Life Questions
Published on February 9, 2008 By KFC Kickin For Christ In Philosophy
It's been said that the two greatest questions of life are "where did life come from?" and "what is the purpose of this life?" Many different philosophers throughout the centuries have attempted to answer these questions basically coming down to six different viewpoints.

1. Atheistic- Atheism says that everything comes from nothing. There is no God. There is no purpose in life. Might makes right as Hitler believed. There is no absolute rule as there is no God to dictate such rules.

2. Agnostic- While the atheist says there is definitely no God and the Christian says there IS a God, the agnostic says we can't know and won't know if there is a god. Agnosticism was first coined by Aldous Huxley in 1869. He was called Darwin's Bulldog.

3. Pantheism- First thought to have originated from the Dutch Philosopher Spinoza who died in 1677, this belief says all is god and god is all . God is the trees, the trees are God. This belief recognizes the divine in nature rather than nature being separate or distinct from its creator.

4. Polytheism- Poly meaning many and theism meaning God. This belief is in "many gods." Pagans did and still do believe in the many gods of nature. There was the sky god, the water god, the fire god, the earth god and so on.

5. Deism-Edward Hebert who died in 1648 was the founder of Deism. While this belief was closer to the truth as a belief in Deism does have God at its root, it stops short of the biblical, personal God. Deism, while it does answer the first question doesn't help us much with the second. Deism is sort of like God winding up the earth like an alarm clock and then walking away havng no interest in being there when it goes off.

6. Monotheism- Mono meaning one is a belief in one God. In this position God did create life and is always interestsed in it epecially in his creation of man.

The greatest and most profound idea the human mind can ever entertain concerns the possibility of the existence of a personal God. The importance of man's response to this idea cannot be exaggerated. It will not only govern his life down here but will also determine his ultimate destiny. Unless one satisfactorily answers the who question, he cannot possibly solve the how, why, when and where problems of his own existence.

There are different philosophical arguments for the existence of God. The first one is the universal belief argument which says all mankind has some idea of a Supreme Being. This argument has often been challenged but never refuted. While the concepts of God found among many cultures and civilizations differ greatly on the number, name and nature of this Supreme Being, the idea still remains.

I gave a classic example of this the other day with Helen Keller who was blind, deaf and dumb. When first introduced to God she responded with joy saying...."I always knew He was there, but I didn't know His name." Pretty interesting.

Another argument would be the cosmological argument. Cosmos means "systematic order of things" and Logos means "study or word." This argument says that every effect must have an adequate cause. It's sort of like if you were in bed reading a book late at night and you suddenly hear a noise. Since crime is very prevalent in your neighborhood you have every reason to go there first. But in your mind you try and rationalize this saying it's the wind, a mouse, the cat or maybe a book fell in the other room. You don't want to admit the chilling possibility of what could be the truth. You don't want to go there. From a Christian perspective every design has a designer. We may not want to go there first. We may want to rationalize this and come up with a myriad of other possibilities.

Then there is the anthropological argument which says that the conscience and moral nature of man demands a self-conscious and moral Maker. This built-in barometer supplies no information, and the information on which it passes judgment may be incorrect. But conscience tells us we ought to do what is right regarding the information we have.

We know the conscience may be weak, defiled, good, seared, strong or pure but it is never absent. Where did the conscience come from? The only accurate explanation is that the great Moral Being who created us all planted the moral sense in us. No other explanation will do.

I'm sure there are other arguments for the existence of God but I especially love the scriptural argument for God. Well maybe I should say lack thereof. The Bible simply assumes the existence of God. There are no arguments for the existence of God biblically speaking. God assumes all mankind will know or does know in His existence. We have to be taught to be an atheist. It doesn't come naturally.

"For the Scripture then, the existence of God is both a historical truth (God acted into history), and an existential truth (God reveals himself to every soul). His existence is both objectively and subjectively evident. It is necessary logically because our assumption of order, design, and rationally rests upon it. It is necessary morally because there is no explanation for the shape of morality apart from it. It is necessary personally because the exhaustion of all material possibilities still cannot give satisfaction to the heart. The deepest proof for God's existence apart from history is just life itself. God has created man in his image, and man cannot elude the implications of this fact. Everywhere His identity pursues him. "

Clark Pinnock "Set Forth Your Case"


Comments (Page 4)
7 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last
on Feb 13, 2008
"Die, heretic!" - Emo Phillips
on Feb 13, 2008
Maybe at some point I'll take a look at the book of Mormon and figure out why some people swear by it and some people think it's bunk.
on Feb 13, 2008
If I was a Mormon, would I think that I (not a Mormon me) would not be going to heaven?

on Feb 13, 2008
religion is ALL ABOUT FAITH.


Well, at least the belief system anyway. The practices and rituals that go along with it really cement the faith for someone and the faith of the community of which they are apart. Going to a place of worship, for instance, is a way for a community to come together and bond over common beliefs. It is a place where they connect and bond socially. Religion is quite practical and predictable when you're not arguing over beliefs and teachings. It's a form of social cohesion and individual definition.

~Zoo
on Feb 13, 2008
If I was a Mormon, would I think that I (not a Mormon me) would not be going to heaven?


