Baby_FaceNelson, your moral taste is not the measure of truth.

AlleyTiger, first you said "our ultimate purpose is for our own existence." Then you say "I don't think that there is an ultimate goal." You see the contradiction?

What do you mean

Baby_FaceNelson, i think Awesome means that you have to contradicting statements. What is your final conclusion?

Actually Awesome you're contradicting yourself.  You can't force what you believe on anyone else.  You have an opinion just like everyone else when it comes to this subject.  That doesn't mean your opinion is gold, unless you no something I don't know.

And what I mean by "Higher Power" is God, some choose to believe in a God, I do myself.  I'd rather believe in a God if there is one, than not believe in one and there is one. Feel me?

And about the intended purpose subject:

You can kill me and say you had an intended purpose for me, but who's to say that wasn't your intended purpose by a God or any other type of belief you have?  Do you see where I'm going with this?

That's why I didn't shoot down your ideas like you are trying to do to everyone else.  Actually, I gave you a compliment on your thoughts because no one knows the actual truth.  Your intended purpose could be to kill me and spend the rest of your life in jail, where you my affect another persons life in a positive way.  That person could get out of jail and affect another persons life because of the things you showed them.  Who's to say that's wrong or right?

Some say it's written in the books already. But what books?  That's another belief in itself.  It all comes down to what a person believes, so there is no right or wrong.  So don't critize what people may believe. That's all I'm saying.

Mayor, where did I contradict myself?

And I don't understand what you're trying to say by "You can't force what you believe on anyone else". Are you suggesting that I can't make people believe things? I can, actually. It's called influence. I show someone evidence, they use their reason, and then adopt the conclusion. Or I could use rhetoric. It happens a lot, you know. The media influencing the population's world-view(s).

The word "God" has so many meanings as to make it, when not clarified further, too ambiguous to make sense. What doe you mean by God? Yahweh? Alleh? An omnipotent being? An omniscient being? The creator of the universe (who may or may not be all-powerful)? A personal (conscious) entity? An impersonal transphysical force? Some people even use it to mean things like "love" or "nature" or "the universe".

You can kill me and say you had an intended purpose for me, but who's to say that wasn't your intended purpose by a God or any other type of belief you have? Do you see where I'm going with this?

Then both this God and I share the same purpose for my life. But it's still the case that I have a purpose for my life, and that this God has a purpose for my life, and that my friends have a purpose for my life, and that my dog has a purpose for my life (assuming my dog has the capacity to conceive of "purpose").

That's why I didn't shoot down your ideas like you are trying to do to everyone else.

I make explicit what I conceive to be poor reasoning. That's how discussions work. It's called being rational. Philosophy is not about accepting everything and saying "yes, that's good, I like it." If someone were to (try to) argue that the flying spaghetti monster exists then I will provide evidence to the contrary or use cogent arguments to show how it is more acceptable to deny its existence. As I would with unicorns and fairies and Jehovah and ghosts.

It all comes down to what a person believes, so there is no right or wrong.

The earth revolves around the sun, whatever our beliefs. I had Weetabix for breakfast, whatever you might think. Right and wrong are (in a lot of cases) independent from people's opinions.

So don't critize what people may believe.

I will criticize what I believe to be false reasoning. A belief in Jesus as anything other than a normal human being, a belief in ghosts, or a belief in Santa Claus.

Baby_FaceNelson, you seemed to argue that "God cannot exist because if God exists then X was the case and X is disgusting." For this argument to be valid an additional premise is required: "God cannot allow for (what I consider to be) disgusting things."

I am simply stated that this implicit premise is false.

*stating

You seem to like arguements.  Anyway you put it, no one here can say that another persons opinion is right or wrong on this subject.  Just state your beliefs.

That's why religion and politics are bad choices of conversation.  With your reasoning, who's to say we're not living in a matrix? Who knows?  So don't argue points that have no definate answer, but then again you think you have the answer to everything.

I teach students like you.  It amazes me, but always a good laugh. Like now. lol

I bet you're one of those types that kick dead horses. What's the point it's dead already, but you would reason that maybe the horse was actually sleep or in critical condition or something of that sort. lol

I'll treat you the same as a student and move on to the next task.

Awesome, I think what I meant was, there is no ultimate goal by a higher being as in God, I think having a goal and having a purpose are two totally different things.

I may have a goal to be rich, but it isn't necessarily my purpose in life. 

'God cannot exist because if God exists then X was the case and X is disgusting." For this argument to be valid an additional premise is required: "God cannot allow for (what I consider to be) disgusting things."

I think what Baby_FaceNelson is trying to say is...If god created Adam and Eve, they had two sons, who then went on to marry and have children.   Who's offspring are the wives of Kane and Abel?  Since Adam and Eve were the first created, then this leads us to believe that the wives were also created by Adam and Eve, therefore Kane and Abel marrying their own sisters = insestual.

I may be wrong, but that is how I understood it.

You seem to like arguements.

That's how one conducts proper philosophical discussions. You present your argument, your opponent criticizes what he considers to be flaws in your argument, you address these criticisms, he responds, etc.

Anyway you put it, no one here can say that another persons opinion is right or wrong on this subject.

