1. If God does not exist, then there is no cosmic purpose. (Premise)
2. If there is no cosmic purpose, then human purpose is illusory. (Premise)
3. Human purpose is not illusory. (Premise)
4. Therefore, God exists. (From 1 - 3)
Arguments such as these will appeal to those who believe that human purpose is not something conventional or relative. Someone like Sartre would maintain that we create our own purpose, but ultimately such purpose is illusory. This argument is called "existentialist" because it turns Sartre's view on its head and embraces a position more akin to Kierkegaard's. I don't maintain this is a proof or demonstration of God's existence, but I do think it constitutes one of many rationally acceptable reasons to believe in cosmic purpose and, ultimately, God, the giver of purpose to the cosmos.
A very odd argument.
ReplyDeleteWe are, on the one hand supposed to agree that personal or conventional purposes are illusory because they depend on subjective criteria, but on the other hand, God, defined as a personal being, can somehow provide absolute purposes that do not depend on his own personality.
You could argue that God's personality is necessary, but that virtually reduces God to an automaton, so I don't think you'll want to go down that track. Moreover, you would then actually be claiming that the cosmic purpose of God is to have a necessary personality to create real( not illusory) human purpose, in which case premsie 1 is false.
Your only alternative here is, I fear, to admit that God's personality is contingent at least to the degree that He could create (or have created) humans with different 'real' purposes. But that would mean that human purposes is not dependent on the existence or non-existence of cosmic purpose, in which case premise 2 is false.
Walter, regarding your last paragraph, how does it follow that if human purpose is contingent that it is not dependent on cosmic purpose?
ReplyDeleteBy the way, it's not just God's necessity that lays a foundation for objective cosmic purpose, but his Pure Actuality. We can overlook that for now, though, since I'm more interested in your final paragraph.
If God's personality is contingent, then, since 'cosmic purpose' depends on His personality, it depends on what His personality happens to be, which means it is not objective and therefore it cannot rightfully be described as cosmic purpose.
ReplyDeleteBTW, you can agree or disagree with the first part of my post, but adding Pure Actuality to the picture doesn't get rid of the problem. In fact my objection becomes even more obvious on Pure Actuality.
A final observation. Theists seem to have the very odd idea that human purpose as a result of programming by a creator is somehow more 'real' than self-created purpose. If Data from Star Trek TNG just acts the way Dr Soong programmed him, then he has a real purpose and if he transcends his programming to become more human, this is an illusory purpose? Doesn't make any sense to me.
You skipped a few premises in your reasoning. While God's personality is necessary, it doesn't follow that what He wills is necessary.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to Data, notice that his purpose comes about from a being (Dr. Soong) already imbued with purpose. Hence purpose begets purpose, and non-purpose begets non-purpose. Whether Data ever transcends his purpose to be more human is impertinent, since the cause of such a transformation would almost certainly be an existing human element/environment.
Really Walter, I think you'd be better off rejecting premise (3) and embracing Sartre's position that human purpose is ultimately illusory. Not that I think (3) is indefensible. I just don't see how (1) or (2) can be reasonably rejected. On the other hand, the whole point of this argument was merely to suggest that each premise is reasonable, and not necessarily rationally compelling.
ReplyDeleteOne other comment, you say: "Theists seem to have the very odd idea . . ."
ReplyDeleteWell, Sartre was an atheist, and there are plenty of atheists who agree that without God there is no objective purpose. This isn't a view restricted to theists.
"You skipped a few premises in your reasoning. While God's personality is necessary, it doesn't follow that what He wills is necessary."
ReplyDeleteIf you read my post more carefully you will notice that even if this is true (and it definitely isn't), it is completely irrelevant, because by your own definition, a purpose that is based on a contingent will is not objective.
My point about Data was about purpose of a free-willed being as opposed to merely programmed purpose. Purpose based on free will is more valuable then prograamed purpose.
That, of course, leads us to the question of whether true free will is possible, but that is not related to the existence or non-existence of God.
The fact that Sartre was an atheist, BTW, does not mean he was right. I haven't studied him in enough detail, but his position doesn't entail that purpose is illusory unless one is already convinced that only programmed purpose can be real.
"If you read my post more carefully you will notice that even if this is true (and it definitely isn't), it is completely irrelevant, because by your own definition, a purpose that is based on a contingent will is not objective."
