Created for a Reason

[InformedIgnorance]

While discussing right and wrong, one of the essential points brought up by one member was the concept of the extent to which we fulfilled our purpose of our existence being the primary thing against which our lives might be evaluated.

So, assuming we were created by some entity, created for a specific purpose, that this purpose had been communicated to us and we could be absolutely certain that the communication was both authentic and accurate. Do you believe that we would be obliged to attempt to fulfil that purpose and/or that the entity would have the right to punish us for not doing so?

Would this extend to a parent who had a child for a specific purpose; or to a scientist (or users of some technology) who created an intelligent form of existence for a specific purpose? Why/Why not?

(while not strictly a religious debate I have included it here because it in part refers to this)

 

[Skwim]

From what I can tell, according to Christian theology we're here to worship and please god. And that's about it. A pretty despotic relationship if you ask me, but thems in charge makes the rules.

 

[Titanic]

You live, You die, what I say is try to make the world a better place as much as you can. then whatever happen's happen's. Beyond that I would say live be happy as much as you can and who know's you might make a difference and be remembered for a century or two.

 

[Thief]

The human form renders a unique spirit with every occasion.
Your linear existence ensures it.

Created for a reason?....more like cause.

The First in spirit....mind and heart would be forever alone....if not for us.

 

[WyattDerp]

If God can create anything he wants by just wanting it, it seems silly to make sentient beings as tools or pets.

Do you believe that we would be obliged to attempt to fulfil that purpose and/or that the entity would have the right to punish us for not doing so?

What would be the point? To keep the rest in line? Out of sadism? Why not simply destroy the ones who are beyond tolerance limits or whatever?

What kind of potter "punishes" the pots that came out wrong? While blaming them? No sane one. God has the right to be nuts, sure; but God can't claim it wouldn't be nuts, God doesn't have the right to say 2+2=5.

 

[WyattDerp]

The First in spirit....mind and heart would be forever alone....if not for us.

Yeah, and? Without anything else to compare it to, I don't see how that would feel particularly lonely. One man's "alone" is another's "whole". I sure don't see how it helps to then create people to ask things from, to get frustrated with, who then in turn do the same crap to other people or even their own children... this is like the ultimate emotional pyramid scheme. At the end of it? 78238923^789234 humans in hell and/or faced with the heat death of the universe. A handful in heaven/paradise, praising God, selected by blind obedience over anything else... that makes me feel sorry for that hypothetical God just writing it out. I had low moments in my narcissistic life, but compared to that I feel like some kind of social love genius.

 

[BruceDLimber]

While discussing right and wrong, one of the essential points brought up by one member was the concept of the extent to which we fulfilled our purpose of our existence being the primary thing against which our lives might be evaluated.

So, assuming we were created by some entity, created for a specific purpose, that this purpose had been communicated to us and we could be absolutely certain that the communication was both authentic and accurate. Do you believe that we would be obliged to attempt to fulfil that purpose and/or that the entity would have the right to punish us for not doing so?

This is largely correct IMHO except for the fact that if we fail to do this, we are in fact PUNISHING OURSELVES.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[apophenia]

I believe water invented humans so it could dance.

The proof of this is that we are 70% water and like to dance.

Refusal to dance is an insult to water. But there's nothing water can do about it.

Nothing at all.

 

[Iti oj]

If/when humans make conscious life or artificill intelligence etc what rights do they have? Is it morally ok to make a slave race?

 

[sonofdad]

If/when humans make conscious life or artificill intelligence etc what rights do they have? Is it morally ok to make a slave race?

You're thinking about it the wrong way.
We'd just program them to enjoy being slaves. Win win.

 

[WyattDerp]

You're thinking about it the wrong way.
We'd just program them to enjoy being slaves. Win win.

But humans for the most part don't enjoy being slaves, and no matter what religion one could pick, most people don't believe in it. Considering all of history, you could say 99.99% of all people who ever lived, never believed in any one religion one could claim to be the correct one. So, if God made us, the programming you described clearly didn't take place.

Though of course, any process that filters out people based on blind obedience, could be considered a process of making slaves that enjoy slavery.... but a rather crude one, that'd be breeding rather than creating.

 

[Sha'irullah]

By deistic viewpoint god creates yet he does not intervene in his creation. The answer to this unanswered theory is simple. If one accepts that god is all powerful , he is a unseen spiritual or interdimensional force and the primary importance of existence is spiritual and not physical then you would understand that whatever god imagines comes into creation. Everything exist purely because it can be imagined or thought of by the mind of a all powerful being. Taking the Hellenic usage of the title Chronos one can obviously tell that god is time and Biblical references such as "the alpha and omega" prove that the common attributes of god are time and existence. This means that god cannot help but create and as far as I am concerned there are an infinite amount of dimensional alternatives that exist purely because of creative thought. God is equivalent to creative power essentially. God transcends his own self and his own actions as what is possible is brought into possibility. To believe that god is all powerful, infinite and creative is to believe that god by definition cannot help but fill the infinite void of existence by the infinitive presence of creation.
God can easily be compared to π. Despite it finitive existence it has an infinitive measurement that is incomprehensible despite visual acknowledgement and without end.

 

[Quintessence]

Being a hard determinist has a way of making this question remarkably simple. Obligation is meaningless. You will do what you were "created" to do, end of story. The gods who get in your way will do so not because you failed to do what you must, but because their fundamental nature and purpose happens to conflict with yours. Their "right" to conflict with you is irrelevant; it must be so.

 

[Iti oj]

You're thinking about it the wrong way.
We'd just program them to enjoy being slaves. Win win.

Perhaps but is that right? 'And what about ones who's progrming goes bad and wants freedom?

 

[Thief]

Yeah, and? Without anything else to compare it to, I don't see how that would feel particularly lonely. One man's "alone" is another's "whole". I sure don't see how it helps to then create people to ask things from, to get frustrated with, who then in turn do the same crap to other people or even their own children... this is like the ultimate emotional pyramid scheme. At the end of it? 78238923^789234 humans in hell and/or faced with the heat death of the universe. A handful in heaven/paradise, praising God, selected by blind obedience over anything else... that makes me feel sorry for that hypothetical God just writing it out. I had low moments in my narcissistic life, but compared to that I feel like some kind of social love genius.

Picture yourself as the First...yes you can.

And though what you have created responds to your touch...it does not really....respond.

You would be alone.
setting yourself in more than one place might be do-able...but you would only be talking to yourself....your Echo.

There is nothing else to work with other than the substance you have made.

The trick (miracle to some) would be to breath life into the substance.
Hoping something intelligent would come of it.

Created for reason?....yeah.
Created to grow into reason?....we can only hope.

 

[Slave of Allah]

While discussing right and wrong, one of the essential points brought up by one member was the concept of the extent to which we fulfilled our purpose of our existence being the primary thing against which our lives might be evaluated.

So, assuming we were created by some entity, created for a specific purpose, that this purpose had been communicated to us and we could be absolutely certain that the communication was both authentic and accurate. Do you believe that we would be obliged to attempt to fulfil that purpose and/or that the entity would have the right to punish us for not doing so?

Would this extend to a parent who had a child for a specific purpose; or to a scientist (or users of some technology) who created an intelligent form of existence for a specific purpose? Why/Why not?

(while not strictly a religious debate I have included it here because it in part refers to this)

Please Check out *edit* will have an answer to all your questions about purpose of life and i am being honest it will as it has answered mine through reason and logic not belief only

 

[Random]

I believe water invented humans so it could dance.

The proof of this is that we are 70% water and like to dance.

Refusal to dance is an insult to water. But there's nothing water can do about it.

Nothing at all.

I like your post.

Masterfully Zen.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Please Check out *edit* will have an answer to all your questions about purpose of life and i am being honest it will as it has answered mine through reason and logic not belief only

Ahh well, maybe in a while when you have 15 posts you can link me...

Alternatively if you can tell me where to find the information myself I can go get it now.

 

[WyattDerp]

Picture yourself as the First...yes you can.

And though what you have created responds to your touch...it does not really....respond.

You would be alone.

I'm a human. I'm born to be one of many, and even the very process of birth requires two parents, and the mother is usually present during birth. I can picture "myself as" the first being, but that's hardly the same, it's not even similar.

For us, loneliness is bad because it disrupts our natural state of not being alone. In the same vein, why wouldn't it be bad for God if its loneliness was disrupted?

Don't just assume loneliness as a bad thing, think about why and under what circumstances it is undesirable. Why would any of those apply to God? Why would a fish born (or existing since forever, same difference) in water try to find a way to get on land? It's "obvious" to a projecting land creature, but that's hardly an argument.

 

[Thief]

I'm a human. I'm born to be one of many, and even the very process of birth requires two parents, and the mother is usually present during birth. I can picture "myself as" the first being, but that's hardly the same, it's not even similar.

For us, loneliness is bad because it disrupts our natural state of not being alone. In the same vein, why wouldn't it be bad for God if its loneliness was disrupted?

Don't just assume loneliness as a bad thing, think about why and under what circumstances it is undesirable. Why would any of those apply to God? Why would a fish born (or existing since forever, same difference) in water try to find a way to get on land? It's "obvious" to a projecting land creature, but that's hardly an argument.

No matter the size of the cage....solitary confinement is lonely.

Solitude as natural?
I don't think so.
And apparently God didn't either.
If solitude is natural....then the creation of Man is un-natural.

I suspect your own echo would eventually be the one thing you really get tired of hearing.