Wether god exists or not he did supposedly give us free will. Each day we are faced with hundreds of choices that will ultimately decide in our "fate". I personally don't believe in one god that can do everything for everyone with all the people in are world. For the same reason that we believe that Santa Clause can't possibly exist and bring stuff to every child's house in one night. If we think that's impossible, then how can we believe in god?
Yet some go throughout life without a purpose and sometimes the government may push a purpose onto them or they accidentally fall into a purpose opened up by somebody else. Though essentially our early childhood experiences and education are what we derive our purpose from. Much of our early childhood experience also determines our attitudes and thus will, so free will is an illusion as it is preconditioned strongly by our childhood experiences.
Nor is there a framework devised for us to find a purpose by any God, the framework is devised by parents/guardians and the environment we spend our childhood in.
Thus there is an element of randomness in our psych.
Which makes it absolutely impossible for Omniscience to exist.
So if a God does exist, it is not omniscient, nor has it a purpose for humanity.
Spinoza's God or a Deists God is still possible, but definitely not the Biblical God. Such a God cannot Exist. Besides Josiah gave the Biblical God it's existence. Without him, there would be no Christians, nor Muslims. They are all the product of Josiah.
I think he actually argues, responding to Nietzsche's "God is dead," that because there is no God we are responsible for ourselves. It is not intended to be an argument against God, but rather an argument about the meaning of life in a Godless universe. He is rather saying, on the assumption there is no God, human beings have no predetermined purpose and so must find purpose themselves.
One could easily argue that god gave people free will. The true reason why people believe in god is because it gives them comfort. Usually they cling to the religious version of god that they were brought to believe. This is non rational. However, on the flip side, atheist, who don't believe in god are just as unreasonable. The truth is we have not been able to provide one way or another in the existence of god. The only rational/reasonable position is an agnostic approach, who do not believe one way or the other but know we can not prove at this time.
“Everything happens as if the world, man, and man-in-the-world succeeded in realizing only a missing God. Everything happens therefore as if the in-itself and the for-itself were present in a state of disintegration in relation to an ideal synthesis. Not that the integration has ever taken place but on the contrary precisely because it is always impossible.”
Basically it has nothing to do with purpose. I'm curious which one does. That said his reasoning has more than enough "plain" backing to stand.
Sartre's assertion that God is not real because humans are free does not hold water. I share the beliefs of theistic existentialism; I agree with Sartre that the individual must give meaning to his own existence and find particulars of it, but God sets up the structure to do so. Additionally, I find Sartre's argument to be ironic in the sense that one could argue that God endowed humans with free will.
Everything in this world is in the hands of god.We are able to see,walk whatever is due to will of god.Coming of Santa Claus on Christmas does not gives any poof that he is not existing.Our ancestors were not mad or having some psychological problem telling and talking about his incarnations.I truly disagree with his statement