ReplyDeleteThis is the claim I asked you to justify to begin with. For a moment, let's suppose that God's will is necessary and He necessarily creates human beings. You say this is a route I don't want to take, and I don't think I have to, but this is all just for the sake of argument. Remember, I'm arguing as a Thomist, and not from the perspective of modal logic. "Necessary" in this context means, "eternal and indestructible," whereas "contingent" means "generable and destructible." Even if God creates human beings with a purpose due to *logical* necessity, that has no effect on the argument whatsoever. Human beings are still contingent insofar as they come into being and die.
I'm still not seeing the purpose of the Data analogy, even with your clarification. Data's advanced purpose, as opposed to his initial purpose, is still the result of a cause with an advanced purpose.
Finally, I didn't bring up Sartre to imply that he was right. I brought him up because you made a hasty generalization about theists (although I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant to say "many theists"). By providing an example of an atheist who agrees with these theists, it's been shown that it's not just theists who believe that without God there is no objective purpose. Maybe you didn't mean to imply that, though.
As long as you admit that God's will could have been different, it cannot, by your own definition, be an objective base for whatever purpose, hence, it cannot count as a cosmic purpose.
ReplyDeleteAnd if it could not have been different, it is logically necessary and my objection still stands.
The purpose of my Data analogy is to show that purpsoe based on free will is more valauble than purpose based on programming, regardless of whether this free will is the result of purposeful creation or sheer coincidence.
And by "theists" I don't mean all theists and not even necessarily many theists. I actually mean some theists. And the fact that some atheists or even many atheists have the same idea does not made it any less odd.
"As long as you admit that God's will could have been different, it cannot, by your own definition, be an objective base for whatever purpose, hence, it cannot count as a cosmic purpose."
ReplyDeleteThat's debatable, but as I said, I'm willing to go along with it for now.
"And if it could not have been different, it is logically necessary and my objection still stands."
But you're conflating logical necessity with temporal necessity, only the latter of which I'm concerned with. I explained the difference in my last post, so your objection does not stand even assuming the argument leads to (logical, not temporal) modal collapse.
"The purpose of my Data analogy is to show that purpsoe based on free will is more valauble than purpose based on programming, regardless of whether this free will is the result of purposeful creation or sheer coincidence."
Sure, I think free will is more valuable, but what does that have to do with the argument? We still have purpose, even of the variety of free will, arising from purpose (in this case the free will of Dr. Soong and the free will environment in which Data is surrounded). Personally, I don't think it's feasible for an entity like Data to become a person, as studies have repeatedly shown that computers are incapable of evolving into sentient beings. It makes for good science fiction, but that's all it is.
As for theists, thank you for the clarification. I figured that's what you meant, but it helps to be more specific.
Doug
ReplyDeleteYou can have the final word on this if you want. I just want to clear up some things.
Firstly, I am not conflating logical necessity. I am clearly stating that a being that is eternal, indestructable and cannot have been any different is logically necessary.
My argument regarding Data is that I see no reason why the purpose a truly free-willed being creates for itself would be illusory and the purpose that an eternal being with or without free will creates for others is somehow not illusory.
Whether computers are capable of evolving into sentient beings is still highly controversial, but not relevant for my argument, in which I merely use an analogy.
Walter, you're adding "cannot have been any different" to the way I'm using "necessary." As I said, I'm using the term as a Thomist, where only eternality and indestructibility are pertinent.
ReplyDeleteI think you misunderstand what I'm stating about purpose and illusion. The purpose that a free-willed being creates for itself is not illusory. That's never been my claim. Rather, my claim has been that there is no purpose in a being if it arises without purpose. Things like free will would be illusory, which would make it unfeasible to create purpose.
Just to clear up a misunderstanding. I argued why a possibly different purpose is not objective (and therefore not cosmic purpose) and I argued what the problems would be if the purpose cannot have been different.
ReplyDeleteThe second part of your post suddenly shifts to the claim that free will would be illusory if it was not created on purpose, but that is not part of your original argument, and I have never seen any successful argument for it either.
Free will, intentionality, and so forth, are all purposeful aspects, so I didn't need to state it explicitly at the beginning. However, I'll try to be more careful in the future and make such inclusions unambiguous.
ReplyDeleteAs for different purposes entailing subjectivity, that's demonstrably false. The purpose of the eye is to see, whereas the purpose of the ear is to hear. These are different purposes, and yet they are objective purposes. For what it's worth, though, I think all things find their purpose in God, who as Unmoved Mover is the supreme object of desire. Any other purpose (on my worldview) is unfeasible.