The purpose of life

[LegendarySandwich]

Because logical absolutes are absolute. The law of non-contradiction is solid and inviolable.

Not to play devil's advocate, but how do you know this?

[hackenslash]

Simply because something cannot be what it is and what it is not. It's one of the few things that is genuinely axiomatic, and these few axioms are the reasons that logic has any validity. This is not inductive, so it cannot even be the case that a falsifying observation is even possible. They are the beginning of logic.

[defendor]

)

Where in my logic do you find reasons to believe that I haven't adequately given reasons to and for my position?

[defendor]

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

I have been warned for preaching, so I'm not sure on how to address this from a different world view without seeming as preaching (for isn't telling someone about a world view, preaching?).  But I believe that a creator God gives us meaning as people.

[defendor]

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.

What if a god designed the world to work in a specific manner and revealed that in a holy book?

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

Assuming that you have an infinite knowledge of the universe, and be everywhere at once, so if a god shows up you can see him,  Thus you would essentially have to be god to know if there is a god or not.

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

.

basing this on what evidence?

[LegendarySandwich]

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.

What if a god designed the world to work in a specific manner and revealed that in a holy book?

Then put me in a bagel and call me Sally.

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

Assuming that you have an infinite knowledge of the universe, and be everywhere at once, so if a god shows up you can see him,  Thus you would essentially have to be god to know if there is a god or not.

When you say this, you're saying that nothing can be shown to be false. So, Defendor, do magical invisible unicorns that go up when they go down exist?

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

.

basing this on what evidence?

Logical contradictions and impossibilities.

[LegendarySandwich]

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

I have been warned for preaching, so I'm not sure on how to address this from a different world view without seeming as preaching (for isn't telling someone about a world view, preaching?).  But I believe that a creator God gives us meaning as people.

I still don't believe you've adequately shown that my life can't have any purpose of any kind at all, nor that I can subjectively give anything purpose; but even if I can do neither, I don't think anything would really change. Life would continue to go on.

[defendor]

I still don't believe you've adequately shown that my life can't have any purpose of any kind at all, nor that I can subjectively give anything purpose; but even if I can do neither, I don't think anything would really change. Life would continue to go on.

I'll use the law of non-contradiction

For example, when you pull up to an intersection you see a mack truck barreling towards you.  That mack truck can't "be there and not be there" at the same time.
thus you are basing logic on what you see and can interpret as logical truth.

SO for the statement "there is no objective meaning" has to have objective meaning for that statement to mean anything.  So assuming that there is no objective meaning, then in essence, the statement "there is no objective meaning" has no meaning. So how can you define your world view, that in essence, has to have objective meaning for you to abide in the subjectivity of its principles?

[LegendarySandwich]

I still don't believe you've adequately shown that my life can't have any purpose of any kind at all, nor that I can subjectively give anything purpose; but even if I can do neither, I don't think anything would really change. Life would continue to go on.

I'll use the law of non-contradiction

For example, when you pull up to an intersection you see a mack truck barreling towards you.  That mack truck can't "be there and not be there" at the same time.
thus you are basing logic on what you see and can interpret as logical truth.

Which is why your god can't exist.

SO for the statement "there is no objective meaning" has to have objective meaning for that statement to mean anything.  So assuming that there is no objective meaning, then in essence, the statement "there is no objective meaning" has no meaning. So how can you define your world view, that in essence, has to have objective meaning for you to abide in the subjectivity of its principles?

I've said it again, and I've said it before...meaning is not the same as truth. The statement "there is no objective meaning" has to be true to be "meaningful".

And even if truth and meaning were the same thing, I could myself out of that problem by simply saying that the only statement with objective meaning is that there is nothing with objective meaning, besides this statement.

[defendor]

When you say this, you're saying that nothing can be shown to be false. So, Defendor, do magical invisible unicorns that go up when they go down exist?

I'm not saying nothing can be proved false, for we have logic to discern what is beneath us.  2+2=4 for that is something that logically is within my realm of comprehension.  An omnipotent God is not within my realm of comprehension. So for me to have comprehension of omnipotence,  I would have to be in essence of being, greater than or equal to such.  So for you to say that there is no God (assuming an infinite, all-knowing, all-powerful being) you would have to be able to have the logical premise to discern such astounding claims of existence.  So the fact that you are not infinite, all-knowing, all powerful disqualifies you on making claims of such knowledge that he does not exist.

[defendor]

Which is why your god can't exist.

Jesus existed in our space time continuum, he did exist in one place at one time.  But the Father, is outside of our laws of physics

I've said it again, and I've said it before...meaning is not the same as truth. The statement "there is no objective meaning" has to be true to be "meaningful".

And even if truth and meaning were the same thing, I could myself out of that problem by simply saying that the only statement with objective meaning is that there is nothing with objective meaning, besides this statement.

But I thought you said meaning was based on opinion?  So the fact that this statement is based on truth bears no weight.  

So if the essence of that statement disqualifies itself from its own meaning, how can you assume it to be true?

[defendor]

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

Love has become a junk drawer word, you love your pet, you love your pizza and you may love your spouse.  All in different fashions

Jealous in these instances have translated to mean different things, God is jealous for your heart not jealous of your being.  God is love, but love is not God.

[defendor]

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.

tell me where he is wrong

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.

You are making objective claims to meaning and truth, which defies your philosophy as being subjective.  For many people are making objective claims to truth assuming the objectivity of the claim there is no truth

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

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

Assuming that statement has objective meaning

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.

You are making solid claims to truth (for yourself) based on your own existence, if you can't answer for a fact you exist, then how can you base a philosophy on a question you have no answer to?

[LegendarySandwich]

Which is why your god can't exist.

Jesus existed in our space time continuum, he did exist in one place at one time.

Jesus is supposed to be fully god, while being fully human; so if he's the same as god, then he cannot logically exist either.
 

But the Father, is outside of our laws of physics

If God interacts and intervenes in the universe, then he has to be in at at least some of the time; but he cannot logically exist in our universe.

But I thought you said meaning was based on opinion?  So the fact that this statement is based on truth bears no weight.

What? That makes no sense.

[LegendarySandwich]

When you say this, you're saying that nothing can be shown to be false. So, Defendor, do magical invisible unicorns that go up when they go down exist?

I'm not saying nothing can be proved false, for we have logic to discern what is beneath us.  2+2=4 for that is something that logically is within my realm of comprehension.  An omnipotent God is not within my realm of comprehension. So for me to have comprehension of omnipotence,  I would have to be in essence of being, greater than or equal to such.  So for you to say that there is no God (assuming an infinite, all-knowing, all-powerful being) you would have to be able to have the logical premise to discern such astounding claims of existence.  So the fact that you are not infinite, all-knowing, all powerful disqualifies you on making claims of such knowledge that he does not exist.

So what you're saying is that we can comprehend math, but we can't comprehend god, so, ergo, we cannot apply logic to him?

And are you saying that you are greater or equal than math equations?