Total Posts:52|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God and the Meaning of Life

Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 11:56:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Usually I wouldn't post here, but the chances that this post will get some attention in the religion forum is far greater than in, say, the philosophy forum.

Anyway, recently I was reading a paper on the relationship God has to the meaning of life ( http://philpapers.org... ) an I thought I might share some of the arguments with you.

Sometimes theists claim that without God, life would have no meaning. Now, I do believe being created by God is sufficient for meaning, but the real question is whether it is also necessary.

Here are two of their arguments against the notion that God's existence is a necessary condition for a meaningful life.

1) Possible Worlds

Imagine two possible worlds

G: A world qualitatively identical to the actual world where God definitely exists.
NG: A world qualitatively identical to the actual world where God definitely not exists.

Both worlds are identical in the way we live our lives, the experiences we have and the events that happen. The only difference is, one has God and one has not.

If we life in G, our lives are definitely meaningful, since God is at least sufficient for meaning.
Now, what about NG? If God is also necessary, then our lives would have no meaning. But this seems rather implausible, as it would mean that the actions we perform, the relationships we participate in and even the belief in God has no bearing on the meaningfulness of our lives.
Therefore, it seems implausible to say that God is necessary for meaning.

2) A New Euthyphro Dilemma

The original Euthyphro should be familiar to everyone.

"For any act, is this act good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is already good?"

The former option would make goodness arbitrary, the latter independent of God.
Similarly, when discussing the meaning of life, we can ask

"do our lives have meaning simply because God decrees that they do, or does God choose his decrees based on some independent standard of meaningfulness?"

Again the former appears to make meaning arbitrary: God could have planned that we roll a boulder up a hill, just for us to slip and the boulder to roll down again, for all of eternity and that would then be a meaningful life.
Which, too, seems implausible.

The False-Dilemma response to the Euthyphro has gained some popularity lately.
When applied to the new dilemma we might say that, just as goodness must be grounded in the nature of a person who is perfectly good, the meaning of our life must be grounded in the nature of a person who exemplifies perfect meaningfulness.

However, if God can exemplify meaningfulness without an external standard giving her life meaning, then there is no reason not to suppose that the same applies to us.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 5:08:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Bump.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
co_op
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 5:10:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 11:56:32 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Usually I wouldn't post here, but the chances that this post will get some attention in the religion forum is far greater than in, say, the philosophy forum.

Anyway, recently I was reading a paper on the relationship God has to the meaning of life ( http://philpapers.org... ) an I thought I might share some of the arguments with you.

Sometimes theists claim that without God, life would have no meaning. Now, I do believe being created by God is sufficient for meaning, but the real question is whether it is also necessary.

Here are two of their arguments against the notion that God's existence is a necessary condition for a meaningful life.


1) Possible Worlds

Imagine two possible worlds

G: A world qualitatively identical to the actual world where God definitely exists.
NG: A world qualitatively identical to the actual world where God definitely not exists.

Both worlds are identical in the way we live our lives, the experiences we have and the events that happen. The only difference is, one has God and one has not.

If we life in G, our lives are definitely meaningful, since God is at least sufficient for meaning.
Now, what about NG? If God is also necessary, then our lives would have no meaning. But this seems rather implausible, as it would mean that the actions we perform, the relationships we participate in and even the belief in God has no bearing on the meaningfulness of our lives.
Therefore, it seems implausible to say that God is necessary for meaning.


2) A New Euthyphro Dilemma

The original Euthyphro should be familiar to everyone.

"For any act, is this act good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is already good?"

The former option would make goodness arbitrary, the latter independent of God.
Similarly, when discussing the meaning of life, we can ask

"do our lives have meaning simply because God decrees that they do, or does God choose his decrees based on some independent standard of meaningfulness?"

Again the former appears to make meaning arbitrary: God could have planned that we roll a boulder up a hill, just for us to slip and the boulder to roll down again, for all of eternity and that would then be a meaningful life.
Which, too, seems implausible.

The False-Dilemma response to the Euthyphro has gained some popularity lately.
When applied to the new dilemma we might say that, just as goodness must be grounded in the nature of a person who is perfectly good, the meaning of our life must be grounded in the nature of a person who exemplifies perfect meaningfulness.

However, if God can exemplify meaningfulness without an external standard giving her life meaning, then there is no reason not to suppose that the same applies to us. : :

If the Creator of our heaven and earth didn't exist, you wouldn't be here to write this thread. That's how important it is for our Creator to exist.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 5:14:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 5:10:37 PM, co_op wrote:
At 9/29/2015 11:56:32 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Usually I wouldn't post here, but the chances that this post will get some attention in the religion forum is far greater than in, say, the philosophy forum.

Anyway, recently I was reading a paper on the relationship God has to the meaning of life ( http://philpapers.org... ) an I thought I might share some of the arguments with you.

Sometimes theists claim that without God, life would have no meaning. Now, I do believe being created by God is sufficient for meaning, but the real question is whether it is also necessary.

Here are two of their arguments against the notion that God's existence is a necessary condition for a meaningful life.


1) Possible Worlds

Imagine two possible worlds

G: A world qualitatively identical to the actual world where God definitely exists.
NG: A world qualitatively identical to the actual world where God definitely not exists.

Both worlds are identical in the way we live our lives, the experiences we have and the events that happen. The only difference is, one has God and one has not.

If we life in G, our lives are definitely meaningful, since God is at least sufficient for meaning.
Now, what about NG? If God is also necessary, then our lives would have no meaning. But this seems rather implausible, as it would mean that the actions we perform, the relationships we participate in and even the belief in God has no bearing on the meaningfulness of our lives.
Therefore, it seems implausible to say that God is necessary for meaning.


2) A New Euthyphro Dilemma

The original Euthyphro should be familiar to everyone.

"For any act, is this act good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is already good?"

The former option would make goodness arbitrary, the latter independent of God.
Similarly, when discussing the meaning of life, we can ask

"do our lives have meaning simply because God decrees that they do, or does God choose his decrees based on some independent standard of meaningfulness?"

Again the former appears to make meaning arbitrary: God could have planned that we roll a boulder up a hill, just for us to slip and the boulder to roll down again, for all of eternity and that would then be a meaningful life.
Which, too, seems implausible.

The False-Dilemma response to the Euthyphro has gained some popularity lately.
When applied to the new dilemma we might say that, just as goodness must be grounded in the nature of a person who is perfectly good, the meaning of our life must be grounded in the nature of a person who exemplifies perfect meaningfulness.

