Life without God, Meaningless?

[Elioenai26]

Here I am a Lover of God to say that living life itself is what gives meaning to a person. Not God.

.

You mean: that is what gives meaning to you.

I and many others would disagree with your assertion that living life itself is what gives meaning to a person, not God.

 

[Elioenai26]

Currently doing a YouTube debate with an Atheist, his question to me is: If you were persuaded that God does not exist, would you then consider your life to be meaningless?

What do you guys think? What is the best way to answer this question?

I would simply ask him: "What evidence do you have that would persuade me that He does not exist?"

If he is unable to answer this simple question, then just tell him until he can, then discussing what your take on life's meaning "would" be is immaterial.

The question is hypothetical and really is not one of the more challenging questions he could have asked you.

 

[keith99]

Currently doing a YouTube debate with an Atheist, his question to me is: If you were persuaded that God does not exist, would you then consider your life to be meaningless?

What do you guys think? What is the best way to answer this question?

Would you consider absolutely everything about the time you spent in Church related activities completely worthless and nothing more than a waste of time?

Completely that is!

Did you make no friends? If it was shown to all of you that your God does not exist is there then absolutely nothing of value left?

I still call myself agnostic, but lean more and more toward athiesm. Still I value highly things I have learned from Christians. From the famous ones especially from Lewis and Bonhoeffer.

I think your God most likely does not exist. I still see some value in many thigns done in his name. Perhaps without the glossy shine many Christians do. But where there is Gold even covered in soot I still see it.

Of course I do not worship it.

 

[Gadarene]

Unreasonable.... hmm... is that your opinion, or are you asserting that as a fact that is true for everyone?

There is no good reason to think that 'objective' meaning as defined by Christians etc exists, because it is dependent on a god, and there is no good reason to think he exists to establish meaning.

 

[Elioenai26]

There is no good reason to think that 'objective' meaning as defined by Christians etc exists, because it is dependent on a god, and there is no good reason to think he exists to establish meaning.

Care to build an argument for your position and engage in a debate with me?

 

[quatona]

You mean: that is what gives meaning to you.

I and many others would disagree with your assertion that living life itself is what gives meaning to a person, not God.

You mean: that is what gives meaning to you and them.

 

[quatona]

Care to build an argument for your position and engage in a debate with me?

Well, we have already seen your best reasons and discussed them.

 

[Elioenai26]

You mean: that is what gives meaning to you and them.

Correct! Yay quatona Yay!

 

[Elioenai26]

Well, we have already seen your best reasons and discussed them.

No you all have not seen my best reasons, and therefore, no you all have not discussed them.

Nor have we up to this point engaged in debate, but amicable discussion.

I would like to invite you specifically, to engage in a formal debate on the question: "Does God Exist?" and I would like for you to represent whatever position you adhere to.

If you do not desire to do so, then that is your choice.

 

[quatona]

No you all have not seen my best reasons, and therefore, no you all have not discussed them.

So you wasted our time giving us just the poorer ones of your reasons?
Don´t know why anyone would do that, but ok.
Feel free to present the best ones.

Nor have we up to this point engaged in debate, but amicable discussion.

I would like to invite you specifically, to engage in a formal debate on the question: "Does God Exist?" and I would like for you to represent whatever position you adhere to.

No, thanks, I have no position on this question; furthermore I don´t think debates are a particularly fruitful form of communication.

If you do not desire to do so, then that is your choice.

Sure, who else´s choice could it possibly be?

 

[Elioenai26]

So you wasted our time giving us just the poorer ones of your reasons?

I said I have not given you the best reasons meaning specifically four other mainline arguments for the existence of God, not including the Cosmological argument, which would make five plus several other arguments which, when compiled and approached as a whole, make a powerful case for the existence of God.

Most apologists, myself included, believe that one of the best, if not the best argument from science and philosophy would be the Teleological argument.

None of the arguments are poor, and the Cosmological argument is just one of them.

Don´t know why anyone would do that, but ok.

I have supplied one argument of the several that exist to see how it was received, and I see that the argument was successful in showing that God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe.

