Ex-Atheist.com. Christian Apologetics, Logic and Debate!

The argument of the page is that without a God purpose is subjective… and that with a God purpose is then, inherently objective.

My question to you is that, are you implying that, because you believe in a
God, do you KNOW your purpose? If so, do you know mine? If not, how is an unknown objective different from subjective?

To understand what I am saying, you first have to get beyond the idea of God only being a concept. Believing in God is something different than the reality of God. If God is real, it makes no difference whether you believe in Him or not. If God is real, it makes no difference whether or not you KNOW your purpose or your neighbor's purpose. If God is real and if He has designed us all of us with a purpose in mind, it makes no difference whether or not we are aware of that purpose; that purpose is still valid.

You ask how is an unknown objective different from subjective.

I recall explaining this in the T-Web forum debate that is listed in my site's debate section. I gave the example of a mindful car. Suppose that a car had a consciousness and was aware of itself. Ford Company designed the car with an intention - Ford Company designed the car for the purpose of transport. The objective purpose of the car is transportation. But suppose the car is unaware of its maker. Suppose the car is just aware of itself. Why, MY car might get the silly idea that its purpose is not to transport people as much as its purpose is to be a receptacle for garbage, because my car is full of fast food wrappers and my kids' crap. So the objective purpose is that which is assigned by a designer and the subjective purpose is that which the mindful design believes itself to have.

You wrote:

Don't tell me a basic "blanket" purpose such as 'to worship God'. This would be an identical prospect as me saying the purpose of life is to live, and nothing more.

While I do think that God has designed us all with a blanket purpose - that is to ready our minds for eternity by submitting to Him our free will in exchange for His will - I also believe that He can reveal specific purposes to specific individuals. However, this really is irrelevant, and goes back to you missing the point that I am trying to make. There is no difference between ANY purpose, be it blanket or specific, unless there is God.

Going back to the mindful car analogy...The car is designed by a designer and its purpose is evident to us. However, for the sake of argument, let's assume that trees are products of evolution, and not design, and consider the idea of a mindful tree. Imagine a tree having a consciousness and being self aware. A tree may think that its purpose is to give shade and to provide shelter for squirrels and a nesting place for birds. To agree with that, however, is to be guilty of backward thinking - the same backward thinking that atheists accuse Christians of making whenever Christians go on and on about how the universe is set up and fine tuned solely for the existence of life on our planet. If no bird builds a nest in the tree, and no squirrel takes up residence in it, and no animal rests in its shade, are these things truly the purpose of a tree? On the other hand, even if a car is never used, never moves a mile, there is no question that its intended purpose was for transport. Do you understand what I am trying to say?

You wrote:
By the nature of your arguments on the page, I must assume that you find
objective purpose superior to subjective purpose.

I find it superior in quality; subjective purpose has no quality. The insane man in the asylum who repeatedly counts and recounts the same box of toothpicks has given himself a subjective purpose. If there is no God, all of our subjectively assigned purposes are as valid as his, no matter how noble, superior and different we believe them to be. Without God, all is for naught. Life itself is an exercise in futility, just as futile as counting and recounting toothpicks. It matters not if we assign ourselves the task of building hospitals or if we assign the purpose of keeping our lawns tidy. In the end, we all die, and eventually our species will also die. Nature does not care, nor does it keep a tally of our tasks or meaning or purpose. The deeds of the dead cease to matter when all memory of them have been erased. Without God, our subjective purposes are the same as that neglected mindful tree's.

You wrote:
So if you DO know your purpose in life, I would be interested to know. And,
of course, you should be specific, because this purpose is "objective",
right? If your objective is solid and not liquid, then how so?

I believe this has been addressed in my above paragraphs. I honestly do not know what God's purpose is for me specifically, other than the 'blanket' purpose I wrote about earlier. Sometimes I think that He's about to tell me, but...I am not ready to hear it. Because I don't want to do it. It's rather like me with my hands to my ears shouting, "I'm not listening! I'm not listening!".

You wrote:
Your arguments on your page would be good arguments, assuming you KNOW (at least) your own purpose. If you do not know your own purpose, then you are in the same boat with anyone who is living with this "subjective" purpose.

Already addressed, although I will say that yes, PRACTICALLY speaking, we are in the same boat. But we are addressing spiritual, logical and philosophical matters, which are not necessarily PRACTICAL!

(How do you know when it is time to stop arguing a point? See how this argument fell victim to necroecquineflagellation HERE)

In His Grace,
A.S.A. Jones

Discussion with Jim Syler. Jim's e-mail portions are in blue. Visit Jim's blog at calion.

JIM Wrote:

I didn't get very far into this article before I found a fatal flaw.
Let's start with "A non-objective, self-assigned meaning is purely
imaginary!"

So everything that is non-objective, that is, subjective,
is imaginary?

ASAJ responded:

That is not what I said. You have taken one half of a sentence and changed the subject:

"The colors red and blue create the purplish color of grapes."

"That's dumb! Is everything that has red in it a grape?"

