Science, Religion, God – Let’s just be honest

You raised 'ultimate destiny' in response to a query about ultimate purpose. Assuming you agree we all agree with the existence of an ultimate destiny could you go on to explain what the ultimate purpose is?If you are proposing the existence of god, what is the purpose of god? (That would be the ultimate purpose in a universe with god as the prime fact).

I agree with your general sentiment especially: And agree there are different grades of theists/ atheists that don't fall neatly into two distinct categories.But I don't really agree with your entomology (or maybe just your definitions) Gnosticism is a specific set of beliefs from a religious group in the second century.

quote:

---

the thought and practice especially of various cults of late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis (knowledge)

---

Agnosticism

quote:

---

1:a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not

​

2: a person who does not believe or is unsure of something

---

So in popular usage, the terms theist, atheist, deist and agnostic convey a general statement about a person's position regarding the existence / non-existence of a deity/ god.In order to truly apply your system of gnostic theist, agnostic theist, etc ... you would need to ask specific questions about specific areas of knowledge. In other words, a person could be certain in their knowledge about one aspect of god, but agnostic as to another aspect. But yes, there can be varying degrees of certainty among the varying generalized categories.HBD

Of course.It can even have mega-ultimate-uber-super-saiyan purpose, too.
Which is, obviously, over 9000 times greater than regular old ultimate purpose.Trying to debate whether or not a subjective idea is better or worse in different scenarios is like saying your dad is better than my dad...
What makes you feel that the added attribute of "ultimate purpose" is a good idea in the first place?It seems to me that such an attribute would only appeal to those unfortunate souls who do not already have a purpose and desperately want one they can be assured is "better than anything else"... (which, sadly, is a very large portion of the general population).What's that? You have "every-day purpose?"... pshaw... I have "ultimate-purpose!!!!"
How many pecs do you have? My ultimate-purpose has 13!!But... "purpose" just doesn't work that way.
There will never be a single, unique purpose that is "better than anything else for GDR" and also "better than anything else for Stile."Our personalities are simply too different.Maybe there's a single, unique purpose that is the best for you, and your wife, and maybe your friends and fellow church-goers... and maybe even a few others around the world.But to imply that such a personal, subjective idea could ever come down to one unique specific concept that "is best for everyone" just shows a lack of understanding about how different people can be and what "purpose" actually means.If we take the purpose of something really broad as "that we will all live happily ever after."
Then it can become an impossible task.Wanting to be the fastest living man (100m dash) is a happy and good goal.
But... there can only be one "fastest."
So, of all the track-stars after this piece of happiness... there will only be one that gets to live "happily ever after" so therefore such an ultimate purpose is unachievable by definition.So... does that mean your ultimate purpose doesn't exist?
Or does it just mean that "ultimate purpose" is a subjective concept that is indistinguishable from "regular purpose" anyway? And it can be different for different people?

In essence, you are correct. Those terms are now filling a slightly broader notion and have been somewhat usurped by various individuals conveying specific viewpoints. Which is not uncommon in the modern vernacular.I probably shouldn't have actually said 'agnosticism' and 'gnosticism' in absolute terms and just stated 'agnostic' and 'gnostic' to convey the concept of knowledge versus belief.

