Is everything "meaningless" without God?

[ToddNotTodd]

Let's say a man tried to build a house literally right next to the ocean. Let's say that it was so close to the ocean that every time the tide came in, the house washed away. Then, let's say the man did this same thing every day for the rest of his life. In your own words, what would you call the man's attempts and labors at building his house next to the ocean? That is how I would compare everything without God.

So this really didn't have anything to do with the fact that humans give meaning to their lives, which means that a god, or God or GOD isn't necessary.

Now, as far as your analogy goes, "one must imagine Sisyphus happy"...

 

[Nithavela]

A better analogy would have been a man building a house on a cliff face. Eventually, the cliff will crumble to erosion and the house will be gone, but before that, there will be decades, if not centuries of time for people to live in that house and enjoy the spectacular view.

Otherwise, why build houses at all? They all eventually go decrepit.

Postulating a being that waits at the end of time and rewards every house builder because he just likes the concept doesn't help.

 

[Chriliman]

Why would I think there is an "original true source of meaning". That is not even coherent.

Hey Davian! If there isn't an original true source of meaning, then how is there meaning at all? Has meaning always been understood by a mind? Who's mind?

If something doesn't understand meaning, like a mind, then there can be no understanding of meaning at all, ever.

The first atheist thinks his mind is the original understanding of meaning, no one understood meaning before the first atheist did. If someone did understand meaning before the first atheist, then who's mind did this meaning come from? A theist? Where did the first theist get his understanding of meaning from? God?

If I tell you how you think, and I am wrong, am I still wrong?

Another Unsuccessful Test

• Davian
• Feb 27, 2016

I'm not telling you how you think, I'm telling you the logical consequence of atheistic thought when it's fully thought out. It ends with the atheist asking for answers from God, not man and when God answers, there's new beginnings for a new creation.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think its fairer to say Christianity is a ground upon which a person can build meaning and significance, and its one that is potentially more enduring than building it on your own health or your career or family. Meaning is not automatic for being a Christian. If it were, there would be no former Christians. And maybe some peoples experiences being a Christian are so impoverishing, they look for answers elsewhere.

 

[Chriliman]

So this really didn't have anything to do with the fact that humans give meaning to their lives, which means that a god, or God or GOD isn't necessary.

Now, as far as your analogy goes, "one must imagine Sisyphus happy"...

Lets say humans are buckets and meaning is like water. Each bucket finds itself with some water in it. All buckets start off with the same amount of water. All the buckets begin to wonder where all this water comes from. One bucket in particular has the thought that he filled himself up with water, even though he doesn't actually recall doing it, but he can't imagine the water actually came from a different source than himself. So he goes and tells his friend buckets that the water came from nothing and that all the buckets fill themselves up with this water out of nothing.

Another bucket begins to think that the water does actually come from a different source than himself, he looks up to the heavens and it rains and he is filled with more water from above, he then shares his extra water with others.

Unless you have a hard time imagining humans being filled with meaning and sharing meaning with others, you should instantly understand how this analogy illustrates true meaning coming from God and being passed around from person to person until all are filled with the truth of God.

 

[Davian]

Hey Davian! If there isn't an original true source of meaning, then how is there meaning at all? Has meaning always been understood by a mind? Who's mind?

If something doesn't understand meaning, like a mind, then there can be no understanding of meaning at all, ever.

Again, you are completely incoherent. How does meaning require a source?

The first atheist thinks his mind is the original understanding of meaning, no one understood meaning before the first atheist did.

That mind-reading correspondence course you signed up for has not paid off.

If someone did understand meaning before the first atheist, then who's mind did this meaning come from? A theist?

People had meaning in their life prior to the invention of religion.

Where did the first theist get his understanding of meaning from? God?

Like other falsehoods, someone like made it up.

I'm not telling you how you think, I'm telling you the logical consequence of atheistic thought when it's fully thought out. It ends with the atheist asking for answers from God, not man and when God answers, <logic train derail>

It is a strange little world you live in where you think you can actually read the minds of others. Why would anyone ask for (and expect) answers from a fictional character?

 

[Nithavela]

Lets say humans are buckets and meaning is like water. Each bucket finds itself with some water in it. All buckets start off with the same amount of water. All the buckets begin to wonder where all this water comes from. One bucket in particular has the thought that he filled himself up with water, even though he doesn't actually recall doing it, but he can't imagine the water actually came from a different source than himself. So he goes and tells his friend buckets that the water came from nothing and that all the buckets fill themselves up with this water out of nothing.

Another bucket begins to think that the water does actually come from a different source than himself, he looks up to the heavens and it rains and he is filled with more water from above, he then shares his extra water with others.

