• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

From the Atheists view; can life have meaning ?

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
" If God does not exist, life can be considered absurd. If there is no God, man is inevitably doomed to death. like all biological organisms, he must die, and with no hope of immortality, his life leads no further than the grave."

" It might be said that his life held importance because it influenced others or affected the course of history. But this gives only a relative significance to his life, not an ultimate significance. His life may be important relative to other people or certain events, but those people and events are insignificant, since they too are headed foe non existence. All of history and it's events and persons are meaningless, so what ultimate significance is there in influencing any of them ? :"

The universe will die, as will all humanity and no matter how long they exist, they can inhabit only a tiny flash of time in eternity.

The problem of man; because he and everything end in nothing, he and everything are nothing, and can have no value, no importance, no ultimate significance. Man and everything are absurdities Quotations from, The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe. By William L. Craig, PhD., D. Theo.

THOUGHTS ?


In the short term of human (or any other living thing) lifespan, life is what you make of it, it has meaning to yourself and those close to you. You may leave a legacy in some way that has meaning to future generations

Longer term, nope, nothing other than a convenient store for a small amount of matter and energy. Which will literally return to earth and becomne paert of its structure.

Longer still, part of that matter and energy may become vital to another life (in this way we are all made of dead people).

And longer still, part of you may become rock to some newly formed planet or help power a sun shining on some future civilisation. A process that will continue as long as this universe lasts.

That's meaning enough for me.
 

tempogain

Member
Highlight the first part of a post that you want to cite to reply to, and "+ Quote" will appear (along with Reply). Choose Quote.

Then repeat for every snippet of text you want to respond to separately.

Then go down to the bottom of the page, choose "Insert Quotes ...", and you won't have to bother with tags at all, or the Reply button, although you will have to select "Post Reply" when done typing.

Awesome, thanks.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Ultimate significance is a ruse. It is a phrase used by people like Craig to make one dissatisfied with his life absent a god belief, which Craig implies gives it not merely more significance, but ultimate significance.

And though Craig gives lip service to the significance people claim to feel their lives to be, he then dismissively calls it irrelevant and absurd.

Craig wants us to be dissatisfied with our lives. He is actively trying to drain significance from it by convincing others of its meaninglessness if one doesn't believe in his god.

Actually, what I see in Craig is a man struggling to find and hold on to significance in his life as a result of looking in the wrong direction to find it. If you're searching for meaning in life anywhere but in the people and events of your life, you're not going to find it, and will spend the rest of your years searching in vain.



But obviously, nobody actually matters any more because they choose to believe people like Craig.



Yes, which is kind of the point. These beliefs cause discontent, a discontent that draws people in looking for answers to meaningless questions about ultimate purpose and the meaning of life. This relates back to the endless searching thing I just mentioned, which the searchers seem to see as a virtue.

To me, endless implies that something's missing, like a person low in vitamin C craving citrus.

Then there are the people who will tell you that they are content and are not searching for more in life except perhaps new friends and adventures. Strangely, these are the people that the searchers see as missing something. They are described as spiritually blind, or living on a lower plane. Craig considers such lives absurd and irrelevant.

It's not difficult to see him in exactly that light. Aren't perpetual seekers analogous to people that spend their entire lives searching for a house? Is that a virtue to be emulated or admired? Are they on a higher plane than those who long ago found a house that they liked and are still happy in it?
The ultimate Christian conspiracy theory from you, again. Immediately you take the facts that he has stated, and ascribe dark motives. Well, the ultimate atheist, the creator of the atheist super man, came to virtually the same conclusions, what was he trying to compel you to think, feel, or do. Your bias is so overwhelming, that if a Christian said the train is going to be late you would be convinced he was demanding that you pray to God to speed it up.

From your perspective, your life, mine, or anybody else's mean absolutely nothing. The Neanderthals lived, loved, had leaders and followers, had important events occur, all totally of no value, purpose or reason. It is as if they never existed. That was only some thousands of years ago, when humanity and the universe is gone, and eternity just keeps roll'n along, you will mean nothing, in fact, you will never have existed.

When those happy house hunters who long ago found their house are on their death bed, slipping into oblivion, how important is their happiness or their house ? In oblivion, where you very soon will be, nothing is important.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
In the short term of human (or any other living thing) lifespan, life is what you make of it, it has meaning to yourself and those close to you. You may leave a legacy in some way that has meaning to future generations

Longer term, nope, nothing other than a convenient store for a small amount of matter and energy. Which will literally return to earth and becomne paert of its structure.

