• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?[W: 192]

Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

obvious Child said:
Someone used the fallacy of begging the question in another thread in first assuming that if God doesn't exist, life has no meaning.

What about God(s) gives life meaning?
Click to expand...

I think that for many, there is great comfort in seeing themselves as a part of the "Great Chain of Being."
 
Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

nota bene said:
I think that for many, there is great comfort in seeing themselves as a part of the "Great Chain of Being."
Click to expand...

But that in a sense is giving their own life meaning. God is merely the tool in which they do so. Ultimately, the meaning comes from within.

But I do agree with you there.
 
Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

Harshaw said:
If there is a God, then there is something eternal, with which you can join.
Click to expand...

Whoa there. What makes you think that?

If there is nothing eternal, everything done will be undone. Every species goes extinct, and humanity will be no exception, whatever we do now or at any time. The Earth gets swallowed by the sun no matter what happens between then and now. The universe follows entropy into lukewarm mush no matter what. So everything's pointless.
Click to expand...

Pointless to whom? Giving a starving child food is pointless because they'll eventually die?

So basically because if nothing will last forever, then it's just pointless and of no value? So if it somehow was determined that if there was no God, that every accomplishment you hold to be of value would suddenly become worthless and pointless?
 
Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

specklebang said:
Without god, there is no hope of an after-life and thus you are condemned to be in darkness for the next hundred trillion years. No god, no after-life. It's the only game in town.
Click to expand...

There is no "darkness" in death, only nothingness. All living things die or there would be no room for the new.
Mans greatest folly is to think he is different from any other creature on this Earth. It is an insult to his heritage.
 
Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

ashurbanipal said:
I'm surprised that no one has picked up on the canonical argument for this.

Let's focus on the meaning of "meaning." We won't manage to explicate all aspects of meaning in this thread, but one thing we can recognize is that meaning entails a two-place relation. As Wittgenstein observed, the notion of a private language doesn't make any sense. Language is the paradigm case of a carrier of meaning, and it is instructive in this sense.

But we need not restrict ourselves to consideration of language. Art is another prime carrier of meaning. When we look at a piece of art, meaning is conveyed, but that is only possible if there is both and artist and a viewer of art.

The problem should be obvious: if a thing is meaningful, there must be an other to appreciate it. But human lives are mortal. My life may be meaningful to my family and friends, but they will all die as well. And there is a valid question of the overall meaning of the lives of my family and friends. There can be a similarly valid question of the meaning of all human lives that will ever be lived.

Now, we need not restrict ourselves to sentience; rocks and rivers can have meaning (though it does seem that the receiving party in the meaning relation has to be sentient). And given this, we can stop the analysis here, because it should be obvious we'll end in just a couple of possible situations. First, we might have an infinite regress of two-place relations, with each 2nd-place in one relation becoming the first place in another. But to the extent we can name the infinite regress (as it seems we can), we can include it in its own relation. And what will form the second place in that relation?

Alternately, we might find something that genuinely terminates the set of relations. But what sort of thing would that be? It'd have to be something special with regard to meaning, capable of standing in both places of the meaning relation at the same time. I have no room to explain the ins and outs of what philosophers call "intension" (that's not a misspelling), but if you think about it as "about-ness" that's fairly close. Consider carefully (i.e. spend a few years thinking as clearly as you can) what this would take. A piece of art that is self-appreciating. A language that accomplishes genuine communication from speaker to hearer, but they are both the self-same thing. Etc.

Someone who wanted to deny the upshot might have recourse to say that perhaps life is just genuinely meaningless. Well, maybe so. But, someone who took that line would be left with the problem of explaining how meaning is created out of meaningless interactions. Again, I've no hope of getting into the many ins-and-outs of various attempts to do this. Let me just say that, as things stand right now, there's not so much optimism that it will be possible to do this. It's also not really possible to deny that there is such a thing as meaning. Language does have meaning. Art has meaning. We draw meaning from events.

It's a real problem. This doesn't mean it might not have an entirely naturalistic solution, but it's not clear that it does.

In a nutshell, that's the problem of meaning and how it relates to God.

One final note: this argument does not in any way establish, even if it succeeds, a traditional God, such as that of Christianity or Islam. However, it might be taken to lend support to the general notion that there is some kind of God.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I said, just longer.
 
Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

Peter Grimm said:
By meaning, I assume you mean importance, or worthy of attention.

If there is no God, who is there to deem us "worthy?" Who is there to deem us deserving of respect or attention?
Click to expand...

You are. Do you require some other authority for that? Respecting human dignity means regarding persons not just as means, but also as ends in themselves. This is why it’s wrong to use people for the sake of other peoples well- being or happiness. The reason we need to respect all human beings is that we are rational beings. We all have the capacity for reason. And it’s the exercise of that capacity for reason that exists in all of us. It's what separates us from other animals. Pure practical reason legislates a priori regardless of any particular contingent or empirical ends. Test it. Try to universalize it. Universalize the maxim on which you’re about to act. If everybody made promises they don’t keep, then nobody would believe such a promise. There would be no such thing as a promise. So there would be a contradiction. The maxim universalized would undermine itself. That’s the test. That’s how we know that the false promise is wrong.

Kant said, ” I say that man, and in general every rational being, exists as an end in himself, not merely as a means for arbitrary use by this or that will”.
 
Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

Adagio said:
You are. Do you require some other authority for that? Respecting human dignity means regarding persons not just as means, but also as ends in themselves. This is why it’s wrong to use people for the sake of other peoples well- being or happiness. The reason we need to respect all human beings is that we are rational beings. We all have the capacity for reason. And it’s the exercise of that capacity for reason that exists in all of us. It's what separates us from other animals. Pure practical reason legislates a priori regardless of any particular contingent or empirical ends. Test it. Try to universalize it. Universalize the maxim on which you’re about to act. If everybody made promises they don’t keep, then nobody would believe such a promise. There would be no such thing as a promise. So there would be a contradiction. The maxim universalized would undermine itself. That’s the test. That’s how we know that the false promise is wrong.

Kant said, ” I say that man, and in general every rational being, exists as an end in himself, not merely as a means for arbitrary use by this or that will”.
Click to expand...

By "us" I mean mankind as a whole.

Can human beings deem our own existence to be significant? Maybe, maybe not. That wasn't the question asked by the OP. Can God deem us significant? Yes, absolutely.

And for the record, I see nothing wrong with seeking God's validation.
 
Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

Risky Thicket said:
It is my belief that all things are God. If they are not, then God is not all things and thus there are other Gods. In my belief that worthy isn't relevent. Worthy of what? Worthy when?

Respect is relative. When I respect you I respect myself. When I disrespect myself I disrespect you. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Click to expand...

Respect is relative. When I respect you I respect myself. When I disrespect myself I disrespect you.
Click to expand...

Than that makes Respect universal. Not relative.

The Golden Rule depends on contingent facts about how people would like to be treated. The categorical imperative (Act only on that maxim whereby you can the same time will that it should be a universal law.) requires that we abstract from such contingencies and respect persons as rational beings, regardless of what they might want in a particular situation.

Suppose you learn that your brother has died in a car accident. Your elderly mother, in frail condition in a nursing home, asks for news of him. You are torn between telling her the truth and sparing her the shock and agony of it. What is the right thing to do? The Golden Rule would ask, “How would you like to be treated in a similar circumstance?” The answer, of course, is highly contingent.

Some people would rather be spared harsh truths at vulnerable moments, while others want the truth, however painful. You might well conclude that, if you found yourself in your mother’s condition, you would rather not be told.

However, this is the wrong question to ask. What matters is not how you (or your mother) would feel under these circumstances, but what it means to treat persons as rational beings, worthy of respect. Here is a case where compassion might point one way and respect another. From the standpoint of the categorical imperative, lying to your mother out of concern for her feelings would arguably use her as a means to her own contentment rather than respect her as a rational being.
 
Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

Peter Grimm said:
By "us" I mean mankind as a whole.

Can human beings deem our own existence to be significant? Maybe, maybe not. That wasn't the question asked by the OP. Can God deem us significant? Yes, absolutely.

And for the record, I see nothing wrong with seeking God's validation.
Click to expand...

Can human beings deem our own existence to be significant?
Click to expand...

Of course. Why wouldn't they?

Can God deem us significant? Yes, absolutely.
Click to expand...

