Books or Articles?

Thistle

Well-known member
Okay. I don't see what divinity contributes to the objectivity of purpose.
Me either. I figured the divinity part, you would recognize as implicit in God. God's person-hood was my point.
And if doing something with deliberation makes a purpose objective, then that applies to all people, divine or not.
Okay, that is right but God is the only Person who ever created man-kind. God created you for an objective purpose. If you assign yourself some other purpose you are simply mistaken. You had neither agency nor intentionality at the point of your creation. You were not involve in your creation in any way. You could not help nor hinder your creation. You had absolutely nothing to say in the matter. God did create you and did not suffer the lack of agency or intentionality.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Me either. I figured the divinity part, you would recognize as implicit in God. God's person-hood was my point.

Okay, that is right but God is the only Person who ever created man-kind. God created you for an objective purpose. If you assign yourself some other purpose you are simply mistaken. You had neither agency nor intentionality at the point of your creation. You were not involve in your creation in any way. You could not help nor hinder your creation. You had absolutely nothing to say in the matter. God did create you and did not suffer the lack of agency or intentionality.
If God created me, then he presumably did so for a purpose. But you are sneaking in the word objective there with no justification. Any purpose he had would be subjective, based on his subjective goals and desires. It would be objectively true that his subjective purposes are those which explain my existence. But it would also be true that if God can have his subjective purposes for my life, then I can also create my own - and that we can create our own very real subjective purposes (just like God does) even if God doesn't exist. Our subjective purposes won't be ones that explain our existence, but they will still be real purposes, just like how God has real purposes even though they don't explain his own existence.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
If God created me, then he presumably did so for a purpose. But you are sneaking in the word objective there with no justification.
Not exactly. I'm teasing out an implicit part of the definition of purpose in this application. One way to see this is to look at something manufactured by men. Let's take a horse shoe for example. It's objective purpose is to shoe a horse. If there were no need to shoe horses there would be no horse shoes. Someone subjectively discovered you could play a game with horse shoes, imaginatively called "horse shoes." Once you answer why there are horse shoes, you've discovered the objective purpose.
Any purpose he had would be subjective, based on his subjective goals and desires.
Absolutely not! His purpose explains the existence of man. That attribute make his purpose objective. And it also makes your alternative "purpose" subjective.
It would be objectively true that his subjective purposes are those which explain my existence.
You've just explained what makes something objective, and ironically concluded the opposite.
But it would also be true that if God can have his subjective purposes for my life,
Except that is not true. God's purpose is objective.
then I can also create my own -
You are not really creating anything. You are assigning yourself a goal. That you call it a subjective purpose is an exercise in aggrandizement. You are assigning yourself God-like sovereignty without acknowledging God. I have no objection that you're exercising the sovereignty you have on loan from God. But is better form to acknowledge God in the act.
and that we can create our own very real subjective purposes (just like God does)
Nothing God is doing is remotely similar to what you are talking about.
even if God doesn't exist.
God can't not exist. God is necessary, the universe is contingent.
Our subjective purposes won't be ones that explain our existence,
You can say that again . . .
but they will still be real purposes,
It will be a goal, possibly an agenda item.
just like how God has real purposes even though they don't explain his own existence.
My goodness, you really have no idea what God is.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Not exactly. I'm teasing out an implicit part of the definition of purpose in this application. One way to see this is to look at something manufactured by men. Let's take a horse shoe for example. It's objective purpose is to shoe a horse. If there were no need to shoe horses there would be no horse shoes. Someone subjectively discovered you could play a game with horse shoes, imaginatively called "horse shoes." Once you answer why there are horse shoes, you've discovered the objective purpose.

Absolutely not! His purpose explains the existence of man. That attribute make his purpose objective. And it also makes your alternative "purpose" subjective.

You've just explained what makes something objective, and ironically concluded the opposite.

Except that is not true. God's purpose is objective.

You are not really creating anything. You are assigning yourself a goal. That you call it a subjective purpose is an exercise in aggrandizement. You are assigning yourself God-like sovereignty without acknowledging God. I have no objection that you're exercising the sovereignty you have on loan from God. But is better form to acknowledge God in the act.