I don't think you're not going to heaven. The nice thing about my belief is that we believe that after we die, the soul, or spirit, survives. You go to the afterlife with all of the knowledge and personality you have in this life. The reason we baptize for the dead is to give those who didn't have a chance to accept the Gospel in this life will have the choice to accept it in the next, thereby receiving all of the blessings that come with it. So, no, I don't think you're not going to heaven, but if you choose not to accept the Gospel in the next life then maybe not.
(Any Mormons can correct me if I just spouted false docrine... )
But again, that's what I believe. Others may believe different things, and that's just the way it is.
on Feb 13, 2008
Cedarbird..ok you may feel you have all the answers. But that doesn't mean others feel the same way. Some may be searching and thus like to talk about these things. Some may just like to learn more for learning's sake. Some may like to enter these discussions to strengthen their own faith while others may be testing the waters with another who makes sense to them.

People discuss these things for a variety of reasons. So we don't stop. As long as it's interesting why not keep discussing them? Are you saying you know it all? That you don't have room to learn more? I can't say that and I'm alot older than you are.

I don't agree with any extra biblical teaching no matter the religion. It makes that easy. The Mormons are not the only ones with these extra writings and propecies so if I were searching I'd have to ask who has the right ones?

Maybe at some point I'll take a look at the book of Mormon and figure out why some people swear by it and some people think it's bunk.


I've got the Book of Mormon here but it's in one of my many unpacked boxes still.



on Feb 13, 2008
By the way, you forgot to add insane people...err, I mean Scientology to your list.

I have no respect for those people...they're straight up crazy.

~Zoo
on Feb 13, 2008
But that doesn't mean others feel the same way. Some may be searching and thus like to talk about these things. Some may just like to learn more for learning's sake. Some may like to enter these discussions to strengthen their own faith while others may be testing the waters with another who makes sense to them.


My only problem is when you tell others that they are WRONG. They're only wrong to you. Not to them. I have nothing against discussion, it's the judgment people, particularly you and Lula, display.

And yes, I picked on you because I've read the words, "wrong theology" or "incorrect" in both or your comments on more than one occasion. And no, I can't cite the occasions exactly because there are so many frigging articles on religion that I get them mixed up.

on Feb 13, 2008
My only problem is when you tell others that they are WRONG.


Yeah, that kinda chaps my hide as well. Discussion is the gateway to learning, but it must be used as a discussion, not a right/wrong debate.

Although, debates are fun in themselves...ehh...whatever. I don't think anyone's ever changed their religious views through simple discussion...much less online forum discussions. Still, the arguing is kinda fun.

~Zoo
on Feb 13, 2008
wrong theology" or "incorrect"


I know what you're speaking of and it WAS wrong theology. I'm talking quoting the scriptures....maybe it wouldn't be wrong theology concerning Mormon scriptures...I don't know but this person quote bible scripture and it was wrong.

That's what I'm talking about. The alternative is to let you just believe something that is totally wrong. I have a problem with that.

And no, I can't cite the occasions exactly because there are so many frigging articles on religion that I get them mixed up.


hahahah you and me both.

By the way, you forgot to add insane people...err, I mean Scientology to your list.



You're speaking about a specific religion. That's not what I was going for. I'm thinking all the specific religions would fit into one of those viewpoints.



on Feb 13, 2008


I know what you're speaking of and it WAS wrong theology. I'm talking quoting the scriptures....maybe it wouldn't be wrong theology concerning Mormon scriptures...I don't know but this person quote bible scripture and it was wrong.


See, now I remember it being an interpretation of scriptures...maybe I'm remembering wrong. I just thought someone interpreted something differently and they were "wrong."
So here I was, thinking, "well, if we all interpreted scriptures the same, then we wouldn't have all of these different religions and beliefs, now would we?"

But okay, I'll accept your explanation; I don't remember the specifics.
on Feb 13, 2008
So here I was, thinking, "well, if we all interpreted scriptures the same, then we wouldn't have all of these different religions and beliefs, now would we?"


Yes, the problem Cedarbird, as I see it, being involved in many religions with differing interpretations is that they don't let the scripture interpret scripture. Yes they differ but what I saw and continue to see for the most part is that the "whole" of scripture is not used to define the contraversial scripture. Does that make sense....lol?

Although, debates are fun in themselves...ehh...whatever. I don't think anyone's ever changed their religious views through simple discussion...much less online forum discussions. Still, the arguing is kinda fun.



as long as you're enjoying yourself Zoo.


on Feb 13, 2008
Yes, the problem Cedarbird, as I see it, being involved in many religions with differing interpretations is that they don't let the scripture interpret scripture. Yes they differ but what I saw and continue to see for the most part is that the "whole" of scripture is not used to define the contraversial scripture. Does that make sense....lol?


But the problem with letting scripture interpret scripture is that the Bible contradicts itself. A lot. So then you get into the whole "Bible Bashing" game, and that goes nowhere fast, too.
on Feb 13, 2008
Gah!!! I don't mean it like that Ock.


It was a good point you made, regardless. One of us is right and one of us is wrong. Since you have so much to lose if you're wrong, I'm just saying you go ahead and be right. I have nothing to lose (from my viewpoint). It's a gift if you look at it right
on Feb 13, 2008
as long as you're enjoying yourself Zoo.


Hey, that's what life's about...just living, learning, loving, and laughing.

~Zoo
7 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last