Originally posted by whodeyWell, here you are ragging on one form of subjectivism because it precludes 'inherent value'. But, at the same time, your own solution that you present throughout the thread is nothing but a dialectically symmetric subjectivist position that also precludes inherent value. Basically, you claim that we are meaningful and valuable in "the grande scheme of things" only to the extent that God values us. Well, that precludes our having inherent value, too, because it implies that all our value is merely contingent on our being valued by an external agent.
But if the meaning for your existence is ONLY what you make it, it has no inherent value, rather, such meaning could then be deemed illusionary. Once you perish and thsoe who care about you perish the meaning for your life also perishes. It begs the question if such meaning actually existed in the first place. If so, where did it go?
At any rate, there is no reason to think your position is any more valid than the position of a person who holds that he is, in fact, valuable because he values himself; or because his neighbor values him; or....
Originally posted by whodeyHowever, it seems as if we all think our lives have meaning, therefore, it stands to reason that it must to some degree.
When I say "ultimate" meaning I am referring to what actual meaning, if any, your life has in the grande scheme of things. We all have a skewed perspective as to how we relate to the grande scheme of things, however, it is skewed nonetheless. However, it seems as if we all think our lives have meaning, therefore, it stands to reason that it must to some deg s. So whose perspective do we rely in terms of giving meaning and value to all that exists?
No, that line of thought doesn't stand to reason. It confuses descriptive considerations (related to what degree people think their lives are meaningful) with (meta-)ethical considerations (related to whether or not their lives actually are meaningful).
Originally posted by whodeyYou are confusing two things, as LJ said above.
I disagree. Who says that the genocide in Rwanda was a tragic or abhorrent event?
(a) Whether the vastness of the universe precludes individual acts, experiences, etc. from having significant meaning;
(b) Whether there is no such thing as "objective" value (i.e. value independent of particular - or indeed all - human observers).
You've had the debate about (b) many times, but refuse to accept that a godless universe can still contain acts and things of "objective" value; I assumed this was more about (a).
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou are right in that I am equating our value based upon the subjective viewpoint of God. However, this subjective view point is also objective in that he sees all, and knows all. His viewpoint is not skewed as ours is skewed. God's perspective is reality rather than trying to percieve reality in the way that we do.
Well, here you are ragging on one form of subjectivism because it precludes 'inherent value'. But, at the same time, your own solution that you present throughout the thread is nothing but a dialectically symmetric subjectivist position that also precludes inherent value. Basically, you claim that we are meaningful and valuable in "the grande scheme of ...[text shortened]... is, in fact, valuable because he values himself; or because his neighbor values him; or....
Originally posted by LemonJelloBut a meaning of some kind must exist to life. In order to concieve of an entity or notion of some kind we must have a point of reference. It is akin to trying to think of God outside of time. There is no way to do so because we have no point of reference in terms of experiencing this existence. So if there were no meaning to life then how could we know that there was no meaning to begin with? However, since there is meaning to life we can relate to such a notion because to us our lives have meaning. Granted, this meaning may not be as we invision it, however, there must be meaning nonetheless.
[b]However, it seems as if we all think our lives have meaning, therefore, it stands to reason that it must to some degree.
No, that line of thought doesn't stand to reason. It confuses descriptive considerations (related to what degree people think their lives are meaningful) with (meta-)ethical considerations (related to whether or not their lives actually are meaningful).[/b]
Originally posted by whodeySo whodey, you've decided to define "meaning" as "belief in God", then tell everyone who doesn't believe in God that they don't have meaning in their lives.
But a meaning of some kind must exist to life. In order to concieve of an entity or notion of some kind we must have a point of reference. It is akin to trying to think of God outside of time. There is no way to do so because we have no point of reference in terms of experiencing this existence. So if there were no meaning to life then how could we know t ...[text shortened]... Granted, this meaning may not be as we invision it, however, there must be meaning nonetheless.
And so, dear reader, debate is debased one more notch.
Originally posted by scottishinnzif you believe that there is no afterlife, then your only purpose is to reproduce. you need God to believe in afterlife, so you need God for a purpose.
So whodey, you've decided to define "meaning" as "belief in God", then tell everyone who doesn't believe in God that they don't have meaning in their lives.
And so, dear reader, debate is debased one more notch.
Originally posted by no1marauderyour only purpose is to reproduce just like all other animals, unless you believe in God creating the animals for us; that would make us above them. but if you dont believe in that then you believe animals are our equals and our purpose is to just reproduce.
That's three incorrect statements in one sentence.
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomRepeating incorrect statements doesn't make them correct.
your only purpose is to reproduce just like all other animals, unless you believe in God creating the animals for us; that would make us above them. but if you dont believe in that then you believe animals are our equals and our purpose is to just reproduce.
You can believe your life has a purpose whether you believe in an afterlife or not.
You don't need to believe in God to believe in an afterlife.
And you certainly don't need a belief in God for a purpose.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou forgot to mention that reproducing is only a purpose if you choose it to be.
Repeating incorrect statements doesn't make them correct.
You can believe your life has a purpose whether you believe in an afterlife or not.
You don't need to believe in God to believe in an afterlife.
And you certainly don't need a belief in God for a purpose.
Originally posted by scottishinnzNice to see you join the debate Scotty, however, I won't let you just squeek by with your one liners without answering some questions first. So tell me Scotty, how does one arrive at a "meaning" to something without conscious thought? If there is no conscience thought, is there meaning to anything? And once conscious thought is snuffed out, how can there be meaning to your life?
So whodey, you've decided to define "meaning" as "belief in God", then tell everyone who doesn't believe in God that they don't have meaning in their lives.
And so, dear reader, debate is debased one more notch.