Why live at all?

[Dave Ellis]

if naturalism is true then nothing we do as humans is important, has any meaning, any significance. etc. etc.

Read Alex Rosenberg

And I completely reject that idea. You don't need a god for things to have significance or importance.

 

[Davian]

puposefulness is a property of created entities.

Since God is not a created entity, purposefulness cannot be said to be a property belonging to Him.

Apologetics fail. Perhaps you could try the Exploring Christianity forum.

 

[Dave Ellis]

puposefulness is a property of created entities.

Since God is not a created entity, purposefulness cannot be said to be a property belonging to Him.

It would also show that an ultimate purpose or meaning is not all that important then. I mean, if God can go through eternal existence without an ultimate meaning on the grand scale of the universe as we know it... Then why do we require one to enjoy or find meaning in our own lives?

 

[Davian]

if naturalism is true

Is someone channeling WLC? Naturalism is not a truth statement.

then nothing we do as humans is important, has any meaning, any significance. etc. etc.

Of course they do. Why else get out of bed in the morning?

Read Alex Rosenberg

Why?

 

[Golden Yak]

To be honest with you, I never find that sort of thing compelling either. It's a simplistic solution to interesting problems. However, what I feel about it doesn't change the fact that if there is a God, there are a lot of things that do and do not apply to him because he is God.

To be sure. But something like self-determination or opinion cannot be dictated by anyone besides the self - if I have a favorite ice-cream flavor, no one can say to me that I have the wrong one.

If you can determine your own meaning, no one can say it's wrong - at most they can say it's not the meaning they'd rather you have.

I don't really view purpose as an imposition by an external force. I suppose that's true in a sense, but if that's true it's also true that we, ourselves, are the imposition by an external force.

We are who we are because of external forces, and who we are is a question purpose tries to answer. If an external force intentionally made us to be who we are, then that's who we are. If an external force arbitrarily made us to be who we are, then who we are is arbitrary.

We can be made with a purpose in mind - a hammer is a hammer and has no opinion on the subject. But while a father might raise a son for the purpose of the son taking over the family business or some such, it's ultimately the son's choice, as a function of free will.

I thought that's what happens.

That is not the impression I get from most theists - I am often informed that the purpose of life is to glorify the creator for all time, through utter submission and putting the creator above all other things. If your life's purpose isn't that, then you're living wrong (and you'll be made sorry later).

 

[Golden Yak]

if naturalism is true then nothing we do as humans is important, has any meaning, any significance. etc. etc.

Read Alex Rosenberg

That's one human's opinion.

I disagree.

Any reason we should prefer one human's opinion above another's?

 

[quatona]

puposefulness is a property of created entities.

Purposefulness is a property of an entity that pursues goals.

Anyway, in the end your whole approach turns out to be circular - as expected. Why again should we believe that there´s a God? Because without a God our existence would have no God-given purpose. And why again would we need to believe we have a God-given purpose?

Since God is not a created entity, purposefulness cannot be said to be a property belonging to Him.

So having no purpose (whatever it is that you mean when saying it) is not a problem, unless you believe you are created, in the first place.

 

[quatona]

if naturalism is true then nothing we do as humans is important, has any meaning, any significance. etc. etc.

Your statement is incomplete:
If naturalism is true then nothing we do as humans is important, has any meaning, any significance to a God.
(Which, obviously, is no problem when you don´t believe there´s a God, to begin with.)
Apart from the fact that an argument from consequence is fallacious, anyway.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

puposefulness is a property of created entities.

Since God is not a created entity, purposefulness cannot be said to be a property belonging to Him.

Which implies that God is purposeless; not a position I think you want to take.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Purposefulness is a property of an entity that pursues goals.

Anyway, in the end your whole approach turns out to be circular - as expected. Why again should we believe that there´s a God? Because without a God our existence would have no God-given purpose. And why again would we need to believe we have a God-given purpose?


So having no purpose (whatever it is that you mean when saying it) is not a problem, unless you believe you are created, in the first place.

What if God creates whimsically, without any regard for the ultimate fate or purpose of the things he creates? The concept of "God-given purpose" presumes a particular kind of God; namely, one who creates things with a purpose.

It is trivially true that, without such a God, there is no God-given purpose. But should we really pin the value of all human existence down to God-given purpose anyway? That seems like a recipe for disappointment and nihilism.

 

[quatona]

What if God creates whimsically, without any regard for the ultimate fate or purpose of the things he creates? The concept of "God-given purpose" presumes a particular kind of God; namely, one who creates things with a purpose.

It is trivially true that, without such a God, there is no God-given purpose. But should we really pin the value of all human existence down to God-given purpose anyway? That seems like a recipe for disappointment and nihilism.

Yeah, I don´t understand what´s so great about the idea of being a tool (especially not when the purpose for which the tool is created is allegedly beyond my understanding) - rather than being an end in itself.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yeah, I don´t understand what´s so great about the idea of being a tool (especially not when the purpose for which the tool is created is allegedly beyond my understanding) - rather than being an end in itself.

And the number of God-given purposes that you are assigned is, interestingly enough, proportional to the number of religions that claim there is a God-given purpose for your life. Almost all religions, if not all, claim to know your God-given purpose.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Yes, and something cannot give something one does not have. God can't endow purpose (at least, no more so than a man can) because purpose is a quality he does not have.

You seem to be reasoning that because God was not created, that therefore He cannot create anything for a purpose or a reason.

That simply does not follow.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

How can you possibly derive meaning from existence unless you pretend that an invisible cosmic wizard has dictated the meaning for you?

-What this line of apologetics sounds like to me, and any person with basic reasoning skills.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

God is the Greatest Conceivable Being.

I am conceiving of a being that doesn't require his believers to construct extremely crappy arguments on his behalf.

There. I've just conceived of a being greater than your god.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

How can you possibly derive meaning from existence unless you pretend that an invisible cosmic wizard has dictated the meaning for you?

-What this line of apologetics sounds like to me, and any person with basic reasoning skills.

It sounds that way to you because you have a misconception of what I mean when I say that life is meaningless if metaphysical naturalism is true.

Do you know what metaphysical naturalism is?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I am conceiving of a being that doesn't require his believers to construct extremely crappy arguments on his behalf.

There. I've just conceived of a being greater than your god.

The God I speak of does not require His believers to construct extremely crappy arguments on His behalf.

So the God I speak of is the same one you speak of i.e. the Greatest Conceivable Being.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Your statement is incomplete:
If naturalism is true then nothing we do as humans is important, has any meaning, any significance to a God.
(Which, obviously, is no problem when you don´t believe there´s a God, to begin with.)
Apart from the fact that an argument from consequence is fallacious, anyway.

Not to a God.

Rather, actually.

If naturalism is true then nothing we do as humans is actually important, has any meaning, or any significance.

I am talking about reality.

If God does not exist, then what follows? You seem to be aware of the implications.

What follows is that we exist as a result of certain natural processes acting on matter over a period of time.

The end. There is no rhyme or reason why it just so happened to turn out the way it did because there is no one who made it the way it is for a purpose.

The universe and all of us in it "just are". The implications cannot be understated. Camus, Sartre, Nietzsche, Dostoyevsky, Shaeffer, etc. etc. all wrote about this.

 

[quatona]

Not to a God.

Rather, actually.

If naturalism is true then nothing we do as humans is actually important, has any meaning, or any significance.

Only if your silently add "to a God". It can be important, have meaning and significance to everyone else.

I am talking about reality.

In reality what I do is important, meaningful and significant to myself and the people around me, and what they do is important, meaningful and significant to me. That´s reality, and that´s what matters in reality. Thinking up a beyond-entity to whom it is important, significant and meaningful - while it may add another potential instance of "meaning"/"significance"/"importance" -doesn´t change anything about this reality. Neither the existence nor the non-existence of such an entity would cange anything about it.

If God does not exist, then what follows, you seem to be aware of the implications.

Yes, I am - and it´s not what you are trying to establish as the consequences.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

The God I speak of does not require His believers to construct extremely crappy arguments on His behalf.

Yes he does. I refer you to the entire history of apologetics as a demonstration of this fact - ontological arguments, cosmological arguments, teleological arguments, presuppositional arguments etc.

So the God I speak of is the same one you speak of i.e. the Greatest Conceivable Being.

Your being necessitates centuries of failed apologetics. My being necessitates no apologetics. Mine is greater than yours.