Feel free to present the best ones.

Thank you for being willing to hear them. I shall refrain from doing so for now until someone can come up with a good argument as to why the Cosmological argument is not viable as a good argument for the existence of God.

 

[Davian]

I said I have not given you the best reasons meaning specifically four other mainline arguments for the existence of God, not including the Cosmological argument, which would make five plus several other arguments which, when compiled and approached as a whole, make a powerful case for the existence of God.

Most apologists, myself included, believe that one of the best, if not the best argument from science and philosophy would be the Teleological argument.

That explains your time spent on the definition of 'atheism'. Not much success there.

None of the arguments are poor, and the Cosmological argument is just one of them.

I have supplied one argument of the several that exist to see how it was received, and I see that the argument was successful in showing that God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe.

Where did you see that?

Thank you for being willing to hear them. I shall refrain from doing so for now until someone can come up with a good argument as to why the Cosmological argument is not viable as a good argument for the existence of God.

You are contradicting yourself here. You claim to have been successful with it; what are you waiting for?

 

[quatona]

I have supplied one argument of the several that exist to see how it was received, and I see that the argument was successful in showing that God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe.

cough...cough...

Thank you for being willing to hear them. I shall refrain from doing so for now until someone can come up with a good argument as to why the Cosmological argument is not viable as a good argument for the existence of God.

I see you have lowered your standards. When you presented it you still called it "the best explanation", "evidence" for the existence of God, "scientific evidence" even.
The flaws in the cosmological argument, and particularly in your version of it, have been pointed out in your "apologia" argument time and again. I don´t see any good reason why to start the whole thing again.

 

[Noxot]

life with God is meaningless if I decide it is.
life without God is meaningless if I decide it is.

so what would God existing or not existing have to do with my feelings? I could argue that your belief that God does not exist is based on your feelings too and so your very own attack that could deconstruct my belief system can also deconstruct your belief system. even if everyone thought that God existed only because they feared having no purpose, it would not mean that God does not exist. and if I everyone believed that God did not exist, that would not make it true unless peoples beliefs are the makers of truth, which is plain to see that that is as absurd as believing that God exist because I want to believe it.

so tearing down mutable things does not tear down that which is true. Neither can something that is defined and named tear down that which is before all things, not named, nor contained (i.e. God, first cause, mover but not moved ). However something contained can tear down other things that are contained but that would not affect that which is true and non-mutable. So both your beliefs and my beliefs can be torn down but whatever the truth is could not be torn down and so to attempt to destroy the possibility of the existence of God based on someones feelings or beliefs is not solving the problem but it is simply one finite thing affecting another finite thing and so it is a great big walking in a circle without really getting to a real conclusion.

so what is the point of your question if it can not prove or disprove God? and what is the real purpose of us having this conversation? since we are both finite I wonder how we could prove whether God exist or does not exist? If you and I are not trying to find what is true then all we are doing is trying to change each other without really trying to find out what is truly true.

 

[Elioenai26]

You are contradicting yourself here. You claim to have been successful with it; what are you waiting for?

I have been successful in my estimation on the matter. I am therefore waiting for someone to come up with good arguments and refutations to it.

Until that time, I see no reason in presenting more evidence when sufficient evidence has been provided.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/FONT]
Expert Testimony​

-“Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.” -Agnostic Astronomer and author Dr. Robert Jastrow

-“The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural.” - Arthur Eddington, British Astrophysicist and philosopher of science

-Religion and science are opposed...but only in the same sense as that in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between the two, one can grasp anything. -Physicist Sir William Bragg

-"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -Albert Einstein

-Science only provides a car and chauffeur for us. It does not tell us where to drive. The car and the chauffeur will take us into the highlands or into the ditch with equal efficiency. -Dr. George Lundberg, professor of sociology at the University of Washington

-The scientific method can teach us nothing beyond how facts are related to and conditioned by each other...knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduce from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. -Albert Einstein

-The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. -Stephen Hawking, British Theoretical Physicist and author

-“Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover…That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.” -Agnostic Astronomer and author Dr. Robert Jastrow

-“The scientist’s pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation. This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and earth.” Agnostic Astronomer and author Dr. Robert Jastrow

-A proponent of the Big Bang Theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the universe came from nothing and by nothing. - Anthony Kenny, British author and atheist​

 

[Elioenai26]

cough...cough...