Nothing God is doing is remotely similar to what you are talking about.

God can't not exist. God is necessary, the universe is contingent.

You can say that again . . .

It will be a goal, possibly an agenda item.

My goodness, you really have no idea what God is.
You're just using the term 'objective' in a different sense to me. By 'objective' I mean a purpose not dependent upon the mental states of any conscious subject. You mean a purpose that truly explains why a thing exists. It is only in the former sense that I am saying all purposes are subjective. If you want to use the latter sense, then that is fine, but it means that humans as well as God can create objective purposes. Chairs and tables, knives and forks, can all then have objective purposes in our universe even if there is no God.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
You're just using the term 'objective' in a different sense to me.
I'll say . . .
By 'objective' I mean a purpose not dependent upon the mental states of any conscious subject.
God is the [if you will pardon the colloquialism] "mother of all consciousness." Nothing is independent of God's consciousness.
You mean a purpose that truly explains why a thing exists.
That is what purpose is.
It is only in the former sense that I am saying all purposes are subjective.
We are talking about two different things. Paul McCartney music is very good, but it's not inspired. The Bible is inspired. You are kind of using the word purpose in the same fashion as people colloquially use inspired.
If you want to use the latter sense, then that is fine, but it means that humans as well as God can create objective purposes. Chairs and tables, knives and forks, can all then have objective purposes in our universe even if there is no God.
Yes, in a derivative sense that is true.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
That is what purpose is.
By one possible definition. Tell me, do you think God was acting purposefully in choosing to create? Was the mind of God purposeful prior to his having created? Does God lack objective purpose on account of his not having been created?
 

SteveB

Well-known member
No he's interested in how others view the argument?
Sounds like someone who needs someone to do his thinking for him.

Do you read books about Christianity and Apologetics? Yes.
Actually, I read books which explain what following Jesus consists of and how to achieve it.


Why? Don't you already know what you believe?
Knowing Whom I believe, and learning what he's given us so I can follow him in the manner that he has prescribed are two different things.

Like learning to do mathematics, physics and computer programming.

I already know that they are doable but until and unless I know the precepts and principles by which they operate, I don't know how to do what they entail.

If atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in the existence of YHVH, then you have nothing to learn about it.

Unless you need to be told what and how to think about not believing that YHVH is.

That sounds like mind control, indoctrination, and manipulation to me.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
If atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in the existence of YHVH, then you have nothing to learn about it.
As was already explained to you, there is indeed nothing more to the definition of atheism than lack of theistic belief, but there is still much that can be read, learned, and discussed regarding the reasons one might have for lacking belief. None of these reasons are a required part of atheism, so they are not part of the definition and atheists may vary in their opinions on them, but they are still a legitimate topic of atheistic discussion.
 

Tiburon

Well-known member
Sounds like someone who needs someone to do his thinking for him.


Actually, I read books which explain what following Jesus consists of and how to achieve it.



Knowing Whom I believe, and learning what he's given us so I can follow him in the manner that he has prescribed are two different things.

Like learning to do mathematics, physics and computer programming.

I already know that they are doable but until and unless I know the precepts and principles by which they operate, I don't know how to do what they entail.

If atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in the existence of YHVH, then you have nothing to learn about it.

Unless you need to be told what and how to think about not believing that YHVH is.

That sounds like mind control, indoctrination, and manipulation to me.
Everything sounds like something to you that is usually leaps and bounds from what has actually been said.
It's not just YHVH. It's all the other flavours of God so far proposed.
Why isn't the Bible enough? I thought it held everything one needs to know in order to follow God? Are you now saying it doesn't?
 

Thistle

Well-known member
By one possible definition. Tell me, do you think God was acting purposefully in choosing to create?
Yes.
Was the mind of God purposeful prior to his having created?
At that point purpose collapses into volition, so the answer would be yes, because God is the kind of Being who has a will.
Does God lack objective purpose on account of his not having been created?
The uncaused first Cause is the explanation for all purposeful things, thus respecting God, purpose collapses into volition. And those things that are not per-positively purposeful on the ground that they derive from God's moral agents [rather than God directly], or the operation of general providence [laws of nature], those are redemptively purposeful by means of special providence [Romans 8:28].

So to your point directly, the ultimate explanation can't be explained by something else, because if it could, that something else would be the ultimate explanation. Purpose would infer a further explanation so, no God the necessary Being, eternally self-existent, the fountain of all things that need an explanation, can't be further explained by some elusive further purpose.

I have to commend you on your ability to follow an argument. You are the exception.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
As was already explained to you, there is indeed nothing more to the definition of atheism than lack of theistic belief, but there is still much that can be read, learned, and discussed regarding the reasons one might have for lacking belief. None of these reasons are a required part of atheism, so they are not part of the definition and atheists may vary in their opinions on them, but they are still a legitimate topic of atheistic discussion.
in other words.... you need to get taught what to think, so you don't have to think for yourselves.

It's not that difficult.
You don't believe YHVH is real. But you need others to tell you what justifications for remaining ignorant you can use to promote the stupidity of atheism.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Everything sounds like something to you that is usually leaps and bounds from what has actually been said.
Which should beg the question of why.....
But you consistently fail to even come close to thinking for yourself, and instead need me to not think at all, so you can feel good for not thinking.
It's not just YHVH. It's all the other flavours of God so far proposed.
then I'd say you'd better get busy working through them all.
Because death is coming like a freight train, which lost its brakes, and it waits for no man/woman.
And once you die, that's it. You'll be swept away by it, and if you didn't get it worked out, you'll find yourself completely screwed.

Why isn't the Bible enough? I thought it held everything one needs to know in order to follow God? Are you now saying it doesn't?
I didn't say that at all. You however did exactly what you accused me of....

sounds like something to you that is usually leaps and bounds from what has actually been said.
I encourage you to learn to comprehend what you read.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
in other words.... you need to get taught what to think, so you don't have to think for yourselves.

It's not that difficult.
You don't believe YHVH is real. But you need others to tell you what justifications for remaining ignorant you can use to promote the stupidity of atheism.
No, Steve. Those are not other words for what I said. You are strawmanning and evading my point as always. So ridiculous.
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
So... let me get this straight, you need help to not believe God?
Please explain this to me.

I thought atheism was the non-belief in the reality of YHVH.

And you actually need people to tell you what you're supposed to believe, so that you know what to not believe, and how to not believe it?
WELL HEY!!! It's always been pretty obvious here that the "Atheist" promoters, are really nothing more than common Agnostics, who really don't really know WHAT to believe about things. So obviously theyre in need "ideological input" to either reinforce, or challenge their manufactured personal theologies. "Non-belief" has always been PHONY as a three dollar bill, since obviously there bucket loads of "belief" involved and desperate efforts to convince themselves that what they already KNOW deep down in (there IS a God, and He requires something of them) - isn't true.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
WELL HEY!!! It's always been pretty obvious here that the "Atheist" promoters, are really nothing more than common Agnostics, who really don't really know WHAT to believe about things. So obviously theyre in need "ideological input" to either reinforce, or challenge their manufactured personal theologies. "Non-belief" has always been PHONY as a three dollar bill, since obviously there bucket loads of "belief" involved and desperate efforts to convince themselves that what they already KNOW deep down in (there IS a God, and He requires something of them) - isn't true.
🤫

You know that.... I know that.... they know that they know that, but as Paul said--- they have to squelch that awareness, because they don't want the responsibility, so they act like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
:ROFLMAO::cool:
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Yes.

At that point purpose collapses into volition, so the answer would be yes, because God is the kind of Being who has a will.

The uncaused first Cause is the explanation for all purposeful things, thus respecting God, purpose collapses into volition. And those things that are not per-positively purposeful on the ground that they derive from God's moral agents [rather than God directly], or the operation of general providence [laws of nature], those are redemptively purposeful by means of special providence [Romans 8:28].