However, if God can exemplify meaningfulness without an external standard giving her life meaning, then there is no reason not to suppose that the same applies to us. : :

If the Creator of our heaven and earth didn't exist,
He doesn't.
you wouldn't be here to write this thread.
But I am.
That's how important it is for our Creator to exist.
So...not at all?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
co_op
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 5:17:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 5:14:37 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/29/2015 5:10:37 PM, co_op wrote:
At 9/29/2015 11:56:32 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Usually I wouldn't post here, but the chances that this post will get some attention in the religion forum is far greater than in, say, the philosophy forum.

Anyway, recently I was reading a paper on the relationship God has to the meaning of life ( http://philpapers.org... ) an I thought I might share some of the arguments with you.

Sometimes theists claim that without God, life would have no meaning. Now, I do believe being created by God is sufficient for meaning, but the real question is whether it is also necessary.

Here are two of their arguments against the notion that God's existence is a necessary condition for a meaningful life.


1) Possible Worlds

Imagine two possible worlds

G: A world qualitatively identical to the actual world where God definitely exists.
NG: A world qualitatively identical to the actual world where God definitely not exists.

Both worlds are identical in the way we live our lives, the experiences we have and the events that happen. The only difference is, one has God and one has not.

If we life in G, our lives are definitely meaningful, since God is at least sufficient for meaning.
Now, what about NG? If God is also necessary, then our lives would have no meaning. But this seems rather implausible, as it would mean that the actions we perform, the relationships we participate in and even the belief in God has no bearing on the meaningfulness of our lives.
Therefore, it seems implausible to say that God is necessary for meaning.


2) A New Euthyphro Dilemma

The original Euthyphro should be familiar to everyone.

"For any act, is this act good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is already good?"

The former option would make goodness arbitrary, the latter independent of God.
Similarly, when discussing the meaning of life, we can ask

"do our lives have meaning simply because God decrees that they do, or does God choose his decrees based on some independent standard of meaningfulness?"

Again the former appears to make meaning arbitrary: God could have planned that we roll a boulder up a hill, just for us to slip and the boulder to roll down again, for all of eternity and that would then be a meaningful life.
Which, too, seems implausible.

The False-Dilemma response to the Euthyphro has gained some popularity lately.
When applied to the new dilemma we might say that, just as goodness must be grounded in the nature of a person who is perfectly good, the meaning of our life must be grounded in the nature of a person who exemplifies perfect meaningfulness.

However, if God can exemplify meaningfulness without an external standard giving her life meaning, then there is no reason not to suppose that the same applies to us. : :

If the Creator of our heaven and earth didn't exist,
He doesn't.
you wouldn't be here to write this thread.
But I am.
That's how important it is for our Creator to exist.
So...not at all? : :

Do you have any evidence to support your claims that God didn't create heaven and earth?
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 5:22:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 5:17:00 PM, co_op wrote:
At 9/29/2015 5:14:37 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/29/2015 5:10:37 PM, co_op wrote:
At 9/29/2015 11:56:32 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Usually I wouldn't post here, but the chances that this post will get some attention in the religion forum is far greater than in, say, the philosophy forum.

Anyway, recently I was reading a paper on the relationship God has to the meaning of life ( http://philpapers.org... ) an I thought I might share some of the arguments with you.

Sometimes theists claim that without God, life would have no meaning. Now, I do believe being created by God is sufficient for meaning, but the real question is whether it is also necessary.

Here are two of their arguments against the notion that God's existence is a necessary condition for a meaningful life.


1) Possible Worlds

Imagine two possible worlds

G: A world qualitatively identical to the actual world where God definitely exists.
NG: A world qualitatively identical to the actual world where God definitely not exists.

Both worlds are identical in the way we live our lives, the experiences we have and the events that happen. The only difference is, one has God and one has not.

If we life in G, our lives are definitely meaningful, since God is at least sufficient for meaning.
Now, what about NG? If God is also necessary, then our lives would have no meaning. But this seems rather implausible, as it would mean that the actions we perform, the relationships we participate in and even the belief in God has no bearing on the meaningfulness of our lives.
Therefore, it seems implausible to say that God is necessary for meaning.


2) A New Euthyphro Dilemma

The original Euthyphro should be familiar to everyone.

"For any act, is this act good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is already good?"

The former option would make goodness arbitrary, the latter independent of God.
Similarly, when discussing the meaning of life, we can ask

"do our lives have meaning simply because God decrees that they do, or does God choose his decrees based on some independent standard of meaningfulness?"

Again the former appears to make meaning arbitrary: God could have planned that we roll a boulder up a hill, just for us to slip and the boulder to roll down again, for all of eternity and that would then be a meaningful life.
Which, too, seems implausible.

The False-Dilemma response to the Euthyphro has gained some popularity lately.
When applied to the new dilemma we might say that, just as goodness must be grounded in the nature of a person who is perfectly good, the meaning of our life must be grounded in the nature of a person who exemplifies perfect meaningfulness.

However, if God can exemplify meaningfulness without an external standard giving her life meaning, then there is no reason not to suppose that the same applies to us. : :

If the Creator of our heaven and earth didn't exist,
He doesn't.
you wouldn't be here to write this thread.
But I am.
That's how important it is for our Creator to exist.
So...not at all? : :

Do you have any evidence to support your claims that God didn't create heaven and earth?

Yes, do you have some for the claim that he did?
Furthermore, how about we talk about the topic of this thread and not something completely different?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
co_op
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 5:26:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 5:22:35 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/29/2015 5:17:00 PM, co_op wrote:
At 9/29/2015 5:14:37 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/29/2015 5:10:37 PM, co_op wrote:
At 9/29/2015 11:56:32 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Usually I wouldn't post here, but the chances that this post will get some attention in the religion forum is far greater than in, say, the philosophy forum.

Anyway, recently I was reading a paper on the relationship God has to the meaning of life ( http://philpapers.org... ) an I thought I might share some of the arguments with you.

Sometimes theists claim that without God, life would have no meaning. Now, I do believe being created by God is sufficient for meaning, but the real question is whether it is also necessary.

Here are two of their arguments against the notion that God's existence is a necessary condition for a meaningful life.


1) Possible Worlds

Imagine two possible worlds

G: A world qualitatively identical to the actual world where God definitely exists.
NG: A world qualitatively identical to the actual world where God definitely not exists.

Both worlds are identical in the way we live our lives, the experiences we have and the events that happen. The only difference is, one has God and one has not.

If we life in G, our lives are definitely meaningful, since God is at least sufficient for meaning.
Now, what about NG? If God is also necessary, then our lives would have no meaning. But this seems rather implausible, as it would mean that the actions we perform, the relationships we participate in and even the belief in God has no bearing on the meaningfulness of our lives.
Therefore, it seems implausible to say that God is necessary for meaning.


2) A New Euthyphro Dilemma

The original Euthyphro should be familiar to everyone.

"For any act, is this act good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is already good?"

The former option would make goodness arbitrary, the latter independent of God.
Similarly, when discussing the meaning of life, we can ask

"do our lives have meaning simply because God decrees that they do, or does God choose his decrees based on some independent standard of meaningfulness?"

Again the former appears to make meaning arbitrary: God could have planned that we roll a boulder up a hill, just for us to slip and the boulder to roll down again, for all of eternity and that would then be a meaningful life.
Which, too, seems implausible.

The False-Dilemma response to the Euthyphro has gained some popularity lately.
When applied to the new dilemma we might say that, just as goodness must be grounded in the nature of a person who is perfectly good, the meaning of our life must be grounded in the nature of a person who exemplifies perfect meaningfulness.

However, if God can exemplify meaningfulness without an external standard giving her life meaning, then there is no reason not to suppose that the same applies to us. : :

If the Creator of our heaven and earth didn't exist,
He doesn't.
you wouldn't be here to write this thread.
But I am.
That's how important it is for our Creator to exist.
So...not at all? : :

Do you have any evidence to support your claims that God didn't create heaven and earth?

Yes, do you have some for the claim that he did?
Furthermore, how about we talk about the topic of this thread and not something completely different? : :

There's absolutely no meaning to life other than our Creator could make it happen with His voice.

We have computer programmers today designing computer programs with their voice. God has been using this information to teach me how He created us within His program called Eternal Life, which is very similar to "The Sims" computer simulation program.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 5:31:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 5:26:39 PM, co_op wrote:
At 9/29/2015 5:22:35 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/29/2015 5:17:00 PM, co_op wrote:
At 9/29/2015 5:14:37 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/29/2015 5:10:37 PM, co_op wrote:
At 9/29/2015 11:56:32 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Usually I wouldn't post here, but the chances that this post will get some attention in the religion forum is far greater than in, say, the philosophy forum.

Anyway, recently I was reading a paper on the relationship God has to the meaning of life ( http://philpapers.org... ) an I thought I might share some of the arguments with you.

Sometimes theists claim that without God, life would have no meaning. Now, I do believe being created by God is sufficient for meaning, but the real question is whether it is also necessary.

Here are two of their arguments against the notion that God's existence is a necessary condition for a meaningful life.


1) Possible Worlds

Imagine two possible worlds

G: A world qualitatively identical to the actual world where God definitely exists.
NG: A world qualitatively identical to the actual world where God definitely not exists.

Both worlds are identical in the way we live our lives, the experiences we have and the events that happen. The only difference is, one has God and one has not.

If we life in G, our lives are definitely meaningful, since God is at least sufficient for meaning.
Now, what about NG? If God is also necessary, then our lives would have no meaning. But this seems rather implausible, as it would mean that the actions we perform, the relationships we participate in and even the belief in God has no bearing on the meaningfulness of our lives.
Therefore, it seems implausible to say that God is necessary for meaning.


2) A New Euthyphro Dilemma

The original Euthyphro should be familiar to everyone.

"For any act, is this act good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is already good?"

The former option would make goodness arbitrary, the latter independent of God.
Similarly, when discussing the meaning of life, we can ask

"do our lives have meaning simply because God decrees that they do, or does God choose his decrees based on some independent standard of meaningfulness?"

Again the former appears to make meaning arbitrary: God could have planned that we roll a boulder up a hill, just for us to slip and the boulder to roll down again, for all of eternity and that would then be a meaningful life.
Which, too, seems implausible.

The False-Dilemma response to the Euthyphro has gained some popularity lately.
When applied to the new dilemma we might say that, just as goodness must be grounded in the nature of a person who is perfectly good, the meaning of our life must be grounded in the nature of a person who exemplifies perfect meaningfulness.

However, if God can exemplify meaningfulness without an external standard giving her life meaning, then there is no reason not to suppose that the same applies to us. : :

If the Creator of our heaven and earth didn't exist,
He doesn't.
you wouldn't be here to write this thread.
But I am.
That's how important it is for our Creator to exist.
So...not at all? : :

Do you have any evidence to support your claims that God didn't create heaven and earth?

Yes, do you have some for the claim that he did?
Furthermore, how about we talk about the topic of this thread and not something completely different? : :

There's absolutely no meaning to life other than our Creator could make it happen with His voice.
This is called proof by assertion.
You perhaps respond to the arguments?

We have computer programmers today designing computer programs with their voice. God has been using this information to teach me how He created us within His program called Eternal Life, which is very similar to "The Sims" computer simulation program.

This neither refutes the arguments, nor does it show that God is in fact necessary for a meaningful life.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 5:36:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 5:10:37 PM, co_op wrote:

If the Creator of our heaven and earth didn't exist, you wouldn't be here to write this thread. That's how important it is for our Creator to exist.

I'm all ears.
Prove it.
co_op
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 5:37:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 5:31:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/29/2015 5:26:39 PM, co_op wrote:
At 9/29/2015 5:22:35 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/29/2015 5:17:00 PM, co_op wrote:
At 9/29/2015 5:14:37 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/29/2015 5:10:37 PM, co_op wrote:
At 9/29/2015 11:56:32 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Usually I wouldn't post here, but the chances that this post will get some attention in the religion forum is far greater than in, say, the philosophy forum.

Anyway, recently I was reading a paper on the relationship God has to the meaning of life ( http://philpapers.org... ) an I thought I might share some of the arguments with you.

Sometimes theists claim that without God, life would have no meaning. Now, I do believe being created by God is sufficient for meaning, but the real question is whether it is also necessary.

Here are two of their arguments against the notion that God's existence is a necessary condition for a meaningful life.


1) Possible Worlds

Imagine two possible worlds

G: A world qualitatively identical to the actual world where God definitely exists.
NG: A world qualitatively identical to the actual world where God definitely not exists.

Both worlds are identical in the way we live our lives, the experiences we have and the events that happen. The only difference is, one has God and one has not.

If we life in G, our lives are definitely meaningful, since God is at least sufficient for meaning.
Now, what about NG? If God is also necessary, then our lives would have no meaning. But this seems rather implausible, as it would mean that the actions we perform, the relationships we participate in and even the belief in God has no bearing on the meaningfulness of our lives.
Therefore, it seems implausible to say that God is necessary for meaning.


2) A New Euthyphro Dilemma

The original Euthyphro should be familiar to everyone.

"For any act, is this act good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is already good?"

The former option would make goodness arbitrary, the latter independent of God.
Similarly, when discussing the meaning of life, we can ask

"do our lives have meaning simply because God decrees that they do, or does God choose his decrees based on some independent standard of meaningfulness?"

