Philosophy Now Forum

Dontaskme wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: So you don't know. Just kidding. That is nice way of explaining the Brahman a shown by Shiva during his Taandav nritya (dance). I don't know whether you are aware of the concept of the Hindu Brahman but you have described it pretty well.

Thanks, and yes I am aware of the Hindu Brahman. But in fact I was first drawn to Sufism in the search for the meaning of life. My search is now over.

Since there are many different versions of God, the question was directed at those who believe in a meaning and purpose of life.

sthitapragya wrote: Since there are many different versions of God, the question was directed at those who believe in a meaning and purpose of life.

I think it's a natural necessity to search for meaning and purpose of life, it's a natural curiosity.
Finding satisfaction in no purpose or meaning is still a purpose and meaning.

There is so much beauty and freedom that comes with living life with no purpose or meaning, no expectations, no knowing what's going to happen next, just this divine mystery.

It's only humans that search for purpose and meaning to life. Since it's only humans that have the belief in a separate self. That's the problem right there in the assumed separation, thus the search for this one is inevitable for human hence the invention of religion.

Who?

https://youtu.be/WQXwt83hYkE

sthitapragya wrote:
My existence would have a purpose only if the existence of my creator or boss had a purpose. If He has no clue what his purpose is, he won't be able to tell me what is mine. So again, what is the purpose of my creator's existence?

The only creator of existence is you. The one who knows existence is the creator of it. You exist because there is a belief, or there is a sense or a feeling about it which then claims those feelings to be something other than what is already existing without knowing. For example, a tree exists, but it doesn't know it exists, the tree only exists as a concept, it's the same for any object including a human. The moment a concept arises as and through the human which it is programmed to do by nature, the concept becomes a some thing known in the same instant. Therefore creation can only come from you.

The belief there is a knowing coming from this you you believe to be has actually no idea who or what this you is only that it is, thinking arises in this you too. But no thought has ever been seen, so no thing is actually happening, life is happening to no thing, but what can no thing do with that? that's why this no thing seemingly gives what it doesn't know or can't see a name and says that's what it is...or that's what I am.
Nothing is known until named, what are you without a name, what is anything without a label? naming is knowing, who is naming but a noise coming from some fleshy vocal cords in the form of a word, an intangible sound that disappears as instantaneously as it appears.

The name is never this, since this is already perfectly this, no thing can add anymore to what is, what is is everything. No thing creates itself.

Dontaskme wrote:God is an empty word arising from nothing, all words are emptiness appearing to be as if they are something,but there is nothing here that has any actually known source.

Hoorah! A kindred cosmic tribe mate speaking in the language of my heart. So refreshing to see on this site amidst all the divinely twisted and drooling grunts and ravings.

The question is backward.

"Purpose" means "utility to something," or "objective for something." Whatever that "something" would be from which a "god" would derive its purpose, that thing would be superior to that "god."

Therefore the word "god" in the question would not refer to the Supreme Being at all, but rather to a secondary or tertiary entity at best.

"A god" can have a "purpose," like Poseidon is attributed the "purpose" of managing the seas; but THE God cannot be said to have a "purpose" in existing. That would be conceptually inconsistent. For what else could the Supreme Being exist?

(P.S. -- I'm assuming you're not asking "What does the Supreme Being purpose to do," which is a variant reading of the wording of your question, but not likely to be what you're asking here, I think).

Immanuel Can wrote:The question is backward.

"Purpose" means "utility to something," or "objective for something." Whatever that "something" would be from which a "god" would derive its purpose, that thing would be superior to that "god."

Therefore the word "god" in the question would not refer to the Supreme Being at all, but rather to a secondary or tertiary entity at best.

"A god" can have a "purpose," like Poseidon is attributed the "purpose" of managing the seas; but THE God cannot be said to have a "purpose" in existing. That would be conceptually inconsistent. For what else could the Supreme Being exist?

(P.S. -- I'm assuming you're not asking "What does the Supreme Being purpose to do," which is a variant reading of the wording of your question, but not likely to be what you're asking here, I think).

