> > > >Not that religion isn't important, but just that God's purpose, or I suppose the law of the universe(which I do not believe in, so I am with Stephen on that), is already working out.
> > >
> > > Um. Stephen has been saying constantly throughout this thread that he DOES believe in the "law of the universe" as opposed to divine purpose. You do realise that, right?
> >
> > Before people assign beliefs to me, could somebody tell me what the "law of the universe" is? To pre-emptively clarify my position an many matters philosophical: I am a materialist, which means I believe only in the existence of physical reality. Above and beyond that, I believe there is an objective reality that exists outside of our own sensory perceptions, though I grudgingly recognize that I can't prove this. I'm also a very strong empiricist, which means I only believe in things that can be empirically proven to be true. This is contradictory to my previous statement, so let me just say that while I can't be *sure* an objective reality outside of myself exists, I'm confident it does.
> >
> > I do not believe in any sort of god, fate, karma, soul, universal mind, spirits, or "energy" as defined by the "psychics" on talk shows. I don't know where the "law of the universe" falls into all of this, but I most certainly believe there are hard and fast physical laws that govern the interactions of all energy and matter in the universe -- this is sometimes called physics.
>
> That was what I assumed Melanie meant by "law of the universe", although as soon as I posted I started wondering if I had understood her correctly. I'm now pretty sure I didn't.


Well, you assumed wrong. I'm a physics major. Of course I believe the universe is governed by unchangable principles. But I realized that purpose was a bad word, because it encompasses both of those kinds of purposes you asked for.

I think I begin to see where I went wrong with my question. By saying that I wanted to leave the objective purpose of God out of the argument, I assumed that would naturally lead people to talk about the subjective purpose of life(based on your definitions). Instead you seem to have assumed that I wanted you to come up with some other objective view, which isn't possible for religious people. I don't know why you assumed that... But it isn't true.

So, I think that I meant the subjective purpose all along, but with only a little modification. Instead of what makes your life meaningful, worthwhile, and positive, what do you feel can universally make people's lives worthwhile, meaningful, and positive? And this would include believing there is no universal constant, and that everyone must find their own unique purpose.

If it's still not clear, I'm willing to argue it more. I'm sorry people think I'm denying them the right to say what they feel. I initially meant for my statement to take it as writ that there was a god, and that the objective purpose of life was to do his will. That way, the religious people are right already, so they don't have to argue about objective good. Only what good you can do in your life, or lives.

I believed that Stephen said he disagreed with my initial statement that the objective purpose(the law which we all follow, strive to achieve, etc.) was God's, and instead said there was no such law, and that we simply lived. If I'm wrong, I'd be glad to hear a clarification.

Melanie