From the Atheists view; can life have meaning ?

[Brickjectivity]

" 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 ?

Ridiculous and also bad theology. Life has meaning or not. It does not require God to give it meaning although you can consider God to be the meaning. Meaning is spiritual and exists independent of physical existence. The assumption that God exists seems like an admission of this.

 

[shmogie]

Ridiculous and also bad theology. Life has meaning or not. It does not require God to give it meaning although you can consider God to be the meaning. Meaning is spiritual and exists independent of physical existence. The assumption that God exists seems like an admission of this.

Are you contending that from the atheists viewpoint that meaning is spiritual ? When I was an atheist, though I can speak for no one but myself, nothing was spiritual.

Doesn´t meaning have to mean something to somebody ? Without God or gods who does this spiritual meaning have meaning ?

 

[shmogie]

Ridiculous and also bad theology. Life has meaning or not. It does not require God to give it meaning although you can consider God to be the meaning. Meaning is spiritual and exists independent of physical existence. The assumption that God exists seems like an admission of this.

Oh, BTW, it cant be bad theology, since theology is the study of Theos, Greek for God

 

[Pudding]

I'm genuinely glad you atheists can see life that way. I wouldn't be able to. Now I believed in God a long time before I ever had a sense of my own mortality, and if I die and there's nothing else, so be it.

And I won't even have to deal with it when the time comes.

Deal with what?

I just couldn't live a full life with the idea that I could, at any moment, simply cease to exist.

 

[Katzpur]

Deal with what?

Non-existence. It can't be too bad if I'm not around to experience it. It's the idea of it that bothers me. I'm not afraid of the idea of non-existence because there is obviously nothing to fear. But since I so strongly believe there is a life after this one, it kind of creeps me out to think of a sentient being simply ceasing to exist in a split second. I would personally find it difficult to live with that belief, but obviously a great many people do, and seem not to be bothered by it at all.

 

[Pudding]

Non-existence. It can't be too bad if I'm not around to experience it. It's the idea of it that bothers me. I'm not afraid of the idea of non-existence because there is obviously nothing to fear. But since I so strongly believe there is a life after this one, it kind of creeps me out to think of a sentient being simply ceasing to exist in a split second. I would personally find it difficult to live with that belief, but obviously a great many people do, and seem not to be bothered by it at all.

Thanks for clarifying the things which you won't have to deal with.

The idea of non-existence bothers you.
You do not afraid of the idea of non-existence.
Thinking of idea of non-existence creeps you out.

Does i understand you correctly?

 

[Katzpur]

Thanks for clarifying the things which you won't have to deal with.

The idea of non-existence bothers you.
You do not afraid of the idea of non-existence.
Thinking of idea of non-existence creeps you out.

Does i understand you correctly?

You got it! Either I'm very good at explaining myself or your're very good at comprehending.

 

[Pudding]

You got it! Either I'm very good at explaining myself or your're very good at comprehending.

Thanks for the kind words.

"You do not afraid of the idea of non-existence."
What you mean is that: If there is nothing after death, because you're not around anymore to experience non-existence after death, therefor for now you do not afraid the idea of non-existence. Does i understand you correctly?

"Thinking of idea of non-existence creeps you out."
By "creeps you out", do you mean idea of non-existence make you afraid and anxious and uncomfortable?

 

[tempogain]

Of course it's a belief. As I said, that's what this argument is, evaluating the implications of a given belief system.

Fair enough. It's not surprising you'll come to a conclusion like "my beliefs lead to significance and other people's don't" in that case though if you just insert your beliefs unexamined into such scenarios. I believe you said you don't think this is a strong argument yourself; I'm sorry but did you say why?

Well, if you don't like that then philosophy may not be for you. It may not be the most mistake-proof way to get to the truth, but it's the best we've got. If you think you have a better way of doing things, submit a paper in a philosophy journal and you may well start a revolution in human thought.

I can have a problem with this approach and still have philosophy be for me, I think, if I want. I'm explaining my problems with this approach here. Maybe you don't appreciate that, or my way of examining things, but there's nothing I can do about that.

Because if God is the greatest conceivable being He is the ground of all that exists and His actions are what determines the state of reality. I think that kind of kicks the notion of 'ultimate significance' to the next level for noone could be more significant than God if we consider things like making a difference.