Yes they can, look; your opinion is wrong. See? Easy. Am I correct? Surely if everyone's opinion is valid then so too is my opinion that you're wrong? Or, perhaps, right and wrong (in the sense of correct and incorrect) do not depend on opinions. Perhaps, one's opinion can be wrong. Which is indeed the case. Law of the Excluded Middle, and all. Either P or ¬P. Nice and simple.

That's why religion and politics are bad choices of conversation. With your reasoning, who's to say we're not living in a matrix? Who knows? So don't argue points that have no definate answer, but then again you think you have the answer to everything.

With this attitude we'd all still be living in caves and believing that sacrificing virgins makes it rain.

I teach students like you.

I should hope so. Students, especially philosophy students, are lovers of wisdom; they question things and seek to learn. You can't learn anything if you insist in dogmatic belief without reflection.

I think what Baby_FaceNelson is trying to say is...If god created Adam and Eve, they had two sons, who then went on to marry and have children. Who's offspring are the wives of Kane and Abel? Since Adam and Eve were the first created, then this leads us to believe that the wives were also created by Adam and Eve, therefore Kane and Abel marrying their own sisters = insestual.

I may be wrong, but that is how I understood it.

Exactly. And Baby_FaceNelson is suggesting that incest is disgusting and that God wouldn't allow this. I disagree with his claim that his personal views on what is disgusting or acceptable are constraints on what some God would allow to occur. I might as well argue that incest is awesome and that awesome things only happen if God exists. Therefore the Adam and Eve story is proof of God. Which is, of course, ridiculous. Our tastes do not and cannot prove or disprove the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, personal creator (or any combination of such terms).

Awesome, I think what I meant was, there is no ultimate goal by a higher being as in God, I think having a goal and having a purpose are two totally different things.

I may have a goal to be rich, but it isn't necessarily my purpose in life.

That's an interesting distinction. Then what do you mean by purpose? This "ultimate goal"? Then, yes, life has no purpose. I just use a different definition of "purpose", and so conclude from this definition that there are a number of different (and equal) purposes. Both our views are congruent and, I belief, correct. We just clash on the definition of the word in use. :)

'I disagree with his claim that his personal views on what is disgusting or acceptable are constraints on what some God would allow to occur.'

Because we are taught the ways of God,  what the rules are for our existance..... in order that we do not sin and do not go to hell, it's a guide to what we should and shouldn't do.  Therefore,  it is also correct to assume that 'God' would not allow such an act as incest.  Or should we believe  'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife...but go sleep with your sister that is okay'  I think the morality which the bible teaches would bring us to believe that this is wrong.

Granted, it is argueable, as there are people who would disagree, but the majority of us believe it is wrong and disgusting.

That is a good point. So I suppose the Adam and Eve story is inconsistent with the conception of God as being opposed to incest. One or the other have to be discarded. Either Genesis is just a metaphor, or God is not opposed to incest (or God does not exist). I'm sure a lot of non-Christians would simply dismiss Genesis as fact. But they'll still believe in (a) God. And have a religion.

*dismiss the claim that Genesis is fact

(Just in case that sentence was ambiguous).

I am not, nor have ever been a religious person, I trust in science and that is what I believe in.

I think, knowing many christians personally and having this discussion with them, they dismiss the fact that there is even a suggestion that Genesis may be inconsistant or wrong in some way.  Much of the bible is in fact inconsistent on its apparant facts about God, lets face it, God did not exist as far as we are aware of in bodily form, only as a higher being, no one has ever met him, or seen him, given in fact that God is a he.  God as you have already said is a matter of opinion on ones own beliefs.  The bible is in fact something we can see and read, it is up to the individual reader to decypher what they deem to be truth or fiction, and what they deem to be right or wrong.

Well I'll be damned Awesome! You are indeed a searcher of truth.  I can't fault you for that.  I still say he should make a A for meeting the 12 pages and a spell check because truly there are many theories on this subject depending upon belief.

And Alley, I must admit I am a believer in God and his son Jesus.  I still say I'd rather believe in God and give him praise even if there isn't one, than not believe and there is. If there is, I hope he has mercy on the souls that didn't. =/

That is such a load of absolute bullshit Mayor and pretty much sums up all of religion's faults - you'd RATHER believe in god? how does that in anyway make his existence more likely, I'd rather believe in god as well but I'm not cynical enough to make the step of having faith just because it would be worse for me if I didn't have faith and he did actually exist. That's just moral and intellectual cowardice and I'd rather have the balls to look at the evidence and make my own decision rather than worrying about what camp its better to be in.

Hey Bateman, believe what you want.  I have total faith in God.  That's why I attend church, pay my 10%, and trust that God will see me through all situations.

The statement I made is purely for the none believer.  Hey if you don't believe, don't believe. I won't down you for your beliefs like you just did me.  So when God comes, in my opinion that there is a God, he will seperate us and I'll take a different route simply because I chose to believe and follow his word.  You on the other hand, God bless your soul.

Now, if there isn't a God I'm in no worst shape than you will be.  Just a few dollars shorter and a few sins I chose to avoid.

Now do you get my point?  The whole coward part was really irrelevent.