Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Because I believe that the purpose that God gave himself was to love and be loved. It is impossible to love if you have nothing or nobody to love. By loving God and others, you are fulfilling your purpose for God's reasons.What is the purpose of that? What end does it achieve? Why should I care and put stock into this meaning created by another being?
If the first "atheist" (why atheist?) is the source of his own meaning, then, being the first, he is also the source of all meaning.
As soon as another "atheist" (why not a theist? Are theists unable to create meaning?) "comes into existence", the meaning the first atheist created will not be "all meaning" any more.
And now to switch sides.
If the atheist is "only" the source of his own meaning... how then can God be the source of "all" meaning?
That's fine and dandy, but I hope you see that you cannot justify your idea of "purpose" in the way that you demand we justify our idea.Because I believe that the purpose that God gave himself was to love and be loved. It is impossible to love if you have nothing or nobody to love. By loving God and others, you are fulfilling your purpose for God's reasons.
Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk
Was there? If meaning is created by meaning-creating beings... how can there be meaning before the first meaning-creating being came into existence?How is he the source of all meaning when there was meaning before he came into existence?
What one believes is irrelevant here.The reason I'm singling out the atheist is because he believes he is the source of all meaning. The theist does not believe he is the source of all meaning, he believes God is the source of all meaning.
You just insist that there was meaning before "the atheist" (and I explained why "the atheist" is irrelevant here) to introduce your idea of "God" into that.Again, there was meaning before the atheist came to exist, so how can he be the source of all meaning?
Slowly now, slowly. You are starting to ramble again. Remember: reason and honesty!So all atheist give themselves meaning? They don't acquire meaning from anyone or anything? If this is the case, then you're correct in saying God is not the source of their meaning, no one or nothing is the source of their meaning. I guess it's a closed loop that only exists for self, but can't explain how or why it exists for self.
That is what the bible says our created purpose is?Why would that be anyone's purpose?
The book of Ecclesiastes starts out with a startling exclamation:
“‘Meaningless! Meaningless!’
says the Teacher.
‘Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless’” (Ecclesiastes 1:2).
Other translations have the word vanity or futility in place of meaningless. The point is the same: Solomon in his old age has found everything in this world to be empty and void of meaning. This lament becomes the theme of the whole book.
Saying that everything is meaningless sounds depressing, but we must keep Solomon’s point of view in mind. This is found in Ecclesiastes 1:14: “I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind.” The key phrase is under the sun, which is repeated throughout the book. Solomon is sharing an earth-bound perspective. He is only considering life “under the sun”; that is, a human life lived to the exclusion of any consideration of God. From that godless perspective, everything is indeed “meaningless.”
In the book of Ecclesiastes, Solomon discusses ten vanities—ten things that are “meaningless” when considered from the limited point of view of “under the sun.” Without God, human wisdom is meaningless (2:14–16); labor (2:18–23); amassing things (2:26); life itself (3:18–22); competition (4:4); selfish overwork (4:7–8); power and authority (4:16); greed (5:10); wealth and accolades (6:1–2); and perfunctory religion (8:10–14).
When Solomon says, “Everything is meaningless,” he did not mean that everything in the world is of zero value. Rather, his point is that all human efforts apart from God’s will are meaningless. Solomon had it all, and he had tried everything, but when he left God out of the equation, nothing satisfied him. There is purpose in life, and it is found in knowing God and keeping His commands. That’s why Solomon ends his book this way:
“Now all has been heard;
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
for this is the duty of all mankind” (Ecclesiastes 12:13).
So if God does not exist, the universe was created from nothing, by nothing, for absolutely no reason. All life, including our own, is nothing more than a byproduct of nature by natural means and when we die we will fade into nothing. Ultimately the universe will use up all its energy (per the laws of thermodynamics ) and fade into blackness. With all that being said, what's the point? Is everything not meaningless?
Edit: apparently there is some confusion on what the word "meaningless" means. The Hebrew word used for meaningless is הָ֫בֶל "hebel" which means futility, pointlessness, or fruitlessness. It has nothing to do with the purpose of something but rather what the end result of something.
An example would be a man trying to build a house next to the ocean and every day for the rest of his life the tide came in and swept his work away. The purpose of his work is to build a house. However, what does he have to show for all his labor in the end?
Was there? If meaning is created by meaning-creating beings... how can there be meaning before the first meaning-creating being came into existence?
To me, this seems like an irrelevant question. Meaning is based on the individual. Meaning cannot be independent from the individual. So any "original" source of meaning wouldn't be any better or worse, wouldn't be relevant for other sources of meaning.Right, which brings me back to my original question. Who was the first meaning-creating being? Who was the original source of meaning? It wasn't me and it wasn't you, so who was it and what brought him/her into existence? Was he/she brought into existence or have they always existed eternally? To me, this seems like a crucial question to have an answer to.
