Life is not meaningless if there is no God
Life is not meaningless if there is no God. There is plenty of meaning for life. God does not make life anymore meaningful than if he did not exist. (Excluding meaning pertaining to him.)
Affirmations?
Rebuttals?
Theologically, the creator is the source of both the creation and the creation’s meaning.
Meanwhile, we live so that we can be alive. We reproduce again so that we can again reproduce. Life itself is a circular-argument, and what is more, the root of consciousness is also circular symbolism.
You are making far reaching generalities without substantive evidence or even argumentation to back it up.
Of the two so far that have said ‘rebuttative’,
meaning that you believe that life is meaningless without God,
I ask that you post your reasons and rebuttals.
There is no ultimate meaning beyond the grave without a creator, nor is there a right or wrong or good or bad. The lack of a master reference makes all ideas meaningless and that would make this world purely relative which is the most illogical thought of all.
There must be a singularity, all evidence points to everything having sources except the first thing, which must be eternal.
Man can give life a meaning (which inherently has none).
Is man the source of this meaning?
NO!
So your idea is invalid and illogical.
Kingdaddy,
Why not?
It is man who evaluates something as meaningful. As I said, inherently, life has no meaning. There is no “Creator”. The idea of a first cause is what is illogical: it is self-contradictory. For the law of cause and effect says that every cause is itself an effect and vice versa. So if the model of “cause and effect” is accurate, there is a beginningless and endless chain of causes/effects. A more modern form of this model is the law of the conservation of energy.
There is, indeed, no inherent right and wrong or good and bad. It is man who makes the judgment “right” or “wrong”, the judgment “good” or “bad”.
The world as a whole - the totality of all that exists - is absolute; there is nothing besides it. Within this world, everything is relative to something else.
What “evidence” are you talking about?
Your desperate need of a singularity, of a “Creator”, of a “master reference”, does not mean that there is one. Your anxiety is no argument.
There is no evidence that suggests man is the source of anything, on the contrary all evidence points to a singularity that was before man.
Did man make the laws of nature? Answer, NO! does nature point to an ultimate set of fixed rules and laws, YES!
What is the source of these laws and boundries?
Why is the Golden Rule universal to the vast majority of all mankind from the beginning of known history?
“All” evidence?
Yes, in a way: for he anthropomorphised them as “laws”. In reality, there is no one who obeys these laws, no one who commands them - and certainly no one who trangresses them.
Er, no. How do we know if the natural “laws” (necessities) are the rule? We only know that part of the universe called “the visible universe”; could the part we can see of the universe not be an exception to the rest? An aberration of the rule?
Plus, I repeat, to call these necessities “rules” or “laws” is an anthropomorphism.
Oh God, the “Golden Rule”… Simple: because the vast majority of mankind is, and has always been, weak and anxious. “If I don’t hurt/offend/disturb them, they hopefully will not hurt/offend/disturb me, either!” In most cases, this works out, because most people think like that. To desire that all people think like that, however, to demand that all people become weak, in order to deliver those who are already weak from their anxiety (by removing the source), would lead mankind directly to nihilism. For if there is nothing left to fear from mankind, there is also nothing left to respect about him. Awfulness and awesomeness grow up together. If man is not awesome, however, why should we want him at all?
Yeah, I don’t think that polyester is real either. Man certainly never created anything!
As for the Golden Rule, it is a solid basis for society. Additionally, it has been shown that reciprocity has been hardwired into humans to a degree which it hasn’t been in other species – humans will actually hurt themselves to hurt another (who has wronged them) in absolutely maddening proportions! The Golden Rule is a natural extension of this psychological/biological fact.
We prove it every day, we engineer and manufacturer and operate within these rules and even base our rules on these absolute laws. No one can break these without feeling the consequences, what more proof do you need. Let me know when you have any other counter evidence, until then you must conceed that ALL evidence points toward this.
Bullshit, gravity existed before we did. Only our description and knowledge of these rules is humanized and that still don’t make them a fantasy, they are real and operational rather you like it or not. I am using reality to back up my assertions, you are using fantasy and imagination, sorry but that isn’t proof. Let me know when you can at least use reality and logic to show any counter evidence.
More bullshit.
We follow the Golden Rule because we know deep inside that we wouldn’t want something bad done to ourselves, if you cant feel and see that then you are one of the defects that need to be removed from society.
If we engineer and manufacture something based on these “rules” and it works, that only proves that these “rules” applied again; not that they always apply. And there is no “breaking” these “rules” or “laws”, for, even if they are absolute, as you assert, then they are necessities, which means that deviation from them is impossible.