No,actually I am asking what is the purpose of supreme being. Why does he choose to exist?

sthitapragya wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:(P.S. -- I'm assuming you're not asking "What does the Supreme Being purpose to do," which is a variant reading of the wording of your question, but not likely to be what you're asking here, I think).

No,actually I am asking what is the purpose of supreme being. Why does he choose to exist?

Really? You're asking what God has in mind by existing?

As opposed to...? What's the alternative state of things?

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:(P.S. -- I'm assuming you're not asking "What does the Supreme Being purpose to do," which is a variant reading of the wording of your question, but not likely to be what you're asking here, I think).

No,actually I am asking what is the purpose of supreme being. Why does he choose to exist?

Really? You're asking what God has in mind by existing?

As opposed to...? What's the alternative state of things? :shock:

No. For God there are probably other states which we cannot even imagine or intuit. So why did he stick with this? What purpose does his existence serve?

Or let us take it to the other extreme. Let you us assume that for God there are two choices. Exist or not exist. Why did he choose to exist? What brilliant thing does he do by existing? Everyday, millions of kids either die or are exploitd or abused. So what does this glorious God do? Is he okay with it? Is he powerless to stop it? These kids were not asked if they wanted to be born so that they could be exploited or abused. But they are. God does not seem to have any powers to stop it. What is the purpose of his existence?

In all the f@cking philosophy, people seem to have lost sight of what is really important. CHILDREN. WHAT DOES FREAKING GOD DO TO PROTECT THEM? AND WHY THE F@CK DO YOU F@CKING BELIEVER LS LET HIM GET AWAY WITH THE EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN? Why WORSHIP AN ENTITY THAT HAS NO SHAME? OR INTEGRITY?

Believing is God is an insult of God. It implies believing in an entity who does not care for children. and that means believing and worshipping a monster.

Immanuel Can to sthitapragya wrote:Really? You're asking what God has in mind by existing?

I think this earlier post by sthitapragya to Nick_A helps point to the reason/logic for the question:

What is the purpose of God? Why IS he? He is as you say eternally unchanging. So why is he? What is the point of staying static eternally? No improvement, no deterioration. What is the point of his existence?

Also, are you implying that He has no control over the fact that He exists? He could stop existing, couldn't He? So why is He existing? What purpose does He serve?

My existence would have a purpose only if the existence of my creator or boss had a purpose. If He has no clue what his purpose is, he won't be able to tell me what is mine. So again, what is the purpose of my creator's existence?

sthitapragya wrote:No. For God there are probably other states which we cannot even imagine or intuit.

Maybe. But if you only mean some alternate state similar to this one -- like a parallel universe or something -- then the question makes no sense; because, by definition, a truly Supreme Being would logically have to "exist" in all possible worlds if He existed in any one. So it cannot even be asked without making "God" refer to an entity not "Supreme." You're really interrogating the concept "big but limited alien," not "God."

On the other hand, if you mean "other states we cannot even imagine or intuit," as you put it, then surely logic would be of no use in giving us any insight...in which case, we cannot even coherently ask the question, because no conventional, intelligible or logical answers are, by your given terms, even possible.

So why did he stick with this?

With "this" what?

What purpose does his existence serve?

Again, God "serves" somebody else's "purpose"? Why would we even suppose a Supreme Being does such a thing, and how could He be "supreme" if He did?

Who is getting "served" in your premise? If he is being "served," then HE must be more "supreme" than the Supreme Being, since he is the one the Supreme Being serves...and that just self-contradicts.

You're perhaps not realizing it, but you're asking a question like, "How many corners does a circle have?"

Or let us take it to the other extreme. Let you us assume that for God there are two choices. Exist or not exist.

Not possible to assume, because the Supreme Being is, by definition, the grounds of all being of everything else. If He doesn't exist, and if He is the grounds of existence, then NOTHING exists...no world, no universe, no consciousnesses, no questioning minds, and not even alternate planes of reality...the BIG NOTHING.

We cannot even imagine that, let alone ask a question about it, because it asks us to imagine a state in which even imagination does not exist...and a state in which no state can exist...

Why did he choose to exist? What brilliant thing does he do by existing?

