Let's assume that God created man for no reason, that there was no purpose (or goal or plan) to our general being. If there was no overall purpose to our being, then the only thing we can say about our purpose of being is just to be, and that's it. Our purpose would be then just to be, to eat so that you may be, and to reproduce so that others may be. But if that was the case, then animals ("non-reasoning" animals) are perfectly capable of doing those 3 things: an animal can be, can eat to be, and reproduce so that others may be. And so a creature does not need the ability to reason to be, as animals can be with only instinct. So then, assuming the system of reasoning is logical and sound, there must be a reason as to why humans were given reason. Had the creator just wanted us to be, he wouldn't have given us the distinct ability to reason, and so there must be a reason he has given us reason. There must be an overall "use" or purpose of this reason. So doesn't this imply that there must be something else we were meant to do other than to be? Doesn't this mean there must be a real purpose to our creation, to our being?

  • 4
    Two major flaws with this question: 1) "purposeless" is not equal to "a purpose of merely being" (i.e. the second sentence is a non sequitur). 2) Humans aren't the only animal that reasons, we're just the animal that—on average—does it best compared to other animal species. The thinking behind this question is on-topic and the intent seems genuine, but it is poorly formed and too many answers will get hung up on the argument's faulty premises. I would encourage you to edit your question, addressing my two points above, and we can go from there.
    – stoicfury
    Commented Dec 1, 2011 at 7:02

2 Answers 2


You are starting from the assumption of a divine creator. A big assumption.

You are then stating there must be some justification for humanity having intelligence. "God was bored" does not seem like a suitable answer to you here. That means that there must be some sort of "divine plan" that human intelligence aided. "God was running an experiment" does not seem like an acceptable answer.

Your argument seems to boil down to "God created humans special, ergo there must be a specific purpose for which God created humans with these special qualities." This argument has issues with God, creation, divine purpose/values, creationism, predestination, ect.

So, your claim that there must be a real purpose to our being? nope.

Also, this isn't really a question in the sense of "I need to know something."

  • You give counter arguements that make assumptions of their own. I know you are being ridiculous just to prove a point, but I think there is a standard in maintaining the integrity of a debate. Had it been that anytime a philosopher published a theory and a random man came along and said hmmm but you forgot to consider that God /may/ have been a ham sandwich, then I'm not sure what philosophy would be today. But fortunately a scientific standard has been set, that no arguement is to be taken seriously without a proper proof.
    – Snowman
    Commented Dec 1, 2011 at 6:03
  • There have been many times in history where one philosopher disagreed with the views of another, and it would have been easy to disprove any philopsher by saying God is a ham sandwich, but any philopsher would find it fruitless to just disprove another man with a one liner, but rather provide a logical well thought and presented counter argument. A common practice I see on this site is people setting out to quickly disprove others with simple (and often ridiculous) one liners rather than having a proper and integral debate.
    – Snowman
    Commented Dec 1, 2011 at 6:10
  • Every philosophical theory will have arguments. There will never be a universal truth that every man will agree on, other than being (woah big assumption I'm making here?). The point of philosophy isn't just to disprove others, but to build on the theories of others, learning from the good or bad. Every philosophical theory we known is built upon the good or bad of another theory. The funny part of a Q&A for philosophy is that of course there will never be an "answer". That's the fun part about it. It's useless to provide yes or no answers here, but rather it should be a civilized discussion.
    – Snowman
    Commented Dec 1, 2011 at 6:17
  • Unless the purpose of this site was never meant to discuss personal theories, but rather inquire about the historical facts about philosophy?
    – Snowman
    Commented Dec 1, 2011 at 6:29

A simple way of phrasing this "question" could be:

"actions are only done with reasons, therefore god must have had a reason in giving humans reason."

Lots of big assumptions here; maybe your god was just on drugs when he created humans - it would certainly fit the manifest level of "reason" humans are supposedly blessed with.

Moreover, it is simplistic to claim that only humans can reason (though it is not totally clear this is what you are saying); just because some animals cannot reason doesn't make humans unique in possessing this quality. Indeed, the fact that there exist different levels of ability to reason among animals seems to suggest that humans don't have any unique "role" in this regard, even given the mammoth assumption of the existence of a benevolent, omniscient creator god.

  • Whatever you want to call it: reason, superior intellect, ability to philosophize-there is a certain trait that man possesses that no other creature possesses; we may not have a word for "it", but "it" is apparent. And I don't speak of any special God, just a wise creator. "Creation" of man by a creator doesn't literally mean creation--however you want to believe we came about, whether through evolution or God's own hand.
    – Snowman
    Commented Dec 1, 2011 at 5:50
  • 2
    I disagree... we may have superior intellect, but that doesn't infer a special trait, just a greater amount of the same trait we share with other animals. You can't prove quality based on quantity. And whatever sort of creator you speak of, you are still making an assumption - that humans were created, rather than evolved. Whereas there is evidence for evolution, there is no evidence in the existence of humankind for a creator, especially not a wise one. Commented Dec 2, 2011 at 11:19

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .