Originally posted by LemonJelloHow exactly? That does not seem to follow at all. What does God's creating the world for a specific purpose have to do with establishing objective meaning? Please explain.
[b]In the Christian world-view God created the world for a specific purpose. This alone establishes an objective meaning.
How exactly? That does not seem to follow at all. What does God's creating the world for a specific purpose have to do with establishing objective meaning? Please explain.
If LemonJello were to create something for a spec ...[text shortened]... material to the explanation of what makes any objective features objective?[/b]
If life has a purpose, if we ourselves are made for a purpose, and it is a purpose we can have a properly basic knowledge of, a purpose which carries on to its fulfillment whether we are conscious of it or not, what isn't objective about that?
I don't think I've ever made the point that God merely standing in some mental attitude toward something in itself establishes meaning. I haven't thought about that enough to tell you whether I would even be a proponent of that idea.
Again, even if true, why is this relevant? What does this have to do with establishing objective meaning?
The content of Christian belief establishes objective meaning for the believer. The implication of Christian belief is a meaningful existence. Therefore, the Christian can live a life consistent with her beliefs. While the atheist, in so far as they find life meaningful, cannot (given that the content of atheistic belief is that there is no immortality of the soul, no moral absolutes, and that all things end in nothing).
Atheism does not entail nihilism. Atheism is compatible with nihilism; but it is also compatible with the denial of nihilism.
The denial of nihilism within atheistic belief I would consider a form of self-deception, or meaning-creation. An atheist has every right to do so, but they cannot do so and remain consistent.
If you really think atheism entails nihilism, then please just explicitly demonstrate the incompatibility for the case of strong atheism.
First explain how life in an atheistic universe isn't purposeless. I understand that atheists can create meaning for themselves, but over and above this volitional and/or non-volitional meaning-creation, the implications of atheistic belief still hold true, i.e., that life is absurd, meaningless, etc. It was Nietzsche's claim that the loss of an absolute basis for morality leads to nihilism. Can you show that an atheistic universe isn't ultimately absurd?
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloWell, that seems false. Exactly how would atheism entail that individuals ascribe meaning "arbitrarily"
If it would please you, I can refrain from the use of the term 'objective', as it isn't essential to the point I'm making.
I think it would be helpful, since I for one think your use of the term was confused.
That point being, basically, that human existence, according to atheism, has no meaning outside of what individuals arbitrarily asc to be projecting entailments on atheism that do not actually belong to atheism.
You're right, arbitrary isn't the right word at all. I should use either simply voluntary or involuntary.
Originally posted by amannionEverything you referred to, including yourself, will eventually cease to exist without a trace, within the atheistic world-view. How does this not establish your existence as ultimately futile?
I have kids. I influence my kids and their future lives.
I am a teacher. I influence my students in their future lives.
I interact with people around me - family, friends, colleagues, acquaintances, strangers - these interactions influence their lives.
I would contend that my efforts are thus far from futile.[/b]
Originally posted by epiphinehas[/b]Can you explain why atheism leads to an absurd universe?
[b]How exactly? That does not seem to follow at all. What does God's creating the world for a specific purpose have to do with establishing objective meaning? Please explain.
If life has a purpose, if we ourselves are made for a purpose, and it is a purpose we can have a properly basic knowledge of, a purpose which carries on to its fulfillment ...[text shortened]... ity leads to nihilism. Can you show that an atheistic universe isn't ultimately absurd?[/b]
Simply claiming that something is absurd doesn't make it so.
Originally posted by amannionI've never suggested that Christians believe as they do in order to justify the way they live their lives. Who the heck would do that?
I'm not sure that atheism is a worldview. It's just the denial of something, and certainly doesn't constitute what I would call my worldview.
But regardless, I don't need an old tooth dairy in the sky to justify the meaning I get from my life, or the morality that I live my life by. I find it utterly bizarre that some people feel they have to rely on supernaturally imposed rules to be able to justify the way they live their lives.
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasWhat happens in 2 billion or 10 billion or 50 billion years or some distant time in the future is of no consequence to me - but yes, I suppose that if it bothered me at all, then my existence, relative to this distant time, would be futile.
Everything you referred to, including yourself, will eventually cease to exist without a trace, within the atheistic world-view. How does this not establish your existence as ultimately futile?
2 edits
Originally posted by John W BoothYour evading of the name of the thread doesn't reflect too well on your prevous touting of its significance.
It's on this Forum. You contributed to it a number of times. This trollish, pouting passive aggressive thing you have taken up with me does not reflect upon you at all well.
Originally posted by jaywillI wasn't touting its significance. I simply do not want to regurgitate what I posted there in response to you and other posters. If you should come across the only 400 post thread started by me in the these last few weeks since I started posting here, then I suspect I will be on the receiving end of more of your attempted sneering and mockery. We shall see.
You're evading of the [b]name of the thread doesn't reflect too well on your prevous touting of its significance.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by amannionBut it is of consequence, whether it takes place two weeks from now or two billion years from now. Since you and everyone you know will end in nothing, the logical conclusion is that you and everyone you know are nothing. The fact that this doesn't bother you just proves that you aren't living consistently; that is, you are living as if your life has value, even though your world-view says that it does not. Whether you are achieving this feat via a leap of faith or self-deception, I couldn't say.
What happens in 2 billion or 10 billion or 50 billion years or some distant time in the future is of no consequence to me - but yes, I suppose that if it bothered me at all, then my existence, relative to this distant time, would be futile.
Originally posted by epiphinehasI try to understand your way of thinking but I fail.
But it is of consequence, whether it takes place two weeks from now or two billion years from now. Since you and everyone you know will end in nothing, the logical conclusion is that you and everyone you know are nothing. The fact that this doesn't bother you just proves that you aren't living consistently; that is, you are living as if your lif ...[text shortened]... . Whether you are achieving this feat via a leap of faith or self-deception, I couldn't say.
Since I live herenow keeping in mind that I will die, the logical -to me- conclusion is that me and everyone I know we would better live our life herenow to the hilt. The fact that I will die neither bothers me nor it means I am not living my life consistently to my beliefs; that is, I am living knowing that my life has at least value to me and to the people I love, even though I am well aware of the fact that I will die. I am achieving this feat via the evaluation of my mind alone. Well, where exactly do you see "a leap of faith or self-deception" in this reasoning?
😵
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasIf life has a purpose, if we ourselves are made for a purpose, and it is a purpose we can have a properly basic knowledge of, a purpose which carries on to its fulfillment whether we are conscious of it or not, what isn't objective about that?
[b]How exactly? That does not seem to follow at all. What does God's creating the world for a specific purpose have to do with establishing objective meaning? Please explain.
If life has a purpose, if we ourselves are made for a purpose, and it is a purpose we can have a properly basic knowledge of, a purpose which carries on to its fulfillment ity leads to nihilism. Can you show that an atheistic universe isn't ultimately absurd?[/b]
You tell me: exactly what about all that *is* 'objective'? I'm not trying to be dense: rather, I just cannot figure out how exactly you intend the term. Even if we were to agree that the exact details of 'objectivity' may be sketchy, I would still think that, at the end of the day, it has to have something to do with mind-independence broadly speaking. Considering what you have said, exactly what about all this establishes mind-independence in your opinion? At bottom, you still think "objective" meaning hinges on the existence of God, right? Whereas at the same time you allow that other forms of meaning could exist apart from the existence of God but that these could not suffice for "objective" meaning, right? Again, how does any of that make any sense? How would the mind-independent status of some thing hinge on the existence of some mind? I'm still not getting it.
As I mentioned previously, there are ways in which a thing can have both subjective and objective dimensions. For example, again, one could hold that meaning is subjective in that meaning cannot exist apart from the existence of some mind(s); but at the same time that meaning is objective in that the truth values of meaning-claims are independent from the attitudes of those same minds.
At any rate, I see nothing that suggests to me that the meaning you are describing is 'objective'. The only thing I think you have made clear enough is that the meaning you outline depends on the existence of God. That only goes to suggest that it has at least some subjective dimension, since it depends to that extent on the existence of some particular mind. So, if anything, what you describe seems subjectivist.
I don't think I've ever made the point that God merely standing in some mental attitude toward something in itself establishes meaning. I haven't thought about that enough to tell you whether I would even be a proponent of that idea.
Okay, that is fair enough. But you did state that God's creating the world for a specific purpose in and of itself somehow establishes "objective" meaning. Now, I have no idea how that makes sense. But, regardless, let's suppose for the sake of argument you are right. Now, if LemonJello creates something for a specific purpose, does that in and of itself also establish "objective" meaning? Why or why not? And if not, what exactly is so special about God's mind in this respect?
the Christian can live a life consistent with her beliefs. While the atheist, in so far as they find life meaningful, cannot (given that the content of atheistic belief is that there is no immortality of the soul, no moral absolutes, and that all things end in nothing).
I think you're confused about the implications of "the content of atheistic belief". At any rate, suppose I grant you that within atheistic framework there is only mortality of the soul (or simply no such thing as a soul at all); there are no moral absolutes; and there is only the impermanence of things and no eternal significance. Now, how exactly does it follow that the atheist, in so far as they find life meaningful, cannot live a life consistent with her beliefs? That does not follow at all, and you certainly have not presented any actual argument for such an inference. Even if she believes that all things, including her own self, are impermanent and without eternal significance; and even if she thinks there are no moral absolutes or imperatives; that does not show that she would be inconsistent in finding her life meaningful. I do not even see how these considerations are all that related. When you do things everyday in the exercise of your agency, you act from reasons in accordance with what you find immediately meaningful and valuable. I would think that, in some sense, to find something to be directly reason-giving in such ways involves at least implicit meaning/value ascription. So, as an agent, you ascribe meaning and value regularly and this typically proceeds without any thought at all to any of your listed considerations (like whether or not you are immortal; or whether or not there are moral absolutes; or whether or not things are impermanent). That is because there are "chains of justification" surrounding your actions that simply terminate within immediate context and do not require any justification from any such eschatological considerations as what you list. So, not only are the considerations you list typically not critical with respect to the subject of meaning/value, but they are typically not even relevant.
First explain how life in an atheistic universe isn't purposeless. I understand that atheists can create meaning for themselves, but over and above this volitional and/or non-volitional meaning-creation, the implications of atheistic belief still hold true, i.e., that life is absurd, meaningless, etc. It was Nietzsche's claim that the loss of an absolute basis for morality leads to nihilism. Can you show that an atheistic universe isn't ultimately absurd?
First, I don't know why you seem to conflate nihilism and absurdism. As far as I understand them, they are not the same. Second, atheism entails neither of them (and your whole argument to that extent is simply a non-starter). Third, if your only contention with all this is just that atheists do not have access to lofty considerations of immortality or permanence of the self or eternal significance or eschatology, etc; then, even if you are right, why should the atheist care about any of this? Exactly the sort of meaning that you already concede atheists already create for themselves is the only sort that seems actually relevant. As I just pointed out, none of the considerations you listed are all that relevant or have really anything to do with imbuing one's existence with genuine content in the regular exercises and practices surrounding agency. So, even supposing you are right, why should the atheist care?
1 edit
Originally posted by John W BoothHeh...given he claims he has been a "computer programmer & analyst" for 25 years and a writer of over a thousand programs, and so should be well versed in the art of debugging and code searching; it strikes me as somewhat odd that he can't motivate himself to search a few pages to find the nearly 400 post thread you're referring to!
I wasn't touting its significance. I simply do not want to regurgitate what I posted there in response to you and other posters. If you should come across the only 400 post thread started by me in the these last few weeks since I started posting here, then I suspect I will be on the receiving end of more of your attempted sneering and mockery. We shall see.
Originally posted by epiphinehasEnd in nothing ... is nothing. This is your logical leap of faith that makes no sense at all to me.
But it is of consequence, whether it takes place two weeks from now or two billion years from now. Since you and everyone you know will end in nothing, the logical conclusion is that you and everyone you know are nothing. The fact that this doesn't bother you just proves that you aren't living consistently; that is, you are living as if your lif ...[text shortened]... . Whether you are achieving this feat via a leap of faith or self-deception, I couldn't say.
Yes, I accept that I, everyone that I know, everyone that has ever existed, and everyone that will ever exist, as well as all of the other creatures and things in the universe, will end in nothing. But I can't see the logical steps that means that me, and everyone and everything else are nothing.
In the second part of your diatribe you make another leap of faith. Since I will end and be nothing, I must therefore live via a worldview that says my life has no value. I can't see your logic for this one either, and in fact, my perspective on my worldview is that it is precisely because I will end as nothing that places enormous value on my life - it exists for such a short period of time and then is gone.
A christian worldview on the other hand could be seen as more supporting of your position - if everyone exists forever, then so what if we value one or two or a few less. There'll always be everyone else right?
Mind you, I don't accept the logic of this perspective - it has no logic. Nor do any of the arguments you've put forward so far.