4 ms·

> God/creation doesn't solve any of the mysteries we still have left Really? So, tell me then, why are we here? What is the purpose of our life, if there is

> God/creation doesn't solve any of the mysteries we still have left Really? So, tell me then, why are we here? What is the purpose of our life, if there is one? What happens after we die? Or are these mysteries not still left? > All it does is create an infinite regress of what created god. Yes, that's right. But saying that, "Since we then cannot answer the question of where God came from, God must not exist" is not logical. The existence of another turtle does not disprove the previous turtle. By your logic, since we cannot explain what created the universe, the universe must not exist.

grzm 10y ago
"> God/creation doesn't solve any of the mysteries we still have left" "But saying that, "Since we then cannot answer the question of where God came from, God must not exist" is not logical." I see what you're saying, but I think GP may be arguing whether or not that is useful. For example, what does it say about God beyond that God exists? You ask some good questions, in particular what is the purpose of our life. Does the existence of a prime mover help us decide this? I think we need something more.
- alphapapa 10y ago
  Whether it's useful is, of course, a matter of opinion and presuppositions. If one, for whatever reasons, thinks that there might be an afterlife, then nothing could be more important. > You ask some good questions, in particular what is the purpose of our life. Does the existence of a prime mover help us decide this? I think we need something more. That depends on whether you believe the prime mover has communicated with us. If you do not, then there would not be much you could do with the knowledge of its existence, so it would not be very useful or relevant. But if you do, then it would surely help us decide, wouldn't it?
  - grzm 10y ago
    "That depends on whether you believe the prime mover has communicated with us. If you do not, then there would not be much you could do with the knowledge of its existence." I think you've hit the nail on the head here. This brings us to the question is how do you move from the existence of a prime mover to the belief that the prime mover has communicated with us. It's not clear to me that existence implies such communication. And if it doesn't, it's not clear to me that the existence of the prime mover in and of itself is doing any useful work. On the other hand, proving that there is no prime mover is a well-known difficult problem as well :)
    - alphapapa 10y ago
      > This brings us to the question is how do you move from the existence of a prime mover to the belief that the prime mover has communicated with us. It's not clear to me that existence implies such communication. I think you're basically right: it doesn't necessarily imply that. So, since there are so many claims in this world of evidence of the creator's communication with us, it's up to each person to examine the claims for himself--or to not do so: ignorance is bliss, until the moment of truth.
flukus 10y ago
>Really? So, tell me then, why are we here? What is the purpose of our life, if there is one? What happens after we die? Or are these mysteries not still left? Meaning of life? Who said there is one? You seem to be switching gods to suit your argument. A meaning to life implies a god that cares, not the non interfering prime mover you seem to be arguing for elsewhere. As for an afterlife, there isn't one sorry. There is precisely zero evidence of any sort of afterlife. There is no physical explanation of how it may be possible. > Yes, that's right. But saying that, "Since we then cannot answer the question of where God came from, God must not exist" is not logical. The existence of another turtle does not disprove the previous turtle. By your logic, since we cannot explain what created the universe, the universe must not exist. The point is it doesn't explain anything. It's either infinite regress or you have to accept the universe or god was created spontaneously. At that point Occam's razor eliminates god.

grzm 10y ago

"> God/creation doesn't solve any of the mysteries we still have left" "But saying that, "Since we then cannot answer the question of where God came from, God must not exist" is not logical." I see what you're saying, but I think GP may be arguing whether or not that is useful. For example, what does it say about God beyond that God exists? You ask some good questions, in particular what is the purpose of our life. Does the existence of a prime mover help us decide this? I think we need something more.

alphapapa 10y ago
Whether it's useful is, of course, a matter of opinion and presuppositions. If one, for whatever reasons, thinks that there might be an afterlife, then nothing could be more important. > You ask some good questions, in particular what is the purpose of our life. Does the existence of a prime mover help us decide this? I think we need something more. That depends on whether you believe the prime mover has communicated with us. If you do not, then there would not be much you could do with the knowledge of its existence, so it would not be very useful or relevant. But if you do, then it would surely help us decide, wouldn't it?
- grzm 10y ago
  "That depends on whether you believe the prime mover has communicated with us. If you do not, then there would not be much you could do with the knowledge of its existence." I think you've hit the nail on the head here. This brings us to the question is how do you move from the existence of a prime mover to the belief that the prime mover has communicated with us. It's not clear to me that existence implies such communication. And if it doesn't, it's not clear to me that the existence of the prime mover in and of itself is doing any useful work. On the other hand, proving that there is no prime mover is a well-known difficult problem as well :)
  - alphapapa 10y ago
    > This brings us to the question is how do you move from the existence of a prime mover to the belief that the prime mover has communicated with us. It's not clear to me that existence implies such communication. I think you're basically right: it doesn't necessarily imply that. So, since there are so many claims in this world of evidence of the creator's communication with us, it's up to each person to examine the claims for himself--or to not do so: ignorance is bliss, until the moment of truth.

flukus 10y ago

>Really? So, tell me then, why are we here? What is the purpose of our life, if there is one? What happens after we die? Or are these mysteries not still left? Meaning of life? Who said there is one? You seem to be switching gods to suit your argument. A meaning to life implies a god that cares, not the non interfering prime mover you seem to be arguing for elsewhere. As for an afterlife, there isn't one sorry. There is precisely zero evidence of any sort of afterlife. There is no physical explanation of how it may be possible. > Yes, that's right. But saying that, "Since we then cannot answer the question of where God came from, God must not exist" is not logical. The existence of another turtle does not disprove the previous turtle. By your logic, since we cannot explain what created the universe, the universe must not exist. The point is it doesn't explain anything. It's either infinite regress or you have to accept the universe or god was created spontaneously. At that point Occam's razor eliminates god.