If God exists, He must necessarily exist, as a God who came into existence, is a contingent being and is less perfect than a necessary being. So either God does not exist or He necessarily exists. If the former, then there is no purpose for God, and if the latter, His purpose is to just to necessarily exist.


In popular culture, also, a God who has no followers/worshippers is not a God, so his purpose is to have followers/worshippers.

Does God have to have a purpose? If we assume God does not exist, does the universe have to have a purpose?

Perhaps God is not a personal, knowable God, but something way beyong humanitys grasp.

Just because religions exist, it does not mean God requires us to worship him etc. Religions are generally for the benefit of man, rather than for God.

i agree that god does not need a purpose and neither do we.

but suppose a person woke up and had no intention of doing anything and no thoughts came to mind (because i think they wouldnt after some time of having no intention to do anything). suppose he didnt even intend to get out of bed or go to the bathroom or eat breakfast...i dont think he would last very long.

so i am sure a god would have some intent to do something, and therefore be doing something outside of playing with us as though we were a game of chess for eons. a being that great would have to need something more than this world to keep him occupied. but the idea is that whatever it is we cant hope to imagine or guess or learn. we have a lot of smaller, less complicated questions than that which we havent yet begun to answer!

But wait a second. If god creates humanity then sets forth a system to benefit humanity, then what is the point of NOT making it benefited from the beginning?

This circular reasoning is why I object to the concept of free will. If you are given the ability to chose what ever yet you are told a particular behavior to follow then by all means you are not under free will. You are under chose right or else. That isn't a choice.

Why must God always be the power hungry authoritarian?

Fortunately, you obviously have decided to believe whatever you damn well please - and have gotten off smite-free!

Whatever we choose to do with this potential is our own responsibility and there are various rewards and consequences that we bring upon ourselves (and others) through these actions. None of this, however, suggests subversion or intrusion by a power hungry dictator-deity whose only purpose is control.

Of course, as ahmed previously stated, it's also possible that there is no intended purpose in all of this.

I also disagree that if God exists it must be out of necessity, but I feel that is a discussion better suited for PM's or another discussion thread.

But wouldn't the concept of free-will be much more objectionable if Humans simply came into being for no apparent reason than something must have created us? Such an existence would force us to accept God's existence, thus negating free-will and consequently the purpose of creation.

Although I don't agree with this argument, one could make the point that 'or else' IS still a choice. You either choose union with God or separation from God. The choice is still yours to make. An issue does arise when you consider man's limited consciousness/comprehension of the divine, thus making a decision which some theologies suggest bears eternal consequences kind of unfair, but even in light of this unfairness (because who ever said God had to be fair?), the choice is still yours.

What if all needs are met? If you didn't need to eat there would be no need to eat. If you didn't need exercise there would be no need to get out of bed. If you didn't require sleep then there wouldn't be any need to be in bed. Imagine all need are met, fulfilled, and you are utterly without requirements. What then? Or should we be brave enough to ask the question, is gods only requirement to be loved?

Such a lonely existence, existing by one's self all alone in a vast emptiness with out anything. I wouldn't want such an existence. There would be no surprise, there wouldn't be any beauty in the mystery.

Doesn't necessarily need to be. God could just as easily be a passive unintentional participant who forgot the package in the back of the refrigerator growing humans. But to be honest, when ever we present a passive god people say, "well he does get involved just not excessively". I wonder just how they know just how much god is involved or its just something they want to believe rather than actual reality.

What consequences? Are you talking about just in life or consequences after this life? Because one is obvious but not because of free will but because of the natural order of the world dictates it. Just like I have said before, I don't have the option to not eat and still live. I don't have the option to not play the game of picking and chosing, I must ALWAYS choose something. Where is the option not to chose?

Not sure why you think it requires a different thread because it is in line with the question.

You have the illusion of choices but in reality you must choose. The options you have are limited. Where is the option to chose neither god nor not god? Where was my choice to not play the love god or hate god game? I didn't get that choice did I?

My previous paragraph points out the flaw in the logic here.

i am not really sure what you mean in the first paragraph. but i think a supreme being wouldnt require love. he might on the other hand require someone or something to love and care about...

i am not really sure what you mean in the first paragraph. but i think a supreme being wouldnt require love. he might on the other hand require someone or something to love and care about...

in the second paragraph are you asking how would god have any fun if he always knew what was going to happen, and wouldnt it be boring to make up a bunch of lowly beings like us and sit watching as though we were a tv set?

one of the theories i read is that you are exactly right, the supreme being was bored and extremely lonely and that is what caused the universe to be born (and who kows how many other universes or events). if that were true, and if this being wanted surprises watching the sitcom that we are, he would give us free will-but not totally, because we are pretty dumb and dont know what might happen, we arent aware of the consequences.

is that the kind of question you are asking?

the universe according to me doesnt in the least require nor need a purpose.

If it is unknowable then any and all qualities apply equally, even those for which you might object such as god is evil. If you object to such a claim then all claims are equally objectionable.

But wait a second. If god creates humanity then sets forth a system to benefit humanity, then what is the point of NOT making it benefited from the beginning?

This circular reasoning is why I object to the concept of free will. If you are given the ability to chose what ever yet you are told a particular behavior to follow then by all means you are not under free will. You are under chose right or else. That isn't a choice.

I've spent many hours on the issue of whether God "gets involved" or not. I tend to be inclined to think that God wouldn't impose on our free-will by interfering with our actions, choices, perceptions, or beliefs.

I'm talking about in life. And are you sure about not having an option? Have you heard of a man named Hira Ratan Manik? Here's a guy who actually did exactly what you claim you cannot. He fasted for 441 days, and continued to live off of of the sun's energy and water. (link: Solar Healing Center)

This is but a purely superficial response anyway. Sure, due to certain physical properties, if you stopped eating your physical body would expire, but who says that's all there is to your life? I tend to believe that it probably isn't, and should you disagree then you're probably a physicalist, in which case I doubt that you're truly a lowest-common-denominator slave to rationality.

And, of course you must always choose something. Are you sure the option to not choose can even exist? An option is still a choice my brother. You'd still be choosing not to choose. That being said the very definition of "will" is the act or process of using or asserting one's choice. And I still assert that you are free to assert your choice as you see fit.

Maybe I'm missing something, but what's agnosticism then? Pretty sure they're neither god nor not god, more of a maybe God.

Who says you can't be indifferent towards God? I mean as far as you're already concerned there's no such thing as God, so God has absolutely no affect on your life anyway, right? Yeah, sure, there's still a-hole ignorant obnoxious fundamentalists, but that's not God's fault, so why hate God for that?

Are you sure the flaw in logic is mine? If so might I ask you to clarify a little better? I wouldn't be surprised if I'm just a big idiot because I'm missing something.:detective:

But then don't you have to ask yourself whether a supreme being who still requires something actually supreme?

in the second paragraph are you asking how would god have any fun if he always knew what was going to happen, and wouldnt it be boring to make up a bunch of lowly beings like us and sit watching as though we were a tv set?

one of the theories i read is that you are exactly right, the supreme being was bored and extremely lonely and that is what caused the universe to be born (and who kows how many other universes or events). if that were true, and if this being wanted surprises watching the sitcom that we are, he would give us free will-but not totally, because we are pretty dumb and dont know what might happen, we arent aware of the consequences.

is that the kind of question you are asking?

If the universe doesnt require a purpose, why does God?

As for your comments about God, I dont follow your reasoning. I think it is quite possible, that humanity can not fully understand God, in His nature, composition, purpose, etc. We maybe able to identify certain attributes, such as omniscience, just, eternal etc, but the why and the how is beyond us.

As for your circular reasoning arguement, to paraphrase is as follows: you say that we have the ability to do as we like, but certain choices have negative outcomes, so therefore we have no freewill.

I do not see how this can be correct, just because some outcomes are undesirable, does not remove our ability to freely choose what to do.

I favour an opinion inbetween, not absolute free will, or absolute predestination. Its as if we are placed in a car, which we can not control the speed. When we come to a junction we can choose left, right or straight on, however we must choose, and we must continue on this journey, some are driving faster than others (short life!) . The ones that choose well, arrive at a good destination, those that live life in a evil fashion, end up in an undesirable place.

I wonder what makes the original poster think that God has a purpose or must have one?

I really was not talking about specifics, what I was getting at is, did you have the choice of being born? Did god come to you and ask if you wanted to play his game? Or better yet did god come to me and ask me to play his game and I said yes? I didn't have the option of NOT being born, I also don't have the option to not play the love god game. Therefore no free will.

Do I actually have to spell it out completely? Let's use voting as an example. You can vote for believing in god or you could vote for not believing. But isn't there an option to not vote at all? No because you HAVE to play the god game. People will classify those who refuse to cast their vote into the category of not believing, but that is intellectually dishonest. A non-vote is someone refusing to play the game. But like I said, where was the option of not being born?

Exactly my point. It is why I ask the question. However if you say that god has no purpose then by all means I can also have no purpose. If I have no purpose then by all means my life could just be a fluke. A statistical chance that eventually happened.

---------- Post added 11-22-2009 at 03:52 PM ----------

Wouldn't it? If this is the case then by all means god would have an incompleteness, a need or requirement. God fulfills that requirement by creating.


What that question eventually leads to is whats the point of creating a universe to begin with. If there was no purpose, was it unintentional? Was it to fulfill something for god to create everything? Was god bored? Or does creating give god purpose for existence?

No it isn't about the negative outcomes. I am saying you have limited choice. Just like you only have two options in the god game. You either love god or hate god. You don't have the option to not play the game. You didn't have the option to not be born. You don't have the option to stop breathing and continue to live. You don't have the option to eat paint for food. You don't have the option to stop aging. You don't have the option to fly under your own power. You don't have the option to change your shape at will. You don't have the option to become a bolt of lightning. Do I need to go on or is my point made?

Right. So I would only say you have free will if there was no imposing rule. If god never makes any claims as to what god wants you to do, then by that very definition you have free will. But since god gets involved in some way by suggesting, requesting, ordering, you to behave in such and such a way then by all means you have lost free will.

Good analogy I like it. It also supports my argument. That you never had the choice to NOT get into the car. You are stuck in the seat and must play the game. Your choice has always been limited or imposed if you will allow me to use that word.

if you had not been born, you would have no choice...you had to be born to make the choice and accept the responsibility.

i notice you have referred to the 'love god' game and 'the game'. it seems to me that you are one who is not playing a love/hate god game, and you have been given that choice.

we were not given a choice about birth (though some people actually say we were) but we have the choice of committing suicide, and may people choose to do just that.

this third statement is interesting. do you believe that only if god had a purpose in creating you that you can have a purpose?

or do you believe that you have no choice in whether or not you have a purpose, that if god had no purpose then you cannot create one for yourself?

do you believe if there is no god and the universe came to be on its own as a matter of natural events, then you have free will?

what is it when a person creates art, paintings, poetry etc....is that indicative of their having to fulfill some need?

i dont see that it has to imply there is something outside of the god that he must have or create-he is simply being creative with what he already is, like a person creates a personality for himself, builds character, etc. it may be an example of his free will. he can choose to create something or not, and have a purpose or not, etc. this is where people assume his will is absolute, and i would think if it is that is why he would be called God.

i think you may be confusing free will with absolute will. what you are saying (suggesting, ordering a particular behavior) can be no different than mother saying to little kid "ok, you can watch television but only til it is time to go to bed." or "you can go outside and play in the yard, but dont go into the street." that doesnt completely take away the will of the child, but tries to teach him how to make better decisions and how to be safe. even an absolute ruler on earth does not have absolute will. as you already mentioned, he cannot soar through the air like a bird, he cannot drink paint instead of water, etc.

your last sentence pretty much sums it all up; we do not have absolute will, but we have a limited free will and can make various choices, plus we have been given guidance. the only way i can see that we are stuck with playing the game and have no free will is if we choose to check out, commit suicide, then find there is an afterlife that we cannot escape. and that could have just as easily happened if there were no creator, and we are only the result of the normal progression of the evolution of matter.

I ask because there are implications to the possible answers. Answers that I feel very few people have investigated to their fullest extent. Perhaps even answers that they ignore because it would disrupt their idealistic perspective of their god concept. It is a valid question and deserves full investigation.