The purpose of life

[hackenslash]

Objective meaning is based on whether or not there is a God.

Err, no. Objective, loosely speaking, means universal. In other words, for our existence to have objective meaning, then it would have to mean something to the universe as a whole. Since we are but a tiny insignificant germ on a speck of dust in universal terms, and since the universe would continue to exist with or without us, I can only conclude that there we have no objective meaning.

As for the other things you assert your deity as the objective measure of, the most laughable of these is morality. If morality is determined by a single individual, divine or not, it is necessarily subjective, because it is predicated on his idea of what constitutes right and wrong. As soon as I say that I disagree, the point is demonstrated. Indeed, I have a strong suspicion that I would disagree, although without knowing which particular celestial peeping-tom you defer your critical faculties to, it's difficult to say. I haven't come across a conception of a deity whose purported morality was remotely on a par with my own.

Do you really think you get your morals from your deity? If so, I have a challenge for you. It's my favourite question, and I've never had a satisfactory, honest answer to it yet. Up for it?

[LegendarySandwich]

So when you base meaning on whatever it is you want to base it on, you can do whatever you want (maybe the appeal of atheism...?) So if we are not basing meaning on facts, what does it mean if you are moving at 60 miles per hour straight into a concrete wall...?

I have no idea what you're trying to argue or say here.

I noticed you posted something along the lines of "morality is what helps you" I'm not sure, but you still are making the assumption that you are worth while in the fact that getting what you desire has meaning

I have meaning to myself. Getting what I desire has meaning to myself.

[defendor]

Objective meaning is based on whether or not there is a God.

Err, no. Objective, loosely speaking, means universal. In other words, for our existence to have objective meaning, then it would have to mean something to the universe as a whole. Since we are but a tiny insignificant germ on a speck of dust in universal terms, and since the universe would continue to exist with or without us, I can only conclude that there we have no objective meaning.

Should I say creator, if there is no creator, there is no purpose, then why live?  this is where we're at tryin to define who assumes meaning, and on what premise

As for the other things you assert your deity as the objective measure of, the most laughable of these is morality. If morality is determined by a single individual, divine or not, it is necessarily subjective, because it is predicated on his idea of what constitutes right and wrong. As soon as I say that I disagree, the point is demonstrated. Indeed, I have a strong suspicion that I would disagree, although without knowing which particular celestial peeping-tom you defer your critical faculties to, it's difficult to say. I haven't come across a conception of a deity whose purported morality was remotely on a par with my own.

morality is based on the fact that we do have a creator, and this creator gave us meaning, and we are supposed to respond to each other as such

Do you really think you get your morals from your deity? If so, I have a challenge for you. It's my favourite question, and I've never had a satisfactory, honest answer to it yet. Up for it?

yes

[Existentialist]

Objective meaning is based on whether or not there is a God.

I completely agree.  However, there isn't a God, which is shame, because in the judaeo-christian and islamic models, god takes the position of the objective observer, whom we mortals have to second-guess in establishing our morality.  So in the absence of God, who can take the objective position?  Well, nobody.  It isn't possible.  There's no such thing as objectivity.  It's a myth, as deeply embedded in our culture as the god myth.  The scientific model can take measures to minimise the effect of our subjectivity to be sure, but it would be a major mistake for anyone to misread this process as the success of objectivity.

Objective meaning is meaningless.

[defendor]

I have no idea what you're trying to argue or say here.

just as I said, if we are basing meaning on something other than facts, then meaning comes from whatever you want it to. So if you have no facts to discern meaning, you can't ever define meaning. The fact we used definitions to define meaning means nothing, for facts have nothing to do with meaning. If that is true, then (it comes full circle) how can you assume you are meaningful if there is nothing to base this on?

I noticed you posted something along the lines of "morality is what helps you" I'm not sure, but you still are making the assumption that you are worth while in the fact that getting what you desire has meaning

I have meaning to myself. Getting what I desire has meaning to myself.

So how, if there is no meaning, can you assume you are yourself meaningful. Thus getting what you want has no meaning for not only is the act of getting what you want not meaningful, but you in your being have no meaning. So if this is case, you would have no purpose to live, only to say that you give yourself purpose, which has no meaning.  Also if there is no objective meaning, the statement "there is no object meaning" means nothing.  How can you believe a philosophy that terminates on itself

[defendor]

Objective meaning is based on whether or not there is a God.

I completely agree.  However, there isn't a God, which is shame, because in the judaeo-christian and islamic models, god takes the position of the objective observer, whom we mortals have to second-guess in establishing our morality.  So in the absence of God, who can take the objective position?  Well, nobody.  It isn't possible.  There's no such thing as objectivity.  It's a myth, as deeply embedded in our culture as the god myth.  The scientific model can take measures to minimise the effect of our subjectivity to be sure, but it would be a major mistake for anyone to misread this process as the success of objectivity.

