Is everything "meaningless" without God?

[Davian]

Not for reasons beyond your control.

Belief is not within my conscious control. Try it yourself.

Because you chose to be there because you chose not to fulfill your purpose.

I have still not seen a coherent presentation of what this alleged "purpose" is, so that I can properly evaluate it. You seem to spend most of your time going on about your nihilism. I've already dealt with mine.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

Shoulda gone with the Note.

 

[Davian]

Freodin, you can continue believing whatever you want to believe, whatever gives you meaning, you already know that.

I prefer to believe what's actually true, regardless of the meaning.

It looks like you prefer to believe in your religion.

If it's true that I'm wrong, then I want to know that and accept that I'm wrong, there is meaning in doing that. I don't want to believe falsehood for obvious reasons.

How would we test your beliefs, to see if they are not falsehoods?

If everyone shares this desire deep in their being, then we can say it's objectively good to believe the truth and objectively bad to believe falsehood and anyone who goes against this objective truth is wrong.

With all of the thousands of religions and denomination, it would appear that people around the world get along fine (wars and other conflicts notwithstanding) while believing falsehoods.

Look at yourself; you can't show your religious beliefs to be true, can you?

 

[bhsmte]

Freodin, you can continue believing whatever you want to believe, whatever gives you meaning, you already know that.

I prefer to believe what's actually true, regardless of the meaning. If it's true that I'm wrong, then I want to know that and accept that I'm wrong, there is meaning in doing that. I don't want to believe falsehood for obvious reasons.

If everyone shares this desire deep in their being, then we can say it's objectively good to believe the truth and objectively bad to believe falsehood and anyone who goes against this objective truth is wrong.

Can you demonstrate what is actually true, with something other than preaching?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

So Stalin got much more meaning from life than your paint-watching guy.

Looks like I have to get busy!

Yes,

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Belief is not within my conscious control. Try it yourself.

I see what you are talking about now. My mistake.

I have still not seen a coherent presentation of what this alleged "purpose" is, so that I can properly evaluate it. You seem to spend most of your time going on about your nihilism. I've already dealt with mine.

It will take me some time to provide it. I am a rather busy "nihilating" the toilet and getting the boys ready for bed.

Shoulda gone with the Note.

Agreed



Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[SteveB28]

You do realize that I am a Christian so I am not a nihilist? You are just in denial about the fact that anything you do apart from God is vanity.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

Of course you express nihilism. All your focus is upon the summation of your life at its end.

 

[ScottA]

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?

At the apex of human activity and purpose of creation, Jesus said something very similar:

"The flesh profits nothing." John 6:63

...Solomon was in a position of wealth and power, etc. to be able to test and determine through his own life experience, better than any man - what Jesus then said plainly.

His apostles then elaborated to say that, all "the world is passing away." 1 Corinthians 7:31, 1 John 2:17.

 

[Davian]

At the apex of human activity and purpose of creation, Jesus said something very similar:

"The flesh profits nothing." John 6:63

...Solomon was in a position of wealth and power, etc. to be able to test and determine through his own life experience, better than any man - what Jesus then said plainly.

His apostles the elaborated to say that, all "the world is passing away." 1 Corinthians 7:31, 1 John 2:17.

And when was that supposed to have happened?

maybe next week

• Davian
• Dec 1, 2014

 

[SteveB28]

At the apex of human activity and purpose of creation, Jesus said something very similar:

"The flesh profits nothing." John 6:63

...Solomon was in a position of wealth and power, etc. to be able to test and determine through his own life experience, better than any man - what Jesus then said plainly.

His apostles the elaborated to say that, all "the world is passing away." 1 Corinthians 7:31, 1 John 2:17.

What a morbid view of life.

 

[ScottA]

What a morbid view of life.

Just to clarify:

It is instead a morbid view of death - which is the end of everything born of the world. This is not life, but death in waiting. Morbid indeed.

 

[Davian]

Just to clarify:

It is instead a morbid view of death - which is the end of everything born of the world. This is not life, but death in waiting. Morbid indeed.

That was a use of the word "clarify" that I was not previously aware of.

 

[Deadworm]

Of course, life is ultimately meaningless without accountability to God or at least some system of retribution like eastern karma. The relevant branch of Philosophy is metaethics and the relevant question that no skeptic can satisfactorily answer is this: What makes right actions right?