But that begs the question of a Gods existence. In other words, in order for you to answer that in the affirnative, one has to first assume the existence of a diety. So we're realying on a theistic appeal to authority which requires a belief in that authority in order for the statement to be true. Not only that, we have to assume that the deity would be one that deems us as significant in some way superior to the rest of it's creation. Since we can't ever know that, then what other approach can we take.

And for the record, I see nothing wrong with seeking God's validation
Click to expand...

There isn't. But it's a religious and theistic view. It's based on a presumption, and it's not one that can be demonstrated as true. It requires a basis. That basis would be a Holy Book of some kind. But if truth requries a basis, then what is the basis for the basis? Looking for that answer leads to infinite regress vs dogma. And that can only end in somebody saying that the belief in it is it's own basis, which amounts to circular reasoning. That's a logical fallacy, and some people might have a hard time accepting a logical fallacy as a rational way of functioning.
 
Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

Peter Grimm said:
This is exactly what I said, just longer.
Click to expand...

Actually a lot of people picked up on this canonical argument. It's foundationalist. Wittgenstein was foundationalist. The great foundationalist programs of the past were attempts to justify our beliefs, where ‘justify’ meant showing them to be true, and ‘true’ meant corresponding to the facts. The collapse of foundationalism in the twentieth century is due to our discovery that it is impossible to justify our beliefs in this way. This is the great philosophical fact of the twentieth century.

Any attempt to justify our beliefs must lead either to psychologism, or to dogmatism, or to infinite regress. But neither psychologism nor dogmatism can demonstrate truth. Not only is it impossible to justify our beliefs, but attempts to do so may lead to authoritarianism of one form or another.

Kant pointed to Euclidean Geometry and Newtonian Mechanics as examples of what he called a priori synthetic knowledge. And he tried to explain how a priori synthetic knowledge was possible by saying that the mind imposes its laws upon nature in order to understand it, and that all rational beings impose the same laws. And that's foundational and it was the epistomology before Einstein.

Kant’s attempt to salvage the rationality of science collapsed when Einstein imposed a non-Euclidean geometry and a non-Newtonian physics upon nature. Einstein described a natural world that rational beings before him had never conceived. And his descriptions were then corroborated by the results of the experiments that he conceived in order to test them. The success of Einstein’s theory shattered all hopes of explaining the rationality of science in terms of a priori foundations. If Kant could be wrong about the a priori certainty of Newtonian Mechanics and Euclidean Geometry, then how could anyone ever claim to be a priori certain again?

Canonical means Of, relating to, or required by canon law. Law by what authority? Appeals to authority are logically false.
 
Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

Adagio said:
Of course. Why wouldn't they?



But that begs the question of a Gods existence. In other words, in order for you to answer that in the affirnative, one has to first assume the existence of a diety. So we're realying on a theistic appeal to authority which requires a belief in that authority in order for the statement to be true. Not only that, we have to assume that the deity would be one that deems us as significant in some way superior to the rest of it's creation. Since we can't ever know that, then what other approach can we take.



There isn't. But it's a religious and theistic view. It's based on a presumption, and it's not one that can be demonstrated as true. It requires a basis. That basis would be a Holy Book of some kind. But if truth requries a basis, then what is the basis for the basis? Looking for that answer leads to infinite regress vs dogma. And that can only end in somebody saying that the belief in it is it's own basis, which amounts to circular reasoning. That's a logical fallacy, and some people might have a hard time accepting a logical fallacy as a rational way of functioning.
Click to expand...

Let me restate the question posed by the OP: What about God(s) gives life meaning?

Given the wording of the question, aren't we operating under the premise that God exists? OP seems to be asking a philosophical question: What characteristic does God possess that gives our life meaning?

To this, I responded by first defining "meaning" as that which is important, or worthy of attention/respect. God's part in giving our lives meaning, therefore, is to be the entity that doles out the attention/respect, or deems us to be important in some way.

However, since you brought up the existence of God...

I argue that even if God were nonexistent, the mere belief in God gives meaning to life (as defined above).
 
Last edited:
Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

Adagio said:
Actually a lot of people picked up on this canonical argument. It's foundationalist. Wittgenstein was foundationalist. The great foundationalist programs of the past were attempts to justify our beliefs, where ‘justify’ meant showing them to be true, and ‘true’ meant corresponding to the facts. The collapse of foundationalism in the twentieth century is due to our discovery that it is impossible to justify our beliefs in this way. This is the great philosophical fact of the twentieth century.