Objective meaning is meaningless.

I will say God takes the position of objective inter-actor. That's why the story of Jesus is so important.  God interacting with us.  

So if no one can take the position of objective observer, why do you take the position of objective observer for yourself?

So if objective meaning is meaningless, then this statement  (which has objective meaning that there is no objective meaning) is meaningless.  So if this statement "objective meaning is meaningless" this statement is meaningless and you wasted your time typing

[Sophus]

Objective meaning is based on whether or not there is a God.

I completely agree.

Don't be so quick to agree with that. As I wrote in another thread, God is a Nihilist. God is left confronted with nothingness and meaninglessness so he had to assign his own meaning (to us apparently). Theism hasn't solved this problem, it has pushed it aside. God is in the same boat you are in in his absence.

[defendor]

Don't be so quick to agree with that. As I wrote in another thread, God is a Nihilist. God is left confronted with nothingness and meaninglessness so he had to assign his own meaning (to us apparently). Theism hasn't solved this problem, it has pushed it aside. God is in the same boat you are in in his absence.

Nothing transforms your world view like the question is there a god.  God in his completeness as a triune God had the full measure of companionship and love and meaning in his own being.  He did not need to create us.  He created us as individuals to simply demonstrate his Character as loving, gracious and glorious to people that don't deserve it.

[Existentialist]

I will say God takes the position of objective inter-actor. That's why the story of Jesus is so important.  God interacting with us.

I completely respect this.  God can take any objective position, of course.  God is omnipotent.  The only problem is, he doesn't exist.

So if no one can take the position of objective observer, why do you take the position of objective observer for yourself?

I don't.  I take the position of a subjective observer for myself.  

So if objective meaning is meaningless, then this statement  (which has objective meaning that there is no objective meaning) is meaningless.  So if this statement "objective meaning is meaningless" this statement is meaningless and you wasted your time typing

As did you.  But I wasted less time typing it.  You still believe that objective meaning is meaningful, and are destined to waste a lifetime typing about it.

[LegendarySandwich]

just as I said, if we are basing meaning on something other than facts, then meaning comes from whatever you want it to. So if you have no facts to discern meaning, you can't ever define meaning.

Meaning is based on opinion, which isn't fact, but it's a fact that there are opinions. We've already defined meaning. You lose.

The fact we used definitions to define meaning means nothing, for facts have nothing to do with meaning. If that is true, then (it comes full circle) how can you assume you are meaningful if there is nothing to base this on?

It's based on opinion.

So how, if there is no meaning, can you assume you are yourself meaningful.

There's no objective meaning. There is subjective meaning. I'm not assuming I'm meaningful; I'm giving myself meaning.

Thus getting what you want has no meaning for not only is the act of getting what you want not meaningful, but you in your being have no meaning.

It has meaning to me; I have meaning to me.

So if this is case, you would have no purpose to live, only to say that you give yourself purpose, which has no meaning.

No objective purpose; I give myself subjective purpose; it has no objective meaning.

Also if there is no objective meaning, the statement "there is no object meaning" means nothing.  How can you believe a philosophy that terminates on itself

I feel like I want to strangle a puppy right now.

[Existentialist]

Objective meaning is based on whether or not there is a God.

I completely agree.

Don't be so quick to agree with that. As I wrote in another thread, God is a Nihilist. God is left confronted with nothingness and meaninglessness so he had to assign his own meaning (to us apparently). Theism hasn't solved this problem, it has pushed it aside. God is in the same boat you are in in his absence.

I understand.  But if God can't solve this problem, no-one can.  I give god more credit than you, he's a wise dude and can do a hell of a lot that we can't.  Theism might not be able to solve the problem, but I'm sure God can...  just as soon as he gets over his little local difficulty of not existing.

[defendor]

I will say God takes the position of objective inter-actor. That's why the story of Jesus is so important.  God interacting with us.

I completely respect this.  God can take any objective position, of course.  God is omnipotent.  The only problem is, he doesn't exist.

I respect what you have to say and am appreciative of your responses but I disagree http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgJmsK2s0uI
I would appreciate it if you could watch this and we could try and discern whatever "facts" he proposes

So if no one can take the position of objective observer, why do you take the position of objective observer for yourself?

I don't.  I take the position of a subjective observer for myself.  

It is objective, it's objective to you, but in the grand scale of the universe it is relative to you thus labelled subjective

"realism is relative"

So if objective meaning is meaningless, then this statement  (which has objective meaning that there is no objective meaning) is meaningless.  So if this statement "objective meaning is meaningless" this statement is meaningless and you wasted your time typing

As did you.  But I wasted less time typing it.  You still believe that objective meaning is meaningful, and are destined to waste a lifetime typing about it.

