Teleology And Human Ethics...

[seer]

This is an assertion of belief on your part, and not supported by objective verifiable evidence.

What do you mean? What is the purpose for our existence according to atheism/materialism?

[seer]

If God has no reason to have those purposes, goals or aims then they have no foundation and do not establish anything other than just choice. If you cannot give a reason then we are back to the just making statements approach. And if you have given up when it comes to providing reasons then you are right that asking for reasons is stupid.

Just making statements? Like your fictional objective ethics? But again, you are asking an inane question. Is God supposed to have some external purpose? How would one divine a purpose for an uncreated being? What would that even look like?

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, you said that was a purpose to our existence - there isn't if naturalism is true - period.

Ah . . . no, you are misrepresenting me. By the definitions of purpose and reason, for the nature of our physical existence has purpose and reasonbased on Natural Law, and natural processes. There. of course is no anthropomorphic intent, by definition in the purpose and reason from the scientific perspective. The definitions provided describe creation as an option for purpose, but not the only reason for a purpose. I have previously explained this by the definitions provided. Please cite me properly and completely and do not misrepresent me as you usually do.

Theistic 'ultimate purpose,' reason and intent remains a question of belief, and cannot be justified by the objective verifiable evidence.

You, of course, consider there are no alternative explanations for the nature of our physical existence, life and evolution, but that is a rather unrealistic egocentric view and not supported by objective verifiable evidence.

[seer]

Ah . . . no, you are misrepresenting me. By the definitions of purpose and reason, for the nature of our physical existence has purpose and reason based on Natural Law, and natural processes. There. of course is no anthropomorphic intent, by definition in the purpose and reason from the scientific perspective. The definitions provided describe creation as an option for purpose, but not the only reason for a purpose. I have previously explained this by the definitions provided. Please cite me properly and completely and do not misrepresent me as you usually do.

As defined purpose requires intent. You can say that evolution is the reason why developed as we did, but there is no purpose in that. Evolution does not purpose one species to survive and another to go extinct. It is a blind purposeless process.

[JimL]

Jim, God just is, there can be no other answer. You believe that matter and energy are past eternal - what is their purpose?

Thats my point seer, if god can just be, existing for no particular reason, with no intended purpose, then so can the universe and you just be. You presuppose intent and purpose because you want there to be ultimate intent and purpose in your life, but as you can see, just as an uncreated god would have no ultimate intention or purpose for his existence, neither would an uncreated universe. Wanting existence to be a certain way is not a reason that it has to be that way.

[seer]

Thats my point seer, if god can just be, existing for no particular reason, with no intended purpose, then so can the universe and you just be. You presuppose intent and purpose because you want there to be ultimate intent and purpose in your life, but as you can see, just as an uncreated god would have no ultimate intention or purpose for his existence, neither would an uncreated universe. Wanting existence to be a certain way is not a reason that it has to be that way.

Jim, I'm not arguing that the universe can't just be, only that there would be no ultimate purpose for humankind. And God would not need some external reason or purpose for His existence to create us with a purpose and value.

[shunyadragon]

As defined purpose requires intent.

You can say that evolution is the reason why developed as we did, but there is no purpose in that. Evolution does not purpose one species to survive and another to go extinct. It is a blind purposeless process.

It is blind to intent, but not purpose and reason by definition. As a noun there is no necessary intent for a purpose,

Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=purpose+definition&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS740US740&oq=purpoae&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.4971j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

for which something exists.

© Copyright Original Source

[seer]

It is blind to intent, but not purpose and reason by definition. As a noun there is no necessary intent for a purpose,

Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=purpose+definition&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS740US740&oq=purpoae&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.4971j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

for which something exists.

© Copyright Original Source

To your definition:

the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.
"the purpose of the meeting is to appoint a trustee"

The reason for why something is done or created. What was the reason or purpose for nature creating life?

[JimL]

Jim, I'm not arguing that the universe can't just be, only that there would be no ultimate purpose for humankind.

Yes, and that argument, though true, has nothing to do with whether or not the universe was created.

And God would not need some external reason or purpose for His existence to create us with a purpose and value.

You,re missing the point seer, its not whether or not an uncreated god is able to create something with intention, purpose and value, the problem is that an uncreated god would himself have no ultimate intended purpose or value. If god can exist without any ultimate intended purpose, then so could an uncreated universe exist without any intended purpose. Your not being happy with that situation is not good reason that it must be otherwise.

[seer]

Yes, and that argument, though true, has nothing to do with whether or not the universe was created.

OK

You,re missing the point seer, its not whether or not an uncreated god is able to create something with intention, purpose and value, the problem is that an uncreated god would himself have no ultimate intended purpose or value. If god can exist without any ultimate intended purpose, then so could an uncreated universe exist without any intended purpose. Your not being happy with that situation is not good reason that it must be otherwise.

Of course the universe could exist without a purpose, but this thread is about human teleology and ethics.

[JimL]

OK



Of course the universe could exist without a purpose, but this thread is about human teleology and ethics.

Yes, and your point seeming to be that unless we were created and designed for a purpose, then our morals have no purpose. That doesn't make sense. Morals serve our purpose, our interests, not the interests of a creator.

[seer]

Yes, and your point seeming to be that unless we were created and designed for a purpose, then our morals have no purpose. That doesn't make sense. Morals serve our purpose, our interests, not the interests of a creator.

No Jim, what I'm saying is that there would be no correct way to live, morally. Like you said, nothing is really evil, therefore nothing is really good either. You would say that what serves the greater good is good, but why is our very survival a good? If you could get away with taking advantage of you fellow man to feather your own bed then that is a good for you.

[JimL]

No Jim, what I'm saying is that there would be no correct way to live, morally.

Depends what you mean by correct way to live. If you mean by that to insure through moral laws the best society within which to live, then there are obviously moral laws of behavior that will better achieve that end.
If you mean what behaviors might be good for yourself alone in the short term, then obviously there would be no correct way, but morality isn't about the good of you alone, its about the good of you as part of a larger community.

Like you said, nothing is really evil, therefore nothing is really good either. You would say that what serves the greater good is good, but why is our very survival a good? If you could get away with taking advantage of you fellow man to feather your own bed then that is a good for you.

Its not that there is nothing good or evil, its that there is nothing good or evil in and of itself. Good and Evil are relative to the interests of human beings, and human beings live in community with each other making good and evil relative to human society. The reason that our very survival is good is rather obvious, we have a very strong desire to survive. For us, survival is good!

[Charles]

Just making statements? Like your fictional objective ethics? But again, you are asking an inane question. Is God supposed to have some external purpose? How would one divine a purpose for an uncreated being? What would that even look like?

What this all shows is that you, as usual, have got no answer. You are just moving the problem one step further away. You want to base purpose on God but you cannot show how that establishes purpose, you have simply got nothing to say in favour of why and how. It is a skin explanation. It is like explaining the universe by claiming it was created by god and then being unable to explain why or how god exists. So, basically, you are not explaining anything but trying to cover the question up in dogma making it seem as if it is irelevant or stupid while the real problem is that you simply cannot answer it.

[seer]

What this all shows is that you, as usual, have got no answer. You are just moving the problem one step further away. You want to base purpose on God but you cannot show how that establishes purpose, you have simply got nothing to say in favour of why and how. It is a skin explanation. It is like explaining the universe by claiming it was created by god and then being unable to explain why or how god exists. So, basically, you are not explaining anything but trying to cover the question up in dogma making it seem as if it is irelevant or stupid while the real problem is that you simply cannot answer it.

Charles how on earth can one show how or why an eternal being exists? Your question is irrational, like your fictional objective ethics.