Repeating your groundless (mindless?) assertion that [size=200]ALL[/size] evidence points towards your conclusion, even if you were to capitalise, make bold, and crank up the size of the letters, as I did, does nothing but make you sound even more like a broken record.
Yes, but not as a “rule” or “law”, O sputtering one!
You live in a topsy-turvy world if I ever saw one.
Yes, Mr. Topsy Turvy, remove the intelligent specimens, leave only the retards!
I think the main problem with this question is defining ‘meaning’.
Defined by the dictionary as “to intend for a particular purpose”.
When we say, is there meaning to life, we’re really asking
“Is there a purpose to life?” or “Why are we living this life?”
I’m aware that there are several linguistic variants of the above, I’m just trying to get a general idea to move forward on.
Now, lets take god out of the picture for a moment and talk about what humans do. We are living, breathing mammals. We eat, we sleep, we reproduce, we build cities and our cities crumble. We affect the ecosystem and the environment around us in both positive and negative ways. As a species, we play our role at the top of the food chain in the elimination of other creatures, we play our role in the ecology of the planet with deforestation and consumption of minerals that would otherwise remain in the earth without humanity’s presence. We change everything, just by being here. Within our own species, we interact, reproduce ourselves, we create art, science, and mathematics, we study and we teach, but much of this does not go outside our own sphere of influence, namely the human race.
Given the above, could we say that humanity’s “purpose” is to play a role in changes to the planet, environment, etc? You could assume so since that is what we are doing. Of course, the entire idea of “purpose” indicates that there is a “plan” …some sort of guiding hand that has cast us in this role in the grand scheme to bring about whatever end result that they have orchestrated. Implying then, a god.
But what if there wasn’t? Assuming the non-existence of god, what then is our purpose (I’m speaking humanity as a whole - on an individual basis the problem becomes increasingly more complex). Did we perhaps evolve here because “nature” needed someone to cause these changes on the planet and we are the catalyst? Isn’t that the same thing as “god” just calling it something else?
The deeper I look, the more times the same wall hits me. For us to have a purpose, a reason for being here, the very idea of this implies that we’re part of some great Work or plan in which we must play our part. And if there is a great work or great plan, there must be a maker.
So arguing w/ negation, I say that there is no maker (for the purpose of this argument, is life meaningless w/o god). With no maker, therefore no meaning.
Lets look at the world again with this precedent.
There is no grand purpose, and we are not playing a role in it. Everything we do we do because we are exertig our will to do so. This means that essentially, there is no grand meaning to life that we are achieving, we’re just doing our day to day grind.
And there’s nothing wrong with that.
Of course, when you look at it on an individual level, the term ‘meaning’ gets fuzzy. I find meaning contemplating a flower petal dropping to the floor in my apartment, for example. So there is meaning IN my life. I may teach a child to read who later becomes a powerful world leader. There was meaning TO my life, in that I accomplished something that had lasting effects - ie, a specific purpose. But in the grand scheme of things, no, I do not think humanity’s presence has a greater purpose.
if there is a god then he gives the meaning to our lives, if there isn’t then we do, either way there is value even if it is just that of these such conversations to ponder the nature of our exsistance.
Sauwelios, deep thinker of all things Nietzschean, I think you misunderstand the law of cause and effect. If I may state something which I’m sure is sickenly neo-Platonic to some: Everything material has a cause because it can either be or not be, since matter has potency. A spiritual God would not require causation.
Anzha, I liked your post. Well argued, but I disagree.
To answer the original question. (First, if God made us, we wouldn’t have meaning without Him because we wouldn’t be. 
) I have come to believe that happiness comes from some authentic form of transcendence. It is reaching out to God.
mrn
Keep ripping it up guys! Nice job!
The post did go the direction I thought it might.
I’ll add my thoughts ASAP.
Sure, and I was being a bit cheeky to not go into detail in defining exactly what I meant by “meaning”.
I meant any sort of meaning. If one believes that humans can give meaning to things (as some discussed above), then whether or not there is a God, something can have meaning. What I was getting at with this post was that God does not add any meaning to life other than meaning that pertains to him. If you ask, “What is the meaning of life?” to a Christian, they will say something with regard to God creating us for some purpose. If you ask, “Then what is the meaning of God?” This is an absurd question and is just like asking, “What is the meaning of life?” to someone who doesn’t believe in God.
An additional point is that the question “What is the meaning of everything?” is just as absurd for Deists as is it for Atheists. (Mind you, everything includes God) There can’t be one meaning to absolutely everything!
I am no substance dualist. But if there were two substances (spirit and matter), how could one ever work on the other? Don’t ghosts move through anything and vice versa?