I think the point was convoluted and I apologize on the misconstruing or misinterpretation of my argument

I am merely assuming that when you said "objective meaning is meaningless" you thought it was meaningful
so if that statement was meaningful then not everything is meaningless
but if that statement is meaningless, why did you type it?

here's the gospel of good hope.  You have eternal meaning to God of the universe, he sent his son to die for you so that he could not just give you meaning, but  give you life, hope and eternal life with him.  Now this statement transcends all human logic. I wrote a note on facebook "why do I believe?" if you would like to discern my premises on that I will gladly be obliging

I understand. But if God can't solve this problem, no-one can. I give god more credit than you, he's a wise dude and can do a hell of a lot that we can't. Theism might not be able to solve the problem, but I'm sure God can... just as soon as he gets over his little local difficulty of not existing.

How do you know you exist? Cuz you can think for yourself, assuming you do actually exist in the first place?

[defendor]

Meaning is based on opinion, which isn't fact, but it's a fact that there are opinions. We've already defined meaning. You lose.

So if meaning has no meaning, why are you arguing that it does have meaning?

It's based on opinion.

So if meaning is based on opinion, you have stated that there is no meaning, you are basing something that doesn't exist (meaning) on something that has no meaning (your opinion)

There's no objective meaning. There is subjective meaning. I'm not assuming I'm meaningful; I'm giving myself meaning.

You are assuming that the fact there is no objective meaning, has objective meaning to you, or else you wouldn't assume to make claims of subjective meaning
and also "you are basing something that doesn't exist (meaning) on something that has no meaning (your opinion)"

It has meaning to me; I have meaning to me.

You are saying that as a statement with objective meaning, for if that is a statement with subjective meaning, why would you care if you have meaning or give yourself meaning?

No objective purpose; I give myself subjective purpose; it has no objective meaning.

So if you are chasing something that is meaningless (subjective purpose) why do you keep insisting is has meaning to you (who is meaningless)

I feel like I want to strangle a puppy right now

DONT DO IT

[Existentialist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgJmsK2s0uI
I would appreciate it if you could watch this and we could try and discern whatever "facts" he proposes

I watched it, it took 3 minutes and 10 seconds.  To be honest, I don't know what you're asking me to do with that. You request is not very precise.

So if no one can take the position of objective observer, why do you take the position of objective observer for yourself?

I don't.  I take the position of a subjective observer for myself.  

It is objective, it's objective to you, but in the grand scale of the universe it is relative to you thus labelled subjective
"realism is relative"

Again, too vague, too short.  You need to explain more.  I do not understand what the grand scale of the universe has to do with my subjective view.  It is a matter of subjectivity, not scale.

I think the point was convoluted and I apologize on the misconstruing or misinterpretation of my argument

I am merely assuming that when you said "objective meaning is meaningless" you thought it was meaningful
so if that statement was meaningful then not everything is meaningless
but if that statement is meaningless, why did you type it?

Let me put it another way.  There is no such thing as objective meaning.

here's the gospel of good hope.  You have eternal meaning to God of the universe, he sent his son to die for you so that he could not just give you meaning, but  give you life, hope and eternal life with him.  Now this statement transcends all human logic. I wrote a note on facebook "why do I believe?" if you would like to discern my premises on that I will gladly be obliging

I understand. But if God can't solve this problem, no-one can. I give god more credit than you, he's a wise dude and can do a hell of a lot that we can't. Theism might not be able to solve the problem, but I'm sure God can... just as soon as he gets over his little local difficulty of not existing.

How do you know you exist? Cuz you can think for yourself, assuming you do actually exist in the first place?

What does it matter whether I exist or not?  I just don't see where we're going with any of this, but thank you for your responses anyway.

[elliebean]

Nothing transforms your world view like the question is there a god.  God in his completeness as a triune God had the full measure of companionship and love and meaning in his own being.  He did not need to create us.  He created us as individuals to simply demonstrate his Character as loving, gracious and glorious to people that don't deserve it.

here's the gospel of good hope. You have eternal meaning to God of the universe, he sent his son to die for you so that he could not just give you meaning, but give you life, hope and eternal life with him. Now this statement transcends all human logic. I wrote a note on facebook "why do I believe?" if you would like to discern my premises on that I will gladly be obliging

Stop inserting your preaching here like you think you can get away with it.
[spoiler:37k735gp][quote="Forum Rules]NO PREACHING: While everyone is welcome to discuss their views in a civil manner, this forum is not a podium for those that only wish to preach. This rule applies to atheists and theists alike. Preaching means stating your beliefs without providing evidence. If directly asked what you believe you may answer but it would then become against the rules if you were to then refuse to back up your views objectively when honestly challenged. This means that if you want to use your religious text to prove your deity, for instance, you will also need to be prepared to prove that your religious text is an objective source of evidence.[/quote][/spoiler:37k735gp]