By your wording, are you assuming the existence of some kind of "universe" without a Creator? You're certainly talking about a created God, because you ask about his "choos[ing] to exist." That posits a choice, a beginning of God, and the pre-existence of some 'theatre' in which to enact the choice. None of these is coherent in reference to the concept "Supreme Being."

I'm not trying to be difficult here: I just can't see any logical way your question can be referred to the conception "God." It looks like a sort of anthropomorphic slip in logic to me...but clear that up for me, if you feel inclined.

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:No. For God there are probably other states which we cannot even imagine or intuit.

Maybe. But if you only mean some alternate state similar to this one -- like a parallel universe or something -- then the question makes no sense; because, by definition, a truly Supreme Being would logically have to "exist" in all possible worlds if He existed in any one. So it cannot even be asked without making "God" refer to an entity not "Supreme." You're really interrogating the concept "big but limited alien," not "God."

On the other hand, if you mean "other states we cannot even imagine or intuit," as you put it, then surely logic would be of no use in giving us any insight...in which case, we cannot even coherently ask the question, because no conventional, intelligible or logical answers are, by your given terms, even possible.

So why did he stick with this?

With "this" what?

What purpose does his existence serve?

Again, God "serves" somebody else's "purpose"? Why would we even suppose a Supreme Being does such a thing, and how could He be "supreme" if He did?

Who is getting "served" in your premise? If he is being "served," then HE must be more "supreme" than the Supreme Being, since he is the one the Supreme Being serves...and that just self-contradicts.

You're perhaps not realizing it, but you're asking a question like, "How many corners does a circle have?"

Or let us take it to the other extreme. Let you us assume that for God there are two choices. Exist or not exist.

Not possible to assume, because the Supreme Being is, by definition, the grounds of all being of everything else. If He doesn't exist, and if He is the grounds of existence, then NOTHING exists...no world, no universe, no consciousnesses, no questioning minds, and not even alternate planes of reality...the BIG NOTHING.

We cannot even imagine that, let alone ask a question about it, because it asks us to imagine a state in which even imagination does not exist...and a state in which no state can exist...

Why did he choose to exist? What brilliant thing does he do by existing?

By your wording, are you assuming the existence of some kind of "universe" without a Creator? You're certainly talking about a created God, because you ask about his "choos[ing] to exist." That posits a choice, a beginning of God, and the pre-existence of some 'theatre' in which to enact the choice. None of these is coherent in reference to the concept "Supreme Being."

I'm not trying to be difficult here: I just can't see any logical way your question can be referred to the conception "God." It looks like a sort of anthropomorphic slip in logic to me...but clear that up for me, if you feel inclined.

Well, a creator is by definition anthropomorphic, isn't he? How could he not be?

Lacewing wrote: So refreshing to see on this site amidst all the divinely twisted and drooling grunts and ravings.

Oh I know, some people need to learn how to operate their clutch properly before putting motor mouth in gear.... or better still,take the neutral position and freeride...

sthitapragya wrote:Well, a creator is by definition anthropomorphic, isn't he? How could he not be?

If "god" is understood to refer to a human imaginary projection, then yes...it would likely be an anthropomorphic one. I suppose maybe that's why idols are so popular among religions: we find it easiest to worship something like ourselves, something readily comprehensible, a projection of our own frame of experiential reference.

But this is what makes the "Supreme Being" concept of God so interesting, and so much better than that. After all, who would really have any reason to believe that some sort of "big man" made everything? Even idol worshippers claim that the idol is a representation of whatever god they're worshipping...we all realize anthropomorphism is likely to be inadequate...and even silly. We can't "read" God as being a kind of super-man. That's not plausible to anyone.

But a "Supreme Being"...that's much more sophisticated. And if we're speaking of a Creator as well, then humans are a very localized and distant expression of anything He is. To anthropomorphize, then, is to read the book backward, from man to God instead of God to man.

If God exists, then He was in the beginning... it's man that is the recent, distant, limited and local innovation. Whatever He is, it has to be a whole lot bigger, more sophisticated, less temporal and less bounded, not to say just plain better than whatever we are, no?