Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:What is "meaning", and by that I mean an "ultimate meaning"? What properties does ultimate meaning have? Once one understands and/or agrees about what ultimate meaning is, then whether particular worldviews have it can be more easily discussed.

I will say here, that it is largely agreed so far as I'm aware and read philosophically speaking, that there is no real ultimate meaning to be had for us if when God is removed from the picture, if their is no telos (i.e., end goal for us), if we all will die, if noone will be around to remember.

Why introduce that "ultimate"? You are upgrading it to a level which automatically and inescapably includes "God". What's the difference between 'meaning' and 'ultimate meaning'?

Justhuman wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:What is "meaning", and by that I mean an "ultimate meaning"? What properties does ultimate meaning have? Once one understands and/or agrees about what ultimate meaning is, then whether particular worldviews have it can be more easily discussed.

I will say here, that it is largely agreed so far as I'm aware and read philosophically speaking, that there is no real ultimate meaning to be had for us if when God is removed from the picture, if their is no telos (i.e., end goal for us), if we all will die, if noone will be around to remember.

Why introduce that "ultimate"? You are upgrading it to a level which automatically and inescapably includes "God". What's the difference between 'meaning' and 'ultimate meaning'?

Probably the difference between objective and subjective or absolute and relative or...

What I mean by that is to have a subjective view of something, there must be an objective view.
EX: What is good or bad is subjective, that there is a good is objective ( Bad being an absence of the good).

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:So how would a non-religious/non-believer use it?

Personally I don't think a non-believer should use it; IMO its one of those terms that should be reserved for those who believe. But you know people nowadays!

Ken

But you agreed that life is sacred, yes?

I generally don't use the term "sacred" in casual conversation, but when discussing with people who do, I understand what it means to them.

Ken

Ah, understood, but do you agree? do you agree that life is sacred?

To me sacred just means precious; or special. Because life is those things, it is sacred according to how I use the term. though you may use the term differently than I, I suspect you see life as according to how you use the term as well

Justhuman wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:What is "meaning", and by that I mean an "ultimate meaning"? What properties does ultimate meaning have? Once one understands and/or agrees about what ultimate meaning is, then whether particular worldviews have it can be more easily discussed.

I will say here, that it is largely agreed so far as I'm aware and read philosophically speaking, that there is no real ultimate meaning to be had for us if when God is removed from the picture, if their is no telos (i.e., end goal for us), if we all will die, if noone will be around to remember.

Why introduce that "ultimate"? You are upgrading it to a level which automatically and inescapably includes "God". What's the difference between 'meaning' and 'ultimate meaning'?

Am I upgrading or are you downgrading? Matter of perspective isn't it.

People can assign meaning to anything. Buddhists seek/find some meaning in just looking at a rock or structure. Does that mean meaning exists? Well, yes, for the Buddhist who thinks such.

I'm sure no one here questions that people can find meaning in just about anything. So then if you're arguing that people (i.e., Materialists) can find meaning in life, well, we're all in agreement that they can, that you can find your own meaning to life, and that such is probably important to you or else it'd be meaningless.

Ever played a board game that you kind of got bored of half way through? There was meaning in the beginning, built around your enjoyment. But then, when your enjoyment left and the meaning was lost, well, why not just resign? It seems then, there is nothing wrong if someone decides to quit life for precisely the same reason, mere boredom.

Now, if you're assigning objective meaning, that is, "REAL" meaning had regardless of what anyone says or thinks, the kind of "meaning" every Christian on this board would think of when discussing meaning to/in life. If you assign such meaning to life as being:

JustHuman wrote:Everyone has one chance to live his or her live. Take away that chance and that particular life is lost. No second chance.
Realizing that volatility makes each life intensely important and worth while to cherish and carress, more so than the partly immortal 'life' of the theistic universe.

Is that is the meaning to be had - living one's life to the fullest because it's all they will have? If so, why then acts of self-sacrifice are the stupidest thing people can do right? And yet, we all praise and see meaning to the person who forsakes their "cherishing and carressing" their own life. We honour those who fought in wars and the like for any freedoms enjoyed in our countries. Giving up one's life for another is an act of goodness and bravery we tend to respect. Or, if we merely stick to your understanding of life, self-sacrifice is ultimately just an act of complete and utter stupidity!

