17 Aug '12 18:02>2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdHi Vistesd, nice to see your posts again; what you wrote was interesting but i'm only going to respond to a portion of it (the rest I have little value or contention to add)...
Hi Agerg. Atheist here, but—
I think a standard theological position is that God (I do get the intent of your clarifying “G”, by the way) is the necessary being—or the necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of contingent beings, the contingent universe. The existence of G is necessary for (or as an explanation for) contingent ...[text shortened]... illich was too close to pantheism, or a Stoic identification of theos with phusis.
I think a standard theological position is that God (I do get the intent of your clarifying “G”, by the way) is the necessary being—or the necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of contingent beings, the contingent universe. The existence of G is necessary for (or as an explanation for) contingent existence. G’s existence itself requires no further necessary or sufficient conditions: G just is. If this were not so, then G would just be another contingent being (a “g” if you wish).
Hmm, I'm glad you see my intent but just to be sure: I write "G"od not just for clarification that I refer to a particular god, but also to refer to the "God" that a theist reader him/herself believes exists Reveal Hidden Content
often of the Abrahamic family of gods
(and little 'g' gods are any deistic entity so far defined or otherwise). Anyway, with that out of the way however, I can understand why a theist would need to make that declaration (by fiat). Indeed if the theist account is true and there does exist some "G"od that created everything there is (and perhaps everything there ever will be) then it does not make much sense to ask what its purpose is. On the other hand (and this is what I wanted to lead the theists towards - as twhitehead observed earlier), if the theist account is believed false on our parts - that is there doesn't exist some "G"od that ~ ... ~ then it doesn't make much sense to ask what is the purpose of life - it too just is!
All that said, yourself and wolfgang (up to your post) have made the arguments I would consider to be feasible though I'm disappointed that the theists didn't play along (or put up a good fight!)