I see you have lowered your standards. When you presented it you still called it "the best explanation", "evidence" for the existence of God, "scientific evidence" even.
The flaws in the cosmological argument, and particularly in your version of it, have been pointed out in your "apologia" argument time and again. I don´t see any good reason why to start the whole thing again.

1. Yes, the premises are supported by scientific research and observations.

2. "Flaws" as you call them, are more adequately described as questions regarding the first two premises of the KCA. They were addressed by me in the fourty plus pages of material. I shall reference you to them.

3. I do not see any good reason to start the whole thing again either!




-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Expert Testimony

-“Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.” -Agnostic Astronomer and author Dr. Robert Jastrow

-“The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural.” - Arthur Eddington, British Astrophysicist and philosopher of science

-Religion and science are opposed...but only in the same sense as that in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between the two, one can grasp anything. -Physicist Sir William Bragg

-"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -Albert Einstein

-Science only provides a car and chauffeur for us. It does not tell us where to drive. The car and the chauffeur will take us into the highlands or into the ditch with equal efficiency. -Dr. George Lundberg, professor of sociology at the University of Washington

-The scientific method can teach us nothing beyond how facts are related to and conditioned by each other...knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduce from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. -Albert Einstein

-The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. -Stephen Hawking, British Theoretical Physicist and author

-“Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover…That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.” -Agnostic Astronomer and author Dr. Robert Jastrow

-“The scientist’s pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation. This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and earth.” Agnostic Astronomer and author Dr. Robert Jastrow

-A proponent of the Big Bang Theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the universe came from nothing and by nothing. - Anthony Kenny, British author and atheist​

 

[Elioenai26]

life with God is meaningless if I decide it is.
life without God is meaningless if I decide it is.

so what would God existing or not existing have to do with my feelings? I could argue that your belief that God does not exist is based on your feelings too and so your very own attack that could deconstruct my belief system can also deconstruct your belief system. even if everyone thought that God existed only because they feared having no purpose, it would not mean that God does not exist. and if I everyone believed that God did not exist, that would not make it true unless peoples beliefs are the makers of truth, which is plain to see that that is as absurd as believing that God exist because I want to believe it.

so tearing down mutable things does not tear down that which is true. Neither can something that is defined and named tear down that which is before all things, not named, nor contained (i.e. God, first cause, mover but not moved ). However something contained can tear down other things that are contained but that would not affect that which is true and non-mutable. So both your beliefs and my beliefs can be torn down but whatever the truth is could not be torn down and so to attempt to destroy the possibility of the existence of God based on someones feelings or beliefs is not solving the problem but it is simply one finite thing affecting another finite thing and so it is a great big walking in a circle without really getting to a real conclusion.

so what is the point of your question if it can not prove or disprove God? and what is the real purpose of us having this conversation? since we are both finite I wonder how we could prove whether God exist or does not exist? If you and I are not trying to find what is true then all we are doing is trying to change each other without really trying to find out what is truly true.

I am just wondering how you arrived at the conclusion that I don't believe in God!

 

[Noxot]

I am just wondering how you arrived at the conclusion that I don't believe in God!

that was directed at the OP

 

[quatona]

1. Yes, the premises are supported by scientific research and observations.

It´s more like they do not directly fly in the face of science. That´s all.

2. "Flaws" as you call them, are more adequately described as questions regarding the first two premises of the KCA. They were addressed by me in the fourty plus pages of material. I shall reference you to them.

So at least you found your argument and its defense convincing? That´s good to hear.

3. I do not see any good reason to start the whole thing again either!

But to tell from what I have seen from you you will - any time you are stuck.
(I notice even the huge sig-line with large fonts thing has returned.)

 

[KCfromNC]

I have been successful in my estimation on the matter.

Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia