Is there any purpose in the universe?

[Della]

So you do not know what God’s own purpose is, or he does not have one?

Um, I think you have an answer you want to see, but if we don’t give it to you then, ergo, we aren’t answering your question. But, it doesn’t work that way. The truth is the truth whether you or I know it or want it or accept it. I do know God’s own purpose, I quoted two sources that state it quite clearly. If you cannot/will not accept the answer, that’s up to you.

Your original question is flawed, btw. God did not create the universe to be his toy. If he had he wouldn’t have bothered to redeem mankind–he would have destroyed us and recreated something he liked better. Rather, he LOVED his creation–man, and so gave his all to redeem us from our sin of rebellion. That is what God has revealed to us. That is the only answer we can give because it is the answer and none other.

 

[meltzerboy]

“God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven.”

And serving and loving G-d includes helping make the world a better place by helping other people, being generous and respectful, sensitive and caring, being kind to animals, taking care of the earth’s environment, making good use of our talents, leading a life of substance and meaning, and so on.

 

[Della]

And serving G-d includes helping make the world a better place by helping other people, being generous and respectful, sensitive and loving, being kind to animals, taking care of the earth’s environment, making good use of our talents, leading a life of substance and meaning, and so on.

If I may answer before Lion IRC gets the chance. We Catholics also believe this. We call it “building the city of God.” One of our Evening Prayer intentions speaks to this–I’d quote it but a Google search proved useless, and it’d take too long to manually look it up.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Um, I think you have an answer you want to see, but if we don’t give it to you then, ergo, we aren’t answering your question. But, it doesn’t work that way. The truth is the truth whether you or I know it or want it or accept it. I do know God’s own purpose, I quoted two sources that state it quite clearly. If you cannot/will not accept the answer, that’s up to you.

Your original question is flawed, btw. God did not create the universe to be his toy. If he had he wouldn’t have bothered to redeem mankind–he would have destroyed us and recreated something he liked better. Rather, he LOVED his creation–man, and so gave his all to redeem us from our sin of rebellion. That is what God has revealed to us. That is the only answer we can give because it is the answer and none other.

Your answers have all been very clear explanations of OUR purpose, as given to us by God. But I am asking about God’s purpose as given to him by something else.

 

[Della]

Your answers have all been very clear explanations of OUR purpose, as given to us by God. But I am asking about God’s purpose as given to him by something else.

As I wrote before, God cannot be “given” anything. All he has done he has done out of love, which is a primary part of his being, which is eternal–with nothing coming before him. And I didn’t give you our purpose. It was God’s purpose to create the world in love, and to recreate it in love–from all eternity. I know it’s a hard concept to grasp–I don’t claim to understand it. But, it’s what God purposed–because Christ, as the God-man, is the epitome of creation, the reason it was created and by whom it was created. God made man central to his creation for his own reasons, and they were to share his love with his creation and have it (us) return it. That was God’s purpose, not ours. We didn’t tell him to do any of it–it was all his own idea and purpose from before the foundations of the world.

 

[Partinobodycula]

“God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven.”

“Oh my god, I’m the tin dog.”

Mickey Smith, Dr Who

 

[JapaneseKappa]

As I wrote before, God cannot be “given” anything. All he has done he has done out of love, which is a primary part of his being, which is eternal–with nothing coming before him. And I didn’t give you our purpose. It was God’s purpose to create the world in love, and to recreate it in love–from all eternity. I know it’s a hard concept to grasp–I don’t claim to understand it. But, it’s what God purposed–because Christ, as the God-man, is the epitome of creation, the reason it was created and by whom it was created. God made man central to his creation for his own reasons, and they were to share his love with his creation and have it (us) return it. That was God’s purpose, not ours. We didn’t tell him to do any of it–it was all his own idea and purpose from before the foundations of the world.

Lets return to the falling rock example I gave earlier. We might be tempted to say that the purpose of “falling rock” is falling. But that was not actually the case! “Falling rock” had a purpose that was more like “defeat the bad guy.” In other words, what the thing IS (i.e. a falling rock) is different than what its purpose is (i.e. defeating the bad guy.)

Now, you are telling me that God IS love, or that God IS the creator of the universe, and that he had his own reasons for doing what he does. All of that is fine, but like the falling rock example, it doesn’t actually tell us what God’s own purpose is.

Also note: this objection only applies to those people who think the universe cannot contain purpose unless there is a God. If you think that we can create purpose on our own (e.g. the man who makes a toy has created purpose, regardless of whether or not his own existence has a purpose) then there is no problem in saying that God creates purpose in the universe regardless of whether or not God’s own existence has a purpose.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I know it’s a hard concept to grasp–I don’t claim to understand it. . .

Brennan Mannings, in Ruthless Trust writes:

When the brilliant ethicist John Kavanaugh went to work for three months at “the house of the dying” in Calcutta, he was seeking a clear answer as to how best to spend the rest of his life.
On the first morning there he met Mother Teresa. She asked, “And what can I do for you?” Kavanaugh asked her to pray for him.
“What do you want me to pray for?” she asked.
He voiced the request that he had borne thousands of miles from the United States: “Pray that I have clarity.”
She said firmly, “No, I will not do that.”
When he asked her why, she said, “Clarity is the last thing you are clinging to and must let go of.”
When Kavanaugh commented that she always seemed to have the clarity he longed for, she laughed and said, “I have never had clarity; what I have always had is trust.
So I will pray that you trust God.”