Again the former appears to make meaning arbitrary: God could have planned that we roll a boulder up a hill, just for us to slip and the boulder to roll down again, for all of eternity and that would then be a meaningful life.
Which, too, seems implausible.

The False-Dilemma response to the Euthyphro has gained some popularity lately.
When applied to the new dilemma we might say that, just as goodness must be grounded in the nature of a person who is perfectly good, the meaning of our life must be grounded in the nature of a person who exemplifies perfect meaningfulness.

However, if God can exemplify meaningfulness without an external standard giving her life meaning, then there is no reason not to suppose that the same applies to us. : :

If the Creator of our heaven and earth didn't exist,
He doesn't.
you wouldn't be here to write this thread.
But I am.
That's how important it is for our Creator to exist.
So...not at all? : :

Do you have any evidence to support your claims that God didn't create heaven and earth?

Yes, do you have some for the claim that he did?
Furthermore, how about we talk about the topic of this thread and not something completely different? : :

There's absolutely no meaning to life other than our Creator could make it happen with His voice.
This is called proof by assertion.
You perhaps respond to the arguments?

No. It's what I know to be true. I'm not guessing like Christians have to.

We have computer programmers today designing computer programs with their voice. God has been using this information to teach me how He created us within His program called Eternal Life, which is very similar to "The Sims" computer simulation program.

This neither refutes the arguments, nor does it show that God is in fact necessary for a meaningful life. : :

I could care less if you don't believe the Truth, which is God and His thoughts where He drummed up all the ideas to create His program called Eternal Life. The virtual reality that we're all a part of has thoroughly confused the characters in His program.

Can you imagine what The Sims characters would think if they learned they're only information stored on a disc?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 5:37:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 11:56:32 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Usually I wouldn't post here, but the chances that this post will get some attention in the religion forum is far greater than in, say, the philosophy forum.

Anyway, recently I was reading a paper on the relationship God has to the meaning of life ( http://philpapers.org... ) an I thought I might share some of the arguments with you.

Sometimes theists claim that without God, life would have no meaning. Now, I do believe being created by God is sufficient for meaning, but the real question is whether it is also necessary.

Here are two of their arguments against the notion that God's existence is a necessary condition for a meaningful life.


1) Possible Worlds

Imagine two possible worlds

G: A world qualitatively identical to the actual world where God definitely exists.
NG: A world qualitatively identical to the actual world where God definitely not exists.

Both worlds are identical in the way we live our lives, the experiences we have and the events that happen. The only difference is, one has God and one has not.

If we life in G, our lives are definitely meaningful, since God is at least sufficient for meaning.
Now, what about NG? If God is also necessary, then our lives would have no meaning. But this seems rather implausible, as it would mean that the actions we perform, the relationships we participate in and even the belief in God has no bearing on the meaningfulness of our lives.
Therefore, it seems implausible to say that God is necessary for meaning.


2) A New Euthyphro Dilemma

The original Euthyphro should be familiar to everyone.

"For any act, is this act good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is already good?"

The former option would make goodness arbitrary, the latter independent of God.
Similarly, when discussing the meaning of life, we can ask

"do our lives have meaning simply because God decrees that they do, or does God choose his decrees based on some independent standard of meaningfulness?"

Again the former appears to make meaning arbitrary: God could have planned that we roll a boulder up a hill, just for us to slip and the boulder to roll down again, for all of eternity and that would then be a meaningful life.
Which, too, seems implausible.

The False-Dilemma response to the Euthyphro has gained some popularity lately.
When applied to the new dilemma we might say that, just as goodness must be grounded in the nature of a person who is perfectly good, the meaning of our life must be grounded in the nature of a person who exemplifies perfect meaningfulness.

However, if God can exemplify meaningfulness without an external standard giving her life meaning, then there is no reason not to suppose that the same applies to us.

Meaning in what sense? Inherent or extrinsic?

If, in this world, God exists and everyone has inherent meaning, then it's not accurate to imagine a word just like this one being the same without God's existence because inherent meaning could no longer exist.

We can have meaning, is just cant be inherently meaningful if we derived from unembodied processes. God never derived from a state of non-meaning.
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 5:38:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 5:17:00 PM, co_op wrote:
At 9/29/2015 5:14:37 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/29/2015 5:10:37 PM, co_op wrote:
At 9/29/2015 11:56:32 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Usually I wouldn't post here, but the chances that this post will get some attention in the religion forum is far greater than in, say, the philosophy forum.

Anyway, recently I was reading a paper on the relationship God has to the meaning of life ( http://philpapers.org... ) an I thought I might share some of the arguments with you.

Sometimes theists claim that without God, life would have no meaning. Now, I do believe being created by God is sufficient for meaning, but the real question is whether it is also necessary.

Here are two of their arguments against the notion that God's existence is a necessary condition for a meaningful life.


1) Possible Worlds

Imagine two possible worlds

G: A world qualitatively identical to the actual world where God definitely exists.
NG: A world qualitatively identical to the actual world where God definitely not exists.

Both worlds are identical in the way we live our lives, the experiences we have and the events that happen. The only difference is, one has God and one has not.

If we life in G, our lives are definitely meaningful, since God is at least sufficient for meaning.
Now, what about NG? If God is also necessary, then our lives would have no meaning. But this seems rather implausible, as it would mean that the actions we perform, the relationships we participate in and even the belief in God has no bearing on the meaningfulness of our lives.
Therefore, it seems implausible to say that God is necessary for meaning.


2) A New Euthyphro Dilemma

The original Euthyphro should be familiar to everyone.

"For any act, is this act good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is already good?"

The former option would make goodness arbitrary, the latter independent of God.
Similarly, when discussing the meaning of life, we can ask

"do our lives have meaning simply because God decrees that they do, or does God choose his decrees based on some independent standard of meaningfulness?"

Again the former appears to make meaning arbitrary: God could have planned that we roll a boulder up a hill, just for us to slip and the boulder to roll down again, for all of eternity and that would then be a meaningful life.
Which, too, seems implausible.

The False-Dilemma response to the Euthyphro has gained some popularity lately.
When applied to the new dilemma we might say that, just as goodness must be grounded in the nature of a person who is perfectly good, the meaning of our life must be grounded in the nature of a person who exemplifies perfect meaningfulness.

However, if God can exemplify meaningfulness without an external standard giving her life meaning, then there is no reason not to suppose that the same applies to us. : :

If the Creator of our heaven and earth didn't exist,
He doesn't.
you wouldn't be here to write this thread.
But I am.
That's how important it is for our Creator to exist.
So...not at all? : :

Do you have any evidence to support your claims that God didn't create heaven and earth?

