How can we say there is no meaning to life without a God, when we cannot first find a meaning with one?
The notion came after a rather regular forum rephrasing of the ‘no meaning to life without God’ question. I am collecting my thoughts and hope to reply as soon as time permits - but in the mean, if you have any thoughts on the matter - please, share.
I believe the problem lies in the belief that ‘there is one true meaning to life’. Men have looked throughout the ages, seeking the meaning, seeking the truth - and what has been found?
We ask for meanings with or without a God, assuming that this God would somehow change our meaning of existence… but why? Why would our meaning change because of a God? Do not believe for one second that any true meaning to our existence would depend on there being a God or not. What bearing does the divine have on our many existences? No. They, if they indeed are, have none. Meaning must come from ourselves, and as such, meaning shall and will eternally be, subjective.
What then, is the reason for seeking a meaning to our existance? We want to know what we should be doing? Can we not think for ourselves what we should be doing - do we really believe that some meaning is necessary as to guide us, as in the mainstream religions? What purpose would a universal meaning of existance serve? Whether it is found or not, people will always disagree. Its use, is limited.
No, we make our own meanings, as useless as they may seem, they are all we have and can have.
Who says there is no meaning with God? Are you implying that this has been brought up before and no one could respond with an answer, if so then I pity the group your corresponding with.
The meaning is so simple most will pass it up trying to find something more complex, its no at all complex and all the proof is in front of your eyes.
The meaning is simply Love, it’s about others not self. Ever been completely alone, if you have for any period of time then you might see how meaningless everything is without someone to share or acknowledge life with.
This is why God created man, he was alone and needed like souls to share with and this time on earth is a natural separation for those who choose to abide in Love and those defects who don’t to slip to the bottom and be isolated.
We do the same thing in all societies here in this life don’t we? We seperate those who will from those who won’t.
God is Love literally, he is the creator of Love, the author and true Love is completely selfless.
I’m gonna have to disagree with the idea of love being selfless.
When one is first born, one feels a love towards their mother. Look into an infant’s eyes when they look at their mother and tell me that isn’t an incredibly pure and powerful expression of love.
Now look into an infant’s eyes when they look at a stranger. Love? No. Love is a ighly directed emotion that needs to be built upon. Love of mother → love of parents → love of family → love of community → love of expanded community → love of humanity → love of universe.
It is only that last step which may be considered selfless, and even there I’m not so sure. A monopol emits omnidirectionally, but it still has a point of origin.
I’m still not sure I know what ‘meaning’ is in this sense. What is the ‘meaning’ of life? I couldn’t answer a question like that about anything ‘big’. What is the meaning of free will? What is the meaning of morality? What is the meaning of God? I don’t consider these to be mysteries, I consider them to be confusing sentences.
Your mixing in tainted Love, Love in its purest form is completely selfless. The closest I can see to that is the Love of a Mother for her child. She will put the child before her own desires and life, the child comes first, isn’t that selfless? I never said we humans express perfect Love under any normal circumstances, its my opinion that it is the most rare of all things so it no wonder many cant see the pure form, they have no reference unless you truly know God.
No.
I’m saying that there are certain questions of which humanity cannot come to a accepted agreement on - two of which [at least] may be interpreted as in direct link with one another. To ask ‘what is the meaning of life’, taking God into account has been seen as different to ‘what is the meaning of life’, without taking God into account.
This thread poses the question ‘why’, in an attempt to demolish the line between meaning with or without God under the theory that any true meaning to life would not require a God to be taken into account.
Regards,
What is the meaning of life to a fish in a bowl at a doctors office? Is it to swim around its bowl, feeding, swimming, feeding and swimming in some almost endless cycle until the day it dies - or to give some slight serenity to the people who come and wait their turn to see the doctor - or does it feed on pure instinct; making its meaning to sustain itself and procreate until its demise? Must the fishes life have only one meaning or can it have more?
Love, joy, honor, nothing, money, food, sex, etc - such are the varying trains of thought throughout the globe on meaning to existance. I think finally, meaning depends on the who, when and the where before all else; allowing there to be infinite meanings to every life [which in turn explains the futility of seeking one absolute single meaning to life either with or without God]. The barrier is both there and not. Perspective counts.
Regards,
Actually the vast majority has come to some consensus on meaning, its only the minority throughout time that cannot see Purpose or Design. I’m sure you can agree that we humans will never all agree on anything, ever, so I don’t see the point in this pursuit.
IMO and many others the meaning to life is simply Love.
Here is an easy acid test to refute the idea of the meaning to just exist or to be completely relative and different for each.
Simply isolate a single human (completely alone) and see if that person can find any meaning, I think you’ll see that others are required for any meaning to exist and since to consider others above yourself is the definition of Love that makes Love a good candidate for the ultimate meaning.
I know this seems like an impossible test but it isn’t, its been done on smaller scales with POW’s in a dark hole for many years and many have written about their experiences, just read some, they all have a common theme and that theme was hope. Without that hope they could not have survived and that hope was to get out and see their loved ones again. Besides that I have gone through something similar and was isolated for several years from everyone I cared about and it taught me a great lesson about meanings and that was that nothing matters if you cant share it with someone, this shouldn’t be hard to fathom even if you haven’t experienced it first hand.