If you believe such isn't mere stupidity, but self-sacrifice is good and carries much meaning, then I'd say that Theism provides a better foundation for what you intuitively, deep within your human person, tend to embrace (along with many other things like goodness, fairness, justice, purpose in life, volition, a real self, etc). It is definitely a more wholesome worldview than anything Materialism has to offer.

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote: Personally I don't think a non-believer should use it; IMO its one of those terms that should be reserved for those who believe. But you know people nowadays!

Ken

But you agreed that life is sacred, yes?

I generally don't use the term "sacred" in casual conversation, but when discussing with people who do, I understand what it means to them.

Ken

Ah, understood, but do you agree? do you agree that life is sacred?

To me sacred just means precious; or special. Because life is those things, it is sacred according to how I use the term. though you may use the term differently than I, I suspect you see life as according to how you use the term as well

Oh yes, I view life in that way, at the very least.
Life is sacred because it is special and precious, because once taken it can never be given back.
Know, you know WHY I feel life is sacred of course, but what is the reason you feel it is?
Just curious.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: But you agreed that life is sacred, yes?

I generally don't use the term "sacred" in casual conversation, but when discussing with people who do, I understand what it means to them.

Ken

Ah, understood, but do you agree? do you agree that life is sacred?

To me sacred just means precious; or special. Because life is those things, it is sacred according to how I use the term. though you may use the term differently than I, I suspect you see life as according to how you use the term as well

Oh yes, I view life in that way, at the very least.
Life is sacred because it is special and precious, because once taken it can never be given back.
Know, you know WHY I feel life is sacred of course, but what is the reason you feel it is?
Just curious.

Right now, I'm kinda agreeing with the reasons you gave.

Ken

Understood, but WHY?
The view of a believer is that because life comes from God, He creates it and sustains it.

But as an atheist, what do you base that on? The values you have been taught by society?

PaulSacramento wrote:Understood, but WHY?
The view of a believer is that because life comes from God, He creates it and sustains it.

But as an atheist, what do you base that on? The values you have been taught by society?

As a non believer, I value life because of what I am able to do while alive. Once my life is gone, I will no longer be able to do the things that I really enjoy doing. Thus life is precious to me.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Understood, but WHY?
The view of a believer is that because life comes from God, He creates it and sustains it.

But as an atheist, what do you base that on? The values you have been taught by society?

As a non believer, I value life because of what I am able to do while alive. Once my life is gone, I will no longer be able to do the things that I really enjoy doing. Thus life is precious to me.

Ken

Doesn't that strike you as self-centered?
That view values YOUR life, but what of the life of another?

Then kenny, you would not die for someone, correct?

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Understood, but WHY?
The view of a believer is that because life comes from God, He creates it and sustains it.

But as an atheist, what do you base that on? The values you have been taught by society?

As a non believer, I value life because of what I am able to do while alive. Once my life is gone, I will no longer be able to do the things that I really enjoy doing. Thus life is precious to me.

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote:Doesn't that strike you as self-centered?

No!

PaulSacramento wrote:That view values YOUR life, but what of the life of another?

Their life is valuable for the same reason as mine.

Ken

1over137 wrote:Then kenny, you would not die for someone, correct?

Probably not. Why do you ask?

Ken

I knew a non-Christian (an agnostic I suppose - that term seemed to be new to him; he just saw himself as non-religious) to whom the ultimate meaning of life was reproduction. He thought having a family and bringing up the next generation was the most important thing in life - he was mainly comparing that to being focussed on money and careers. When I said something like, "You mean just producing one generation after another like animals? What's the point in that if life isn't valuable and enjoyable in itself?" he said, "It goes without saying that it is." He definitely believed in working to live and to do enjoyable things rather than living to work, but he placed procreation above that in meaning.

That's probably the view of some other non-Christians as well.

Kenny wrote:

1over137 wrote:Then kenny, you would not die for someone, correct?

Probably not. Why do you ask?

Ken

If someone else's life is just as valuable as your own, then what makes you choose to save your life over theirs?

Nessa wrote:

Kenny wrote:

1over137 wrote:Then kenny, you would not die for someone, correct?

Probably not. Why do you ask?

Ken

If someone else's life is just as valuable as your own, then what makes you choose to save your life over theirs?

My life is (subjectively) more valuable to me.

Ken