That's not how it works. You please provide the evidence that A) The Creator exists and B) He created the universe and everything in it.
co_op
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 5:38:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 5:36:41 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 9/29/2015 5:10:37 PM, co_op wrote:

If the Creator of our heaven and earth didn't exist, you wouldn't be here to write this thread. That's how important it is for our Creator to exist.

I'm all ears.
Prove it. : :

How does one prove that we're only characters in a simulation program called Eternal Life?
co_op
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 5:39:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 5:38:18 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 9/29/2015 5:17:00 PM, co_op wrote:
At 9/29/2015 5:14:37 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/29/2015 5:10:37 PM, co_op wrote:
At 9/29/2015 11:56:32 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Usually I wouldn't post here, but the chances that this post will get some attention in the religion forum is far greater than in, say, the philosophy forum.

Anyway, recently I was reading a paper on the relationship God has to the meaning of life ( http://philpapers.org... ) an I thought I might share some of the arguments with you.

Sometimes theists claim that without God, life would have no meaning. Now, I do believe being created by God is sufficient for meaning, but the real question is whether it is also necessary.

Here are two of their arguments against the notion that God's existence is a necessary condition for a meaningful life.


1) Possible Worlds

Imagine two possible worlds

G: A world qualitatively identical to the actual world where God definitely exists.
NG: A world qualitatively identical to the actual world where God definitely not exists.

Both worlds are identical in the way we live our lives, the experiences we have and the events that happen. The only difference is, one has God and one has not.

If we life in G, our lives are definitely meaningful, since God is at least sufficient for meaning.
Now, what about NG? If God is also necessary, then our lives would have no meaning. But this seems rather implausible, as it would mean that the actions we perform, the relationships we participate in and even the belief in God has no bearing on the meaningfulness of our lives.
Therefore, it seems implausible to say that God is necessary for meaning.


2) A New Euthyphro Dilemma

The original Euthyphro should be familiar to everyone.

"For any act, is this act good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is already good?"

The former option would make goodness arbitrary, the latter independent of God.
Similarly, when discussing the meaning of life, we can ask

"do our lives have meaning simply because God decrees that they do, or does God choose his decrees based on some independent standard of meaningfulness?"

Again the former appears to make meaning arbitrary: God could have planned that we roll a boulder up a hill, just for us to slip and the boulder to roll down again, for all of eternity and that would then be a meaningful life.
Which, too, seems implausible.

The False-Dilemma response to the Euthyphro has gained some popularity lately.
When applied to the new dilemma we might say that, just as goodness must be grounded in the nature of a person who is perfectly good, the meaning of our life must be grounded in the nature of a person who exemplifies perfect meaningfulness.

However, if God can exemplify meaningfulness without an external standard giving her life meaning, then there is no reason not to suppose that the same applies to us. : :

If the Creator of our heaven and earth didn't exist,
He doesn't.
you wouldn't be here to write this thread.
But I am.
That's how important it is for our Creator to exist.
So...not at all? : :

Do you have any evidence to support your claims that God didn't create heaven and earth?

That's not how it works. You please provide the evidence that A) The Creator exists and B) He created the universe and everything in it. : :

None of you atheists or theists have any evidence that I exist. If you did, then you would have known Me from the beginning.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 5:45:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Ahhh damn.....this is why I don't post in this forum....
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
co_op
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 5:49:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 5:45:24 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Ahhh damn.....this is why I don't post in this forum.... : :

It's impossible to prove that we do or don't exist in a computer simulation my friend. That's how clever our Creator is.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 5:50:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 5:45:24 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Ahhh damn.....this is why I don't post in this forum....

This is why you don't reply to BoG. It gets all clogged up.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 5:57:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Life is a state of being. Something is alive (a bird) or it's not (a rock). Life in and of itself has no meaning except the blind need to survive and procreate. Any meaning our lives have is the result of our own efforts, our own actions, how we define ourselves and how we project that definition to those around us. The ultimate meaning in our lives will only be revealed when we're gone in how those who remember us react to the memories. Will they smile fondly while images of things we did together drift through their memories. Will they suddenly have tears when they realize such things won't happen again? Will they sigh and think their world was better with us in it? That, my friends, is what gives a human being's life meaning, touching other's lives in the most positive way possible.
janesix
Posts: 3,435
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 6:02:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 5:57:31 PM, dhardage wrote:
Life is a state of being. Something is alive (a bird) or it's not (a rock). Life in and of itself has no meaning except the blind need to survive and procreate. Any meaning our lives have is the result of our own efforts, our own actions, how we define ourselves and how we project that definition to those around us. The ultimate meaning in our lives will only be revealed when we're gone in how those who remember us react to the memories. Will they smile fondly while images of things we did together drift through their memories. Will they suddenly have tears when they realize such things won't happen again? Will they sigh and think their world was better with us in it? That, my friends, is what gives a human being's life meaning, touching other's lives in the most positive way possible.

How do you define "life"? Is a virus alive?
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 6:11:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 6:02:34 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/29/2015 5:57:31 PM, dhardage wrote:
Life is a state of being. Something is alive (a bird) or it's not (a rock). Life in and of itself has no meaning except the blind need to survive and procreate. Any meaning our lives have is the result of our own efforts, our own actions, how we define ourselves and how we project that definition to those around us. The ultimate meaning in our lives will only be revealed when we're gone in how those who remember us react to the memories. Will they smile fondly while images of things we did together drift through their memories. Will they suddenly have tears when they realize such things won't happen again? Will they sigh and think their world was better with us in it? That, my friends, is what gives a human being's life meaning, touching other's lives in the most positive way possible.

How do you define "life"? Is a virus alive?

By the strict definition of the term 'alive', no. Viruses don't metabolize, they just reproduce. They have no means to produce energy, they are essentially a large nucleotide in a protein shell that attaches to host cell and hijacks that cell's functions to copy itself. I'm not a biologist but I'd call it a kind of proto-life, mimicking some features of an actual organism but not fully alive itself.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 6:15:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 11:56:32 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Usually I wouldn't post here, but the chances that this post will get some attention in the religion forum is far greater than in, say, the philosophy forum.

Anyway, recently I was reading a paper on the relationship God has to the meaning of life ( http://philpapers.org... ) an I thought I might share some of the arguments with you.

Sometimes theists claim that without God, life would have no meaning. Now, I do believe being created by God is sufficient for meaning, but the real question is whether it is also necessary.

Here are two of their arguments against the notion that God's existence is a necessary condition for a meaningful life.


1) Possible Worlds

Imagine two possible worlds

G: A world qualitatively identical to the actual world where God definitely exists.
NG: A world qualitatively identical to the actual world where God definitely not exists.

Both worlds are identical in the way we live our lives, the experiences we have and the events that happen. The only difference is, one has God and one has not.