So if anyone can find meaning all alone in a vacuum then that would successfully refute the idea that Love is the meaning, if not then I cant see how you get around it unless someone can come up with another alternative.
BTW, fish and all other animals except humans do not exhibit awareness of existence the way we do so they are irrelevant for the idea of meaning of life. All other animals act and operate on instinct set by natures laws and that is their only meaning.
Brings back the old questions doesn’t it…
If, as so many people pretend to believe, there’s an infinitely loving God, how is it that so many helpless creatures that He made are condemned to suffer? These children and animals have never done any harm, and are in no sense responsible for the fact they exist.
Is God unaware of the miseries of His creatures? If so, then He is not all-knowing. Is God aware of their sufferings, but unable to help them? Then He is not all-powerful. Has He the power but not the will to make His creatures happy? Then He is not good.
It is impossible to believe in the existence of an individual, infinite God. In fact, no one does believe; and least of all those who pretend for various reasons to be the disciples of Christ. The anti-Christs who go about singing hymns, making long prayers and crying Lord, Lord, but never do the things He said, are known by their works to be infidels, unfaithful to the Master they pretend to serve, and their lives pass in deliberate and systematic disregard of His teachings and Commandments.
It’s not even necessary to call in the evidence of science, or to refer to the inconsistencies, impossibilities, contradictions and absurdities contained in the Bible, in order to prove that there is no truth in the Christian religion. All that is necessary is to look at the conduct of the individuals who are its votaries.
Interestingly, I mostly agree with Kingdaddy – a human being is only human if he is in a social matrix. I also think that love is one of the four emotions that, when built off of, are the cause of any purpose that we percieve in life.
But I don’t think love comes from God, so where does that leave us? You say animals lack cognition, but other mammals are clearly able to show affection, mouring, and a range of other emotions derived from love. So . . . why is love intractably part of God?
Uccisore said:
Exactly. These things need to be defined first, and universally agreed upon by the participants of the discussion, before anything useful shows itself.
Perhaps the most useful definition from dictionary.com is:
So perhaps the ‘meaning’ of existence should be considered within this linguistic framework. Now, the perceived ‘purpose’ of life is the subjective component, and may depend entirely on the individuals metaphysical viewpoint.
From a materialist/naturalist perspective, there is no extrinsic purpose, or no purpose beyond the life-time itself. Therefore, if a purpose is desired to be sought after by the individual, it must be found intrinsically (and subjectively) within the realisation of a finite period of consciousness.
From a theistic viewpoint, a purpose of existence can be sought after extrinsically. God may give a purpose to life, and depending on which God you believe in, also the possibility of an after-life. So therefore, the purpose of life for a theistic individual may not be solely limited to a finite span of consciousness, but the attainment of an infinite span of consciousness, or something similar.
EDIT: Perhaps I should explain what I mean from the theistic viewpoint further. The purpose of a theist’ existence will also be subjective, as in the case of the naturalistic viewpoint, but this subjective purpose will be subject to their faith in a metaphysical world, and their interpretation to how this faith and knowledge affects them.
What is the meaning of arguing meaning with God?
To prove
To disprove
One of the two, I don’t even have to look at your post to tell you that. Those are the very lowest bases of which we all would like to understand.
To ask such a question, you better be God or be expecting an answer from him, otherwise it’s strictly faith based just like atheism and all other thought processes.
Humans are animals. Love is derived from the notion of the family which applies to both the animal kingdom and human society, and it is motivated by two instinctive desires: to reproduce and preserve life within that family-that’s what we are blindly programmed to do.
Kingdaddy probably presumes, in accordance with scripture, that man is the shepherd of the earth and all its creatures. But the only reason for humans being self-conscious and animals not is because our brain’s simulation of the world has become so advanced that it has included a model of itself in the picture and thus we realise our effect on the environment and have learnt how to manipulate it.
Humans have only come to be more civilised and unselfish than animals because we can relate to each others’ predicaments and have become like one mass cosmopolitan family rather than a scatter of small families or herds. But evolution has not progressed to the point where our selfish tendencies as animals, causing competition and violence, have been eradicated.
James
Considering the way competition and violence drive evolution to begin with, I wouldn’t look for it to eradicated them later, either.
Who blindly programmed us to do this?
I think this topic, was called, meaning, with God, but maybe I just can’t read.
If animals are to perserve life within, why do certain animals eat their young? This animal feels it’s more important? Selfish? But wait, we can’t really call that selfishness can we. So then you obviously would agree with Hitler, man… look at what this train of thought has brought us to.
James said:
The scriptures say that God designed man and therefore it is completely self-consistent that the brain is sufficiently advanced so as to be self-conscious. Your use of the word ‘reason’ above, as in cause, basically says that the cause of humans being self-conscious is because our brains are complex enough to make us self-conscious. It carries no ‘knowledge’ or clarification of any ‘reason’.
Nash equilibrium? Let’s not let Spencher’s corruption get to us too much, eh?
Animals don’t choose like we do, what I mean is that they don’t have a knowledge of right and wrong so they cant choose to be selfish, they only follow instinct. Sometimes the laws of nature seem cruel but they are perfect in their purpose of keeping balance and perpetuating life.
The simplest way to formulate mys answer is this; God is a name man gave to meaning.