What is the purpose of God?

[sthitapragya]

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?

Okay. Let's take the more sophisticated version of the supreme being. In the beginning, he existed, right? No universe, no other thing except him. So why did he choose to create the universe? What good did it do? The end result is a Reality where millions of children either die horrible deaths or are abused and exploited. This is just human children. If we take the whole animal kingdom into consideration, there are probably billions of children that die horrible deaths every freaking day. Why? What is the justification for such a creation? If God gives you a justification, would you accept it in the face of the REALITY of the death or exploitation or abuse of millions of children? Isn't it monsterous? How can any human like such a god? Couldn't he come up with a better system? Was he powerless?

If any powerful being would design a system where children are killed, abused and exploited, then it could only be Satan. So it is my contention that everyone who believes in God is actually a Satan worshipper and God is the fallen Angel, powerless to stop the exploitation of children.

I hope you understand that I am also talking about the supreme being who created the universe and then left it to its own devices. Even he is to blame because he would have foreseen the reality of the exploitation of children. So why did he still persevere with such a universe?

Look at nature herself. So violent. The horrible ways that different species kill other species. What kind of loving God creates such a monsterous environment? There is nothing in nature that is loving. Definitely beautiful and breath taking. But only the deluded can call any of this love. So what kind of Supreme being is this?

But the essential point I am trying to make is that children to me are the most important things in the universe. And no philosophy of any sophistication can justify the killing, abuse or exploitation of children. None. This God allows it or has let a system develop which allows it which he is powerless to stop. That makes this God culpable of monstrous crimes. They cannot be forgiven and he cannot be tolerated. Period.

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.

[Hobbes' Choice]

sthit wrote:

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

God doesn't exist; God IS. Existence is an ever changing process. God is the eternal unchanging. The process of existence takes place within God. It is only your conceit which prevents you from attempts to answer the more relevant question: why do you exist and what is the purpose of your existence?

I think you seem to love making self refuting statements.

If there is an "eternal unchanging" then It cannot be God.

[Immanuel Can]

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...

[Skip]

(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?

https://www.sfsite.com/~silverag/morrow.html

[yiostheoy]

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...

If you wake up in a pile of horse manure you are going to wonder either how you got there or where the horsie is? That's the difference between an optimist and a pessimist.

Only a terrible fool would think they evolved inside the pile of manure from star dust.

With 7 billion people on the planet now, we have plenty of each -- optimists, pessimists, and fools.

[Immanuel Can]

If you wake up in a pile of horse manure you are going to wonder either how you got there or where the horsie is? That's the difference between an optimist and a pessimist.

Only a terrible fool would think they evolved inside the pile of manure from star dust.

With 7 billion people on the planet now, we have plenty of each -- optimists, pessimists, and fools.

And....?

[yiostheoy]

If you wake up in a pile of horse manure you are going to wonder either how you got there or where the horsie is? That's the difference between an optimist and a pessimist.

Only a terrible fool would think they evolved inside the pile of manure from star dust.

With 7 billion people on the planet now, we have plenty of each -- optimists, pessimists, and fools.

And....?

... and people who ignore the 4 classic philosophical proofs of God are taking a big risk.

[Immanuel Can]

If you wake up in a pile of horse manure you are going to wonder either how you got there or where the horsie is? That's the difference between an optimist and a pessimist.

Only a terrible fool would think they evolved inside the pile of manure from star dust.

With 7 billion people on the planet now, we have plenty of each -- optimists, pessimists, and fools.

And....?

... and people who ignore the 4 classic philosophical proofs of God are taking a big risk.

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

[thedoc]

If you wake up in a pile of horse manure you are going to wonder either how you got there or where the horsie is? That's the difference between an optimist and a pessimist.

Only a terrible fool would think they evolved inside the pile of manure from star dust.

With 7 billion people on the planet now, we have plenty of each -- optimists, pessimists, and fools.

And....?

... and people who ignore the 4 classic philosophical proofs of God are taking a big risk.

People who accept any kind of proof of God, religious, philosophical or scientific, are believing in a meaningless being. They are just retreading the irreducible complexity argument, which is itself meaningless. Every time creationists have come up with an example of irreducible complexity that science has addressed, science has shown the evolutionary trail of the development of that feature. God cannot be proven by any human means, God can only be revealed to those who will accept what is revealed to them.

BTW, I think it is quite exciting to think that I am composed of Star Dust. The realization of the immensity of space and the time it took for life to evolve into humans, is just more awe inspiring than any story told by prehistoric goat herders. Problems arise when literalists read the Judaeo/Christian Mythology and misinterpret it as actually happening the way they are reading it.

[Immanuel Can]

Hi, thedoc:

I'm going to take exception with you this time, maybe.

Every time creationists have come up with an example of irreducible complexity that science has addressed, science has shown the evolutionary trail of the development of that feature.

Not remotely true, I'm afraid. You must not have run into anyone who has any depth of understanding of the argument, or any good examples at all in hand. But as it is, the "Irreducible Complexity" argument is but one facet of one argument, "The Argument From Design," which has other feature than "irreducible complexity," even if one decides not to consider the evidence of that.

God cannot be proven by any human means, God can only be revealed to those who will accept what is revealed to them.

I guess it depends what you mean, whether or not I would agree with you. If you mean that one has to have at least a modicum of willingness to consider the evidence -- call that "faith" if you will -- then yes. But if you mean that knowledge of God can only be mystical, then I'd ask why you suppose that. Because it's not the sort of constraint you can expect people simply to accept. So from where did you learn it, and why do you think it's true?