Any attempt to justify our beliefs must lead either to psychologism, or to dogmatism, or to infinite regress. But neither psychologism nor dogmatism can demonstrate truth. Not only is it impossible to justify our beliefs, but attempts to do so may lead to authoritarianism of one form or another.

Kant pointed to Euclidean Geometry and Newtonian Mechanics as examples of what he called a priori synthetic knowledge. And he tried to explain how a priori synthetic knowledge was possible by saying that the mind imposes its laws upon nature in order to understand it, and that all rational beings impose the same laws. And that's foundational and it was the epistomology before Einstein.

Kant’s attempt to salvage the rationality of science collapsed when Einstein imposed a non-Euclidean geometry and a non-Newtonian physics upon nature. Einstein described a natural world that rational beings before him had never conceived. And his descriptions were then corroborated by the results of the experiments that he conceived in order to test them. The success of Einstein’s theory shattered all hopes of explaining the rationality of science in terms of a priori foundations. If Kant could be wrong about the a priori certainty of Newtonian Mechanics and Euclidean Geometry, then how could anyone ever claim to be a priori certain again?

Canonical means Of, relating to, or required by canon law. Law by what authority? Appeals to authority are logically false.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't characterize my line of reasoning as foundationalist, as you've defined it. I'm not trying to prove some canon law. I'm simply responding to the OP's question as it was presented - the OP assumes God's existence in the way his question is worded.
 
Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

obvious Child said:
Can I get someone who doesn't use the fallacy of begging the question?
Click to expand...

No fallacy. No question being begged. Just simple truth. Life could have no meaning, if there was no life. Life exists because God created it. Therefore, any meaning that life may have, it can only have because God created it.
 
Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

Bob Blaylock said:
No fallacy. No question being begged. Just simple truth. Life could have no meaning, if there was no life. Life exists because God created it. Therefore, any meaning that life may have, it can only have because God created it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that is a fallacy. Please look it up, it's been explained to you at least twice now why. It is YOUR opinion that God exists. Can you prove that there aren't multiple Gods that exist? (And yes, my question is a fallacy to make a point to you).
 
Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

obvious Child said:
Whoa there. What makes you think that?
Click to expand...

You didn't limit what you asked to a particular flavor of God, like a disinterested, deist God. That you will join God in the eternal hereafter is a staple of many mainstream religions. Or that there is an eternal cycle of life in which what you do in this life affects your next one.

Don't torpedo your own premise. You asked:

obvious Child said:
What about God(s) gives life meaning?
Click to expand...

I'm not here to argue whether or not the religions are right. Your question assumes arguendo there is a God.


Pointless to whom? Giving a starving child food is pointless because they'll eventually die?

So basically because if nothing will last forever, then it's just pointless and of no value? So if it somehow was determined that if there was no God, that every accomplishment you hold to be of value would suddenly become worthless and pointless?
Click to expand...

Yes. Everything -- everything -- comes out the same no matter what. Doing anything is exactly the same as doing anything else, ultimately. The value you place on it has no rational basis. It's ego, nothing more. Something you make up to comfort yourself.

The only reason you think anything you do is meaningful is because you're thinking too small.
 
Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

Peter Grimm said:
Let me restate the question posed by the OP: What about God(s) gives life meaning?

Given the wording of the question, aren't we operating under the premise that God exists? OP seems to be asking a philosophical question: What characteristic does God possess that gives our life meaning?

To this, I responded by first defining "meaning" as that which is important, or worthy of attention/respect. God's part in giving our lives meaning, therefore, is to be the entity that doles out the attention/respect, or deems us to be important in some way.

However, since you brought up the existence of God...

I argue that even if God were nonexistent, the mere belief in God gives meaning to life (as defined above).
Click to expand...


Good points on both counts. Well done.:applaud The post assumes the existance of a God as it's premise. And, if you believe in a God that gives meaning to your life, the question is settled. Now...a Deist may look at it differently. He accepts a Creator but doesn't see it as having any personal involvement in our lives at all. But if you believe that it does, for the believer, none of that matters. The belief makes it significant to him. I like your answer.
 
Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

Peter Grimm said:
I wouldn't characterize my line of reasoning as foundationalist, as you've defined it. I'm not trying to prove some canon law. I'm simply responding to the OP's question as it was presented - the OP assumes God's existence in the way his question is worded.
Click to expand...

It seemed to me that you were drawing from the argument being made from Wittgenstein, stating that it was your position. I don't think that argument holds up. That argument was foundationalism. I like your previous statement better. Given the premise of the question, I think your statement holds up. If you believe that a God exists, and that this God gives meaning to your life, then whether it does in anyone elses view or not is beside the point. For you, that works. I think you answered the question well, and I think the OP was hoping for something else. Why it gives meaning to your life, has to do with how that belief is shaped by you the believer. I don't think you need to justify that at all. It doesn't really matter if I subscribe to it, or anybody else does.

I was on a thread on a different website and got into quite an argument with a few of my fellow atheists on how Bill Richard, the father of young Martin Richard the boy killed at the Boston Marathon and his sister Janey who lost her leg, would cope with this tragic event. Even his wife was badly injured. How does this man cope with that kind of thing. There were many people that offered prayers and hoped he would turn to God for help. The atheists on the thread jumped at their throats, condemning a God that would not just let that happen, but caused it to happen. Their answer assumed a God that they don't even believe in. I felt it was completely out of place, out of touch and the mans grief was being used as a platform to attack others beliefs. Now...I don't believe in deity's, and I think that offering platitudes for the man at this time are distasteful. But...if his religious belief or faith will help him deal with this...isn't that all that matters?
 
Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

The title of the tread assumes the existence of God. It doesn't ask for proof of that assertion. IF you believe God exists, and you believe that this God is involved in your personal life...then does that God give your life meaning. Obviously the answer must be yes. That kind of God would give your life meaning. Perhaps it's false comfort, perhaps not. We can't prove or disprove the existence of an original source, so if in your view that source is real, then the question of whether it gives meaning to your life, is settled. You believe that it does. We could debate over whether such a God exists, or if that belief is rational, but I dont think we can debate over whether it's logical to assume that the belief gives a person's life meaning. Assuming that God exists, and assuming that this kind of God gives ones life meaning, then according to that persons belief...it does.
 
Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

obvious Child said:
Can I get someone who doesn't use the fallacy of begging the question?
Click to expand...

If you're talking to theists, probably not. They don't know how to speak without being fallacious.
 
Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

Adagio said:
Actually a lot of people picked up on this canonical argument. It's foundationalist. Wittgenstein was foundationalist. The great foundationalist programs of the past were attempts to justify our beliefs, where ‘justify’ meant showing them to be true, and ‘true’ meant corresponding to the facts.
Click to expand...

Well...I'm not sure I would characterize things quite this way. There were multiple theories of truth, including (as you note) correspondence theories, current in the 20th century.

Also, and perhaps more to the point, the argument I briefly sketched need make no reference to foundationalist claims. The infinite regress problem is a problem which foundationalism was supposed to solve in the epistemic domain. But we're not talking about knowledge. We're talking about meaning and intension.

Adagio said:
The collapse of foundationalism in the twentieth century is due to our discovery that it is impossible to justify our beliefs in this way. This is the great philosophical fact of the twentieth century.
Click to expand...

Well, what we seem to have discovered is that one cannot simultaneously hold foundationalist principles, insist on absolute certainty as enlightenment philosophy envisioned, and also believe that everything is open to question. There are still plenty of foundationalists working in epistemology, however. They usually just give up one of the other two beliefs (more usually, the insistence on Cartesian-type certainty).

It really doesn't seem correct to claim that foundationalism has collapsed. It has contemporary and near-contemporary proponents. Alvin Plantinga and Michael Wolterstorff come to mind, as do Jim Pryor and Michael Huemer. Indeed, anyone who is an internalist is probably a foundationalist to some extent. Some versions of externalism also have a foundationalist "flavor."

Adagio said:
Any attempt to justify our beliefs must lead either to psychologism, or to dogmatism, or to infinite regress. But neither psychologism nor dogmatism can demonstrate truth. Not only is it impossible to justify our beliefs, but attempts to do so may lead to authoritarianism of one form or another.
Click to expand...