People like to say that God is omnipotent. However, if we are talking about God as being responsible for the universe as we perceive it, responsible for our existence and responsible for giving us consciousness complete with conscience, then frankly that is close enough to omnipotent for me even if by necessity or choice He has limitations. Sure and some religions have come up with gods that fit those descriptions. It seems to me that in most cases our understanding of the nature of God has evolved so that He is viewed in most cases as loving and just. I suggest that history shows that just as we have evolved physically, our understanding of the nature of God has evolved as well, even if that understanding is all over the map, even among people of the same faith. Fair enough, but in a sense that equates religion to a Christian fundamentalist point of view. In my discussions with people like Faith the primary point of being a Christian is to be save so that you can go and be with Jesus in the next life. It seems to me that view of Christianity is 180 degrees from what Jesus espoused. My contention, which I suggest is completely Biblical, is that we are saved for a purpose and that purpose is to serve God's creation.In a way it is a bit like politics. Some people will follow a particular leader because he/she truly believes that this particular leader will be good for the country and maybe even the world, whereas some will follow because it is in their self interest. My contention is that, (see my signature), we are called to honour the God of Christianity as seen in Jesus because we believe in His truth, justice, kindness and love, and we do that by reflecting those attributes into all of His creation. If we are simply looking for personal salvation then we have missed the mark. I think that most of us do that. Sure I believe that in the end the next life involves having Jesus as a servant King but I really don't know much beyond that. Most of what I actually do believe comes from reading books by people like Brian Greene and imagining what other universes/dimensions and multiple time zones would look like. My point was that if we are doing it for all to see then it isn't being done with an unselfish heart. I am only doing it for me. The point of Christianity is that we are to have hearts that love unselfishly so that our motives involve love for our neighbour, and all of creation for that matter, without thought of recognition by others. I took you to mean that you suggesting that we are looking for permanent recognition. I think it is like donating anonymously to building a hospital and watching it be completed. In the end the donation will be an essential part of completing the hospital and it doesn't really matter whether or not your name is on a plaque somewhere.

It seems to me that what you are essentially saying is that the term "agnostic" is something of a useless term. As nobody can "KNOW" whether or not God exists we can only be categorized by the degree of our conviction on the question. I for example would be strongly theistic but I agree that I can't be 100% certain. You would be atheistic and I'll let you decide how strongly convinced you are. The only other point would be what HBG brought up on gnosticism.

The ultimate purpose is that there will be an eternal world without the suffering and evil that exists in our current entropic universe. Somehow as humans, we are part of the process. For whatever reason we can only assume that He wants to bring about the existence that I have just described.

Some may agree that 'agnostic' is a useless term although others may disagree. I guess from my perspective, the term never really carried that much weight because I cannot, in many circumstances, know with absolutely certainty many things in my day to day life. So by that logic, we would all be agnostic in one way or another. I, for example, am pretty certain that pixies and dragons don't exist. Yet can I proclaim with absolute certainty that they don't exist? It would be difficult because I would need to prove a negative, which is nigh impossible in most circumstances.Although honestly, at some point, our critical thinking will emerge. So if a crazy person tells you they have an invisible pet dragon in their garage, my suspicion is we would probably pretty strongly assume the guy is batshit, rather than taking an agnostic view of the matter.

I have two fundemental beliefs. The first is as a theist I believe that God is loving, good and just. The second is as a Christian I believe that God resurrected Jesus which vindicates and confirms His life and teaching.If the resurrection of Jesus, as told in the Gospels is not an historical event, then I can only fall back on my beliefs as a theist and I would hold essentially the same views that you do. However, if my beliefs in the resurrection are correct then I can look to the teachings of Jesus as understood by His followers to gain knowledge of an ultimate purpose for the universe and my life. I'll repeat though that I don't believe that the Biblical message is at all precise and that we are just looking "through a glass darkly".

I would agree with all of that although I would add that when it comes to the existence of God it is pretty much impossible to prove a positive - although, never say never.

Isn't that our ultimate destiny? Fine, but I'm not asking for his motivation, I'm asking for his ultimate purpose. Why is there a god?

Sure, but the ultimate purpose is the fulfillment of that destiny. I suppose that it is similar to the human desire to have children.

Then I don't see why atheists can't have an ultimate purpose if it is just to fulfil their ultimate destiny, which we agree they believe they have. The reason for the existence of god is similar to the human desire to have children?

"IF" the ultimate destiny is that the sun goes supernova and there is only oblivion then there is no ultimate purpose. If that isn't what you believe then what do you see as our ultimate destiny? My point is that the Biblical image is that we are in some sense children of God created in His image. I assumed that you were asking why God created us and I was just drawing an analogy to our desire to raise children.

What ever happened to the idea that there can't be good without evil?Why didn't God start with the good world in the first place?