Is it possible for us to create a purpose?

[leibowde84]

I believe I stated that point clearly in the OP of this thread. However, since you think I did not, then I will rephrase my argument. The atheist's intention to create a purpose requires a higher purpose (a purpose which he or she did not create) in order to give an intelligent account of that intention. IOW, whatever purpose you think you create can be subsumed by the higher purpose of seeking the good - a purpose, which you yourself agree, that is so self-evident that it hardly needs to be stated.

Can you define what you mean by "the good" specifically?

 

[LuisDantas]

Actually as atheism is closely related to materialism,

I don't think so.

it cannot ultimately have any place for creation of purpose for self, since the existence, life, will, intelligence etc. are all determined through material interactions.

That, too, can only be true by very specific, arguably excessive understandings of what "creation of purpose" means.

 

[leibowde84]

Actually as atheism is closely related to materialism,

this isn't rue unless you assume erroneously that the only thing that can exist outside the material world is God.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

IOW, whatever purpose you think you create can be subsumed by the higher purpose of seeking the good

Everyone is seeking the good as he or she understands it.

Again, what is this "good" and how do you define it? I doubt it's so encompassing that you would still say everyone is seeking it when that everyone includes Edward Gein, Jeffry Dahmer, Theodore Kaczynski, and Charles Manson.

 

[Gambit]

I had a feeling that was coming... and I do not agree in the slightest. I seek the good for myself because I like my life being good. Is that so hard to accept?

No, it's not hard to accept. And neither is it hard to accept that there is a hierarchical relation of lower goods to higher goods, to the highest good - God.

 

[ArtieE]

No, it's not hard to accept. And neither is it hard to accept that there is a hierarchical relation of lower goods to higher goods, to the highest good - God.

Name a chain of 10 "goods" from the lowest "good" to God.

 

[outhouse]

I mean that which we believe or understand to be good

Factually has nothing to do with theism or atheism.

And since you cannot substantiate that claim your WHOLE OP is non sequitur.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

...the highest good - God.

I, personally, do not accept that definition of the "highest good".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And neither is it hard to accept that there is a hierarchical relation of lower goods to higher goods, to the highest good - God.

I do not accept this hierarchy, and I am apathetic towards "god." (I don't know if there is a god or not, and I really don't care) So, apparently, I am not seeking this "good" if I understand you correctly in that everyone is seeking this (as of yet undefined) good.

 

[outhouse]

I, personally, do not accept that definition of the "highest good".

Agreed.

HOW! can he show his particular god provides the highest good out of all the gods worshipped today??????????????? what ever that means.

 

[McBell]

Name a chain of 10 "goods" from the lowest "good" to God.

I suspect that just like bringing his mantra up tot he level of argument, we will not see his imaginary list...
I bet he completely ignores your and every other request for it.

 

[leibowde84]

No, it's not hard to accept. And neither is it hard to accept that there is a hierarchical relation of lower goods to higher goods, to the highest good - God.

Can you support your claim that "God is the highest good"?

 

[outhouse]

I bet he completely ignores your and every other request for it.

Refuses to describe his concept of god as well.


Claims it is a philosophical argument is what he follows.

 

[Gambit]

For a Buddhist, nothing is self-evident because the Buddhist believes there is no self. And since the Buddhist believes there is no self, then he or she cannot rationally justify a belief that we create our own purpose because there is no "we."

Free tip: you have no idea of what you are talking about.

The doctrine of "no self "(anatta) is one of the hallmarks of Buddhism. So, if your tack is to evade the issue (which you are attempting to do above), then you will concede the point by default.

 

[LuisDantas]

Point in case.

 

[Pudding]

whatever is driving the atheist to create a purpose is itself a purpose which the atheist him- or herself did not create.

Bold empty claims.

the intention to create a purpose requires a higher purpose in order to account for the intention.

New bold empty claims.

All creative acts (including the act to create a purpose) are purpose driven. If you deny that, then you deny your capacity , not only to create a purpose, but also to create anything.