Taken as you've stated it, this would seem to lead to a very strict relativism. I don't think the critics of foundationalism have it in mind that literally any attempt at justification (or warrant) ends up with the consequences you've named.

Adagio said:
Kant pointed to Euclidean Geometry and Newtonian Mechanics as examples of what he called a priori synthetic knowledge. And he tried to explain how a priori synthetic knowledge was possible by saying that the mind imposes its laws upon nature in order to understand it, and that all rational beings impose the same laws. And that's foundational and it was the epistomology before Einstein.
Click to expand...

Despite this, there is considerable support (even among those who are fully aware of the impact relativity has had) for the view that Kant got the basic idea right. We do seem to require such categories as unity and plurality, or relation and negation (or something like them) to understand any given thing.

The fact that Kant thought such judgments were not about the ding an sich, but only the phenomenal world, raises a question in my mind about whether what you've said here is an accurate assessment of Kant's contribution.

Adagio said:
Kant’s attempt to salvage the rationality of science collapsed when Einstein imposed a non-Euclidean geometry and a non-Newtonian physics upon nature.
Click to expand...

Well...this is odd. Are you saying that Einstein did essentially what Kant did, just with a different set of concepts?

Adagio said:
Einstein described a natural world that rational beings before him had never conceived. And his descriptions were then corroborated by the results of the experiments that he conceived in order to test them. The success of Einstein’s theory shattered all hopes of explaining the rationality of science in terms of a priori foundations. If Kant could be wrong about the a priori certainty of Newtonian Mechanics and Euclidean Geometry, then how could anyone ever claim to be a priori certain again?
Click to expand...

See remarks above.

Adagio said:
Canonical means Of, relating to, or required by canon law. Law by what authority? Appeals to authority are logically false.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what it means for a proposition to be "logically false"--I would take this to mean that the proposition is contradictory, but presumably you mean "fallacious." But this is not always the case. It's not fallacious, for instance, to consult a medical doctor about an illness and accept her advice. Nor is it fallacious to consult a Bishop about church doctrine. It's only fallacious when the domain of authority is taken to extend beyond its reasonable borders.

Anyway, this isn't the only meaning of "canon."
 
Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

A statement like yours would greatly benefit from an IMHO placed in front of it. Unless you are privy to some information that absolutely nobody else has.

Darkness, nothingness, pain, light, angels, devils, virgins....any of these are possible.

...and that heritage thing could use a bit more explaining. Not that I personally view "man" as more than a monkey who uses a fork but "insult to heritage"? How does that work?




iguanaman said:
There is no "darkness" in death, only nothingness. All living things die or there would be no room for the new.
Mans greatest folly is to think he is different from any other creature on this Earth. It is an insult to his heritage.
Click to expand...
 
Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

specklebang said:
A statement like yours would greatly benefit from an IMHO placed in front of it. Unless you are privy to some information that absolutely nobody else has.

Darkness, nothingness, pain, light, angels, devils, virgins....any of these are possible.

...and that heritage thing could use a bit more explaining. Not that I personally view "man" as more than a monkey who uses a fork but "insult to heritage"? How does that work?
Click to expand...

Denying humanities eternal link with all creatures on Earth is like denying our existence. It poisons our spirit and reduces our precious lives to a "waiting room" for heaven.
Enjoy and protect all Earths creatures, we are all a part of the same cycle of life.
 
Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

Didn't intend to deny links with creatures.

“"I meant," said Ipslore bitterly, "what is there in this world that truly makes living worth while?" Death thought about it "Cats," he said eventually, "Cats are Nice”


iguanaman said:
Denying humanities eternal link with all creatures on Earth is like denying our existence. It poisons our spirit and reduces our precious lives to a "waiting room" for heaven.
Enjoy and protect all Earths creatures, we are all a part of the same cycle of life.
Click to expand...
 
Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

specklebang said:
Didn't intend to deny links with creatures.

“"I meant," said Ipslore bitterly, "what is there in this world that truly makes living worth while?" Death thought about it "Cats," he said eventually, "Cats are Nice”
Click to expand...

But you do admit that the belief in eternal life means we are not of this planet. All earthly living things die and are replaced by new ones. It's how life works here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom