"Without God, Life Has No Purpose . . . . . . ."

[Trailblazer]

I'm sure Rick Warren has something more in mind when he says this. In response, I don't think one needs God in this life to have a purpose. There are many successful people in "this" life who do not believe in God. I would think Rick is referring to the perfect spiritual life or the perfect second life when he talks about God in order to have a purpose. He's seeing the forest beyond the trees. I would think he's talking about worshiping and thanking God for our blessings in this life and what's to come if one's faith is true. All sorts of things crop up and get in the way in our physical life that could derail the best of intentions for keeping our faith in God.

According to my beliefs the purpose of our existence is to know and love God, soI do not think people can fulfill their purpose if they do not believe in God, although that does not mean they cannot live a purposeful life in which they find meaning. Being successful in a material sense serves a purpose in this life but it has no real meaning unless it is related to a noble purpose, whether one believes in God or not.

Matthew 6:19-21 “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”

I do not believe the spiritual life is the forest beyond the trees, I believe that the spiritual life is the trees within the forest that is right in front of us, not just in the afterlife. Heaven is a state of the soul, not a geographical location.

 

[Trailblazer]

IF you define God as the equivalent of Truth, then yeah, without the pursuit/worship of Truth (knowledge, justice, love and beauty), life does have no purpose. Meaning simpley means having a purpose. And significance is just another word for meaning. And faced with deism and atheism as the only two reasonable possibilities concerning God, given the complete lack of evidence either way, the only difference between the two from our perspective, is hope.

I agree that deism and atheism are two logical possibilities, but I believe there is also a third possibility, a God that communicates to humanity. There is plenty of evidence of this, it is all a matter of whether one is willing to consider it a possibility and take a look at the evidence.

 

[Skwim]

I agree that deism and atheism are two logical possibilities, but I believe there is also a third possibility, a God that communicates to humanity. There is plenty of evidence of this, it is all a matter of whether one is willing to consider it a possibility and take a look at the evidence.

And after looking at the evidence and discounting it as insufficient, then what? Deism and atheism remain as the only two logical possibilities?


.
.

 

[Trailblazer]

And after looking at the evidence and discounting it as insufficient, then what? Deism and atheism remain as the only two logical possibilities?

If you have given the evidence a fair shake rather than a cursory look and it remains insufficient to you, then you have no choice but to choose deism or atheism.

 

[Skwim]

If you have given the evidence a fair shake rather than a cursory look and it remains insufficient to you, then you have no choice but to choose deism or atheism.

Just trying to be clear here; so it's more than, "all a matter of whether one is willing to consider it a possibility and take a look at the evidence." Considering it a possibility and taking a look at the evidence may not, in fact, lead one to conclude that there's a "God that communicates to humanity."

.

.

 

[Trailblazer]

Just trying to be clear here; so it's more than, "all a matter of whether one is willing to consider it a possibility and take a look at the evidence." Considering it a possibility and taking a look at the evidence may not, in fact, lead one to conclude that there's a "God that communicates to humanity.".

If you do not conclude that, you do not conclude that.
Then you can be a deist or an atheist depending upon your personal inclinations.

 

[Skwim]

If you do not conclude that, you do not conclude that.
Then you can be a deist or an atheist depending upon your personal inclinations.

I take this as an admittance that it's more than, "all a matter of whether one is willing to consider it a possibility and take a look at the evidence."

Thank you.

.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I agree that deism and atheism are two logical possibilities, but I believe there is also a third possibility, a God that communicates to humanity. There is plenty of evidence of this, it is all a matter of whether one is willing to consider it a possibility and take a look at the evidence.

The only evidence is hearsay, and ancient hearsay at that. That's in conflict with the reasons why God would not interact.

 

[Valjean]

Trailblazer said: ↑
I agree that deism and atheism are two logical possibilities, but I believe there is also a third possibility, a God that communicates to humanity. There is plenty of evidence of this, it is all a matter of whether one is willing to consider it a possibility and take a look at the evidence.