Same bold empty claims as to assert that "All creative acts (including the act to create a purpose) are purpose driven" by the previous bold empty claims of "higher purpose".

it is not possible to give an intelligent account of the intention to create a purpose without invoking some higher purpose.

Same bold empty claims in new semantic variation.

As I see it. every purpose you believe you have created during the course of your life was subordinated to a higher purpose, namely, the purpose to seek the good. This is so self-evident that it hardly needs to be stated.

This quote connects with next quote.

The desire to seek the good is a desire to seek a transcendental. The ultimate good is God. In every good you seek, you are affirming the existence of God (whether you are consciously or unconsciously aware of this fact).

Many more new bold empty claims.

It is not possible for us to create a purpose without acting on some higher purpose (which we ourselves did not create).

Repeat of the same bold empty claims.

It's not really possible to defy God's will.

New bold empty claims.

I have explained why in my post. Did you not bother to read it?

"The intention to create a purpose requires a higher purpose in order to account for the intention."



I presented an argument. If you disagree with it, then you have to present an argument to counter it. Until then, my argument stands. That's how it works.

Repeatedly repeat of the same bold empty claims like it'll finally convince anyone it's not anymore a bold empty claims.

I believe I stated that point clearly in the OP of this thread. However, since you think I did not, then I will rephrase my argument. The atheist's intention to create a purpose requires a higher purpose (a purpose which he or she did not create) in order to give an intelligent account of that intention. IOW, whatever purpose you think you create can be subsumed by the higher purpose of seeking the good - a purpose, which you yourself agree, that is so self-evident that it hardly needs to be stated.

A collection of previous bold empty claims.

And neither is it hard to accept that there is a hierarchical relation of lower goods to higher goods, to the highest good - God.

New addition of bold empty claims.


So the op intends to sharing as many of his bold empty claims.
When people ask him to substantiate his bold empty claims, he ignore them or by repeatedly stating his previous bold empty claims like he believes people will finally believes his bold empty claims are not anymore bold empty claims in doing so.

What is there to be debate?
Is the op's goal just to share the op's bold empty claims, occasionally repeat the same bold empty claims, then make new semantics variation of the previous bold empty claims, then making even more new bold empty claims?

 

[atanu]

That, too, can only be true by very specific, arguably excessive understandings of what "creation of purpose" means.

If self, will, intellect etc. are products of some process then the control is vested in that process and not in the so called created selves.

this isn't rue unless you assume erroneously that the only thing that can exist outside the material world is God.

First, who talked of God? Not me.

Second, certainly so. Since in my understanding consciousness is the abode wherein the objects exist and not the other way around.

My premise is that if consciousness is a product of a material process then we ( the created aware objects) have no scope for objectively evaluating truth value of our roots.

A simple analogy is that characters of a novel cannot evaluate their author.

In my opinion, the notions of a God creating souls or some material process giving birth to life/awareness are both inadequate. Accepting any of these notions can only mean that we have no hope of objectivity and that our fates are sealed by our creation processes from before our beginning.

In my opinion, no spiritual/religious teaching aver that we are mere automatons.

YMMV.

 

[LuisDantas]

If self, will, intellect etc. are products of some process then the control is vested in that process and not in the so called created selves.

True. The question arises of whether there is control as such, even.

 

[Buttercup]

Many atheists are inclined to argue that the only purpose we have is that which we create for ourselves. But creating a purpose qualifies as a purpose in and of itself. IOW, whatever is driving the atheist to create a purpose is itself a purpose which the atheist him- or herself did not create.

Question: Is it possible for us to create a purpose without acting on some higher purpose (which we ourselves did not create)?

"The good is what all desire." - St. Thomas Aquinas

You seem to be overly obsessed with the word "purpose". What's wrong with just 'being' in the now and loving others? Is that not enough of a purpose to ascribe to?

 

[atanu]

True. The question arises of whether there is control as such, even.

Then why people debate?