If we life in G, our lives are definitely meaningful, since God is at least sufficient for meaning.
Now, what about NG? If God is also necessary, then our lives would have no meaning. But this seems rather implausible, as it would mean that the actions we perform, the relationships we participate in and even the belief in God has no bearing on the meaningfulness of our lives.
Therefore, it seems implausible to say that God is necessary for meaning.


2) A New Euthyphro Dilemma

The original Euthyphro should be familiar to everyone.

"For any act, is this act good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is already good?"

The former option would make goodness arbitrary, the latter independent of God.
Similarly, when discussing the meaning of life, we can ask

"do our lives have meaning simply because God decrees that they do, or does God choose his decrees based on some independent standard of meaningfulness?"

Again the former appears to make meaning arbitrary: God could have planned that we roll a boulder up a hill, just for us to slip and the boulder to roll down again, for all of eternity and that would then be a meaningful life.
Which, too, seems implausible.

The False-Dilemma response to the Euthyphro has gained some popularity lately.
When applied to the new dilemma we might say that, just as goodness must be grounded in the nature of a person who is perfectly good, the meaning of our life must be grounded in the nature of a person who exemplifies perfect meaningfulness.

However, if God can exemplify meaningfulness without an external standard giving her life meaning, then there is no reason not to suppose that the same applies to us.

From the paper: "The meaning of life does not depend upon any experiences that we have, on the nature of or content of our thoughts or beliefs, on any of our actions or accomplishments, on how moral or immoral we are, or on any relationships we form"

This is false. They've done studies where people who are in very poor state of affairs say to have more meaningful lives or have lead a more meaningful life. So clearly it depends on experiences.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 6:16:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 11:56:32 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Usually I wouldn't post here, but the chances that this post will get some attention in the religion forum is far greater than in, say, the philosophy forum.

Anyway, recently I was reading a paper on the relationship God has to the meaning of life ( http://philpapers.org... ) an I thought I might share some of the arguments with you.

Sometimes theists claim that without God, life would have no meaning. Now, I do believe being created by God is sufficient for meaning, but the real question is whether it is also necessary.

Here are two of their arguments against the notion that God's existence is a necessary condition for a meaningful life.


1) Possible Worlds

Imagine two possible worlds

G: A world qualitatively identical to the actual world where God definitely exists.
NG: A world qualitatively identical to the actual world where God definitely not exists.

Both worlds are identical in the way we live our lives, the experiences we have and the events that happen. The only difference is, one has God and one has not.

If we life in G, our lives are definitely meaningful, since God is at least sufficient for meaning.
Now, what about NG? If God is also necessary, then our lives would have no meaning. But this seems rather implausible, as it would mean that the actions we perform, the relationships we participate in and even the belief in God has no bearing on the meaningfulness of our lives.
Therefore, it seems implausible to say that God is necessary for meaning.


2) A New Euthyphro Dilemma

The original Euthyphro should be familiar to everyone.

"For any act, is this act good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is already good?"

The former option would make goodness arbitrary, the latter independent of God.
Similarly, when discussing the meaning of life, we can ask

"do our lives have meaning simply because God decrees that they do, or does God choose his decrees based on some independent standard of meaningfulness?"

Again the former appears to make meaning arbitrary: God could have planned that we roll a boulder up a hill, just for us to slip and the boulder to roll down again, for all of eternity and that would then be a meaningful life.
Which, too, seems implausible.

The False-Dilemma response to the Euthyphro has gained some popularity lately.
When applied to the new dilemma we might say that, just as goodness must be grounded in the nature of a person who is perfectly good, the meaning of our life must be grounded in the nature of a person who exemplifies perfect meaningfulness.

However, if God can exemplify meaningfulness without an external standard giving her life meaning, then there is no reason not to suppose that the same applies to us.

The difference between us and God is that we are created beings (whether by accidental nature or by God) where as God is being itself. Thus there is a distinct difference between us in that our vary natures are different.

If there is no God we are accidental cosmic coincidences and are of no greater or lesser value than a bird, rock, or nebula. We just sorta happen and have no purpose or meaning. An coincidence/accident cannot have intrinsic value. Whereas a being created for a purpose does have an intrinsic value and meaning because the creator imbues them with meaning.

Thus the things we create and do only have as much meaning as we do. If there is a God we have meaning and value, and so do our creations. If not there is no value or meaning to our actions and creations.

PS Sorry about this forum. You just have to learn to filter out certain people and carry on...
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 6:20:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't think I'll ever understand why so many folks feel the need to have some kind of intrinsic meaning to their life. Is enjoying existence and being a good person not enough?
Chaosism
Posts: 2,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 6:23:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
A thought I happened upon while dwelling on this topic was that even if God was responsible for meaning in life, that just shifts the "meaninglessness" up one level. In essence, God has no purpose, because I believe a purpose requires something external to and independent of the self, of which no such thing exists for God. If so, what meaning can life have if that which gives it meaning, has no meaning. I hope that was expressed clearly enough.

An analogy would be that if you were a watch, you are created and given purpose by a watchmaker. However, if the watchmaker has no purpose in of and himself, then of what value is the purpose that he granted to the watch? The watch, though having been given purpose (telling time), will serve no other meaningful existence since it won't find use outside being kept by the watchmaker, who doesn't need it.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 6:37:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 6:15:21 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 9/29/2015 11:56:32 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Usually I wouldn't post here, but the chances that this post will get some attention in the religion forum is far greater than in, say, the philosophy forum.

Anyway, recently I was reading a paper on the relationship God has to the meaning of life ( http://philpapers.org... ) an I thought I might share some of the arguments with you.

Sometimes theists claim that without God, life would have no meaning. Now, I do believe being created by God is sufficient for meaning, but the real question is whether it is also necessary.

Here are two of their arguments against the notion that God's existence is a necessary condition for a meaningful life.


1) Possible Worlds

Imagine two possible worlds

G: A world qualitatively identical to the actual world where God definitely exists.
NG: A world qualitatively identical to the actual world where God definitely not exists.

Both worlds are identical in the way we live our lives, the experiences we have and the events that happen. The only difference is, one has God and one has not.

If we life in G, our lives are definitely meaningful, since God is at least sufficient for meaning.
Now, what about NG? If God is also necessary, then our lives would have no meaning. But this seems rather implausible, as it would mean that the actions we perform, the relationships we participate in and even the belief in God has no bearing on the meaningfulness of our lives.
Therefore, it seems implausible to say that God is necessary for meaning.


2) A New Euthyphro Dilemma

The original Euthyphro should be familiar to everyone.

"For any act, is this act good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is already good?"

The former option would make goodness arbitrary, the latter independent of God.
Similarly, when discussing the meaning of life, we can ask

"do our lives have meaning simply because God decrees that they do, or does God choose his decrees based on some independent standard of meaningfulness?"

