Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What led you to God?
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 256 of 300 (279871)
01-18-2006 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Faith
01-18-2006 12:49 PM


Re: Did robinrohan say that on purpose?
That's exactly it, Faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 01-18-2006 12:49 PM Faith has not replied

lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 257 of 300 (279890)
01-18-2006 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by jar
01-18-2006 11:26 AM


Re: objective purpose
What is the purpose of a stick?
Jar,
Exactly! And the same with us. Purpose is not inherent. Purpose is a relationship, a context. I just can't yet grasp why it is, or what it is Robin is looking for. Maybe he feels human individuals lack context?
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by jar, posted 01-18-2006 11:26 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by robinrohan, posted 01-19-2006 3:14 PM lfen has replied
 Message 286 by robinrohan, posted 01-19-2006 5:48 PM lfen has not replied

lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 258 of 300 (279895)
01-18-2006 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Faith
01-18-2006 12:49 PM


Re: Did robinrohan say that on purpose?
RR is right about the objective Purpose of cars. Yes, their use is their formal Purpose, or their objective Purpose. What they were made for.
Faith, and also Robin
I'm replying to your comment Faith because because it's what you said that gave me idea. I think we maybe foundering on an ancient philosophical chasm dating back to Plato and Aristotle, realism and nominalisim. I've become so Aristotelian in my thinking that it has taken me this long to even think that Robin is seeking an ideal form.
And I understand the appeal of this to literalist who want language to not just be a model of reality but that it be such an ideal model that it can be taken as reality, it's correspondences are so close.
I don't think purposes can be defined by naming things. Purpose is in context and relationship. One of the few things in the OT that impresses me if correctly translated is God saying to Moses that his name was "I am that I am". But the political use of religion veered the entire tradition to the purposes of the priests and so God had to have a purpose also.
My whole recall of the Plato Aristotle difference is so dusty. I don't know if I'll be able to find the pieces in the disorganized attic of my memory, but I suspect this is why we are having such troubles talking about this.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 01-18-2006 12:49 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Faith, posted 01-18-2006 3:05 PM lfen has not replied

lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 259 of 300 (279897)
01-18-2006 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by robinrohan
01-18-2006 12:58 PM


A sentimental view of human life is one in which one adopts a certain belief because it makes one feel good (or bad, for that matter), or one slurs over what human life is really like with vague, pleasant-sounding comments, or one ignores what human life is really like completely. By "human life," I mean human life as a whole, not the life of this or that person.
Robin,
"makes one feel good" is a purpose! To slur over "what human life is really like ... ignores what human life is really like"
"really like" you are here I think asking for a ideal platonic meaning, or form for a human life.
"human life as a whole" is an abstraction! An abstraction! At this point I think you may as well let the question expand all the way, I don't see any meaningful limit, to the question of "The meaning of life, the universe, and everything".
And God's latest revelation to St. Dougles Adams is that there is an answer to that, rest assured, it is 42! IIRC, I've misplaced the scripture.
But seriously, I think we have to back this up and ask if you are asking meaningful questions. I think you have gone astray with your semantics and gotten off into a confused philosophy as a result.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by robinrohan, posted 01-18-2006 12:58 PM robinrohan has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 260 of 300 (279898)
01-18-2006 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by lfen
01-18-2006 2:51 PM


Re: Did robinrohan say that on purpose?
I honestly cannot follow your thinking, Lfen. There's nothing so philosophically complicated about what I've been saying about purpose v Purpose, and our problem communicating may be that rather than Aristotle or Plato. It's pretty simple, commonsensical I would say. Not about Ideals or anything so highfalutin. The car was made for the purpose of transporting us. That's its Purpose. It has no purposes of its own. We have lots of purposes of our own, but what is in question here is whether we have a Purpose.
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-18-2006 03:05 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by lfen, posted 01-18-2006 2:51 PM lfen has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by sidelined, posted 01-18-2006 3:47 PM Faith has replied
 Message 265 by Jon, posted 01-18-2006 4:18 PM Faith has replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 261 of 300 (279899)
01-18-2006 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Faith
01-18-2006 3:05 PM


Re: Did robinrohan say that on purpose?
Faith
We have lots of purposes of our own, but what is in question here is whether we have a Purpose.
Why should we expext there to be a Purpose at all though faith?
How do we seperate the human want for a direction from whatever actual direction there could be?
Is life itself and the living of it not enough? Is the want for more an illusion or is it life its own purpose.
We live our lives rushing around for some sense of order and fail to look closely at what is there I think. Like the man said
"The tragedy of life is not what men suffer; but what they miss."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Faith, posted 01-18-2006 3:05 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Faith, posted 01-18-2006 3:59 PM sidelined has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 262 of 300 (279901)
01-18-2006 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by sidelined
01-18-2006 3:47 PM


