Why live at all?

[Jeremy E Walker]

By who's definition?

yours

 

[bhsmte]

yours

Really? When did I give that?

 

[Davian]

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.

God, by definition, is a character in a book. For anything else you will need more than apologetics.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Really? When did I give that?

what is the greatest being you can think of? describe this being to me.

 

[Dave Ellis]

God is not dependent on anything outside of Himself for His existence. If He were, He would be less than God.

Label it what you will. God is the Greatest Conceivable Being.

Who is greater? One who is dependent upon something external to himself for his existence of One Who is dependent on none?

call Him asfas or lkjlj

label Him as whatever you wish but if in your mind asfas is the Greatest Conceivable Being then asfas exists necessarily not contingently.

God is the commonly used word and that is why i used it

Just because we can conceive of something is absolutely no evidence that such a thing actually exists.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Just because we can conceive of something is absolutely no evidence that such a thing actually exists.

I agree.

 

[Dave Ellis]

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.

There are scarecrows made out of other things than straw.... And secondly you haven't answered my points yet, why does metaphysical naturalism matter when it comes to finding meaning in life?

Also, you can't define something into existence, reality doesn't work that way.

 

[Chany]

Just because we can conceive of something is absolutely no evidence that such a thing actually exists.

Also, people have varying abilities on how to concieve things. One person's conceptions and another's are different.

 

[Dave Ellis]

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

And why is that a good thing? And why would an all powerful, all knowing god need to glorify himself? One would assume a perfect being wouldn't need to be a showoff... And besides, who is he glorifying himself to? Surely not us, we're supposedly unworthy of him. So who then?

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."

If what you wrote above is what you view as a purpose in life (i.e. being a tool for God), then I'd much rather that not be the case. As Christopher Hitchens put it, that view of God is akin to a celestial version of North Korea. We are merely pawns who must go through life praising the dear leader.... except you can at least escape from North Korea.

There is no meaning in your view of the universe, your idea of meaning is found in eternal slavery. Our idea of meaning is found in self determination and freedom.

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

That is correct

 

[Dave Ellis]

what is the greatest being you can think of? describe this being to me.

If you're going to go down the ontological argument route, fine.... here you go.

1. The creation of the universe is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.
7. Therefore, God does not exist.

 

[bhsmte]

what is the greatest being you can think of? describe this being to me.

Since I don't believe a God exists, what is the point?

 

[super animator]

God, by definition, is a character in a book.

That's a terrible definition to work/discuss with. As any ancient people can be describe as a character in a book/paper/stone-table/etc.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

How?

Metaphysical naturalism is not a truth statement, as has already been pointed out to you.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

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.

I'm sure you believe that.

The fact remains, self-evident beings don't require apologetics. The fact that we are even having this exchange demonstrates your god is not the greatest conceivable being.

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

Correct. Ontological arguments don't require much in the way of thinking. They are vacuous naked assertions predicated on nothing more than imagination. I am glad you are beginning to understand the logical implications of your own position, and I hope that you refrain from using such argumentation in the future.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

The Greatest Conceivable Cookie would necessarily exist not only in my mind, but also in my mouth.

How odd. I don't taste anything.

 

[variant]

The Greatest Conceivable Cookie would necessarily exist not only in my mind, but also in my mouth.

How odd. I don't taste anything.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I'm sure you believe that.

The fact remains, self-evident beings don't require apologetics. The fact that we are even having this exchange demonstrates your god is not the greatest conceivable being.



Correct. Ontological arguments don't require much in the way of thinking. They are vacuous naked assertions predicated on nothing more than imagination. I am glad you are beginning to understand the logical implications of your own position, and I hope that you refrain from using such argumentation in the future.

I think God is evident. You just choose not to acknowledge Him.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Since I don't believe a God exists, what is the point?

Sure you do. You just choose not to acknowledge Him.

 

[Gadarene]

Complete nonsense.

 

[Gadarene]

Threads like this remind me that to me it is Christianity that is lacking in meaning and purpose - what's the point of being alive if you lack the imagination to conceive of any other idea of meaning apart from being given orders from on high?