Longer still, part of that matter and energy may become vital to another life (in this way we are all made of dead people).

And longer still, part of you may become rock to some newly formed planet or help power a sun shining on some future civilisation. A process that will continue as long as this universe lasts.

That's meaning enough for me.
The point; For YOU, your consciousness of yourself and those close to you, you all mean nothing
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The ultimate Christian conspiracy theory from you, again. Immediately you take the facts that he has stated, and ascribe dark motives. Well, the ultimate atheist, the creator of the atheist super man, came to virtually the same conclusions, what was he trying to compel you to think, feel, or do. Your bias is so overwhelming, that if a Christian said the train is going to be late you would be convinced he was demanding that you pray to God to speed it up.

From your perspective, your life, mine, or anybody else's mean absolutely nothing. The Neanderthals lived, loved, had leaders and followers, had important events occur, all totally of no value, purpose or reason. It is as if they never existed. That was only some thousands of years ago, when humanity and the universe is gone, and eternity just keeps roll'n along, you will mean nothing, in fact, you will never have existed.

When those happy house hunters who long ago found their house are on their death bed, slipping into oblivion, how important is their happiness or their house ? In oblivion, where you very soon will be, nothing is important.

Enjoying life is its own reward. The only difference between you and some poor benighted Neanderthal is that at least he could enjoy his life. You seem to believe that life is not worth living. And as a result you need a myth to believe in.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Why?
That's right. What's so hot about immortality? If a soul existed, it wouldn't have glands so it wouldn't have emotions, motives, purposes, couldn't enjoy food, wine, sex, sport, couldn't even take a deep breath.

And the Tanakh only gets the idea of a soul late. In Job, and Ecclesiastes, are verses pointing out that death is the end. Even Paul thinks death is the end, and his whole ad campaign is claiming a way of avoiding this. (Some Jews, and the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Persians and Norse already had versions.)
There's no such thing as 'ultimate significance'. Significance is a judgment made by individual brains, not an objective quality.
Not my problem.

Besides, 99.9% (or something like that) of species that have ever existed are already extinct.
That someone or something is an absurdity is a judgment. I have no idea why your author thinks that. I don't.

I think it's just the same old sales con trick ─ frighten your audience with a pretend problem and then sell 'em snake oil to fix it.
Ah, another member of the Christian conspiracy theory club. You don't get it, whether you are frightened or not is irrelevant and it will mean nothing a second, or trillion years after you have died.
How can stating a fact be intended to make you fearful ?
I don't care whether you are fearful or not, your emotion and feeling, not mine. From your perspective it means absolutely nothing anyway, except perhaps to you, and quite soon, nothing will mean anything to you.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
This is just so ridiculous and pathetic. We are born and know we will die but what happens in between can mean as much to us as we are prepared to accept - and to others if we have lived a good enough life. To compare the scale of a human life to virtually anything else is just inane and bordering on insanity, and especially so if we compared ourselves with other life. We conceptualise some gods and then embark on this self-destructive navel-gazing when we should be putting meaning into our lives - we have the freedom to do so - unlike most other life.

If we had any common sense we wouldn't listen to those who create such ludicrous propositions. Of course we will all die, and of course our sun will die too, and of course the whole of reality might disappear next year for all we know, but we humans generally have an allotted span of about 100 years so just make the most of it. How does that compare with other timescales? Religions and all the philosophical suppositions often do more damage than anything else. We have enough problems without so many nay-sayers to make us all feel bad. Have some imagination and hope for the future. :rolleyes:
LOL. Obviously you don't sink below the very surface of existence and have anything resembling philosophical ( not religious) thought, which I find ridiculous and pathetic.

Every atheist I have had the pleasure of knowing, including myself for many years, actually considered life from a philosophical standpoint at times, beyond, "hey, lets party "
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Good grief yes.
Life is brilliant, I don't want it to end... but it will and I'm well over half way through mine.
I have kids and grand kids, friends and relatives how lucky have I been.

No, god is not required for a fulfilling time on this earth
I can see that. Can you see that your time on earth will mean nothing ?
 

Apologes

Active Member
OK. Maybe I've been getting hung up on the word "ultimate" and thinking of something like "absolute". I can see how there is some significance to our actions in the way you say above.

It's understandable. The terminology here is pretty murky.

I simply don't understand what it means.

Craig, like all Christians, believes that there is afterlife and that people will come to know God and his love which is an insurmountable good that is enjoyed for all eternity.

Care about what his thoughts about what God is are. He thinks God must have significance. Fine. My objection is to how these ideas are then introduced into logical arguments such as this one as if they carry some weight, and even can't be rationally questioned. If you start with an assumption that God has significance, that takes you somewhere very different than if you don't assume that. It's not an insignificant supposition in the context of this argument. And the argument is claimed to carry some logical weight.

Craig has argued elsewhere for accepting APBT over alternative views and I think it's an acceptable move considering how the greatest conceivable being is what most people imagine God to be. God, almost becomes a title to describe the greatest conceivable being with rather than vice versa. Instead of "God", you could just use the term "greatest conceivable being" or "maximally great being" and it would still be classical theism. I feel like you're getting hung up over semantics.

Also, I don't think Craig ever assumes that in any of his other arguments besides the Modal Ontological Argument which was developed by Alvin Plantinga.

People have told me similar things about the Kalam, that there's no point in questioning whether God is eternal or what have you. But these assumptions, which ultimately rest on bare definitions, have meaning in the context of these arguments.

Well, I just don't see a problem with that. Philosophers come up with a certain concept and then proceed to argue for it all the time. If you want to subtract some properties from the concept of God (like his greatness or eternity) then you're effectively making a different concept all together. Sure, you can propose that concept as an alternative, but that doesn't really discredit the actual introduction of concepts which you seem to be arguing against, it just does more of it. Then it becomes the question of which of these alternatives provides a better explanation.

Take this problem of significance. If you compare the two concepts: God according to the APBT and the God who needs something else for his own significance. For the purposes of this argument, both would provide objective significance to human existence despite one raising more questions than the other. (It would be strange for a being which grants significance to the universe to lack significance itself.) Either way, given how Craig is a Christian, he is theologically committed to the APBT as it is the most plausible description of the God of Christianity, he will prefer to argue for said notion of God rather than something else.

In arguments like Kalam, though, it is important to consider all the available alternatives. I take it that by "questioning God's eternity" you mean questioning God being understood as an uncreated creator. If so, Craig actually does consider that possiblity but rejects it as it violates Ockham's razor which says that we shouldn't multiply causes beyond necessity. A created God would be a lot more expensive explanation as it would require us to assume multiple causes when we could've just stopped at one, but it gets even worse as it would result in an infinite regress of causes which has already been rejected in the defense of Kalam's second premise (philosophical arguments against the existence of an actual infinite).

The problem is certainly not considering an alternative option so I'm not sure who told you that with regards to the Kalam, but the question is are those alternative options better than the one the theist has already proposed?

Thank you, I will certainly read that. Looking at the title and summary, I am confident that I will find something to object to after a short hiatus here :) Have a good one.

You certainly will find plenty of things to disagree with. (I myself find the argument unpersuasive.) Keep in mind that I've sent you the link to his popular articles. If you want to see the formulation of his arguments which are really being discussed in the academy (such as the Kalam) you should check out his scholarly stuff.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
LOL. Obviously you don't sink below the very surface of existence and have anything resembling philosophical ( not religious) thought, which I find ridiculous and pathetic.

Every atheist I have had the pleasure of knowing, including myself for many years, actually considered life from a philosophical standpoint at times, beyond, "hey, lets party "

No, it's better not to get into twisted logic - like this particular one who just goes berserk with it. Do you think I haven't considered such things? I've read Russell, Sartre, et al, and long ago. It just wasn't worth it following down that road. Life is for living, not for speculating.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
It's enjoyable, and then it all comes to a screeching halt and even the memories of it no longer exist? And it really doesn't bother you that at some point you will simply cease to exist?
For me, no. I am not attached to my self. Non clinging and all. While I am no atheist, clinging to self and fear of non-existence is a hinderence to a dharmic life. On this, Hindus and Buddhists agree with atheists.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
For me, no. I am not attached to my self. Non clinging and all. While I am no atheist, clinging to self and fear of non-existence is a hinderence to a dharmic life. On this, Hindus and Buddhists agree with atheists.
I don't see anything to "fear" about non-existence. Such fear would definitely be irrational. It's an idea I don't like, though, because it makes life seem so pointless.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
I can see that. Can you see that your time on earth will mean nothing ?
Well I have passed on my genes and in a very small way helped continue the human race. So, no it is not meaningless.
I'd like to think on balance i have done quite a lot more good than bad; therefore I have improved other peoples lives.
Because I do not believe in an afterlife, this is my only life, I therefore make the most of it. Christians and others are expecting a 'better' life afterwards, so perhaps do not live this one to the full.
So NO, my time on Earth will not mean nothing.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member
If God does not exist, life can be considered absurd. If there is no God, man is inevitably doomed to death

