This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

I have never had it explained to my satisfaction...

#11the_hedonistPosted 6/23/2011 5:55:12 PM
You are an atheist, correct? Then you will certainly not agree with my answer, but here goes.

"The chief end of man is to glorify God by enjoying Him forever." -John Piper
---
Everything that doesn't have to do with elephants is irrelephant.
~The Christian Hedonist~
#12zyzzvya01Posted 6/23/2011 6:18:56 PM
Biologically the point of life is to reproduce. To ensure your species survival.

Philosophically, in my opinion, the point is to be happy and enrich the lives of others.
#13kozlo100Posted 6/23/2011 6:36:16 PM
"The chief end of man is to glorify God by enjoying Him forever." -John Piper

I think that the question is more along the lines of asking why a physical life is required or desirable means to that end.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#14the_hedonistPosted 6/24/2011 9:12:09 PM
kozlo100 posted...
I think that the question is more along the lines of asking why a physical life is required or desirable means to that end.

Thanks for pointing that out. After rereading the OP, this is how I would phrase it:

Creation is and was essentially an overflow of God's divine love. In order for something [other than God himself] to receive that love and give it back, it must exist separate from God. So God created. And creation is that which originates from God. All of physical existence, life included, makes up that creation. Physical existence is just one of the ways we tend to describe creation.
---
Everything that doesn't have to do with elephants is irrelephant.
~The Christian Hedonist~
#15ToyMachin3Posted 6/27/2011 1:05:26 AM
To me, the purpose of this life is to do exactly what we want with what we are given when we are born. To live. Each one of us is given a chance to do this...to experience emotion, pain and all other things listed under the human condition.

I was born profoundly deaf, I'm now 27 with an English BA and am also a credentialed editor and publisher. In my years of being a student, people underestimated me, hurled negative stereotypes my way and usually assumed the worst just because I was deaf. I chose not to let this affect the way I look at myself and use it as fuel for my book that I'm currently writing on deaf culture and working with parents of deaf children on improving their child's education and/or teaching the parents ASL.

My point being, the I have created a purpose out of my life out of what I have experienced. I seek to ensure that other deaf kids do not go through what I did and that they receive the best environment they can be in regarding working with the teachers and the parents.

You create your own purpose and forge your own path. Or you can just kick back and chill if you like. Regardless of belief in whichever god you like, you still have the the spark in you. Use it to whatever purpose that suits you.

"When you have once seen the glow of happiness on the face of a beloved person, you know that a man can have no vocation but to awaken that light on the faces surrounding him. In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer." - Albert Camus
---
Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. The fearful are caught as often as the bold.
#16kozlo100Posted 6/27/2011 9:35:36 AM
Creation is and was essentially an overflow of God's divine love. In order for something [other than God himself] to receive that love and give it back, it must exist separate from God. So God created. And creation is that which originates from God. All of physical existence, life included, makes up that creation. Physical existence is just one of the ways we tend to describe creation.

This is a very good answer. Thanks for posting it.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#17mercuryinkPosted 6/27/2011 11:01:57 AM(edited)
The concluding words to a speech I once wrote: "Meaning, in life, is to be made, not found."
---
Some people are proof that G-d exists; evolution would have prevented them.
New Jersey Devils -- Stanley Cup Champions -- 1995-2000-2003
#18ChickenChaserPosted 6/27/2011 11:04:27 AM
Creation is and was essentially an overflow of God's divine love. In order for something [other than God himself] to receive that love and give it back, it must exist separate from God. So God created. And creation is that which originates from God. All of physical existence, life included, makes up that creation. Physical existence is just one of the ways we tend to describe creation.


This is a very awkward fallacy. You shouldn't have posted it.
---
#19kozlo100Posted 6/27/2011 11:15:42 AM(edited)
What is fallacious or awkward about it?

Let me explain why I think it's a good answer. The question asks about purpose of physical life in a religious context given a presupposition of spiritual existence and so forth.

The answer given assumes a religious context including the existence of the necessary spiritual entities of that religion existing, states the goal being striven for, and explains why the method used is necessary in a way that makes logical sense, and does so eloquently in my opinion.

It provides the answer requested within the stated confines of the question, clearly and in a non-contradictory way. Hard to get much better than that as far as answers go.

---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#20ChickenChaserPosted 6/27/2011 12:27:21 PM
What is fallacious or awkward about it?




Creation is and was essentially an overflow of God's divine love.

Awkward - apparently God is capable of a love so great that even he cannot contain it.


In order for something [other than God himself] to receive that love and give it back, it must exist separate from God. So God created.

Except that God first has to create love itself ... and then it would only exist as self love, as nothing else exists.
Ascribing motivation to a precreation God is weird to begin with, because by definition only God exists - anything else that exists- be it person, place, thing, or concept - would have to first be created by God in order to exist ... thus God before creation is literally and unequivocally alone, without anything... including love.


And creation is that which originates from God. All of physical existence, life included, makes up that creation. Physical existence is just one of the ways we tend to describe creation.


Precisely my point.

In order for this explanation to be sensible ... God has to create a whole host of things, before he was even conceptually capable of the motivation you describe, and yet the motivation you describe is supposed to be his motivation for creation. Thus the fallacy.

How can an overflow of love and a longing to have it expressed and returned - be a motivation and purpose for creation - when none of that stuff exists prior to ... well... creation.
In order for God to love - he must first create love.
In order for God to want to express it - he must first create a mechanism to express, i/e something external to which or from which to express.

In essence- he must create, and then subsequent to that, be motivated to create.

Certainly we can argue -well it's God and traditional causal sequences do not apply ... but that's just saying, "yea it's an awkward fallacy, but it doesn't matter because it's God and that's how he rolls." - which is fine ... but it makes the premise no less an awkward fallacy.
---