God's purpose

[Craig B]

Something to ponder. What was God's purpose for creating the world, universe, and man?

It's explained in the Shorter Westminster Catechism

The most famous of the questions (known to a great many Presbyterian children) is the first:
Q. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.​

So the purpose for creating "man". (if you wish to describe humanity in that way) was so that man could enjoy God forever. OK.

 

[Giordano]

If He is, as you say, an omniscient and omnipotent entity His Acts and existence are all things at once, and the sequential timeline which you and I exist on would not apply to Him. You see, you are clearly applying your frame of reference on an entity which you have conceded is omniscient and omnipotent and therefore not bound by your frame of reference.

QED

Actually you are applying your frame of reference to Him-

"Why hasn't He gotten around to it?"
"Because a Century is like a Day to Him."
"Okay, why is he limited by time whatsoever? Why can't He do it all in an instant? Why does he even need an entire Divine Day? All moments are the moment to Him. If he wants goodness to reign, why not make it happen now? Isn't God the ultimate parallel processor?"

But here we are, as predicted, trying to fathom the unfathomable mind of God! Which is the theologian's ultimate excuse for everything that makes no sense about their portrayal of their God.

You might step back some day and ask yourself- why is theology always trying to come up with some feeble and unconvincing excuse to explain aspects of religion that make no logical sense at all- explanations that would not be accepted by a 2 year old if the same type of arguments were made in terms of the natural universe instead of a religious one?

"Why does hot water rise?"
"Because it pleases an invisible supernatural being."
"Why does it please this invisible being?"
"We mere mortals cannot understand the mind of God!"
"How do we know?"
"Because He inspired people to write a book about it."
"How do we know He wrote this book?"
"Because the book says he did."

By the way- this is a parady, not a straw man.

 

[The Big Dog]

I thought your name referred to a chapter and verse of a book of the bible? Am I incorrect?

Eta if our purpose is to "love" him/them, that still doesn't describe his/their purpose.

You are indeed incorrect.

The question is what is God's purpose for us.

 

[abaddon]

Book?

His purpose for us, well I like to start with Ephisians:





Well as I have just described his argument that His purpose would have already been fulfilled if God was omniscient and omnipotent entity does indeed not follow

Oh. My apologies. You're not a christian, you are a Paulinist. My mistake.

 

[The Big Dog]

If an omniscient and omnipotent entity wished to achieve anything, something such as goodness, they could do so immediately. And even if their goal was to achieve that for a future infinite time, they could maintain that "good" state all that time by modifying their actions as circumstances changed. Why would they need to allow an intermediate subpar situation to exist for any length of time? And also remember- they are omnipotent and omniscient, so they can prevent circumstances from changing in an undesirable manner by a simple thought. Why would they even have to react to any changes in the universe (natural or supernatural) when they can direct or prevent any such changes by just willing otherwise?

Actually you are applying your frame of reference to Him-

....

By the way- this is a parady, not a straw man.

It is neither a parody nor a strawman, it rather appears to be a moving of the goalposts.

I was simply explaining why your argument (viz. If an omniscient and omnipotent entity [/HILITE]wished to achieve anything, something such as goodness, they could do so immediately) was incorrect using your own words.

 

[The Big Dog]

Oh. My apologies. You're not a christian, you are a Paulinist. My mistake.

Ron Paul? No, never voted for him.

 

[fuelair]

The Rule of So is a commonly used description of a all to typical fallacy whereby one strawmans a post with an off topic rant, such as here.

In this case the topic is God's purpose.

Paul said, "God is the one who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work"

Paul lied..... There is no god (are no gods) - just wistful wanting or dangerous delusions but no actual existence. And to make clear the point, just in case, that no existence bit includes God (just to clarify, not signify).

 

[Giordano]

It is neither a parody nor a strawman, it rather appears to be a moving of the goalposts.

I was simply explaining why your argument (viz. If an omniscient and omnipotent entity [/HILITE]wished to achieve anything, something such as goodness, they could do so immediately) was incorrect using your own words.

Did you do your snip on my followup post before or after you read it?

So far we have:
"Rule of So"
"Strawman"
and now:
"Moving the Goalposts"
I don't think that those words mean what you think they mean. Inconceivable!

 

[Giordano]

Paul lied..... There is no god (are no gods) - just wistful wanting or dangerous delusions but no actual existence. And to make clear the point, just in case, that no existence bit includes God (just to clarify, not signify).

I find it interesting that some people read the story of Paul in the New Testament as an example of how one can find redemption in Christ. As far as I see it, however, it is really a story of a narrow minded, soulless, and heartless tax collector continuing to act a creep, but now defending his hypocritical views and lack of empathy as doing the work of God. A perfect metaphor for so many "Christians" today! If I recall correctly, Paul never even met Christ physically (perhaps that might have helped?).

 

[Magrat]

You are indeed incorrect.

The question is what is God's purpose for us.

Okay, sorry about the name. I thought I'd seen you say that somewhere. I must have confused you with someone else.

God's purpose for us is for us to love him. I still think that's like me having children in order for the kids to love me, it is unfathomably selfish. Not to mention he isn't a very loveable individual. I can accept that is what you believe the answer to be, but it doesn't really make sense, nor is it a reason to submit my life to someone.

Stalker: I let you live so you can love me!
RK: *calls police*

It kinda makes Christianity sound like Stockholm syndrome.