Maybe we're not on the same page about what "significance" means. Alright, God's the ground of all that exists, etc. Still, why is he there? What is the significance of his presence? I'm not sure significance even means something except in relation to some other being. Craig seems to feel that we can't have significance in our own right, and our lives in their own right are are even an "absurdity". But a relation to God can grant us that significance and wipe the absurdity away. Ok, but what does God relate to? Isn't his unexplained existence an "absurdity"? He's just pushing everything up a level, and taking the long way around to get there, in fancy language.

I don't know what you mean by "take it for granted". You mean take it with certainty?

Take it as a certainty without demonstrating it.

I beg to differ. Ockham's Razor is a general problem solving principle for comparing alternative hypotheses. Just because we went into hard metaphysics doesn't mean it no longer applies. It's a tool of logic so we may well use it here.

Well, I disagree with the conclusion. We're faced with a situation of which we have incredibly limited knowledge. If Craig thinks he can draw conclusions about it on such a basis, I think he's kidding himself.

I've noticed, though, that in your post you have this focus on "certainty" or "definite truth" expecting arguments to lead you to a rock solid certain conclusion. I'm sorry, but you won't get that here. And by that I don't just mean here as in the "God talk", but here as in philosophy in general. Certainty is near impossible to come by for most questions in philosophy, let alone in a topic as hard and complicated as the ultimate nature of reality. Philosophers realize this and very rarely do you see them try to make arguments that aim for a certain conclusion.

I may have used those words a few times. It's hard to go back and look exactly where. Craig seems to me to strive for certainty, but again, I'm most familiar with his treatment of the Kalam and little else. I got the same feeling from the quotes in the OP here, which is why I have commented somewhat in this vein. I will say that am concerned about discovering the truth of situations (while recognizing that that is not always possible or entirely possible) and I'm sure he is too.

Natural Theology, especially with Craig, is almost always construed in the context of best explanations. God need not be established as certainty. God need not even be that much better than the alternatives, but so long as God is at least somewhat more likely the argument is considered successful. (Obviously, the more likely it is the more persuasive the argument.)

I understand. Apparently it won't be established as a certainty, which doesn't mean it's not true either. My problem is with the method of the Kalam for example in trying to resolve such questions in any sense.

[

The article doesn't deal with the intricacies of God's nature, life or significance. As I said that's not the focus of the argument. (Even more so when he's writing for popular audience.)

If you feel like that article is too long and don't feel like reading, well, I don't think you'll learn much philosophy that way. I know people like to watch clips on YouTube with their favorite representative throwing one-liners (not saying you do), but if you want to really learn about this subject you'll need to read a lot. It's tough and time-consuming, but you'll learn a lot of interesting things.

It's not that it's too long. It's that his implicit presuppositions are already annoying me and making me doubt that I will extract anything positive from the process.

As a side note, you seem to be more focused on the underlying mechanisms behind the argument than on the argument itself. I don't know if you're going with this mentality or not, but if you're trying to establish every single assumption that undergirds a position before you evaluate the position itself you're in for a bad time. Philosophy of religion has been described as the center of a wheel which connects and stretches out to every other branch of philosophy out there and I think this is a fairly accurate description. Just studying the Kalam alone brought me from philosophy of religion to philosophy of science to philosophy of time then to philosophy of mathematics and all the way to cosmology which isn't even philosophy!

Still, the arguments are important in themselves, aren't they? Can one just develop arguments, which are not open to question, and reach a worthwhile conclusion? Surely the arguments must be examined.

This isn't even unique to "God debates" as every position and every argument, so long as it's not about the most fundamental parts of philosophy, will be based on a good number of prior assumptions and views which are, more often than not, going to be disputed to at least some degree. My advice is, if you're starting out on a particular topic, grant it the assumptions and evaluate it on it's own terms. Then after you're done, move on to the assumptions. Looking to establish every assumption first (even worse if you're looking for certainty), it's going to take you a long time before you get to evaluating the actual argument whose assumptions you were investigating.

I don't know, I'm interested in discussing things a bit more casually than that personally. The conclusion is that my life is an "absurdity" and apparently "unlivable", so I do have an explicit interest in all of its facets. I'm more inclined to consider everything at one go. I'm not formally trained in philosophy, so I can only do what I can do in such a discussion. If I you feel I'm not complying with certain norms, my apologies. But I think I have something to say.

 

[Mock Turtle]

"Hey, I don't know who this person is so I'm going to look at the most biased and bashful articles, made by vocal anti-theists no less, to get my information and proceed to uncritically spread this pile of (mis)information in order to (mis)inform other people. Then I'm going to give myself a pat on the back and call myself a reasonable and honest truth-seeking individual."

He seems to present himself as some renowned philosopher - why wouldn't I try to balance the picture. He's basically a religious proselytiser.