Unless you have a hard time imagining humans being filled with meaning and sharing meaning with others, you should instantly understand how this analogy illustrates true meaning coming from God and being passed around from person to person until all are filled with the truth of God.

You say that as if meaning is something that can be measured and quantified. But it is something immaterial, debatable. People can find meaning where other people can see none.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Lets say humans are buckets and meaning is like water.

Let's not. Because people are not like buckets, and meaning is not like water. And analogies are not necessary to understand that a god isn't necessary for meaning.

 

[Hieronymus]

Wow. Even after you've failed to support this position,

You can not refute this though, buddy:

What is the meaning or goal of existence when it is finite and there is no trace of it to be reminded, or no consciousness to remind it ?
Obviously there is none, in the 'big picture' of our common finite 'natural' reality.

The denial is strong with this one.

Indeed it is...

 

[Nithavela]

You can not refute this though, buddy:

I can:

Meaning is not universal and absolute. You don't have to look at life in the big picture of the entire breadth and length of the universe. Things do not have to be eternal to have meaning.

If you don't think so, why do you wash yourself? You'll get dirty again soon enough, and the world doesn't get any cleaner, either, because in the big picture, the amount of dirt stays the same, it's just in the water.

You think that people would respond to this dilemma by stopping to bathe, but the opposite is the case: People get dirty, so they wash themselves daily. And Atheists realise that their existence is finite and completely meaningless in the extremely big picture, so they find meaning for themselves in the smaller picture. And though this meaning can not be put in a bucket or weighted on a scale, neither can the meaning that theists derive from a postulated eternal existence of happyness after their death, so they are worth the same.

 

[Hieronymus]

I can:

Meaning is not universal and absolute.

No, you fail too. Sorry.

 

[Nithavela]

No, you fail too. Sorry.

You are not the arbiter of truth.

 

[Hieronymus]

You are not the arbiter of truth.

I know, but you fail to refute me (or rather the logic i presented) too.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You can not refute this though, buddy.

So it's "obvious" that meaning is meaningless now if at the end of the universe there's no one around?

Seriously? You can't think I can refute this?

Find me one definition of "meaning" that has a temporal component dependency. I dare you. If you can't (and you won't), then time in no way determines what is meaningful. It's just something you're making up. It's like saying "That apple isn't an 'ultimately really truly true' apple now unless it exists forever." You can see that's ridiculous, given that the definition of "apple" doesn't include a condition involving time. Your statement is equally ridiculous.

 

[Freodin]

Nobody, and that is the point.

I'd like you to read and consider the post I made above:

You keep searching for something where it doesn't exist. Meaning and purpose always implies an active and intentful mind. Without it, it simply doesn't exist. With it, it does exist.

Inseperable.

So why is "meaning" and "purpose" so important to you that you must have it, even if there is no you to have it?

 

[Nithavela]

I know, but you fail to refute me (or rather the logic i presented) too.

You should get together with Dad.

 

[Freodin]

There is no meaning when there is no Creator / God.

You might say that, when there is no God, there is no creation, and thus there is no creation to create meaning.

But as soon as you admit that every conscious mind creates his own meaning, this reasoning falls flat.

I have no problem.
I ask a question and i answer it logically.

False premises lead to false logical conclusions. That is your problem.

I don't.
God does.
That's why we exist, that's why the universe and life exists.

Funny. I quite clearly remember being constantly told that God doesn't want robots.

 

[Eudaimonist]

synonyms of the word meaningless : futile, pointless, aimless, empty, hollow, blank, vain, purposeless, valueless, useless, of no use, worthless, senseless, trivial, trifling, unimportant, insignificant, inconsequential

I don't know how to break it down any easier for you.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

I said in your own words and in the context of this discussion. I'm not asking Webster. He's not here right now.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Why wait a trillion years....for the atheist no one cares about you after you die.....what is there to care about?....you no longer exist in any form. There is nothing left of you.....nothing. For the atheist, once you die it is almost as if you never existed......you are, for all intents and purposes, forgotten.

What makes you think that it matters that no one cares about or remembers someone after (presumably long after) they are dead? Why would my meaning be based on that? What is so great (or necessary) about being remembered by others?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Then let me explain.
If there is nothing after life, there is no purpose for it.

The purpose of life is found within life, not after life. Life is an end-in-itself.

This is the horrible nihilism of Christianity. It tries to make this life a mere means to the end of an afterlife, thus draining this life of meaning when taken from the Christian context.

It's like this life becomes an unpleasant examination one must pass in order to graduate to the right afterlife. Life -- this life -- is devalued into a pure means.

The sun will burn up and that's the end of it, and there will be no trace of our existence anywhere.
No memories either (obviously).
All for nothing...

All for the lives we do, in fact, lead.


eudaimonia,

Mark