The purpose of life

[Recusant]

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

)

[hackenslash]

Should I say creator, if there is no creator, there is no purpose, then why live?

Because life is subjectively good. I don't need a creator for that.

this is where we're at tryin to define who assumes meaning, and on what premise

Well, the only one assuming any objective kind of meaning here is you. You also seem to be asserting that, without said meaning, there's no point to life. Of course, I disagree on both points. I like life. That's all there is to it, and the only purpose, point or meaning necessary.

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

Here's the thing: You state as fact that there is a creator. What evidence do you have in support of this? Care to be the first supernaturalist in more than 5,000 years to actually support this assertion with anything of substance?

yes

OK, then. If you believe that your morality comes from your deity, and you believed that your deity had commanded you to do something you found to be morally reprehensible, such as killing a child, or forcing a rape victim to marry her attacker, would you do it?

It's a fairly straightforward, closed digital question, to which the only valid responses are yes or no. Whenever you're ready.

[LegendarySandwich]

Okay Defendor, my life as no meaning. What now?

[hackenslash]

Nothing transforms your world view like the question is there a god.

Quite incorrect. Nothing transforms your worldview quite like beginning to understand how the world actually works, and you won't find those answers in any holy book.

God in his completeness as a triune God had the full measure of companionship and love and meaning in his own being.

Ah, so it is the impossible, logically absurd entity described in the bible that you support. Such a shame, since that entity very definitely does not exist.

He did not need to create us.

Of course not, because to have such need, he would actually have to exist, and he doesn't.

He created us as individuals to simply demonstrate his Character as loving, gracious and glorious to people that don't deserve it.

Err, except that he didn't create us, because he doesn't exist. Bit of a problem for your magic man, that.

[defendor]

Because life is subjectively good. I don't need a creator for that.

What is good?

Well, the only one assuming any objective kind of meaning here is you. You also seem to be asserting that, without said meaning, there's no point to life. Of course, I disagree on both points. I like life. That's all there is to it, and the only purpose, point or meaning necessary.

You are assuming the statement "there is no objective meaning" has objective meaning


Here's the thing: You state as fact that there is a creator. What evidence do you have in support of this? Care to be the first supernaturalist in more than 5,000 years to actually support this assertion with anything of substance?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgJmsK2s0uI

OK, then. If you believe that your morality comes from your deity, and you believed that your deity had commanded you to do something you found to be morally reprehensible, such as killing a child, or forcing a rape victim to marry her attacker, would you do it?

It's a fairly straightforward, closed digital question, to which the only valid responses are yes or no. Whenever you're ready.

Your asking for an answer on the assumed premise that 1. there is a basis for morality 2. These acts defy a set standard of morality 3. A "good" God would want these things to happen

the question is a paradox, but there is an answer, but if to live in submission of this, maybe

Abraham was asked to sacrifice to his son.  When Abraham was about to sacrifice him, God stopped him, for Abraham only wanted to live a life of submission.  But God didn't allow that, he saw Abraham's heart and blessed him beyond measure.  For the rape thing, look at Joseph, he was sold into slavery by his family and went on to say "What you meant for evil, God meant for Good"

[Whitney]

defendor has been issued warning 1 for preaching

[hackenslash]

Because life is subjectively good. I don't need a creator for that.

What is good?

I like it. What more do I need to classify it as good, since 'good' is a subjective construct?

Well, the only one assuming any objective kind of meaning here is you. You also seem to be asserting that, without said meaning, there's no point to life. Of course, I disagree on both points. I like life. That's all there is to it, and the only purpose, point or meaning necessary.

You are assuming the statement "there is no objective meaning" has objective meaning

Where did I indicate that assumption?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgJmsK2s0uI

Oh, dear. First cause? Really? Are you sure? Firstly, arguments are still not evidence. Secondly, can you actually demonstrate that everything requires a cause? Do you really want to be schooled on just how vacuous such arguments are?  

Oh, dear. The teleological argument? Really? Are you sure? Firstly, arguments are still not evidence. Secondly, do you know what is required to infer design?

You need a metric for design. This metric needs to be demonstrated to work in artefacts of known provenance. It also needs to be demonstrated to be applicable to the biosphere, and to the universe as a whole.

When you have such a metric in place, let us know, and we'll all polish our shoes and take our tuxedoes out of mothballs, so that we can come to your investiture as a Nobel laureate. You'd like a nice, shiny medal now, wouldn't you?

