Why live at all?

[Jeremy E Walker]

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


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.


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

You must believe in souls and immaterial minds that exist distinctly from physical brains then.

 

[quatona]

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.

Yes, exactly: There is no God to have purpose, meaning, importance for us (and even if there were a God it wouldn´t necessarily follow that he has a purpose, meaning, importance.
Tautological bottomline: Without God there is no God-given purpose to our existence.

Now, you almost make it sound like that would be a problem of sorts.

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.

Yes, if you expect and desire there to be an externally given purpose, the implications of "everything just is" must be devastating. If you don´t, there are no implications at all.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

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?

Yes.

You clearly don't, though, since the statement 'if metaphysical naturalism is true...' is an egregious category error.

 

[quatona]

You must believe in souls and immaterial minds that exist distinctly from physical brains then.

How so?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Yes.

You clearly don't, though, since the statement 'if metaphysical naturalism is true...' is an egregious category error.

How?

 

[Gadarene]

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.

Anyone who thinks the lack of a deity has negative implications still has some internalised theistic premises in play - such as requiring a deity for meaning (which is pure assertion anyway).

Atheism would reject these premises.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

How so?

Either every event can be reduced to a naturalistic explanation or it cannot.

If every event has a natural explanation, then your cognitive processes taking place in your brain can be reduced down to a purely naturalistic explanation.

Either your mind is indistinct with your grey matter (your mind is your brain), or your mind is distinct from your grey matter.

If it is the latter, you hold to the belief that your mind is an immaterial entity existing distinctly from your brain.

You either affirm naturalism and deny supernaturalism or you affirm supernaturalism and deny naturalism

You either affirm materialism and deny non-materialism or you affirm non-materialism and deny materialism.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Anyone who thinks the lack of a deity has negative implications still has some internalised theistic premises in play - such as requiring a deity for meaning (which is pure assertion anyway).

Atheism would reject these premises.

you mean the atheist would reject them

I actually am not alluding to God at all when it comes to my reasoning.

I am simply stating the implications of metaphysical naturalism.


metaphysical naturalism is the view that all that exists can be explained by natural processes acting on matter. it follows from this that the thoughts we have exist as by-products of natural processes acting on and in our grey matter.

Notice I have not used "God" in my reasoning here.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

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.

God's existence is not predicated on our use of philosophical arguments for His existence. In fact, God existed before any humans existed to engage in apologetics.

We are instructed by God to be ready to give a reason for the hope and beliefs we have, but God does not cease to exist if we cease to defend the faith.

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

I can see you are just typing stuff to post without thinking through what you are writing.

As such, I will just say that I hope you enjoy the forums!

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

That's one human's opinion.

I disagree.

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

Yes.

Truth.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

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

God was not created so how could it be said that He was created without a purpose?

 

[bhsmte]

God was not created so how could it be said that He was created without a purpose?

If there is a God, how do you know he wasn't created?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

If there is a God, how do you know he wasn't created?

If there is a scarecrow out in your yard, how do you know he is not made of snow?


Duh, because a scarecrow is made of straw right?

God BY DEFINITION is a necessarily existing being.

 

[Chany]

you mean the atheist would reject them

I actually am not alluding to God at all when it comes to my reasoning.

I am simply stating the implications of metaphysical naturalism.

metaphysical naturalism is the view that all that exists can be explained by natural processes acting on matter. it follows from this that the thoughts we have exist as by-products of natural processes acting on and in our grey matter.

Notice I have not used "God" in my reasoning here.

I'm stating the natural implications of your theism, that, because God has no purpose, he cannot give us purpose anymore than a regular human can to the things they create. You say we don't have purpose, I'm saying you don't really have purpose either, and are in the same boat as naturalism.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I'm stating the natural implications of your theism, that, because God has no purpose, he cannot give us purpose anymore than a regular human can to the things they create. You say we don't have purpose, I'm saying you don't really have purpose either, and are in the same boat as naturalism.

God made me for a purpose. One of those purposes is to glorify Him.

Metaphysical naturalism does not afford you purpose because in such a view, you were not created or made for a purpose. You just exist like a rock, or a slug, or a fruit fly as a result of natural processes acting on matter over a period of time. You exist to reproduce. But nature in the beginning did not say to herself: "Hmm, let me make these things so they can multiply."

Natural selection is a natural "mechanism", not a person with a mind or will or intention.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Yes.

Truth.

Any reason we should prefer one person's opinion of the truth over another's opinion of the truth?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Any reason we should prefer one person's opinion of the truth over another's opinion of the truth?

rephrase it and I will answer you.

 

[Tinker Grey]

rephrase it and I will answer you.

Why?

 

[bhsmte]

If there is a scarecrow out in your yard, how do you know he is not made of snow?


Duh, because a scarecrow is made of straw right?

God BY DEFINITION is a necessarily existing being.

By who's definition?

 

[Chany]

God made me for a purpose. One of those purposes is to glorify Him.

Metaphysical naturalism does not afford you purpose because in such a view, you were not created or made for a purpose. You just exist like a rock, or a slug, or a fruit fly as a result of natural processes acting on matter over a period of time. You exist to reproduce. But nature in the beginning did not say to herself: "Hmm, let me make these things so they can multiply."

Natural selection is a natural "mechanism", not a person with a mind or will or intention.

Yes, but you're no better. You're pretty much an unnecessary tool that can be thrown away at the whim of being who has no purpose.