So to your point directly, the ultimate explanation can't be explained by something else, because if it could, that something else would be the ultimate explanation. Purpose would infer a further explanation so, no God the necessary Being, eternally self-existent, the fountain of all things that need an explanation, can't be further explained by some elusive further purpose.

I have to commend you on your ability to follow an argument. You are the exception.
Well, thank you for the compliment. I still don't think you're being entirely consistent here though. You were arguing that objective purpose is by definition that goal for which a thing was consciously created. But now you're saying that objective purpose can inhere in the volitional deliberations of a conscious mind, even if that mind were uncaused. I see no reason then why human volition cannot also be equally purposeful despite also not being consciously designed or created, now that you're allowing for objective purpose beyond your original definition. Assigning all objective purpose exclusively to God starts to look a lot like special pleading.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
No, Steve. Those are not other words for what I said. You are strawmanning and evading my point as always. So ridiculous.
nope.
Those are my views of what you stated.
that you NEED it to be a straw man tells me that you're not interested in conversation, only in controlling, and manipulating the discussion.....
which you've failed miserably at for 11 years now.
So.... how about trying a different tactic.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
nope. Those are my views of what you stated.
Then your views are woefully innaccurate, which is why they are misrepresentations.

Here's what I actually said. Try addressing that instead of your absurd strawman:

As was already explained to you, there is indeed nothing more to the definition of atheism than lack of theistic belief, but there is still much that can be read, learned, and discussed regarding the reasons one might have for lacking belief. None of these reasons are a required part of atheism, so they are not part of the definition and atheists may vary in their opinions on them, but they are still a legitimate topic of atheistic discussion.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
Well, thank you for the compliment. I still don't think you're being entirely consistent here though.
Well, we can't have that. Let's see what the trouble is.
You were arguing that objective purpose is by definition that goal for which a thing was consciously created.
This is close. I would say the end to which a thing is created, rather than the "goal." Goal is far to temporal an idea to suit my formulation. And to be created at all, is necessarily done consciously, because it's done by God. So I'd avoid modifying the notion of creation with consciousness.
But now you're saying that objective purpose can inhere in the volitional deliberations of a conscious mind, even if that mind were uncaused.
Purpose precedes creation. We have to talk about logical order, rather than chronological order here, to avoid a discussion of divine timelessness. If there were no purpose in creating man, there would be no man. You are presupposing there would be man then envisioning a deliberation about his purpose. That is a counterfactual to the circumstance.
I see no reason then why human volition cannot also be equally purposeful despite also not being consciously designed or created,
Goal setting, and agenda setting, and so on are like purpose, but they are not exactly the same. It's one thing for me to hire an accountant, it's another for me to create a being with the grand design of accounting in mind to break upon the business universe like the dawning sun.
now that you're allowing for objective purpose beyond your original definition.
I'm not seeing that.
Assigning all objective purpose exclusively to God starts to look a lot like special pleading.
You need to connect more dots for me to see your point. because I'm just not seeing the problem.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Well, we can't have that. Let's see what the trouble is.

This is close. I would say the end to which a thing is created, rather than the "goal." Goal is far to temporal an idea to suit my formulation. And to be created at all, is necessarily done consciously, because it's done by God. So I'd avoid modifying the notion of creation with consciousness.

Purpose precedes creation. We have to talk about logical order, rather than chronological order here, to avoid a discussion of divine timelessness. If there were no purpose in creating man, there would be no man. You are presupposing there would be man then envisioning a deliberation about his purpose. That is a counterfactual to the circumstance.

Goal setting, and agenda setting, and so on are like purpose, but they are not exactly the same. It's one thing for me to hire an accountant, it's another for me to create a being with the grand design of accounting in mind to break upon the business universe like the dawning sun.

I'm not seeing that.

You need to connect more dots for me to see your point. because I'm just not seeing the problem.
The problem is that you have changed your definition of purpose, and are now using a notion that can be applied to humans as well as God. if God's mind can be purposeful without being created, then our minds can be too.
 
Top