guess. It is an inference and hypothesis based on my own observations of God.

[yiostheoy]

Why does God exist? What is the purpose of his existence?

Why? Somehow, beyond the good and bad, beyond the pains of being in flesh, I think the reason is perfection!
What? The same, from a perfect being, there is a mystical path to God's production of what is perfect!

There are of course a number of premises to this such as the soul of each and everyone. Perhaps you can identify the others, one might be the wholly good God. Some may be of the original sin. This and that. Or make up something that makes it so?

After 35 years of searching, this is what I've found (to be true).

Everyone has their own hypothesis.

You cannot test these so it will never qualify as a theory -- the next step.

[yiostheoy]

Oh. It's not just four, though. But okay.

They are all really corollaries of First Cause. So there is really just one. But the other 3 are very similar -- first cause of motion in space, first cause of artistic design, and first cause of purposeful design.

Only in a very extended and tangential way, and not necessarily so, in the majority of cases.

Take "Irreducible Complexity": it is not at all a premise of, say, the Cosmological Argument. The Cosmological Argument doesn't reject the idea, of course, nor bother to affirm it either; it has no need of it at all to get going or to sustain its own case -- in fact, it doesn't even address the design question at all. And, of course, "irreducible complexity" has nothing at all to do with prudential arguments like Pascal's, or with the Ontological Arguments, or the Moral Arguments, or the Argument from Evil, or the Argument from History, or...etc.

I can recommend the best available volume on the topic, if you want to check me on that. The Blackwell Guide to Natural Theology is put out by the famous Blackwell company, of course, one of the top publishers of philosophy, as you probably know. The tome is a heck of a great read, and covers all the major pro-Theism arguments in a very advanced and intelligent way, using some of the world's greatest experts in each of the arguments in question. It is well worth the investment (which is substantial) if you're truly interested.

What is the book's ultimate conclusion?

That we cannot tell one way or the other?

Or does the book favor either God-ness or else Nothing-ness?

For me it is like walking along a long empty beach and then seeing footprints in the wet sand ahead of me going in the same direction as I am.

The obvious conclusion is that somebody else is up ahead.

[thedoc]

I'm ask because while I respect the integrity of your account, I have different accounts -- not contradicting yours, but different from it -- in the case of other people, others who I would take to be very genuine Theists. Consequently, I see no necessity of saying everyone has to come precisely the same road as I came, so long as their road is consonant with the character and actions of God Himself. But it seems to me that you believe God can only speak through personal, mystical, supernatural experience, rather than some other avenue: is that correct?

If so, may I submit to you the possibility that God could indeed speak in many and diverse ways...as, for example, the Bible says in Hebrews chapter 1. In any case, I need to ask why you think we would have assume otherwise.

I apologize if I gave the impression that I believe that God can only reveal God's presence in only one way. Certainly God can choose whatever means is appropriate to the individual, it just happened that this event was the means that I was made aware of God's existence. Some may not need any occurrence at all, some may need several, and some may reject all attempts by God to reveal his presence. It is not for me to judge the experience of others, but just to accept the positive influence when it happens.

[thedoc]

I like this presentation even though my pastor discounts it, saying he is an actor playing a part, I think there is more truth here than many give credit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwkgGPvClF4

[sthitapragya]

Actually it happened to me in college so I am definitely not going to say it did not happen.

Oh, that's intriguing....was it exactly the same? Or was your experience somewhat different?

Well, I was sitting at a canteen having a cup of tea. There was small wild flower in front of me, very tiny and very intricate. As I was staring at the flower, it suddenly hit me. There is a God. It was a complete conviction of a kind that cannot really explained. It was a complete certainty. It was the one thing I knew for sure. There is a God. No doubts. No questions. Absolute certainty. I wasnt even thinking of anything like that as it was my first cup of tea and I was quite blank. It stayed with me for years too.