I didn't say that EVERYTHING that is non-objective is purely imaginary. I said that things like meaning, purpose and moral values are purely imaginary (unless they are the intention of a designer, meaning that they are not self-assigned). Meaning, purpose and moral values differ from the emotions and sensory perceptions that you mention. Emotions and perceptions are caused by an external, objective and real stimulus. They have an objective basis. Meaning, purpose and moral values, however, are conceptual, intellectual constructs that take place without sensory input.

Also, I didn't say that all conceptual, intellectual constructs were purely imaginary solely on the basis of them being non-objective. You left out the second qualifier of 'self-assigned'. Intellectual constructs that are BOTH non-objective and self assigned are indeed purely imaginary. An example would be imagining the taste of sugar without actually putting it in your mouth. Other intellectual constructs that are products of inductive reasoning are not to be confused with subjective preferences. For example, the intellectual conclusions that allow one to believe in the existence of black holes and quarks are based on something more than just fabrication and imagination.

Jim wrote:
How are you feeling right now? That feeling is
subjective, having nothing whatsoever to do with the external world (it
may be informed or influenced by the outside world, but its existence
is purely subjective). Is it imaginary?

ASAJ wrote:
I am not questioning the reality of feelings. Feelings are caused by chemical reactions within the brain and there is no denying that they exist. However, if feelings are 'self-assigned' as opposed to being generated by an external stimulus that has an objective basis in reality, they are caused by one's imagination. If I imagine a ferocious dog tearing off my leg, but there is in reality no dog, I may experience the adrenaline rush that creates a fearful feeling, but the feeling is a product of my imagination.

In any case, I trust that you will now understand what I am saying.

Jim wrote:
Secondly, the horrible state you describe still exists even if there
was a God. God can say what the purpose of my life should be; he can
say what he thinks it is.

ASAJ wrote:
You are arguing points but you have missed the entire point of the Game Designer Argument. What you have written is the equivalent of thus:

"I know that H.J.R. Murray (designer of modern chess) can say how he thinks the game of chess can be played, but I can play it any way I want. My opinion on how chess is to be played is just as valid as Murray's."

During a game, you then take your King piece, slam dunk it through a basketball hoop and spend the next hour trying to convince your opponent that you have checkmate.

Yes, God has given you the free will to play the game that he has invented any way that you like. However, you are not likely to win if you don't play by his rules. If you don't care to win, or if you don't believe that the game is even real, that is your prerogative.

But make no mistake about it...if there is no game designer, your purpose, meaning and values are purely imaginary constructs with no basis in reality because, logically, they cannot be otherwise. Logically, a game designer (God) cannot be proven to exist or not exist. Hence, there is at least a small possibility that purpose, value, and meaning can be real. If you are an atheist who is content to know that these things are products of fabrication, and it doesn't bother you to live out each day knowing that your life involves a great deal of make-believe and pretend (I'm going to pretend that it is actually wrong to cheat on my wife, even though I can get away with it!), kudos to you. However, I'd rather believe in the possibility of God and the reality of right and wrong, meaning and purpose, than to pretend that these things exist.

Jim wrote:
I think you need to find some better arguments, and take this one down.

ASAJ responded: Ha, I don't think so.

Discussion with Craig Colona. Craig's counter-argument and criticisms are in blue.

Counterargument:
1. An intelligent agent must have an intelligent designer as to have any objective values: the very process of design gives this agent a genuine and inherent objective purpose.

ASAJ responded:

This isn’t what the Game Designer Argument (GDA) says. GDA says that an agent cannot be the PRODUCT of random chance and natural selection if it is to have objective values. This is not the equivalent of saying that an agent MUST be the PRODUCT of an intelligent designer in order to have objective values. The fallacy involved is that of the excluded middle; it leaves no option for an agent that may not be a PRODUCT of anything. Therefore, GDA does not address, nor can it logically be applied to, the meaning, or purpose, of existence for agents that are not products of anything. One such agent would be God, since God is a primary cause and not the product (effect) of any other process, agent or cause.

Counterargument continued:
2. If an intelligent agent has an intelligent designer, then that agent has a genuine and inherent objective purpose. (from 1)

ASAJ responded:
Agreed.  If an agent IS a PRODUCT of the intention of a designer, then that agent has objective values.

Counterargument continued:
3. If an intelligent agent does not have an intelligent designer, any values or morals it espouses are subjective and both self-assigned and imaginary. (from 1)

Disputed; Already addressed.

Counterargument continued:
4. If God is real, then humans have a genuine and inherent objective purpose (from 1 and 2)
5. If God is not real, then humans can only espouse values that are subjective and both self-assigned and imaginary (from 1 and 3)

ASAJ responded:
Agreed.

Counterargument continued:
However~
6. It is the case that God Himself was not created by an intelligent designer.

