Review of the 36 Arguments for the Existence of God #19. THE ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL PURPOSE
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Pastor Jennifer v2
Feb 23, 2012, 11:37:16 AM2/23/12
to Evidence For God
19. THE ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL PURPOSE
1.If there is no purpose to a person’s life, then that person’s life
is pointless.
2. Human life cannot be pointless.
3. Each human life has a purpose (from 1 and 2).
4. The purpose of each individual person’s life must derive from the
overall purpose of existence.
5. There is an overall purpose of existence (from 3 and 4).
6. Only a being who understands the overall purpose of existence
could create each person according to the purpose that person is meant
to fulfill.
7. Only God could understand the overall purpose of creation.
8. There can be a point to human existence only if God exists (from 6
and 7).
9. God exists.
FLAW 1:
The first premise rests on a confusion between the purpose of an
action and the purpose of a life. It is human activities that have
purposes—or don’t. We study for the purpose of educating and
supporting ourselves. We eat right and exercise for the purpose of
being healthy. We warn children not to accept rides with strangers for
the purpose of keeping them safe. We donate to charity for the purpose
of helping the poor (just as we would want someone to help us if we
were poor). The notion of a person’s entire life serving a purpose,
above and beyond the purpose of all the person’s choices, is obscure.
Might it mean the purpose for which the person was born? That implies
that some goal-seeking agent decided to bring our lives into being to
serve some purpose. Then who is that goal-seeking agent? Parents often
purposively have children, but we wouldn’t want to see a parent’s
wishes as the purpose of the child’s life. If the goal-seeking agent
is God, the argument becomes circular: we make sense of the notion of
“the purpose of a life” by stipulating that the purpose is whatever
God had in mind when he created us, but then argue for the existence
of God because he is the only one who could have designed us with a
purpose in mind.
FLAW 2:
Premise 2 states that human life cannot be pointless. But of course it
could be pointless in the sense meant by this argument: lacking a
purpose in the grand scheme of things. It could very well be that
there is no grand scheme of things because there is no Grand Schemer.
By assuming that there is a grand scheme of things, it assumes that
there is a schemer whose scheme it is, which circularly assumes the
conclusion.
COMMENT:
It’s important not to confuse the notion of “pointless” in Premise 2
with notions like “not worth living” or “expendable.” Confusions of
this sort probably give Premise 2 its appeal. But we can very well
maintain that each human life is precious—is worth living, is not
expendable—without maintaining that each human life has a purpose in
the overall scheme of things.
R Goldstein
1.If there is no purpose to a person’s life, then that person’s life
is pointless.
2. Human life cannot be pointless.
3. Each human life has a purpose (from 1 and 2).
4. The purpose of each individual person’s life must derive from the
overall purpose of existence.
5. There is an overall purpose of existence (from 3 and 4).
6. Only a being who understands the overall purpose of existence
could create each person according to the purpose that person is meant
to fulfill.
7. Only God could understand the overall purpose of creation.
8. There can be a point to human existence only if God exists (from 6
and 7).
9. God exists.
FLAW 1:
The first premise rests on a confusion between the purpose of an
action and the purpose of a life. It is human activities that have
purposes—or don’t. We study for the purpose of educating and
supporting ourselves. We eat right and exercise for the purpose of
being healthy. We warn children not to accept rides with strangers for
the purpose of keeping them safe. We donate to charity for the purpose
of helping the poor (just as we would want someone to help us if we
were poor). The notion of a person’s entire life serving a purpose,
above and beyond the purpose of all the person’s choices, is obscure.
Might it mean the purpose for which the person was born? That implies
that some goal-seeking agent decided to bring our lives into being to
serve some purpose. Then who is that goal-seeking agent? Parents often
purposively have children, but we wouldn’t want to see a parent’s
wishes as the purpose of the child’s life. If the goal-seeking agent
is God, the argument becomes circular: we make sense of the notion of
“the purpose of a life” by stipulating that the purpose is whatever
God had in mind when he created us, but then argue for the existence
of God because he is the only one who could have designed us with a
purpose in mind.
FLAW 2:
Premise 2 states that human life cannot be pointless. But of course it
could be pointless in the sense meant by this argument: lacking a
purpose in the grand scheme of things. It could very well be that
there is no grand scheme of things because there is no Grand Schemer.
By assuming that there is a grand scheme of things, it assumes that
there is a schemer whose scheme it is, which circularly assumes the
conclusion.
COMMENT:
It’s important not to confuse the notion of “pointless” in Premise 2
with notions like “not worth living” or “expendable.” Confusions of
this sort probably give Premise 2 its appeal. But we can very well
maintain that each human life is precious—is worth living, is not
expendable—without maintaining that each human life has a purpose in
the overall scheme of things.
R Goldstein
Brock
Feb 23, 2012, 6:20:51 PM2/23/12
to Evidence For God
On Feb 23, 11:37 am, Pastor Jennifer v2
<jennifer.s.jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 19. THE ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL PURPOSE
>
> 1.If there is no purpose to a person’s life, then that person’s life
> is pointless.
> 2. Human life cannot be pointless.
> 3. Each human life has a purpose (from 1 and 2).
> 4. The purpose of each individual person’s life must derive from the
> overall purpose of existence.
> 5. There is an overall purpose of existence (from 3 and 4).
> 6. Only a being who understands the overall purpose of existence
> could create each person according to the purpose that person is meant
> to fulfill.
> 7. Only God could understand the overall purpose of creation.
> 8. There can be a point to human existence only if God exists (from 6
> and 7).
> 9. God exists.
>
Again, the same limitations apply to this treatment:
> 19. THE ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL PURPOSE
>
> 1.If there is no purpose to a person’s life, then that person’s life
> is pointless.
> 2. Human life cannot be pointless.
> 3. Each human life has a purpose (from 1 and 2).
> 4. The purpose of each individual person’s life must derive from the
> overall purpose of existence.
> 5. There is an overall purpose of existence (from 3 and 4).
> 6. Only a being who understands the overall purpose of existence
> could create each person according to the purpose that person is meant
> to fulfill.
> 7. Only God could understand the overall purpose of creation.
> 8. There can be a point to human existence only if God exists (from 6
> and 7).
> 9. God exists.
>
* there is no one "THE ARGUMENT ...", rather it refers to a general
category of arguments, thus to defeat one specific example is not
adequate to dismiss the category
* the argument, to the degree it is a paraphrase, doesn't adequately
represent (either intentionally or accidentally) the argument as put
forward by a proponent, and faces the danger of being simply a straw-
man
Regards,
Brock
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages