So you ARE interpreting the question to presuppose an arbitrary assumption that someone has put us here, thereby limiting the scope of the question as stated. — Possibility
But who says that purpose must be conferred by a person? There doesn’t appear to be any evidence supporting this. It’s simply how you’ve chosen to define ‘purpose’. — Possibility
No, I don't see why one would expect it to be clear that we are being punished, or clear why. Ignorance of why exactly we are here is plausibly part of the punishment. To be punished one does not have to know 'why' one is being punished. And we - that is, we humans - sometimes punish people in a relevantly similar way. They used to give prisoners pointless tasks to do, for instance, and used to make sure the pointlessness was apparent (shot drill, the treadmill, etc.). Of course, it was not entirely pointless - the point of giving them pointless tasks was that by making them expend energy on something obviously pointless they would be harmed more than if they thought their activities were serving some purpose. Ignorance of why we are here could very plausibly function in the same way. Indeed, it is hard to think of another function for it that wouldn't imply a less than perfect purpose giver. — Bartricks
I apologise and stand corrected. I missed your period on your OP.I didn't ask it. I offered an answer. — Bartricks
We usually want prisoners to understand what they have done wrong so that they may learn from their errors. — litewave
When prisoners were made to do shot drill, it was not to reform them. It was to harm them. It was to fill their day with an arduous but obviously pointless task. — Bartricks
And as a good god wouldn't do that unless we deserved it, we can conclude that we deserve the suffering that befalls us here. — Bartricks
See, the suffering of amnesia does seem to have an edifying effect on you. — litewave
As for your proof of God, I think laws of reason or logic follow from the law of identity or non-contradiction, which means that every thing is what it is and is not what it is not. I don't see why a mind would be needed for that, let alone a conscious mind. — litewave
So, the question presupposes a grander purpose than whatever your parents were trying to achieve
There are three purposes served by your being in the prison.
If we assume that the person who has put you here for some end is a good person - and I think they demonstrably are, but for now let's just assume it -
then we can safely assume that the end for which we have been put here is a good one.
Why on earth would a good person put innocent people in it?
So, those who ask "what is the purpose of us being here?" already assume a divine purpose.
If I use a shoe to hammer-in a nail, that does not mean that the shoe's purpose is to hammer-in nails. It's purpose is determined by its designers and builders, not its users.
Again, you're missing the point: it's not supposed to have an edifying affect. — Bartricks
Because the law of non-contradiction is an imperative of reason. So, I've shown that imperatives of Reason entail God. You've said "ah, but imperatives of reason do not entail God, because they're derived from an imperative of reason". That doesn't make sense as an objection to my argument. To put it another way, which premise in my proof do you deny? — Bartricks
No, I don't see how that's true at all. Almost by definiton, your shoe's purpose is to hammer in nails. If your end is to hammer a nail, that implies that your actions serve a purpose: "I am hitting this nail to hammer it into something." — I don't get it
What if the devleopers of the shoes developed them to be good for eating? — I don't get it
Yeah, I guess I don't see the point in punishing someone by making them forget what they have done wrong unless this also has an edifying effect. — litewave
the question "why am I here?" could be relevantly addressed by saying "I am here because of my own motives." — I don't get it
If we assume that the person who has put you here for some end is a good person - and I think they demonstrably are, but for now let's just assume it -
Okay, I will assume it- but i expect you to demonstrate it at some point or that leaves a pretty large gaping hole in your argument. — I don't get it
My point is specifically to challenge your idea that purpose must designed. — matt
So even if God does exist, this does not invalidate purpose emerging via natural selection (without design). — matt
Minds, that is, mint purposes. And it is when we create something for a purpose, or put something somewhere for a purpose, that the thing in question can then be said to have a purpose, namely the purpose for which it is made or put there.
Others can use those things for different purposes. But then the purpose for which they are using it attaches to the action or project that they are engaged in, not the thing that they are using for that purpose.
If God exists, then we are here for some purpose. For God is all powerful and perfectly good, so it is unreasonable in light of those facts to suppose that our lives here serve no purpose of his
See, this is where i don't follow you. When we create something for a purpose, how does that something now have a purpose? — I don't get it
If God exists, then we are here for some purpose. For God is all powerful and perfectly good, so it is unreasonable in light of those facts to suppose that our lives here serve no purpose of his
I don't see how that follows at all. We could just be a byproduct of something actually important, like the woodchips from some divine birdhouse that is being made. You yourself refered to the "immoral natures that we ourselves seem to possess." If we do, how can you take God's 'perfect goodness' and infer anything from it at all? It seems like any value judgement you might make would be wild speculation. Just because he is all powerful does not mean that we are important enough to be punished. We might be way to insignificant to warrant amy effort on God's part. — I don't get it
‘Not here’ is not an answer. There are definitely people outside of jail, but where are the ‘innocent others’ who are ‘being protected’ from us living beings? — Wayfarer
You haven't identified a premise that you deny. — Bartricks
I deny this premise:
4. The mind whose laws are the laws of Reason is omnipotent
I don't think that instructions or commands of a mind constitute the laws of reason, as you put it. — litewave
This has been the problem throughout - I have described the second purpose, central to justice being done. And that purpose is retribution. To harm us for what we have done — Bartricks
‘Not here’ is not an answer. There are definitely people outside of jail, but where are the ‘innocent others’ who are ‘being protected’ from us living beings?
— Wayfarer
It is an answer. What do you want? An address that isn't here? No. 73, Not Here Street, Notheresville, in The Other Place. — Bartricks
1. If there are laws of Reason, then there is a mind whose laws they are — Bartricks
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.