Christian believes in Hell and Heaven
Atheist believes in neither

Christian might end up in Hell, while Atheist gets heaven.
Just saying: "Expect Nothing, but Anticipate Everything"
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Christian believes in Hell and Heaven
Atheist believes in neither

Christian might end up in Hell, while Atheist gets heaven.
Just saying: "Expect Nothing, but Anticipate Everything"
Actually, I believe that the vast, vast, vast majority of humanity will end up in Heaven, and that number includes those who lived their entire life not believing in God.
 

tempogain

Member
Craig, like all Christians, believes that there is afterlife and that people will come to know God and his love which is an insurmountable good that is enjoyed for all eternity.

Sure. So it's a belief. I think what I originally said is "it sounds like another layer of belief" which is being incorporated in this argument.


Well, I just don't see a problem with that. Philosophers come up with a certain concept and then proceed to argue for it all the time.

I understand that. I just don't think it's a way of getting to truth in the case of such incredibly far-reaching questions, of such ultimate import, in areas where we ultimately have very, very little knowledge.

Take this problem of significance. If you compare the two concepts: God according to the APBT and the God who needs something else for his own significance. For the purposes of this argument, both would provide objective significance to human existence despite one raising more questions than the other.

Say God is the greatest conceivable being, and he exists. Why does that mean he's inherently significant? I don't see why any more than I see why I'm inherently significant.

(It would be strange for a being which grants significance to the universe to lack significance itself.)

I might say it would be impossible, but I don't see how we can simply take it for granted for that reason.

In arguments like Kalam, though, it is important to consider all the available alternatives. I take it that by "questioning God's eternity" you mean questioning God being understood as an uncreated creator.

Yes, exactly.

If so, Craig actually does consider that possiblity but rejects it as it violates Ockham's razor which says that we shouldn't multiply causes beyond necessity.

That's really pushing Ockham's Razor well past the limits of its utility. Even if I was talking about some minor issue, I recognize that Ochham's Razor isn't a definite path to truth. It just helps us point--maybe--to a more likely possibility. Now we're talking about this question of incredible import and scale. That's not convincing to me.

A created God would be a lot more expensive explanation as it would require us to assume multiple causes when we could've just stopped at one, but it gets even worse as it would result in an infinite regress of causes which has already been rejected in the defense of Kalam's second premise (philosophical arguments against the existence of an actual infinite).

In any event, we haven't explained how God can be uncreated. And this is the exact problem that we are trying to address with regards to the physical world. So what is it really telling us? If you think it carries some weight in pointing to a more likely possibility (which i think you suggested earlier), I can understand that. But it seems to be presenting the conclusion as a logical necessity. And some people really take it that way. I draw different conclusions from the available facts here myself, certainly, and don't feel that this line of reasoning has done anything to invalidate them.

The problem is certainly not considering an alternative option so I'm not sure who told you that with regards to the Kalam, but the question is are those alternative options better than the one the theist has already proposed?

Well, mine is essentially that we just don't know :) We know the physical world is here to a reasonable degree of certainty. I understand that people have ideas beyond that, and I'm willing to listen to them and assess them. But I don't believe that certainty can be created out of uncertainty through arguments such as the Kalam.

You certainly will find plenty of things to disagree with. (I myself find the argument unpersuasive.) Keep in mind that I've sent you the link to his popular articles. If you want to see the formulation of his arguments which are really being discussed in the academy (such as the Kalam) you should check out his scholarly stuff.

I edited my last post, I'll add that here: I'm not sure I can slog through this. I know where it's going. Case in point. The whole thing is going to rest on the assumption that God himself has significance. Which is just what Craig thinks, right?

So I don't know. I don't really get Craig. It's late here but I may try to work my way through that first article at least tomorrow. But I got discouraged quickly.
 
Top