 

[Della]

Lets return to the falling rock example I gave earlier. We might be tempted to say that the purpose of “falling rock” is falling. But that was not actually the case! “Falling rock” had a purpose that was more like “defeat the bad guy.” In other words, what the thing IS (i.e. a falling rock) is different than what its purpose is (i.e. defeating the bad guy.)

Now, you are telling me that God IS love, or that God IS the creator of the universe, and that he had his own reasons for doing what he does. All of that is fine, but like the falling rock example, it doesn’t actually tell us what God’s own purpose is.

Also note: this objection only applies to those people who think the universe cannot contain purpose unless there is a God. If you think that we can create purpose on our own (e.g. the man who makes a toy has created purpose, regardless of whether or not his own existence has a purpose) then there is no problem in saying that God creates purpose in the universe regardless of whether or not God’s own existence has a purpose.

All this is senseless since I have already related God’s purpose for creating the universe quite clearly, and as succinctly as I can. I have no interest in endlessly debating some definition only you seem to know–or care about. The purpose of asking a question, such as the one the OP asked, is to learn the answer. I have provided that, I have nothing more to say. :tiphat:

 

[tonyrey]

A Muslim or a Jew might reject the concept of a “divine Family” on the basis that it is not monotheism.

Christians are justified in rejecting that objection on the ground that a solitary God is the apotheosis of egoism!

 

[meltzerboy]

If I may answer before Lion IRC gets the chance. We Catholics also believe this. We call it “building the city of God.” One of our Evening Prayer intentions speaks to this–I’d quote it but a Google search proved useless, and it’d take too long to manually look it up.

Thanks for the information. It is apparent that Catholicism and Judaism have much in common.

 

[meltzerboy]

Christians are justified in rejecting that objection on the ground that a solitary God is the apotheosis of egoism!

I would rather say that a solitary G-d is the apotheosis of uniqueness.

 

[phil_at_dayboro]

If you get to see the Astronomers picture of the universe,and realise our Galaxy is So minutely tiny ,so small you can’t even pick out our local group of Galaxies ,it does make you think about the Bigger Picture , Where do we fit into the grand scheme of things

 

[tonyrey]

I would rather say that a solitary G-d is the apotheosis of uniqueness.

We agree that there is one unique God but perfect love implies total identification with **another person **and solitariness is not so fulfilling as sharing life in a community.

 

[tonyrey]

If you get to see the Astronomers picture of the universe,and realise our Galaxy is So minutely tiny ,so small you can’t even pick out our local group of Galaxies ,it does make you think about the Bigger Picture , Where do we fit into the grand scheme of things

Size is not the best sign of significance, Phil. As Pascal pointed out, in spite of its immensity the universe is inferior to us because we are aware that it exists. Our greatness consists in our power of thought and capacity for love.

 

[tonyrey]

Lets return to the falling rock example I gave earlier. We might be tempted to say that the purpose of “falling rock” is falling. But that was not actually the case! “Falling rock” had a purpose that was more like “defeat the bad guy.” In other words, what the thing IS (i.e. a falling rock) is different than what its purpose is (i.e. defeating the bad guy.)

Now, you are telling me that God IS love, or that God IS the creator of the universe, and that he had his own reasons for doing what he does. All of that is fine, but like the falling rock example, it doesn’t actually tell us what God’s own purpose is.

Also note: this objection only applies to those people who think the universe cannot contain purpose unless there is a God. If you think that we can create purpose on our own (e.g. the man who makes a toy has created purpose, regardless of whether or not his own existence has a purpose) then there is no problem in saying that God creates purpose in the universe regardless of whether or not God’s own existence has a purpose.

To compare the Creator with creatures is a category mistake. All statements about God are analogous and imperfect because our insight and knowledge are finite and limited. Yet it is also a mistake to think we can know nothing at all because we are aware that we exist and know there must be a** reason **for our existence. Otherwise our power of insight and understanding wouldn’t have an adequate explanation and there would be no guarantee that we are capable of purposeful activity…

 

[JapaneseKappa]

To compare the Creator with creatures is a category mistake. All statements about God are analogous and imperfect because our insight and knowledge are finite and limited. Yet it is also a mistake to think we can know nothing at all because we are aware that we exist and know there must be a** reason **for our existence. Otherwise our power of insight and understanding wouldn’t have an adequate explanation and there would be no guarantee that we are capable of purposeful activity…

But by simply saying “well God’s different” we risk drawing a distinction without a difference. It’s fine if you actually want to argue this, but “we can’t understand so it’s fine” is not a convincing position.

 

[tonyrey]

To compare the Creator with creatures is a category mistake. All statements about God are analogous and imperfect because our insight and knowledge are finite and limited. Yet it is also a mistake to think we can know nothing at all because we are aware that we exist and know there must be a** reason **

You have not explained how we are aware we exist, the **reason **for our existence and the origin of our power of insight, understanding and purposeful activity…

 

[Tomdstone]

You have not explained how we are aware we exist,

I am not convinced that consciousness and self awareness can be explained by a purely materialistic philosophy.

 

[Aloysium]

I am not convinced that consciousness and self awareness can be explained by a purely materialistic philosophy.

I’m not sure how anyone could be.
Btw: materialistic philosophy, isn’t that something like great depths, military intelligence, act naturally, pretty ugly, liquid gas, virtual reality, jumbo shrimp, working holiday, . . .