Without God, evolution is based on the survival of the fittest or best adaptive strategies without regard for altruism, although there are a few relationships in the animal kingdom that fit under the category animal altruism. On this model, our ethical sensibilities are merely values incorporated to promote the survival of our species. As such, they are culturally conditioned without any grounding in absolute truth. Nature is rarely kind! Put differently, without God, you have no answer to the question, "Why shouldn't I harm others if this gives me some advantage and makes me happy?" The threat of social sanctions is a pragmatic, not a moral consideration. The question is, why shouldn't I live for self at the expense of others, if I can get away with it and this gives me the advantage I want? Social values are merely expressions of biological instincts and social peer pressure. Aa atheist has no way to justify his claim to be a good and decent father and husband. If an atheist asks, "Where is your God?", I counter, "Where is the realm of moral absolutes and values?"

Postmortem accountability to a loving God makes morality meaningful. God doesn't decree values because they're right; they're right because God degrees them. By definition, no moral standard can be higher or independent of God. "But that's ridiculous," you say. "What if God decrees hateful actions?" Then we can choose to defy God's decrees and pay the consequences. But in fact, I serve the Christian God of love. In the Christian worldview. morality and ethics are just logical deductions from lifestyles and choices that are consistent with the will of a loving God.

 

[bhsmte]

Of course, life is ultimately meaningless without accountability to God or at least some system of retribution like eastern karma. The relevant branch of Philosophy is metaethics and the relevant question that no skeptic can satisfactorily answer is this: What makes right actions right?

Without God, evolution implies the survival of the fittest or best adaptive without regard for altruism, although there are a few relationships in the animal kingdom that fit under the category animal altruism. On this model, our ethical sensibilities are merely values incorporated to promote the survival of our species. As such, they are culturally conditioned without any grounding in absolute truth. Nature is rarely kind! Put differently, without God, you have no answer to the question, "Why shouldn't I harm others if this gives me some advantage and makes me happy?" The threat of social sanctions is a pragmatic, not a moral consideration. The question is, why shouldn't I live for self at the expense of others, if I can get away with it and this gives me the advantage I want? Social values are merely expressions of biological instincts and social peer pressure. Aa atheist has no way to justify his claim to be a good and decent father and husband. If an atheist asks, "Where is your God?", I counter, "Where is the realm of moral absolutes and values?"

Postmortem accountability to a loving God makes morality meaningful. God doesn't decree values because they're right; they're right because God degrees them. By definition, no moral standard can be higher or independent of God. "But that's ridiculous," you say. What if God decrees hateful actions?" Then we can choose to defy God's decrees and pay the consequences. But in fact, I serve the Christian God of love. In the Christian worldview. morality and ethics are just logical deductions from lifestyles and choices that are consistent with the will of a loving God.

Of course life is not meaningless without a God.

See how easy it is to make claims?

 

[Nithavela]

Of course, life is ultimately meaningless without accountability to God or at least some system of retribution like eastern karma. The relevant branch of Philosophy is metaethics and the relevant question that no skeptic can satisfactorily answer is this: What makes right actions right?

Without God, evolution is based on the survival of the fittest or best adaptive strategies without regard for altruism, although there are a few relationships in the animal kingdom that fit under the category animal altruism. On this model, our ethical sensibilities are merely values incorporated to promote the survival of our species. As such, they are culturally conditioned without any grounding in absolute truth. Nature is rarely kind! Put differently, without God, you have no answer to the question, "Why shouldn't I harm others if this gives me some advantage and makes me happy?" The threat of social sanctions is a pragmatic, not a moral consideration. The question is, why shouldn't I live for self at the expense of others, if I can get away with it and this gives me the advantage I want? Social values are merely expressions of biological instincts and social peer pressure. Aa atheist has no way to justify his claim to be a good and decent father and husband. If an atheist asks, "Where is your God?", I counter, "Where is the realm of moral absolutes and values?"

Postmortem accountability to a loving God makes morality meaningful. God doesn't decree values because they're right; they're right because God degrees them. By definition, no moral standard can be higher or independent of God. "But that's ridiculous," you say. "What if God decrees hateful actions?" Then we can choose to defy God's decrees and pay the consequences. But in fact, I serve the Christian God of love. In the Christian worldview. morality and ethics are just logical deductions from lifestyles and choices that are consistent with the will of a loving God.

This has nothing to do with the topic. Meaning of life and objective morality are two completely different fields.

