What led you to God?

I'm not looking for anything. I am explaining the nature of human life. It lacks a formal, objective purpose.

But the maker does not determine a Formal Purpose. There is no such thing as a Formal Purpose. The maker makes the item for his own subjective purpose(s).See what Faith wrote about my elephant statue. Faith thinks that the purpose of the statue is to represent an elephant. But I as the maker (by your argument) am the one who determines Formal Purpose. Is Faith wrong in saying the elephant has a Formal Purpose other than that decided for it by its maker, me?Trék

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species

It lacks such a purpose, becuase a purpose of such type does not exist.Trék

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species

It would be better to say that humans are above mere formal purpose.It isn't a lack of anything.

You could put it that way. You would need to add, however, that the subjective purposes that humans do have are ultimately arbitrary.

Humans do not have a Formal Purpose, nor are we above one, for if we were above one, one would have to exist in the first place.Purposes are all subjective. Trying to say that any purpose ultimately applies to humans is wrong. No purposes apply to humans that we can all see. We have imaginary purpose, and that is it. So yes, our purpose/purposes is/are arbitrary.Now... if we could only agree on the fact that nothing has an objective purpose.Trék

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species

I agree. The whole idea of "formal purpose" is silly. If there is such a thing, then robinrohan should be able to write down rules of form that could be mechanically applied to determine the formal purpose of an object. I doubt that he could.In Message 289, I was pointing out that even if there were such a thing as "formal purpose", then not having one would be a benefit, not a lack.

We choose our purposes of our own free will. I suppose you could call that "ultimately arbitrary," but thats an unusual way of describing free will.

I prefer to think of it as my "Special Purpose."All our lives we scuttle along, hugging our Special Purposes. Those Purposes are only apparent in full right at the end, to someone who knew you a long time, and just for an instant when you are both finished at last and still quite fresh.I made that up. On purpose.

"arbitrary" is practically synonymous with free will: American Heritage Dictionary

quote:

---

1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice. 2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary (meaning up to the dieter's free choice).

---

Why should he be able to? He already said that such a formal purpose, if it exists in a particular case, exists independently of whether a Martian or anybody else recognizes it or not. Being able to identify the purpose is irrelevant to the point. The way RR used the term did not imply the meaning of "lack" in the sense of a deficit or misfortune as opposed to a "benefit." It was merely a logical statement, as in "Items #1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 clearly have a formal purpose, but #7 lacks one." No value judgment is implied.

If there is no way to determine this alleged purpose, then there is no basis for saying that there is such a thing. If there is a way of determining it that is independent of whether a Martian or anybody else, then determining the purpose should reduce to mechanically applying rules.

You are reifying the concept of purpose. Purpose is a word humans use when discussing actions and motivations. It is a possible discription of a brain function.Why did you pick up the stick? (possible answers might be: for fire wood, I wanted a walking stick, to knock an apple out of the tree). So what, as Jar asked, is the purpose of a stick?What is the purpose of a concave clay object I shaped and hardened in a fire? (possible answers: something to carry water in, something to wear on my head, something to make music with) So what is the purpose of the clay object? Is it in the clay object? Or is the purpose something I claim as a "motivation" a possible functional endgain for my activity?I agree that humans have no purpose. Why would they? or should they?
I don't understand how this question even arises.lfen

Sorry I didn't get around to this before, I completely missed it.Let's deal with what you've said.Contradiction:You are dealing with a "contradiction" that isn't contradictory. If the apple is red and green, and you say "the apple is red and green," then you have not contradicted anything, neither has the statement itself. If we are dealing in logic, then a contradiction IS, by its definition, FALSE. If it isn't false, then it isn't a contradiction. Anyone claiming that a part of the Bible is contradictory when it really isn't is either lying, or mistaken.All-Loving God:I've even heard believers say this, and as a non-believer, I don't agree. From what I've read in the Bible, God is very much a vengeful, jealous deity. I would never make a statement claiming God to be all-loving.Understanding God:Of course God isn't a theory. If He does exist, He is a being of some sort or another. This does not mean that God cannot be understood, unless, of course, you are talking about a "theory that can be understood" as one thing, in which case, what you've said here is pointless, because I never said God was a theory.Challenging Me:I think I've addressed all your points now; please, tell me if I've missed any .Trék

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species