Again the former appears to make meaning arbitrary: God could have planned that we roll a boulder up a hill, just for us to slip and the boulder to roll down again, for all of eternity and that would then be a meaningful life.
Which, too, seems implausible.

The False-Dilemma response to the Euthyphro has gained some popularity lately.
When applied to the new dilemma we might say that, just as goodness must be grounded in the nature of a person who is perfectly good, the meaning of our life must be grounded in the nature of a person who exemplifies perfect meaningfulness.

However, if God can exemplify meaningfulness without an external standard giving her life meaning, then there is no reason not to suppose that the same applies to us.

From the paper: "The meaning of life does not depend upon any experiences that we have, on the nature of or content of our thoughts or beliefs, on any of our actions or accomplishments, on how moral or immoral we are, or on any relationships we form"

This is false. They've done studies where people who are in very poor state of affairs say to have more meaningful lives or have lead a more meaningful life. So clearly it depends on experiences.

Be careful to not put this out of context.
This was written under the assumption that God is in fact necessary for meaning and that we live in a Godless world.
It is not the conclusion of the paper.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 6:39:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 6:16:16 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 9/29/2015 11:56:32 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Usually I wouldn't post here, but the chances that this post will get some attention in the religion forum is far greater than in, say, the philosophy forum.

Anyway, recently I was reading a paper on the relationship God has to the meaning of life ( http://philpapers.org... ) an I thought I might share some of the arguments with you.

Sometimes theists claim that without God, life would have no meaning. Now, I do believe being created by God is sufficient for meaning, but the real question is whether it is also necessary.

Here are two of their arguments against the notion that God's existence is a necessary condition for a meaningful life.


1) Possible Worlds

Imagine two possible worlds

G: A world qualitatively identical to the actual world where God definitely exists.
NG: A world qualitatively identical to the actual world where God definitely not exists.

Both worlds are identical in the way we live our lives, the experiences we have and the events that happen. The only difference is, one has God and one has not.

If we life in G, our lives are definitely meaningful, since God is at least sufficient for meaning.
Now, what about NG? If God is also necessary, then our lives would have no meaning. But this seems rather implausible, as it would mean that the actions we perform, the relationships we participate in and even the belief in God has no bearing on the meaningfulness of our lives.
Therefore, it seems implausible to say that God is necessary for meaning.


2) A New Euthyphro Dilemma

The original Euthyphro should be familiar to everyone.

"For any act, is this act good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is already good?"

The former option would make goodness arbitrary, the latter independent of God.
Similarly, when discussing the meaning of life, we can ask

"do our lives have meaning simply because God decrees that they do, or does God choose his decrees based on some independent standard of meaningfulness?"

Again the former appears to make meaning arbitrary: God could have planned that we roll a boulder up a hill, just for us to slip and the boulder to roll down again, for all of eternity and that would then be a meaningful life.
Which, too, seems implausible.

The False-Dilemma response to the Euthyphro has gained some popularity lately.
When applied to the new dilemma we might say that, just as goodness must be grounded in the nature of a person who is perfectly good, the meaning of our life must be grounded in the nature of a person who exemplifies perfect meaningfulness.

However, if God can exemplify meaningfulness without an external standard giving her life meaning, then there is no reason not to suppose that the same applies to us.

The difference between us and God is that we are created beings (whether by accidental nature or by God) where as God is being itself. Thus there is a distinct difference between us in that our vary natures are different.

If there is no God we are accidental cosmic coincidences and are of no greater or lesser value than a bird, rock, or nebula. We just sorta happen and have no purpose or meaning. An coincidence/accident cannot have intrinsic value. Whereas a being created for a purpose does have an intrinsic value and meaning because the creator imbues them with meaning.
I knwo you really like this paragraph, but you need to argue for it.
And more preferably respond to the arguments.

Thus the things we create and do only have as much meaning as we do. If there is a God we have meaning and value, and so do our creations. If not there is no value or meaning to our actions and creations.

PS Sorry about this forum. You just have to learn to filter out certain people and carry on...
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 7:06:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 6:37:13 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/29/2015 6:15:21 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 9/29/2015 11:56:32 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Usually I wouldn't post here, but the chances that this post will get some attention in the religion forum is far greater than in, say, the philosophy forum.

Anyway, recently I was reading a paper on the relationship God has to the meaning of life ( http://philpapers.org... ) an I thought I might share some of the arguments with you.

Sometimes theists claim that without God, life would have no meaning. Now, I do believe being created by God is sufficient for meaning, but the real question is whether it is also necessary.

Here are two of their arguments against the notion that God's existence is a necessary condition for a meaningful life.


1) Possible Worlds

Imagine two possible worlds

G: A world qualitatively identical to the actual world where God definitely exists.
NG: A world qualitatively identical to the actual world where God definitely not exists.

Both worlds are identical in the way we live our lives, the experiences we have and the events that happen. The only difference is, one has God and one has not.

If we life in G, our lives are definitely meaningful, since God is at least sufficient for meaning.
Now, what about NG? If God is also necessary, then our lives would have no meaning. But this seems rather implausible, as it would mean that the actions we perform, the relationships we participate in and even the belief in God has no bearing on the meaningfulness of our lives.
Therefore, it seems implausible to say that God is necessary for meaning.


2) A New Euthyphro Dilemma

The original Euthyphro should be familiar to everyone.

"For any act, is this act good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is already good?"

The former option would make goodness arbitrary, the latter independent of God.
Similarly, when discussing the meaning of life, we can ask

"do our lives have meaning simply because God decrees that they do, or does God choose his decrees based on some independent standard of meaningfulness?"

Again the former appears to make meaning arbitrary: God could have planned that we roll a boulder up a hill, just for us to slip and the boulder to roll down again, for all of eternity and that would then be a meaningful life.
Which, too, seems implausible.

The False-Dilemma response to the Euthyphro has gained some popularity lately.
When applied to the new dilemma we might say that, just as goodness must be grounded in the nature of a person who is perfectly good, the meaning of our life must be grounded in the nature of a person who exemplifies perfect meaningfulness.

However, if God can exemplify meaningfulness without an external standard giving her life meaning, then there is no reason not to suppose that the same applies to us.

From the paper: "The meaning of life does not depend upon any experiences that we have, on the nature of or content of our thoughts or beliefs, on any of our actions or accomplishments, on how moral or immoral we are, or on any relationships we form"

This is false. They've done studies where people who are in very poor state of affairs say to have more meaningful lives or have lead a more meaningful life. So clearly it depends on experiences.

Be careful to not put this out of context.
This was written under the assumption that God is in fact necessary for meaning and that we live in a Godless world.
It is not the conclusion of the paper.

"Yet, it seems implausible to completely divorce the meaning of life from anything concerning the content of particular lives."

I'm so perplex by this train of logic. How does this prove that meaning is independent of God? This seems to be deduced out of thin air.

Some would say that if you posit that God exists in one possible world, then you must accept that God exists in all possible worlds. That's something to think about.

Argument three: "So now, those who " through no fault of their own " are not aware of this relation can have meaningful lives. They stand in the necessary relation to God for life to have meaningY4; they are simply unaware of it. But now, it is difficult to see why anyone should bother being religious. If the meaning of life is not enhanced in any way from, say, even being aware of the existence of God, let alone from acting on the knowledge of our relationship with God, then religion adds no meaning to our life. So the idea that God is the source of the meaning of life is problematic, even for theists, because it seems to entail either that (a) God does not exist or (b)
we might as well be indifferent to religion."

Terrible conclusions here. Why jump from belief in God to being religious? I thought this was about God being necessary for meaningful lives.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 7:30:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 6:23:18 PM, Chaosism wrote:
A thought I happened upon while dwelling on this topic was that even if God was responsible for meaning in life, that just shifts the "meaninglessness" up one level. In essence, God has no purpose, because I believe a purpose requires something external to and independent of the self, of which no such thing exists for God. If so, what meaning can life have if that which gives it meaning, has no meaning. I hope that was expressed clearly enough.

An analogy would be that if you were a watch, you are created and given purpose by a watchmaker. However, if the watchmaker has no purpose in of and himself, then of what value is the purpose that he granted to the watch? The watch, though having been given purpose (telling time), will serve no other meaningful existence since it won't find use outside being kept by the watchmaker, who doesn't need it.

I do think there is purpose in this world.
Natural selection, a purely caual process of blind variation, can produce adaptions, structures and functions, i.e., purposes.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
gods_angel
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 7:34:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 7:30:36 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/29/2015 6:23:18 PM, Chaosism wrote:
A thought I happened upon while dwelling on this topic was that even if God was responsible for meaning in life, that just shifts the "meaninglessness" up one level. In essence, God has no purpose, because I believe a purpose requires something external to and independent of the self, of which no such thing exists for God. If so, what meaning can life have if that which gives it meaning, has no meaning. I hope that was expressed clearly enough.

An analogy would be that if you were a watch, you are created and given purpose by a watchmaker. However, if the watchmaker has no purpose in of and himself, then of what value is the purpose that he granted to the watch? The watch, though having been given purpose (telling time), will serve no other meaningful existence since it won't find use outside being kept by the watchmaker, who doesn't need it.

I do think there is purpose in this world.
Natural selection, a purely caual process of blind variation, can produce adaptions, structures and functions, i.e., purposes. : :

What is the purpose to life other than our Creator could create life?

If you had the technology to create life, would you need any other reason for creating it?
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 7:52:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 6:39:17 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/29/2015 6:16:16 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 9/29/2015 11:56:32 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Usually I wouldn't post here, but the chances that this post will get some attention in the religion forum is far greater than in, say, the philosophy forum.

Anyway, recently I was reading a paper on the relationship God has to the meaning of life ( http://philpapers.org... ) an I thought I might share some of the arguments with you.

Sometimes theists claim that without God, life would have no meaning. Now, I do believe being created by God is sufficient for meaning, but the real question is whether it is also necessary.

Here are two of their arguments against the notion that God's existence is a necessary condition for a meaningful life.


1) Possible Worlds

Imagine two possible worlds

G: A world qualitatively identical to the actual world where God definitely exists.
NG: A world qualitatively identical to the actual world where God definitely not exists.

Both worlds are identical in the way we live our lives, the experiences we have and the events that happen. The only difference is, one has God and one has not.

If we life in G, our lives are definitely meaningful, since God is at least sufficient for meaning.
Now, what about NG? If God is also necessary, then our lives would have no meaning. But this seems rather implausible, as it would mean that the actions we perform, the relationships we participate in and even the belief in God has no bearing on the meaningfulness of our lives.
Therefore, it seems implausible to say that God is necessary for meaning.


2) A New Euthyphro Dilemma

The original Euthyphro should be familiar to everyone.

"For any act, is this act good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is already good?"

The former option would make goodness arbitrary, the latter independent of God.
Similarly, when discussing the meaning of life, we can ask

"do our lives have meaning simply because God decrees that they do, or does God choose his decrees based on some independent standard of meaningfulness?"

Again the former appears to make meaning arbitrary: God could have planned that we roll a boulder up a hill, just for us to slip and the boulder to roll down again, for all of eternity and that would then be a meaningful life.
Which, too, seems implausible.

The False-Dilemma response to the Euthyphro has gained some popularity lately.
When applied to the new dilemma we might say that, just as goodness must be grounded in the nature of a person who is perfectly good, the meaning of our life must be grounded in the nature of a person who exemplifies perfect meaningfulness.

However, if God can exemplify meaningfulness without an external standard giving her life meaning, then there is no reason not to suppose that the same applies to us.

The difference between us and God is that we are created beings (whether by accidental nature or by God) where as God is being itself. Thus there is a distinct difference between us in that our vary natures are different.

If there is no God we are accidental cosmic coincidences and are of no greater or lesser value than a bird, rock, or nebula. We just sorta happen and have no purpose or meaning. An coincidence/accident cannot have intrinsic value. Whereas a being created for a purpose does have an intrinsic value and meaning because the creator imbues them with meaning.
I knwo you really like this paragraph, but you need to argue for it.
And more preferably respond to the arguments.

Really? I just did - I thought you could read into it... very well.

My argument fully refutes Argument #1 (Possible worlds) - Which is really just begging the question. You assume that our action have real meaning which I refute by noting that without God we have no intrinsic value to begin with. Without intrinsic value, killing another person is ultimately no different than cutting a tree, breaking a rock or two asteroids colliding.

Argument #2 (Euthyphro Dilemma) is similarly defeated.

God is not another being, but being itself. God is the Alpha and the Omega, all powerful without whom nothing else exists. All created things have meaning because they all come from meaning itself.

However, the same cannot be said of us as we are contingent upon something else for our creation and nature. Thus any of our actions cannot exceed the combined value of the other aspects of "creation" they affect. If there is no God we do not have any inherent value, only relative value that we assign. That relative value is of no real value. It is like a bunch of kids in the play ground claiming the pebbles they are playing with are millions of dollars. It seems real during the play, but it isn't.

Thus the things we create and do only have as much meaning as we do. If there is a God we have meaning and value, and so do our creations. If not there is no value or meaning to our actions and creations.

PS Sorry about this forum. You just have to learn to filter out certain people and carry on...