 

[Apologes]

Fair enough. It's not surprising you'll come to a conclusion like "my beliefs lead to significance and other people's don't" in that case though if you just insert your beliefs unexamined into such scenarios. I believe you said you don't think this is a strong argument yourself; I'm sorry but did you say why?

I said it already, I do agree with Craig that on atheism life is without any ultimate value or purpose, but the reason I find the argument unpersuasive is because Craig doesn't think relative significance and meaning that people make up for their own lives mean much. Many people will disagree (myself included).

Maybe we're not on the same page about what "significance" means. Alright, God's the ground of all that exists, etc. Still, why is he there? What is the significance of his presence? I'm not sure significance even means something except in relation to some other being. Craig seems to feel that we can't have significance in our own right, and our lives in their own right are are even an "absurdity". But a relation to God can grant us that significance and wipe the absurdity away. Ok, but what does God relate to? Isn't his unexplained existence an "absurdity"? He's just pushing everything up a level, and taking the long way around to get there, in fancy language.

As I said, the argument is concerned with the problem of man, not the problem of God. You could have an account of something without having an account of the account. Craig's argument is that we need God to ultimately matter. How the question of significance works when applied to God is left ambiguous. I take his use of the word 'ultimate significance' to mean making a difference at least between being there or not. On that view, God, being the ground of all being, would be the most ultimately significant being as his existence would make the most difference to the way things are. That's what I make of it, at least.

Well, I disagree with the conclusion. We're faced with a situation of which we have incredibly limited knowledge. If Craig thinks he can draw conclusions about it on such a basis, I think he's kidding himself.

If you disagree with the conclusion you ought to deny some of the premises that lead up to it. Which premise would you deny and on what grounds?

As far as his use of Ockham's Razor is concerned, I don't think anyone has objected to it and I've yet to see you propose a precise objection to it.

My problem is with the method of the Kalam for example in trying to resolve such questions in any sense.

What do you mean by "method"? What is the problem with trying to resolve such questions?

Still, the arguments are important in themselves, aren't they? Can one just develop arguments, which are not open to question, and reach a worthwhile conclusion? Surely the arguments must be examined.

I didn't mean to say you shouldn't examine them, I was just giving you a tip which I think will be more practical.

 

[Apologes]

He seems to present himself as some renowned philosopher - why wouldn't I try to balance the picture. He's basically a religious proselytiser.

Craig is a renowned philosopher. There is no "balancing the picture" here, there's just you trying to discredit someone instead of actually addressing their argument (which you openly refuse to do, instead preferring to throw logic away because it makes you feel bad).

 

[dfnj]

" 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 ?

Yes, on the cosmic timescale everything about our lives is ultimately meaningless. But it is meaningless that it is meaningless. So we might as well choose to have faith in God even if it is just imaginary BS. If all subjective judgments about the meaning of our lives is made up BS, we might as well choose the best possible meanings we are capable of imagining.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

" 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 ?

Knowing the fact we are dying and we will die gives me more purpose to say thank you to this life instead of brushing off the life as mundane. Eternal life has never entered my frame of reference.

The first quote (and those thereafter by paragraph) it is true, life comes to an end. We are no different nor special than the animal and plant beside us. Its just the fact of life. The Buddha says it most profoundly:

The beautiful kings and chariots wear out
The body, too, undergoes decay
But the Dharma of the good does not decay
For the good proclaims with the good.

The history and place in the world for ourselves, enviornment, and others makes life significant in the big picture. Our death doesnt void the ultimate significance of life. If anything, it makes you more present in this moment not the future moment not yet arrived. Neither are wrong.

Both paragraphs are opinions. Its negative to see life as meaningless just because we dont live that long. Sounds more a cry of a need to live forever than acceptence that we dont.

To me, having eternal life is taking this life for granted. Im at the point of life that the future is becoming less important. I wont work a full time drive. I will never drive. My family will die. I will age. I am now at the point between observation, acknowledgement, and acceptence.

Right before my aunt passed away, she told my mother:

"You know religion is bull 'hit, right?"

My mother: yeah, Ive been saying that for years.

Then my aunt died I think a week later, a year ago.

If you can die at the moment without god, it tells you something about needing god to be happy. We dont.

But we dont need to live for eternity to find value in life.

 

[jonathan180iq]

" 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."

News flash!
We're all going to die anyway, with or without God.
Even the staunchest theologians must admit that. So the only real differences lie in either the perception of life after death, and happy corresponding feelings, or a literal life after death, which is an unsubstantiated assertion to this point, made by many pious followers from many different faiths throughout history...

So, since death is a reality regardless of philosophical position, the only viable marker for whether or not life has any meaning comes from the individual - not from their ideology of choice.

Immortality is a ****-poor prerequisite for a meaningful life.

Man and everything are absurdities Quotations from, The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe. By William L. Craig, PhD., D. Theo.

Craig's arguments come a place of dogmatic necessity, not from proper deductive reasoning.
He's incredibly well-spoken, but he doesn't even follow his own rules of logic when debating.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Craig is a renowned philosopher. There is no "balancing the picture" here, there's just you trying to discredit someone instead of actually addressing their argument (which you openly refuse to do, instead preferring to throw logic away because it makes you feel bad).

His whole argument seems to hinge on there being an afterlife. If this is not so, then the existence of a God or not is immaterial, since we will die as now and have the short lives as it appears to be. And the death of the universe eventually hardly then matters, since we will die long before this and we only have to consider our own individual lives. If there is no God then we can provide any meaning, and it would be prudent to do so, just in case there is no God. Since there is no concrete evidence for an afterlife we should presume it is not the case. It's a bit like taking your kids to the park and then telling them, 'don't go on any of the slides or swings because we will be going home soon'. Duh! Best to concentrate on the life we know we have.

Also, I believe he insists that we require an objective morality - which can only come from God in his view - why do we need this?

 

[Katzpur]

Thanks for the kind words.

"You do not afraid of the idea of non-existence."
What you mean is that: If there is nothing after death, because you're not around anymore to experience non-existence after death, therefor for now you do not afraid the idea of non-existence. Does i understand you correctly?

Yeah, I'd say that's it. If I don't continue to exist after death, I won't be around to know I don't exist. It would therefore be kind of silly for me to be afraid of something I will never experience. It's impossible to "experience" non-existence.

"Thinking of idea of non-existence creeps you out."
By "creeps you out", do you mean idea of non-existence make you afraid and anxious and uncomfortable?

It would probably make me "uncomfortable" if I were actually considering it as a possibility, but since I feel so strongly that the human spirit is eternal in nature, I really don't even give it that much thought. I know this probably sounds really weird to someone who doesn't believe, but for me, the conviction that I will always continue to exist is as strong and as compelling as the knowledge that I do exist at this moment. The "creeping me out" bit is more of a hypothetical thing with me. It's kind of like if I were to look up at a clear, bright blue sky and think, "What would it be like if the sky were yellow? Wow, that would be weird. But, hey, it's not. It's blue, so even though a yellow sky would be weird (and might "creep me out"), it's not really something I need to consider as a reality."

 

[tempogain]

I said it already, I do agree with Craig that on atheism life is without any ultimate value or purpose, but the reason I find the argument unpersuasive is because Craig doesn't think relative significance and meaning that people make up for their own lives mean much. Many people will disagree (myself included).

I thought you had but looking back to find anything seems like a major endeavor at this point Thanks for restating it. That's interesting. I think you're coming at it from a different angle than me but we're reaching a similar conclusion, relatively speaking.

As I said, the argument is concerned with the problem of man, not the problem of God. You could have an account of something without having an account of the account. Craig's argument is that we need God to ultimately matter. How the question of significance works when applied to God is left ambiguous.

What I'm saying is that it's an important question in determining whether this "ultimate significance" has any meaning. If we're deriving significance from something without significance, is it just an illusion? Could we actually be left only with our human perception of the significance? Would that be fundamentally different from the significance atheists draw from their perceptions?

I take his use of the word 'ultimate significance' to mean making a difference at least between being there or not. On that view, God, being the ground of all being, would be the most ultimately significant being as his existence would make the most difference to the way things are. That's what I make of it, at least.

That doesn't really answer the question I presented in my last post. That might make him significant to himself. But I'm significant to myself. Or significant to us. But can our lives themselves gain significance in that way? It seems to me that whatever process which demonstrably has resulted in us being here would be equally significant to us. To me, we have no idea what that process, entity, etc, you name it, could be. I'm an atheist, but I obviously believe something has resulted in us being here. Is all significance to be ripped away from that, with only absurdity remaining?

If you disagree with the conclusion you ought to deny some of the premises that lead up to it. Which premise would you deny and on what grounds?

As far as his use of Ockham's Razor is concerned, I don't think anyone has objected to it and I've yet to see you propose a precise objection to it.

My objection is that it's no way to firm up a conclusion about a situation in which real information is almost entirely absent. More on objections to premises below.

What do you mean by "method"? What is the problem with trying to resolve such questions?

I was thinking about this a little today. There's a similarly between his treatment of this issue and his treatment of the Kalam which may point out what I mean. In his treatment of the Kalam, there's an assumption that God is an uncreated eternal being. Here, there's an assumption that God has significance. These ideas help lead to certain conclusions, but I don't believe that there's any strong reason to think they're actually true. Yet the conclusions are presented as demonstrating some level of certainty. I'm the one who's saying these things seem uncertain here There's no problem with trying to resolve such questions, but in the situation we're in, with very limited information about our metaphysical situation, I don't see how valuable conclusions can be revealed through such methods. I hope that makes sense. That's my point.

I didn't mean to say you shouldn't examine them, I was just giving you a tip which I think will be more practical.

Thanks, but I'm not sure you're correct about that here. You're making me interested in the process though. I don't know if a crash course in philosophy is really in the cards for me though. So many things to examine, so little time, and all.

 

[shmogie]

News flash!
We're all going to die anyway, with or without God.
Even the staunchest theologians must admit that. So the only real differences lie in either the perception of life after death, and happy corresponding feelings, or a literal life after death, which is an unsubstantiated assertion to this point, made by many pious followers from many different faiths throughout history...

So, since death is a reality regardless of philosophical position, the only viable marker for whether or not life has any meaning comes from the individual - not from their ideology of choice.

Immortality is a ****-poor prerequisite for a meaningful life.

[/QUOTE Correct, everything ends at the grave, including your belief your life had meaning. Your death proves your life had no ultimate meaning, since it doesn´t exist.

I had a ¨57 Studebaker Hawk that had great meaning to me when I was a kid. I know it was destroyed after I sold it and junked. It probably has been recycled 50 times by now. It means nothing to anyone as a car now. It means something to me in old memories, but those to will cease to exist when I do. None of it will have any meaning. What meaning I and the car had ceased to exist when the car, then I ceased to exist. Nothing can mean nothing.

However, If I and the car continue to exist there are a myriad of other possible is meaning in simple existence, and more. Perhaps I could reacquire it before it was wrecked, there are a myriad of meaningful possibilities, especially for my life, for as long s it continues.

Immortality assures meaning, death eliminates all meaning. What meaning you believe your life has had, when you die it will be as if it never was.

 

[Apologes]

His whole argument seems to hinge on there being an afterlife.

"I want to make it clear that I have not yet shown biblical Christianity to be true. But what I have done is clearly spell out the alternatives." [1]

The argument is about contemplating the implications of a worldview rather than establishing the truth of it.

What I'm saying is that it's an important question in determining whether this "ultimate significance" has any meaning. If we're deriving significance from something without significance, is it just an illusion? Could we actually be left only with our human perception of the significance? Would that be fundamentally different from the significance atheists draw from their perceptions?

That doesn't really answer the question I presented in my last post. That might make him significant to himself. But I'm significant to myself. Or significant to us. But can our lives themselves gain significance in that way? It seems to me that whatever process which demonstrably has resulted in us being here would be equally significant to us. To me, we have no idea what that process, entity, etc, you name it, could be. I'm an atheist, but I obviously believe something has resulted in us being here. Is all significance to be ripped away from that, with only absurdity remaining?

I don't think your complaints apply if we're talking about significance in the way I defined it.

Are you going by some other definition?

My objection is that it's no way to firm up a conclusion about a situation in which real information is almost entirely absent. More on objections to premises below.

I think we have enough information, but let's just move on. There is a thread that was active until recently on the Kalam so we can take this there or you can start a new thread. We've been off-topic for quite a bit.

I was thinking about this a little today. There's a similarly between his treatment of this issue and his treatment of the Kalam which may point out what I mean. In his treatment of the Kalam, there's an assumption that God is an uncreated eternal being. Here, there's an assumption that God has significance. These ideas help lead to certain conclusions, but I don't believe that there's any strong reason to think they're actually true. Yet the conclusions are presented as demonstrating some level of certainty. I'm the one who's saying these things seem uncertain here There's no problem with trying to resolve such questions, but in the situation we're in, with very limited information about our metaphysical situation, I don't see how valuable conclusions can be revealed through such methods. I hope that makes sense. That's my point.

There is a pretty big difference between the two cases as one is simply postulated as a possibility (case here) while the other is infered from that which has been established by prior premises (Kalam). Getting into details would turn this into a downright analysis of the cosmological argument so, again, let's continue this elsewhere if you insist.