Our everyday commonsense intuition is often wrong. Math, science, and logic tell us this.
And what is this "our lives have meaning" business? I understand that words have meaning. To have meaning is an issue of language and semantics. Our lives are not a language, so this notion seems nonsensical.
The amount of evidence you've proposed is zero. You could say that you have an argument, but evidence is not something that you can correctly claim to have.
Why are these things less obvious? Is it just that you were raised a certain way? "The stars in the sky are our ancestors" can be obvious to one person, while "the stars in the sky are angels" can be obvious to someone else. The basic idea of science is to remove your bias, which is something that I don't see you doing.
Do you mean cause and effect? I'd agree. Do you mean purpose? If so, does God have a purpose?
That's what you want. What you want, and some "objective purpose which exists for you as ordained from an external source" could be entirely different things. Most commonly, it is argued by Christians that our purpose is to worship God. Was that not obvious to you?
You are very close to committing the appeal to consequences fallacy. Just because you find one conclusion preferable to another, doesn't make it true.
Why would he eradicate suffering and death if he purposely made them and designed them with intricate detail? I don't understand the point of that.
Then don't invent one.
Do you imply that there could be a purpose which overrides a "lesser" purpose?
Because...?
Because why?
Meaning what, exactly?
Very close to appealing to consequences fallacy!
From, say, a murderer's perspective, evidence presented in court would be something he doesn't like. Does the fact that he doesn't like the evidence make the evidence false?
Those are good things.
Welcome back!
"Our everyday commonsense intuition is often wrong. Math, science, and logic tell us this."
Do you have a reason to believe it is wrong? A reason more obvious and compelling than the intuition itself? And science, math and logic work on the basic intuition that there is a reality and that we can relate to it accurately, even if not always. Which is premiss 2 of my argument.
"And what is this "our lives have meaning" business? I understand that words have meaning. To have meaning is an issue of language and semantics. Our lives are not a language, so this notion seems nonsensical."
As in moral significance, purpose.
"The amount of evidence you've proposed is zero. You could say that you have an argument, but evidence is not something that you can correctly claim to have."
Well, that is arrogant, and untrue. Premiss two is easily supported. You yourself accept it. I have explained why naturalism fails at premiss 1 and why God succeeds. Refuting my claims is your job.
"Why are these things less obvious? Is it just that you were raised a certain way? "The stars in the sky are our ancestors" can be obvious to one person, while "the stars in the sky are angels" can be obvious to someone else. The basic idea of science is to remove your bias, which is something that I don't see you doing."
Come on, don't play dumb with me. You don't get up in the morning knowing your life is pointless and that it doesn't matter what you do today. You do thinking it matters. The basic idea of science is to discover reality. Conform with premiss 2. Do you now withold the plethora of objections to knowledge you had? Can science bring us any kind of meaningful knowledge in your sight?
Yes, I will remove my evil bias that my life has value and purpose. Then hang myself. Sure thing mate.
"Do you mean cause and effect? I'd agree. Do you mean purpose? If so, does God have a purpose?"
Purpose yes. That was the conversation topic. Sure, God has a purpose. I don't know it exactly like that on the spot, probably for each person of the trinity to love one another. The son does the will of the father, that Jesus has said. God's purpose must be determined by his nature and identity.
"That's what you want. What you want, and some "objective purpose which exists for you as ordained from an external source" could be entirely different things. Most commonly, it is argued by Christians that our purpose is to worship God. Was that not obvious to you?"
No. It isn't what I want. Even your fellow atheists here agreed with this. It wasn't obvious to me no, to worship God. I had to be told and discover it. But looking back now, it should be obvious. We are well deluded. I have no reason to believe God wants us to be unhappy and miserable, quite the opposite.
"You are very close to committing the appeal to consequences fallacy. Just because you find one conclusion preferable to another, doesn't make it true."
I'm sure you're intelligent enough to know that wasn't what I was saying. Accusing me of fallacies gratuitously will not help you. We weren't even talking about warrant for our views. Just what belief in God or not will entail for meaning and value. Don't be intellectually dishonest.
"Why would he eradicate suffering and death if he purposely made them and designed them with intricate detail? I don't understand the point of that."
Uuum, because he said so. You don't need to understand for it to be true. God gave a time for rebellion, that time is nearing its end rapidly. You better get on the boat quick. (Hint: Jesus is the boat)
"Then don't invent one."
That's what I'm saying! I found the real deal. It's called Jesus Christ died for my sins so I could have eternal life with my creator. You should try it out
If you think you did already, then try again.
"Do you imply that there could be a purpose which overrides a "lesser" purpose?"
Well yes. There are numerous subpurposes. All branching down from the ultimate one.
"Because...?"
Well, we're getting into the moral argument, but it works the same way as this argument basically. Only a person gives meaning or purpose to things. A rock can't. Nature can't do it either. Only a person values things.
"Meaning what, exactly?"
A supreme, absolute, and eternal being. The stopping point of reality.
"Very close to appealing to consequences fallacy!"
Uh, no. Knowing that your life has value and meaning is a basic form of evidence. We can use this knowledge to deduce other things, like the existence of God. In any case, here, we deduced the other way around that without God there is no meaning or value in an objective sense. I was in agreement on that with my fellow debaters.
"From, say, a murderer's perspective, evidence presented in court would be something he doesn't like. Does the fact that he doesn't like the evidence make the evidence false?"
Well that's a silly question. You should know my answer. Maybe you skimmed too much.
I guess you are in the proud atheists category. Do you own up to your beliefs that life is valueless and purposeless objectively and that we can only invent such things, thus deluding ourselves?
Don't take me for a fool. You know full well I don't reject it because it hurts my little feelings. I reject it because it's false, sir.
"Those are good things."
Only legitimately available to a theistic worldview, but yes.