Originally posted by Varqa Why don't you just cut to the chase, whoday? Just go head and say what you really want to say, which is unless we accept Jesus in our heart, our life is meaningless.
Jesus was maya and thus cannot give meaning to anything.
Originally posted by whodey But if the meaning for your existence is ONLY what you make it, it has no inherent value, rather, such meaning could then be deemed illusionary. Once you perish and thsoe who care about you perish the meaning for your life also perishes. It begs the question if such meaning actually existed in the first place. If so, where did it go?
Well, here you are ragging on one form of subjectivism because it precludes 'inherent value'. But, at the same time, your own solution that you present throughout the thread is nothing but a dialectically symmetric subjectivist position that also precludes inherent value. Basically, you claim that we are meaningful and valuable in "the grande scheme of things" only to the extent that God values us. Well, that precludes our having inherent value, too, because it implies that all our value is merely contingent on our being valued by an external agent.
At any rate, there is no reason to think your position is any more valid than the position of a person who holds that he is, in fact, valuable because he values himself; or because his neighbor values him; or....
Originally posted by whodey When I say "ultimate" meaning I am referring to what actual meaning, if any, your life has in the grande scheme of things. We all have a skewed perspective as to how we relate to the grande scheme of things, however, it is skewed nonetheless. However, it seems as if we all think our lives have meaning, therefore, it stands to reason that it must to some deg s. So whose perspective do we rely in terms of giving meaning and value to all that exists?
However, it seems as if we all think our lives have meaning, therefore, it stands to reason that it must to some degree.
No, that line of thought doesn't stand to reason. It confuses descriptive considerations (related to what degree people think their lives are meaningful) with (meta-)ethical considerations (related to whether or not their lives actually are meaningful).
Originally posted by whodey I disagree. Who says that the genocide in Rwanda was a tragic or abhorrent event?
You are confusing two things, as LJ said above.
(a) Whether the vastness of the universe precludes individual acts, experiences, etc. from having significant meaning;
(b) Whether there is no such thing as "objective" value (i.e. value independent of particular - or indeed all - human observers).
You've had the debate about (b) many times, but refuse to accept that a godless universe can still contain acts and things of "objective" value; I assumed this was more about (a).
Originally posted by LemonJello Well, here you are ragging on one form of subjectivism because it precludes 'inherent value'. But, at the same time, your own solution that you present throughout the thread is nothing but a dialectically symmetric subjectivist position that also precludes inherent value. Basically, you claim that we are meaningful and valuable in "the grande scheme of ...[text shortened]... is, in fact, valuable because he values himself; or because his neighbor values him; or....
You are right in that I am equating our value based upon the subjective viewpoint of God. However, this subjective view point is also objective in that he sees all, and knows all. His viewpoint is not skewed as ours is skewed. God's perspective is reality rather than trying to percieve reality in the way that we do.
Originally posted by LemonJello [b]However, it seems as if we all think our lives have meaning, therefore, it stands to reason that it must to some degree.
No, that line of thought doesn't stand to reason. It confuses descriptive considerations (related to what degree people think their lives are meaningful) with (meta-)ethical considerations (related to whether or not their lives actually are meaningful).[/b]
But a meaning of some kind must exist to life. In order to concieve of an entity or notion of some kind we must have a point of reference. It is akin to trying to think of God outside of time. There is no way to do so because we have no point of reference in terms of experiencing this existence. So if there were no meaning to life then how could we know that there was no meaning to begin with? However, since there is meaning to life we can relate to such a notion because to us our lives have meaning. Granted, this meaning may not be as we invision it, however, there must be meaning nonetheless.
Originally posted by whodey But a meaning of some kind must exist to life. In order to concieve of an entity or notion of some kind we must have a point of reference. It is akin to trying to think of God outside of time. There is no way to do so because we have no point of reference in terms of experiencing this existence. So if there were no meaning to life then how could we know t ...[text shortened]... Granted, this meaning may not be as we invision it, however, there must be meaning nonetheless.
So whodey, you've decided to define "meaning" as "belief in God", then tell everyone who doesn't believe in God that they don't have meaning in their lives.
And so, dear reader, debate is debased one more notch.
Originally posted by scottishinnz So whodey, you've decided to define "meaning" as "belief in God", then tell everyone who doesn't believe in God that they don't have meaning in their lives.
And so, dear reader, debate is debased one more notch.
Correction: only belief in his Monster God counts.
Originally posted by scottishinnz So whodey, you've decided to define "meaning" as "belief in God", then tell everyone who doesn't believe in God that they don't have meaning in their lives.
And so, dear reader, debate is debased one more notch.
if you believe that there is no afterlife, then your only purpose is to reproduce. you need God to believe in afterlife, so you need God for a purpose.
Originally posted by EcstremeVenom if you believe that there is no afterlife, then your only purpose is to reproduce. you need God to believe in afterlife, so you need God for a purpose.
That's three incorrect statements in one sentence.
Originally posted by no1marauder That's three incorrect statements in one sentence.
your only purpose is to reproduce just like all other animals, unless you believe in God creating the animals for us; that would make us above them. but if you dont believe in that then you believe animals are our equals and our purpose is to just reproduce.
Originally posted by EcstremeVenom your only purpose is to reproduce just like all other animals, unless you believe in God creating the animals for us; that would make us above them. but if you dont believe in that then you believe animals are our equals and our purpose is to just reproduce.
Repeating incorrect statements doesn't make them correct.
You can believe your life has a purpose whether you believe in an afterlife or not.
You don't need to believe in God to believe in an afterlife.
And you certainly don't need a belief in God for a purpose.
Originally posted by scottishinnz So whodey, you've decided to define "meaning" as "belief in God", then tell everyone who doesn't believe in God that they don't have meaning in their lives.
And so, dear reader, debate is debased one more notch.
Nice to see you join the debate Scotty, however, I won't let you just squeek by with your one liners without answering some questions first. So tell me Scotty, how does one arrive at a "meaning" to something without conscious thought? If there is no conscience thought, is there meaning to anything? And once conscious thought is snuffed out, how can there be meaning to your life?
04 Apr '07 06:57
Does your life have meaning?
Back to Top