Oh dear, the 'chance' canard, with creationist mathematics side salad and a generous helping of 'fine-tuning' croutons? Really? Are you sure? Firstly, arguments are still not evidence (are you beginning to see a pattern forming here?) Secondly, do you know what probability can be gleaned from any calculation with a sample set of one? That's right! It can only ever give a probability of 1. Thirdly, this mathematics runs up against the gamblers fallacy. It may be clear to anyone that, after tossing 100 heads in a row, the chances of tossing another head is ridiculously improbable, because it is, isn't it? No! It is exactly the same probability as it was the first time! Fourthly, the universe isn't fine tuned, as far as we can tell. Indeed, there is no good reason to suppose that the physical constants we experience could actually have any other values. Besides, when physicists and cosmologists talk about fine-tuning, they aren't misusing it the way this idiot is, they are talking about the fact that certain parameters in the cosmos must fall within a narrow range of values if their models are correct. They aren't talking about it being fine-tuned, and they certainly aren't talking about it being fine-tuned for life. If anything, life is fine-tuned for the universe, by virtue of the fact that it evolved under the constants we rely on. It could well be that those constants could vary wildly and still produce life, although whether we, with our parochial view of things, would actually recognise it as life, is another matter. Puddle thinking at its finest. 'Doesn't this hole fit me well?' Finally, with respect to the 'chance' canard, science doesn't postulate chance, it postulates, and repeatedly demonstrates with startling reliability, well-defined natural mechanisms.

Now, do you actually have anything of substance, or are you just impressed by any fuckwit on a youtube video who blinds you with his misunderstanding of how probabilities work?

Your asking for an answer on the assumed premise that 1. there is a basis for morality 2. These acts defy a set standard of morality 3. A "good" God would want these things to happen

the question is a paradox, but there is an answer, but if to live in submission of this, maybe

Abraham was asked to sacrifice to his son.  When Abraham was about to sacrifice him, God stopped him, for Abraham only wanted to live a life of submission.  But God didn't allow that, he saw Abraham's heart and blessed him beyond measure.  For the rape thing, look at Joseph, he was sold into slavery by his family and went on to say "What you meant for evil, God meant for Good"

Firstly, there was no assumption. You stated that your morality was predicated on the will of your magic man. Also, who said anything about Abraham and Isaac?

Standard apologetic evasionist fayre. Now, any chance of answering the question? A simple yes or no will suffice, or an admission that the question is too difficult, which is preferable to evading it.

[Sophus]

Because life is subjectively good. I don't need a creator for that.

What is good?

Here's how to read. "Life is subjectively good." The word in blue is describing the word in red.

Deep breath, deep breath....  

[iSok]

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

BADDD!!!! BAAAAADDDD ATHEIST!!!!!!

[LegendarySandwich]

Nothing transforms your world view like the question is there a god.

Quite incorrect. Nothing transforms your worldview quite like beginning to understand how the world actually works, and you won't find those answers in any holy book.

God in his completeness as a triune God had the full measure of companionship and love and meaning in his own being.

Ah, so it is the impossible, logically absurd entity described in the bible that you support. Such a shame, since that entity very definitely does not exist.

He did not need to create us.

Of course not, because to have such need, he would actually have to exist, and he doesn't.

He created us as individuals to simply demonstrate his Character as loving, gracious and glorious to people that don't deserve it.

Err, except that he didn't create us, because he doesn't exist. Bit of a problem for your magic man, that.

Hackenslash, I have a question -- how do you know that the logically impossible does not exist?

[Tank]

Okay Defendor, my life as no meaning. What now?

I can give your life meaning if you PM my your bank account details, the names of your mother and father and date of birth  

[LegendarySandwich]

Okay Defendor, my life as no meaning. What now?

I can give your life meaning if you PM my your bank account details, the names of your mother and father and date of birth  

Oh, wait. I'm broke.

[hackenslash]

Hackenslash, I have a question -- how do you know that the logically impossible does not exist?

Because logical absolutes are absolute. The law of non-contradiction is solid and inviolable. Something cannot be both what it is and what it is not at the same time.

1 John 4:8 (NLT) - "God is love." 1 Corinthians 13:4 (NLT) - "Love is not jealous." Exodus 20:5 (NLT) - "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God

[Achronos]

This thread provides me so much entertainment.

[Asmodean]

This thread provides me so much entertainment.

I think someone will lose an eye sooner or later though...