post-it

I have not claimed that the effect can't pick a purpose, but that purpose at best can only be a belief. I can pick cotton, I have value because I can pick cotton, but that doesn't mean picking cotton is my purpose.



That doen't make it wrong, that only makes it in your best interest to prevent murder willy-nilly. We are still left with the fact that without a creator, murder of human life is not wrong, it just isn't in everyone's best interest.

JEST2ASK

1 - What is Murder / Rape / Theft?


Are these acts not ordered / permitted (according to the Bible).

How did the descendants of Abraham accquire the promised Land?

It would appear to my unsophisticated view that it is belief in God that leads to devaluation of Humans. Are morals relative? Are some acts immmoral regardless of the stated purpose?

Also watch those cotton-picking references

post-it

I'm not making this an argument relative to the Christian God, rather only to a "creator god".

JEST2ASK

Sorry but please help me on this ... Does this creator God have any characteristics ( intelligence .. you mention design, personality, limitations non-omni-max)? Does this God communicate / interfer / interact with creation (you mention an overriding purpose - plan). Does this god grant free-will, require anything from his creation in general humans in particular (e.g. worship, obediance)?

Just for clarification.

Family Man

It could be. It might not be. You might be picking cotton so that you could do something else with the money you earn. There is nothing that requires a creator for someone or something to have a purpose.


I also notice that you are avoiding the heart of my argument, so here it is so that you can't miss it: Life has a value in and of itself.

No, we are left with your opinion that without a creator, murder of human life is not wrong, for which you have yet to give a rationale. My self-interest, along with the self-interest of nearly everyone else alive, makes it wrong to kill human life. The fact of the matter is that murder is wrong in nearly culture, whether they have a god-creator concept or not. Thus, while I can give a rationale and some evidence for my position, all you can do is to repeat senseless rhetoric

Jobar

post-it, you are trying to establish some sort of *ultimate purpose, or value, for human life (and in fact for anything at all.) I have never seen such a thing demonstrated, or believably argued. All the values and purposes that can be shown are relative to a valuer or a proposer; no absolute values or purposes exist.

This topic is very interesting, but I think it belongs more in our Moral Foundations & Principles forum. (Although you are trying to demonstrate the necessity of God, or a creator of some sort, by reference to absolute purposes, you must first demonstrate such absolutes exist.)

post-it

I think I'm trying to establish more that if there is no creator god, then there is no purpose to human life. By taking that view first, we then can look for agreement that humans do have purpose in the cosmos. The first agreement I would need to find with atheists to kill this argument is that human life has no purpose in reality. If I can't find that agreement with atheists, then creator god and human purpose must exist.

At this time I must also conclude that human "value" is not equal to human purpose. So I'm dropping value as part of this argument. Value can be demonstrated as existing without that being part of purpose.

I disagree, I'm not establishing morals or right and wrong, I'm attempting to prove creator god exists because humans have a purpose given them by something higher than themselves.

This argument is on the existence of creator god.

Shadowy Man

First you must define purpose. Then you must prove that humans have a purpose beyond that which is self-imposed. Then you can argue that this absolute purpose was given to mankind by a creator god.

Philosoft

Unless you can produce either a) proof that creator god exists or b) proof that transcendent purpose for humanity exists, your argument is going to earn itself a one-way ticket to opinion-land.

Theli

Ok, we all know your intentions. You say that you are attempting to prove this and that, but what have you provided to do so yet?
Not a thing.
I will just ask you some simple questions, though I'm almost positive that you will mess it up.
And please elaborate and explain your answers, if you can't then don't bother answering.

1. Is value subjective (something might be valueable to one person but useless to another)?
2. Can humans value things themselfs?
3. Must something be valued on a "universal scale", that is... saying that a thing is necessary for the entire universe?
4. Can person A only value thing B if person A created B?
5. What is the purpose given to us by our supposed creator?

This is a direct contradiction. You are saying that if there is no god then there is no purpose. And by the same logic, if there is no purpose then you cannot argue that there is a god.
Am I right so far?

Then, later you say that if you cannot find agreement then there is a god anyway. Meaning that if you cannot argue for a point, you are right anyway.
And you don't see the fallacy here?