 

[The Big Dog]

If an omniscient and omnipotent entity wished to achieve anything, something such as goodness, they could do so immediately. And even if their goal was to achieve that for a future infinite time, they could maintain that "good" state all that time by modifying their actions as circumstances changed. Why would they need to allow an intermediate subpar situation to exist for any length of time? And also remember- they are omnipotent and omniscient, so they can prevent circumstances from changing in an undesirable manner by a simple thought. Why would they even have to react to any changes in the universe (natural or supernatural) when they can direct or prevent any such changes by just willing otherwise?

Did you do your snip on my followup post before or after you read it?

Snip? No idea what you are referring to.

I am simply rebutting your original argument, using your frame of reference. I specifically bolded it for your perusal.

Again, I am simply explaining why your argument is wrong using your own words. It does not logically follow, QED.

And then you claimed: "Actually you are applying your frame of reference to Him-" which is patently false. You claimed: "If an omniscient and omnipotent entity wished to achieve anything, something such as goodness, they could do so immediately." Your "then" (they could do so immediately) does not follow from your conditional "if" statement

 

[Magrat]

Snip? No idea what you are referring to.

I am simply rebutting your original argument, using your frame of reference. I specifically bolded it for your perusal.

Again, I am simply explaining why your argument is wrong using your own words. It does not logically follow, QED.

And then you claimed: "Actually you are applying your frame of reference to Him-" which is patently false. You claimed: "If an omniscient and omnipotent entity wished to achieve anything, something such as goodness, they could do so immediately." Your "then" (they could do so immediately) does not follow from your conditional "if" statement

Here is your entire post.

Are you saying God isn't omniscient and omnipotent?

 

[The Big Dog]

Are you saying God isn't omniscient and omnipotent?

I am explaining that if God is omniscient and omnipotent as Giordano claims, then Giordano's argument is wrong.

There is an entire thread on "omniscient and omnipotent," this one is about God's purpose.

 

[Giordano]

Snip? No idea what you are referring to.

I am simply rebutting your original argument, using your frame of reference. I specifically bolded it for your perusal.

Again, I am simply explaining why your argument is wrong using your own words. It does not logically follow, QED.

And then you claimed: "Actually you are applying your frame of reference to Him-" which is patently false. You claimed: "If an omniscient and omnipotent entity wished to achieve anything, something such as goodness, they could do so immediately." Your "then" (they could do so immediately) does not follow from your conditional "if" statement

For purposes of clarification, you quoted my original post # 193 in full but snipped (edited out) the vast bulk of my reply (post #202) to your prior criticism of my original post. This is the "snip" to which I referred.

You did not address even the snipped portion of my reply (post #202), or the part you removed, but instead re-iterated your criticism to my original post (#193) as if I had never replied.

But I intensely dislike this type of I said/you said. Believe what you wish, but don't pretend that it is logical. That would be "special pleading."

 

[abaddon]

I am explaining that if God is omniscient and omnipotent as Giordano claims, then Giordano's argument is wrong.

There is an entire thread on "omniscient and omnipotent," this one is about God's purpose.

Is your claim now that your god is neither omniscient nor omnipotent?

And don't think for a moment that you dodged my question.

 

[The Big Dog]

For purposes of clarification, you quoted my original post # 193 in full but snipped (edited out) the vast bulk of my reply (post #202) to your prior criticism of my original post. This is the "snip" to which I referred.

You did not address even the snipped portion of my reply (post #202), or the part you removed, but instead re-iterated your criticism to my original post (#193) as if I had never replied.

But I intensely dislike this type of I said/you said. Believe what you wish, but don't pretend that it is logical. That would be "special pleading."

I'm sorry, are you really complaining that I snipped out your "parody" (again, your word, not mine)? That is curious, as it did not seem to merit a reply. Particularly as the preceding sentence: "Actually you are applying your frame of reference to Him-" was clearly erroneous, as I was using only your own words.

 

[The Big Dog]

Are you saying God isn't omniscient and omnipotent?

I am explaining that if God is omniscient and omnipotent as Giordano claims, then Giordano's argument is wrong.

There is an entire thread on "omniscient and omnipotent," this one is about God's purpose.

Is your claim now that your god is neither omniscient nor omnipotent?

And don't think for a moment that you dodged my question.

Asked and answered.

 

[Giordano]

Just to clarify- I am not claiming that God is omniscient or omnipotent- that is the standard theological interpretation in the three largest world religions. Not believing in a god, it would be difficult for me to claim any properties about him. It would almost be a strawman argument!

Nonetheless, I would think that whether or not God is omniscient and omnipotent is very relevant to interpreting his purpose for us. If I had a week to live and was in a prison cell, my purpose and my attempts to achieve it would be very different from if I lived forever, knew everything, and could do anything.

 

[abaddon]

Ron Paul? No, never voted for him.

That would be "Saint Paul" as if you didn't know.

The loon who invented everything out of whole cloth.

And how in the name of blazes would I vote for Ron Paul? I'm not american, don't reside in America, don't have a vote in America and mostly don't care about the superstitious backwater that America seems hell bent on driving itself into.

Why would I give a flying <bleep>?

 

[The Big Dog]

Just to clarify- I am not claiming that God is omniscient or omnipotent- that is the standard theological interpretation in the three largest world religions. Not believing in a god, it would be difficult for me to claim any properties about him. It would almost be a strawman argument!

Nonetheless, I would think that whether or not God is omniscient and omnipotent is very relevant to interpreting his purpose for us. If I had a week to live and was in a prison cell, my purpose and my attempts to achieve it would be very different from if I lived forever, knew everything, and could do anything.

Well, it would appear that we are back to the original question I asked you, viz:

The purpose would have been achieved by now? Well you are going to have to explain then what you think the purpose is, because from what I know based on the Scriptures, your comment makes no sense.