Philosophy Now Forum

So let me get back to the question. Why does God exist? What is his purpose for existing? What does He do by existing? What meaning does his existence have?

Why is it so important for everything to exist? What difference would it make to him or us if everything did not exist? If I hadn't existed, i would have no wish to exist or die or suffer or enjoy or become better or anything. But it would be about ME. What difference would it have made to HIM if nothing existed?

sthitapragya wrote:So let me get back to the question. Why does God exist? What is his purpose for existing? What does He do by existing? What meaning does his existence have?

Why is it so important for everything to exist? What difference would it make to him or us if everything did not exist? If I hadn't existed, i would have no wish to exist or die or suffer or enjoy or become better or anything. But it would be about ME. What difference would it have made to HIM if nothing existed?

The problem is still the same: "What is the purpose of God" is like asking, "How many corners does a circle have?" It makes no sense, because it misunderstands it's own fundamental concept completely.

IF there were a "God" who had a "purpose" greater than itself, then that entity could only be a contingent being, a being that exists for, or because of, something else, something higher and more important. It could only be "a god," small "g," meaning essentially a "super-powered-alien," like Zeus or Thor, but NOT the comprehensive, eternal, first causal Being to which monotheists refer when they say "God."

Zeus exists because of the Titans. He had a beginning. He also would have an ending...if he had ever existed at all...so he ate ambrosia and drank nectar, because without them he would die. And that's what the Greeks thought a "god" was...a contingent being with a "purpose" in the world, at least temporarily...whether to throw lightning or chase human women, or to keep Poseidon from taking over the land...or whatever.

A god with a "purpose" is a different concept.

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:So let me get back to the question. Why does God exist? What is his purpose for existing? What does He do by existing? What meaning does his existence have?

Why is it so important for everything to exist? What difference would it make to him or us if everything did not exist? If I hadn't existed, i would have no wish to exist or die or suffer or enjoy or become better or anything. But it would be about ME. What difference would it have made to HIM if nothing existed?

The problem is still the same: "What is the purpose of God" is like asking, "How many corners does a circle have?" It makes no sense, because it misunderstands it's own fundamental concept completely.

IF there were a "God" who had a "purpose" greater than itself, then that entity could only be a contingent being, a being that exists for, or because of, something else, something higher and more important. It could only be "a god," small "g," meaning essentially a "super-powered-alien," like Zeus or Thor, but NOT the comprehensive, eternal, first causal Being to which monotheists refer when they say "God."

Zeus exists because of the Titans. He had a beginning. He also would have an ending...if he had ever existed at all...so he ate ambrosia and drank nectar, because without them he would die. And that's what the Greeks thought a "god" was...a contingent being with a "purpose" in the world, at least temporarily...whether to throw lightning or chase human women, or to keep Poseidon from taking over the land...or whatever.

A god with a "purpose" is a different concept.

That would imply a god without a purpose.

sthitapragya wrote:That would imply a god without a purpose.

That would simply be to recognize that "God" is not in the category of concepts that can be ascribed a "purpose." That is to say, "God" is not a contingent being.
Now, it would not be correct to assume from that that God has no "purposes" (i.e. intentions) of His own, or that belief in God has no "purpose," (as if we don't need Him in the way He does not "need" us). But it would be correct if what you mean is to say that with reference to God it is incoherent even to speak of anything bigger than Him that could "impart" a purpose to Him ( or which could place upon Him some performance demand and make Him the recipient of that demand, obliged in some way to fulfill it.)

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:That would imply a god without a purpose.

That would simply be to recognize that "God" is not in the category of concepts that can be ascribed a "purpose." That is to say, "God" is not a contingent being.
Now, it would not be correct to assume from that that God has no "purposes" (i.e. intentions) of His own, or that belief in God has no "purpose," (as if we don't need Him in the way He does not "need" us). But it would be correct if what you mean is to say that with reference to God it is incoherent even to speak of anything bigger than Him that could "impart" a purpose to Him ( or which could place upon Him some performance demand and make Him the recipient of that demand, obliged in some way to fulfill it.)