7. God's values, therefore, are subjective, self-assigned, and imaginary(?)  (from 1, 3, and 6).

ASAJ responded:
Being the primary cause of all creation and effect, it could be argued that an omniscient God cannot form subjective opinions. Humans form opinions only when there is insufficient information upon which to declare something as an objective fact. Unlike God, humans are not omniscient. Their access to information is limited. God, on the other hand, knows everything that there is to know. There are no such things as ’values’ in the mind of God, only absolutes.

It isn’t quite proper, either, to say that God’s values, purpose, or meaning are self-assigned. Humans must look to external causes in order to acquire self-assigned purpose, and/or meaning to their lives. However, since God is the primary cause, there are no external causes available for God to assign to Himself. God has always existed and He has never changed. When one states that God self-assigned His own meaning/purpose/values, it implies that there was a time when He did not have them. By definition, God has always been the same God, complete with the same meaning/purpose/values throughout eternity. This would indicate that these factors are inherent, not self-assigned.

GDA was constructed to address the meaning and purpose of Human Life, not the meaning or purpose of God's existence. Even though it can be entertaining to argue that a primary cause may or may not have objective values, surprisingly, IT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE ARGUMENT! Here’s why:

An intelligent designer need not have any purpose at all to its existence in order to design something that has an objective purpose. For example, just because humans design automobiles for the objective purpose of transportation does not mean that their LIVES have any objective (or subjective, for that matter!)meaning or purpose. While humans can create objective goals ("My objective is to win this war"), and create objects with an objective purpose (cars, can openers, etc.)within the framework of their lives, they cannot claim that human life itself has any genuine or objective meaning or purpose, because they did not self-create their own life.

Craig wrote:
From what I see, there are three possible consequences stemming from this:

1. If what I have deduced is correct, the values and morals God follows are subjective- but if that is the case, one might ask why we should obey what now has become God's opinion? If God's values are self-assigned, and self-assigned values can only be subjective and imaginary, then isn't all of creation itself "imaginary" and without meaning? Why hasn't God uncreated Himself or fallen into great despair if there is no objective meaning to His existence?:::

ASAJ responded:

In my opinion, you were mistaken about God’s values being reduced to mere opinion. That would be like passing a football during a basketball game, declaring that you scored 6 points when you ran out of bounds and then trying to convince the referee that your subjective opinion on the scoring of basketball should be considered just as valid as the opinion of the guy who invented it.

You ask why should we obey what you now see as God’s opinion. If you are employed, you should know the answer to this question. Your boss may have the opinion that jewelry in your face is disgusting. You disagree; you think it enhances your complexion. Your boss tells you to cover it up with a band aid. Why should you obey your boss? God allegedly has authority and the power to exercise it.

You ask why hasn't God fallen into despair if His existence has no meaning. I think that you are mistaken and that God’s existence does have an inherent, objective meaning. However, for the sake of argument, let’s contemplate that it does not. For many years, I accepted as fact that my life, and all human life, was devoid of any real objective purpose or meaning. This mindset didn't cause me to become suicidal. Perhaps God is content, as are many humans, to exist with only a subjective, self assigned, imaginary purpose and meaning. Perhaps, just maybe, God, in all of his wisdom, glory and power, is just a leetle bit stronger emotionally than a bunch of whiney, weak humans.

Craig wrote:
2. We could question premise one, and instead state that God's values lie independently of Himself. But if this is the case, humans could use the same tools to assign value, meaning, and morality into their own lives, destroying the Game Designer Argument. Secular values and morality would work just as well, if this were the case: If God can assign meaning to Himself through a reason independent of Him, then there is suddenly no logical barrier preventing humans from doing the same.:::

ASAJ responded:
God's values cannot be extracted from outside of His own existence; nothing exists outside of God's existence. Therefore, God’s values cannot lie independently of Himself.

Craig wrote:
3. God has some sort of supernatural ability or power that allows Him to supersede this logic and assign meaning to Himself where humans cannot: but if God need not follow the principles of logic, how can any meaningful discussion of Him be attained? (Logically speaking, this would be committing the fallacy of Special Pleading.):::

ASAJ responded:
Already addressed this; God cannot assign meaning to Himself.  This would imply that there was a time that God was without meaning.  God cannot change….etc..

Craig wrote:
I believe this is known as Euthyphro's Dilemmna: (I believe you've been exposed to it in debate before.) But the same logic that applies to morality will also apply to theories of meaning and purpose. If you consistently hold to your position, it seems like you take away any objective grounds for God's meaning, purpose, and morals.

ASAJ responded:

I hope that you no longer think that, in light of what I have written in this e-mail.

Craig wrote:
I was wondering then: is there something I haven't considered that could logically keep this theory together? Can a Game Designer Argument or Divine Command Theory actually work in a debate without it falling to pieces like this? ^-^;;;;:::

I think the Game Designer Argument holds up rather well, if one understands what it is saying. Let me know if these answers were clear and if they were sufficient. Also, if you have specific questions on how to resolve the Euthyphro dilemma - it’s a false one! - I’d be glad to give you my solution.

Thanks is extended to Jonathan, Jim and Craig for their permission to post their e-mails and for participating in a thoughtful exchange.