 

[Deadworm]

On the contrary, objective moral and objective meaning of life are inextricably related. If justice is nothing more than a herd instinct, evolved to promote survival, then the atheist who tries to find a meaningful life by fighting for social justice is just fooling himself--unless, of course, we define "meaningful" in the trivial sense "satisfaction that is derived from fulfilling a goal or purpose, e. g. raping several attractive women to prove my ability to control to my satisfaction. The point is, without a loving God, all claims to virtue and meaningful lives are arbitrary expressions of personal or social values.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

This has nothing to do with the topic. Meaning of life and objective morality are two completely different fields.

I agree. The post was interesting though.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[Achilles6129]

1) Everything is ultimately meaningless in atheism because everything ultimately ceases to exist.

2) If everything is ultimately meaningless then everything is temporarily meaningless.

3) Everything is meaningless.

 

[Deadworm]

Nithavela will now define "meaningful" in such a way that it can be reduced to neither reduced to "fulfillment of a goal or purpose, however ghastly" nor "a pursuit of a worthy cause in a satisfying way." Note "worthy" begs the metaethical question.

In an early book, atheist Richard Dawkins admits that secular humanism and evolution imply a lack of meaning or right and wrong in life. But he takes so much flack from this that in later books he groundlessly postulates meaning and moral value.

 

[Davian]

Of course, life is ultimately meaningless without accountability to God or at least some system of retribution like eastern karma.

What is this "accountability" that you speak of? Is there any act that one can do that might preclude you from entering the Christian "Heaven"? Anything at all?

The relevant branch of Philosophy is metaethics and the relevant question that no skeptic can satisfactorily answer is this: What makes right actions right?

Scepticism is "the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity", not a position on morality.

Without God, evolution is based on the survival of the fittest or best adaptive strategies without regard for altruism, although there are a few relationships in the animal kingdom that fit under the category animal altruism. On this model, our ethical sensibilities are merely values incorporated to promote the survival of our species.

Which would include altruism, if you were familiar with the theory.

As such, they are culturally conditioned without any grounding in absolute truth.

How is that a problem? Religions assert truth, and how many thousands of those do we have?

Nature is rarely kind!

So?

Put differently, without God, you have no answer to the question, "Why shouldn't I harm others if this gives me some advantage and makes me happy?" The threat of social sanctions is a pragmatic, not a moral consideration. The question is, why shouldn't I live for self at the expense of others, if I can get away with it and this gives me the advantage I want? Social values are merely expressions of biological instincts and social peer pressure.

... and reason, compassion, empathy, and relative human wellness. What else might they be?

Aa atheist has no way to justify his claim to be a good and decent father and husband. If an atheist asks, "Where is your God?", I counter, "Where is the realm of moral absolutes and values?"

You don't know either? That is the problem. Religionists make this declaration of objective morality, then always fail to provide testable criteria by which such a thing might be determined.

Postmortem accountability to a loving God makes morality meaningful. God doesn't decree values because they're right; they're right because God degrees them. By definition, no moral standard can be higher or independent of God.

Are we talking of the hypothetical "God" that stands idly by, silently watching millions of individuals be brutalized, with no recompense, and watches the perpetrators go free, never to receive justice? Is this the "God" that will [hypothetically] burn the majority of those that ever lived for reasons betond their control?

I am just trying to get an idea of what you mean by "loving".

"But that's ridiculous," you say. "What if God decrees hateful actions?" Then we can choose to defy God's decrees and pay the consequences. But in fact, I serve the Christian God of love. In the Christian worldview. morality and ethics are just logical deductions from lifestyles and choices that are consistent with the will of a loving God.

Yet ultimately, anything goes, as long as you believe. A morally bankrupt theology.

 

[Davian]

On the contrary, objective moral and objective meaning of life are inextricably related.

And hard to pin down. I have yet to hear a means by which we determine that they are objective.

If justice is nothing more than a herd instinct, evolved to promote survival, then the atheist who tries to find a meaningful life by fighting for social justice is just fooling himself--unless, of course, we define "meaningful" in the trivial sense "satisfaction that is derived from fulfilling a goal or purpose, e. g. raping several attractive women to prove my ability to control to my satisfaction.

Weird example. Is that what you think you would being doing if you found out that gods are not real?

The point is, without a loving God, all claims to virtue and meaningful lives are arbitrary expressions of personal or social values.

Where is the justice in a theology where anything goes, as long as you believe?