Re: Did robinrohan say that on purpose?
We have lots of purposes of our own, but what is in question here is whether we have a Purpose.
=======
Why should we expext there to be a Purpose at all though faith?
That's a completely other subject, Lfen {oops, sidelined}. I can get into it if you want, but at the moment the subject is not anybody's EXPECTING there to be a Purpose. In context, it's a purely formal logical statement that there is a question as to whether we do or not have such a Purpose.
How do we seperate the human want for a direction from whatever actual direction there could be?
Is life itself and the living of it not enough? Is the want for more an illusion or is it life its own purpose.
We live our lives rushing around for some sense of order and fail to look closely at what is there I think. Like the man said
"The tragedy of life is not what men suffer; but what they miss."
All this, again, is another subject. Some may have such a "want for more," some may not. Such wants or the lack of them are in the realm of "subjective" purposes. Many people don't ask at all whether human beings have an "objective" Purpose. That is not what we are talking about.
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-18-2006 04:16 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by sidelined, posted 01-18-2006 3:47 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by sidelined, posted 01-18-2006 4:06 PM Faith has replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 263 of 300 (279903)
01-18-2006 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Faith
01-18-2006 3:59 PM


Re: Did robinrohan say that on purpose?
Faith
I will start a seperate thread on this despite you mistaking my name ok? LOL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Faith, posted 01-18-2006 3:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Faith, posted 01-18-2006 4:07 PM sidelined has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 264 of 300 (279904)
01-18-2006 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by sidelined
01-18-2006 4:06 PM


Re: Did robinrohan say that on purpose?
Oops. Well, one sort-of-circular picture gets confused with another I guess. Sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by sidelined, posted 01-18-2006 4:06 PM sidelined has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 265 of 300 (279905)
01-18-2006 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Faith
01-18-2006 3:05 PM


Re: Did robinrohan say that on purpose?
Transporting us is the purpose for which we use the car. A cat might very well realize that the car has no purpose, and would certainly fail to see its Purpose. I mean, the car was made for US, by US, to fullfill OUR purpose. The car itself has no purpose(s); only that(those) which one finds for it. A cat might find the warmth of the car its most important (as its been worded "Formal") purpose, but that does not mean that is it's actual purpose.
So, even if God does exist, and He made humans for His purpose; that would not mean that that purpose was ours as well. God's purpose for creating humans is every bit as subjective as the purpose a human finds in its automobile that it created, and what purpose the cat finds in it.
In the end, it is not the maker that determines the purpose, but rather each individual that uses the product--whatever that use may be. To say that God's "Purpose" is any bit more objective than one which we may find within ourselves, is the same as saying that the purpose of the person driving the car is more objective than the purpose of the car as used by drug addicts to hang out in and smoke weed.
Simply put: even IF there is God, and even IF He did create us; His purpose is no more objective than one recognized by anyone else.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Faith, posted 01-18-2006 3:05 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Faith, posted 01-18-2006 4:30 PM Jon has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 266 of 300 (279907)
01-18-2006 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Jon
01-18-2006 4:18 PM


Re: Did robinrohan say that on purpose?
Transporting us is the purpose for which we use the car.
That is correct. That is what it was made for. That is its objective capital-P purpose.
A cat might very well realize that the car has no purpose, and would certainly fail to see its Purpose. I mean, the car was made for US, by US, to fullfill OUR purpose.
That is correct. We made it, that is what it was made for, the cat doesn't know anything about it.
The car itself has no purpose(s); only that(those) which one finds for it.
Not so. It has the purpose of transportation. That's what it was made for. By us for us.
A cat might find the warmth of the car its most important (as its been worded "Formal") purpose, but that does not mean that is it's actual purpose.
That's correct. The cat does not have a clue to the car's objective capital-P Purpose. The cat does, however, have its own subjective purposes, which include liking the warmth of the car when it's not being taken to the vet in it perhaps.
So, even if God does exist, and He made humans for His purpose; that would not mean that that purpose was ours as well.
That is true. We have our own subjective purposes no matter what.
God's purpose for creating humans is every bit as subjective as the purpose a human finds in its automobile that it created, and what purpose the cat finds in it.
This is a very confused statement I think. The car's Purpose is to transport us. That is what we made it for. It has not been established here whether we have a Maker or what His purpose might be in making us, but logically speaking if He made us for a Purpose that IS our capital-P objective Purpose whether we use ourselves for that Purpose or not.
In the end, it is not the maker that determines the purpose, but rather each individual that uses the product--whatever that use may be.
This is getting rather sophistic if you don't mind my saying so. The distinction that has been made many times on this thread accounts for there being many different purposes at once. Nevertheless when we make something we do make it for an objective Purpose even though it may be used for all kinds of other purposes.
To say that God's "Purpose" is any bit more objective than one which we may find within ourselves, is the same as saying that the purpose of the person driving the car is more objective than the purpose of the car as used by drug addicts to hang out in and smoke weed.
But we aren't defining Purpose by who drives the car but by who made it and what it was made for. See above.
We haven't established whether we were made for a Purpose or not. It may be that we have nothing but our own subjective purposes, use ourselves for those purposes alone. That is robinrohan's belief. An objective Purpose is still a possibility apart from anything we may choose to do with ourselves.
Simply put: even IF there is God, and even IF He did create us; His purpose is no more objective than one recognized by anyone else.
Not so. Purpose established by a Maker has been clearly shown to be objective, and all other uses quite possible and subjective.
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-18-2006 04:32 PM
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-18-2006 04:32 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Jon, posted 01-18-2006 4:18 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Jon, posted 01-18-2006 4:40 PM Faith has replied
 Message 270 by Jon, posted 01-18-2006 10:25 PM Faith has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 267 of 300 (279911)
01-18-2006 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Faith
01-18-2006 4:30 PM