I don't see any reason for deism or theism to be one of the "logical" possibilities at all. For what reason would one invent a deity out of thin air? What facts or evidence point to this possibility?
If you have any credible evidence please share.

 

[Shia Islam]

I happened upon the quote below while searching for information on replacing a toilet---don't ask. In any case, it appears to be just the
kind of religious chatter that would appeal to RF Christians. So, look it over and tell us what you think.

Just as a note of information: Richard Duane "Rick" Warren (born January 28, 1954) is an American evangelical Christian pastor and author.
He is the founder and senior pastor of Saddleback Church, an evangelical megachurch in Lake Forest, California, the eighth-largest church in the United States

​

Is it pretty much right on or is it just so much Sunday morning blather?

I suggest asking yourself:

Why would life necessarily have no purpose without god ? (Not quite sure what is meant by "without god.")

Why would life necessarily have no meaning if it has no purpose?

Why would would life necessarily lack significance or hope if it had no meaning?

.​

Just tell me a real purpose for life without God?!!

 

[Skwim]

Just tell me a real purpose for life without God?!!

There isn't any. And even if you happen to believe in god, life still has no intrinsic purpose.

.

 

[dfnj]

There isn't any. And even if you happen to believe in god, life still has no intrinsic purpose.
.

You make that statement but it's just an opinion as is its opposite. You could argue life has meaning without God. You could argue life has meaning with God.

Since an omnipotent God needs absolutely nothing from us, the only think I could ever come up with that gives our life meaning in terms of God is this: We are God's way of experiencing the thrill of having limitations by sharing in our experiences of joys and sorrows. And even further, the only way God can realize His omnipotence is by sharing in our experiences of having limitations.

 

[syo]

Why would life necessarily have no purpose without god ? (Not quite sure what is meant by "without god.")

Why would life necessarily have no meaning if it has no purpose?

Why would would life necessarily lack significance or hope if it had no meaning?

without god we are accidents. accidents have nothing, in my opinion.

 

[Valjean]

without god we are accidents. accidents have nothing, in my opinion.

Insignificance panic?

 

[syo]

Insignificance panic?

i don't think it's insignificance. or is it?

 

[Valjean]

"...accidents are nothing" sounds like insignificance to me.

 

[syo]

"...accidents are nothing" sounds like insignificance to me.

then it is, you are correct.

 

[Skwim]

without god we are accidents. accidents have nothing, in my opinion.

Strange conclusion, but okay.

.

 

[siti]

without god we are accidents. accidents have nothing, in my opinion.

I get what you're saying - why would an accident have purpose? What possible purpose could it have? But it is still a massive leap from that to the God of the Bible or any other specific deity IMO. And the evidence seems to be mounting that whatever purpose or meaning does exist in human lives is both imaginary and an evolutionary trait. Even if we admit some kind of teleological directedness guiding the evolution of the cosmos, we could not at this stage rule out that the directing "force" might very well be perfectly natural - an inevitable result of natural selection on an incredibly grand cosmological scale that encompasses far more than just the 'visible' cosmos we are privy to at present - but perfectly natural nevertheless. Sticking God in for this reason is not logically justified at all - even if there are other reasons to believe.

 

[Valjean]

We have the purpose and significance we choose for ourselves, we have function, but I see no evidence of intrinsic purpose.
Why can't we be satisfied with the roles we choose? A need for cosmic significance strikes me as a psychopathology.

Since an omnipotent God needs absolutely nothing from us, the only think I could ever come up with that gives our life meaning in terms of God is this: We are God's way of experiencing the thrill of having limitations by sharing in our experiences of joys and sorrows. And even further, the only way God can realize His omnipotence is by sharing in our experiences of having limitations.

So we're part of a cosmic MMORPG? Well, that clarifies things nicely.