What purpose could a perfect being have? There is no need to do anything. No need to better ones self either. There would be no desires or wishes either.

sthitapragya wrote: What purpose could a perfect being have? There is no need to do anything. No need to better ones self either. There would be no desires or wishes either.

Quite so. And that is the Eastern perspective on God, one taken over into Deism as well. "God," for them, is this big, impersonal "thing" or "force" somewhere "out there." It has neither specific identity, character or wishes: it is rather a giant blob of "just so." But the Western, Judeo-Christian perspective regards God as the proto-Person, not merely an "entity" or "force" or "thing," but a sentient and personal Being with particular characteristics, intentions and nature.

What they share is perhaps this: that God cannot be said to do things "because of X," (such as a "purpose" He must fulfill, for some reason), far less to serve a "purpose" that human beings impose on Him. He can act with gratuitous volition...act, as we say, "out of His own nature and character" rather than "because X must be done."

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: What purpose could a perfect being have? There is no need to do anything. No need to better ones self either. There would be no desires or wishes either.

Quite so. And that is the Eastern perspective on God, one taken over into Deism as well. "God," for them, is this big, impersonal "thing" or "force" somewhere "out there." It has neither specific identity, character or wishes: it is rather a giant blob of "just so." But the Western, Judeo-Christian perspective regards God as the proto-Person, not merely an "entity" or "force" or "thing," but a sentient and personal Being with particular characteristics, intentions and nature.

What they share is perhaps this: that God cannot be said to do things "because of X," (such as a "purpose" He must fulfill, for some reason), far less to serve a "purpose" that human beings impose on Him. He can act with gratuitous volition...act, as we say, "out of His own nature and character" rather than "because X must be done."

In that case why not just replace God with the universe? Wouldn't even have to be a being. The inherent nature of the universe could be to be the universe.

sthitapragya wrote:
In that case why not just replace God with the universe? Wouldn't even have to be a being. The inherent nature of the universe could be to be the universe.

That's a great question to ask a Hindu, a Buddhist, a New Ager, a Gnostic or a Deist. Now, they'll point out (and rightly so) that the universe had an origin point, and so material reality cannot be a comprehensive explanation for itself. But I agree with the problem you're seeing: an impersonal, big, energy or "force" out there is pretty much their description of "god." And why would we need to care about that, if such existed? It's pretty much just a "thing" that is not capable of having an interest in who or what we are.

Bingo! The purpose of God is to give credence to our self-importance.

Skip wrote:Bingo! The purpose of God is to give credence to our self-importance.

Non-sequitur.

You said it.

Skip wrote:You said it.

You didn't get it.

A contingent being cannot give significance to the necessary Cause of his existence. It's not rational.

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:
In that case why not just replace God with the universe? Wouldn't even have to be a being. The inherent nature of the universe could be to be the universe.

That's a great question to ask a Hindu, a Buddhist, a New Ager, a Gnostic or a Deist. Now, they'll point out (and rightly so) that the universe had an origin point, and so material reality cannot be a comprehensive explanation for itself. But I agree with the problem you're seeing: an impersonal, big, energy or "force" out there is pretty much their description of "god." And why would we need to care about that, if such existed? It's pretty much just a "thing" that is not capable of having an interest in who or what we are.

I will stop my questions here because I would then have to question you on Christianity and I understand that it is very personal to you.

Immanuel Can wrote: You didn't get it.

A contingent being cannot give significance to the necessary Cause of his existence. It's not rational.

I give significance to my parents and they are a necessary cause of my existence?

sthitapragya wrote: I will stop my questions here because I would then have to question you on Christianity and I understand that it is very personal to you.

Funny. People today seem to think that faith is like underwear -- everybody may have some, but it's terribly impolite to talk about it.