I wish you would stop using the term "logical" every time you go off into something that is everything but logical.The Christian faith provides a logical answer. God the Father has always existed and He brought His perfect Son Jesus Christ into physical existence to give His human life as a ransom for all whom God loves that had fallen away due to disobedience and sin and became imprisoned by their sin. Jesus gave his human life and suffered immensely to free us from our sin. This is the perfect act of love that only God could accomplish.
There is no "true" - no objective - meaning at all. All other "created" meanings and answers that differ from your "true" meaning prove that there is no single version of what it means to exist and love and be loved.Apart from this answer, there is no true meaning to life. All other created meaning and answers will only try to copy this true answer that goes to the root of what it means to exist and love and be loved.
Because I believe that the purpose that God gave himself was to love and be loved. It is impossible to love if you have nothing or nobody to love. By loving God and others, you are fulfilling your purpose for God's reasons.
Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk
A straw-man.Probably instincts. Could you please answer my question? What would you call a man who spent his entire life trying to build a house next to the ocean only to have the tide take it away every day?
Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk
Why are parents committed to their children?
For the same reason they get hungry every few hours, it's a part of our evolutionary biology and our needs. Taking care of our offspring concerns the genetic need to survive and reproduce. It's a basic human need. It no more requires a god than the need to remove your hand from fire.
To me, this seems like an irrelevant question. Meaning is based on the individual. Meaning cannot be independent from the individual. So any "original" source of meaning wouldn't be any better or worse, wouldn't be relevant for other sources of meaning.
I wish you would stop using the term "logical" every time you go off into something that is everything but logical.
You presented a potential answer. An answer that rests on a myriad of premises that simply are not given. Just in exactly the same way, I could tell you the "logical" answer that the Old Norse faith provides. The Gods rule this world and defend it against the evil Ice Giants. They raise an army of the best and most valiant warriors. A worthy warrior will die in battle, and be taken to the Halls of the Gods where he will feast until it is the time for the Last Battle. There, all the Gods and Heroes will valiantly take arms against the evil Ice Giants, and will fight and die heroically for good. Then the world will be renewed. This is the perfect act of heroism that only the Gods and their chosen could accomplish.
You don't believe that? Well, it is just as "logical" as your story.
There is no "true" - no objective - meaning at all. All other "created" meanings and answers that differ from your "true" meaning prove that there is no single version of what it means to exist and love and be loved.
But was end does God's reasons serve?
Not at all. Eternal, everlasting... all irrelevant.If the original source is an eternal, everlasting God, then it is very relevant. If it's not then you're right, nothing matters at all in the end after all beings who create meaning die.
So you say, so you say. But beyond throwing the term "logic" around, you have no way to show it.No I don't believe it because it's a false representation of what's actually true.
I cannot prove there is no objective meaning. But I can observe subjective meaning. I know that it exists. That is something that can work with.How do you know there's no true objective meaning that would exist even if you didn't exist?
How can you claim to prove something if meaning is not objective, only subjective? At best, you've proven it to yourself and that's all.
That's correct. No one else need to believe what I say about the meaning of anything. Whether that leads to chaos and no true direction to follow... well, if you need spend your life following a meaning, you will sooner or later find that you missed your life while doing so.No one else need believe what you say because we all make up our own meaning. Disorderly chaos with no true direction to follow.
That is what the bible says our created purpose is?
Oh come on, no need to get polemic.You don't trust the meaning in the unavoidable, universal, reasonable, good innate desire for parents to take care of their kids.... but you trust a book written by people had never done anything but herd sheep? A book that not one scientist on the planet will stand up and declare is scientifically correct?
When a parent loves a child, when a human gets hungry, when a person doesn't want to die... you don't trust those sentiments you are witnessing at that very moment to be real or reasonable or worthwhile ... but you trust this book, and you don't trust them unless it says so in a book that says donkeys can talk to humans and virgins have kids and that homosexuals deserve to die and two of every animal lived in a boat made by people with no technology or knowledge whatsoever?
That is what the bible says our created purpose is?
Oh come on, no need to get polemic.
The book you mention wasn't written by scientists or (for the most parts) not even by great philosophers. But it was written by knowledgable specialists in a complex iron age society... which was, admittedly, based mostly on keeping sheep.
And on the other hand, given the multitudes of atrocities that we can observe daily with parents who do not take care of their kids... you cannot point to that as an absolute either.
You have a good point. Don't destory it with polemic falsehoods.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?