[thedoc]

Hi, thedoc:

I'm going to take exception with you this time, maybe.

Every time creationists have come up with an example of irreducible complexity that science has addressed, science has shown the evolutionary trail of the development of that feature.

Not remotely true, I'm afraid. You must not have run into anyone who has any depth of understanding of the argument, or any good examples at all in hand. But as it is, the "Irreducible Complexity" argument is but one facet of one argument, "The Argument From Design," which has other feature than "irreducible complexity," even if one decides not to consider the evidence of that.

God cannot be proven by any human means, God can only be revealed to those who will accept what is revealed to them.

I guess it depends what you mean, whether or not I would agree with you. If you mean that one has to have at least a modicum of willingness to consider the evidence -- call that "faith" if you will -- then yes. But if you mean that knowledge of God can only be mystical, then I'd ask why you suppose that. Because it's not the sort of constraint you can expect people simply to accept. So from where did you learn it, and why do you think it's true?

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,

"Many years ago (over 30) I had an experience that I could only explain as the presence on the Holy Spirit, and based on that I reasoned that if the Holy experience was real then God was also real, since the Holy Spirit is just one aspect of God. I also understand that the particular experience was for the edification of those present and those who were not there will have their own experience to accept or reject, and will probably not accept that my experience applies to them. Arron Ra claims that faith and religion is a belief in something without evidence, but I have some evidence that is acceptable to me. I can try to give you the details, as best I can remember them, but the whole experience was accompanied with a feeling of knowing who was responsible, and that I don't believe that I could convey in words."

"My wife and I were attending a conference of Evangelical Lutherans, and during the closing service there was an event. It started with a rustling and murmuring of the people in the audience in a localized area, and seemed to move around the room. It finally settled on a young woman who stood up and started to sing in tongues, when she finished that she sang the same song again but in English. When she finished she sat down but seemed to be a bit out of it, and her friends who were with her were comforting her. While she was singing, everyone else was quiet and listening, as if everyone was attending very closely what was happening. I understand that a written description falls far short of being there, but there were aspects of the experience that were more like feelings of what was happening rather than actual physical manifestations, and 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."

[yiostheoy]

Hi, thedoc:

I'm going to take exception with you this time, maybe.

Every time creationists have come up with an example of irreducible complexity that science has addressed, science has shown the evolutionary trail of the development of that feature.

Not remotely true, I'm afraid. You must not have run into anyone who has any depth of understanding of the argument, or any good examples at all in hand. But as it is, the "Irreducible Complexity" argument is but one facet of one argument, "The Argument From Design," which has other feature than "irreducible complexity," even if one decides not to consider the evidence of that.

God cannot be proven by any human means, God can only be revealed to those who will accept what is revealed to them.

I guess it depends what you mean, whether or not I would agree with you. If you mean that one has to have at least a modicum of willingness to consider the evidence -- call that "faith" if you will -- then yes. But if you mean that knowledge of God can only be mystical, then I'd ask why you suppose that. Because it's not the sort of constraint you can expect people simply to accept. So from where did you learn it, and why do you think it's true?

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,

"Many years ago (over 30) I had an experience that I could only explain as the presence on the Holy Spirit, and based on that I reasoned that if the Holy experience was real then God was also real, since the Holy Spirit is just one aspect of God. I also understand that the particular experience was for the edification of those present and those who were not there will have their own experience to accept or reject, and will probably not accept that my experience applies to them. Arron Ra claims that faith and religion is a belief in something without evidence, but I have some evidence that is acceptable to me. I can try to give you the details, as best I can remember them, but the whole experience was accompanied with a feeling of knowing who was responsible, and that I don't believe that I could convey in words."

"My wife and I were attending a conference of Evangelical Lutherans, and during the closing service there was an event. It started with a rustling and murmuring of the people in the audience in a localized area, and seemed to move around the room. It finally settled on a young woman who stood up and started to sing in tongues, when she finished that she sang the same song again but in English. When she finished she sat down but seemed to be a bit out of it, and her friends who were with her were comforting her. While she was singing, everyone else was quiet and listening, as if everyone was attending very closely what was happening. I understand that a written description falls far short of being there, but there were aspects of the experience that were more like feelings of what was happening rather than actual physical manifestations, and 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."

That's a very nice mystical experience.

There are 3 Gods in Christianity, yes. This is readily apparent from reading the New Testament in practically any language although Greek is best. It is also readily apparent from reading Eusebius. Near the end of his life Constantine after his conversion to Christianity presumably at the hands of the Holy Spirit convened the first Council Of Nicaea at which time it was pronounced that all 3 Christian Gods were one. This is called Athanasianism after its author Bishop Athanasius. It is a confusing doctrine with no merit given it from either Eusebius or the Greek New Testament.

Even without a mystical experience it should be possible to conclude from Philosophy alone by First Cause, Prime Mover, Artistic Artificer, and Purposeful Designer that there are enough footprints in the sands of time to indicate a God was here at some time in the past and is probably still out there somewhere. Shy and reclusive perhaps, but still out there.

When you apply that philosophical analysis to belief, you could call it faith. It is like faith in gravity however, or faith in conservation of matter and energy, or faith in the speed of light. It is faith akin to pure knowledge because you figured it out on your own with Philosophy.

[yiostheoy]

Besides faith in Philosophy, I presume that many of those who are destined to become the elect of God receive their own epiphanies from God.

I presume that because that has also been my own experience.

You cannot prove to another person that there is a God.

You cannot give another person faith either.

If God wants you to know Him then He will visit you.

As it is impossible to prove a negative, you cannot prove there is no God either.

[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.

[Immanuel Can]

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.