Re: Did robinrohan say that on purpose?
You are talking about two different things here:
1) What the car was made for, and
2) What the car's purpose is.
The thing is, that once the maker has put the car into the hands of the public, he loses all claims on deciding its purpose. He made the car, but he has no right to decide the purpose for which it is used by others. I will rephrase this incase it is too sophisticated.
Event: I make Car
Reason: To fullfil my subjective purpose
Purpose: Subjective
MY purpose: Hide out in and smoke weed
Purpose recognized in general by society: Move from point A to point B
Objective "P or p"urpose: NONE
A reason and a purpose are two differint things. Just because the reson to make the car was to fullfill the purpose, does not mean that that is also the purpose. In this sense, the purpose would be to fullfill the purpose, which is circular logic at best.
Trék
This message has been edited by Invictus, 01/18/2006 03:42 PM

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Faith, posted 01-18-2006 4:30 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Faith, posted 01-18-2006 5:56 PM Jon has replied
 Message 280 by Phat, posted 01-19-2006 2:14 PM Jon has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 268 of 300 (279924)
01-18-2006 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Jon
01-18-2006 4:40 PM


Re: Did robinrohan say that on purpose?
You are talking about two different things here:
1) What the car was made for, and
2) What the car's purpose is.
No, I am not. I am disagreeing with you that there is a difference. What the maker makes the item FOR is its Purpose. If you want to use it for a planter that's your purpose, it's not the Purpose the car was made for.
The thing is, that once the maker has put the car into the hands of the public, he loses all claims on deciding its purpose. He made the car, but he has no right to decide the purpose for which it is used by others. I will rephrase this incase it is too sophisticated.
Event: I make Car
Reason: To fullfil my subjective purpose
Purpose: Subjective
MY purpose: Hide out in and smoke weed
Purpose recognized in general by society: Move from point A to point B
Objective "P or p"urpose: NONE
A reason and a purpose are two differint things. Just because the reson to make the car was to fullfill the purpose, does not mean that that is also the purpose. In this sense, the purpose would be to fullfill the purpose, which is circular logic at best.
Trék
You've got yourself so entangled in a logic mess there is no extricating you I'm afraid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Jon, posted 01-18-2006 4:40 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Jon, posted 01-18-2006 10:17 PM Faith has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 269 of 300 (279942)
01-18-2006 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Faith
01-18-2006 5:56 PM


Re: Did robinrohan say that on purpose?
quote:
You've got yourself so entangled in a logic mess there is no extricating you I'm afraid.
It couldn't hurt to try, could it?
Now as for the purpose of the automobile in question. Just because the maker makes it with his own purpose in mind, does not mean that that is its purpose. No one, not even the maker, can decide what objective purpose an object has, because purpose is ALL subjective.
Suppose I carve a statue of an elephant for my own purpose of using it to decorate my yard. Someone else, seeing the statue, realizes that it works very well in scaring away the local neighborhood hoolagans from stealing apples off his tree. In an effort to protect his tree, he carves a statue identical to mine and places it in his back yard. What is the purpose of his statue?
What is the purpose of mine, as it too scares away local neighborhood hoolagans?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Faith, posted 01-18-2006 5:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Faith, posted 01-18-2006 10:31 PM Jon has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 270 of 300 (279944)
01-18-2006 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Faith
01-18-2006 4:30 PM


Re: Did robinrohan say that on purpose?
quote:
But we aren't defining Purpose by who drives the car but by who made it and what it was made for. See above.
No, you are defining purpose in this manner. We are defining purpose as that which is found for it by the user.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Faith, posted 01-18-2006 4:30 PM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024