The op starts with the suggestion that a god gives meaning or meaning does not exist. That is a classic fallacious attempt to insist a god exists without evidence or reason, just purpose.
Inconsequential, as you knew as well as i.
Not at all. as it is not the claim being made it is only the logical consequence of the claim, which is, no evidence or even a good reason has ever been given for a god. So there is no reason to accept that a god is anything but someones imagination.
Yet no once have you or any other theist has managed anything beyond claiming faith.
Go back and read your own op. No evidence of a god nor any good reason. Merely a suggestion that it and it alone is responsible for giving meaning to our lives.
So you are then taking a position that it is a god that gives meaning?
My reason is that i have taken a side that there is no god to give meaning. What is your reason?
I repeat for the fourth time, the OP presents a hypothetical: IF God exists, then universal meaning follows; IF God does not exist, then universal meaning does not follow. There is no "insistence" in the OP either way.
Inconsequential to you apparently, but not to the poster you misrepresent.
Again, the OP requires no argument for the existence (or non-existence) of God. And again, if an argument were needed, I am fully prepared to make that argument, and have made that argument in the other extant thread (Dragonfly's) on the hypothetical non-existence of God. I'll gladly reproduce it here if you are interested.
Again, you are confusing me with others who have argued (eloquently, I might add) for their faith. Again, I remind you that I am NOT arguing faith; wherever I have argued for the existence of God, my argument is based on KNOWLEDGE, not faith. Please try to get this straight.
Go back and re-read the OP. No evidence or reason is required to discuss the universal meaning contingent on the existence or non-existence of a Creator God.
And God's absence removes that meaning, yes.
I agree with you. No God, no Meaning (capital M). Your view is covered in the OP. That possibility is addressed. Likewise the opposing view. My view is that without God there is no universal meaning; with God, there is universal meaning. That's my reason to be here, to argue that God is a necessary condition for universal meaning. And I've argued for this thesis in at Posts #47, #99, #102, #134, #149, #153, #171, #172, #174, #183, #185, #200, to name a few.
All I want you to acknowledge is that something can be meaningful even if we don;t know the meaning. Have you acknowledged that? Will you acknowledge that?
I've already pointed out to you that philosophically all knowledge is belief, but only some belief is knowledge. Knowledge is justified true belief. My belief is justified and true.
As already pointed out in previous posts, all believe is subjective in the sense that it is of the mind. If this is all you're saying, then we have no disagreement.
But you dont even know if it is meaningful let alone what the meaning is. Can you acknowledge that you dont know there is a universal meaning?
And you are wrong. That is NOT what the link you posted was saying and it wasn't what I was talking about either. You said you KNEW God existed. I pointed out that you didn't know you merely believed. Even according to the link you gave your claims of Knowledge of Gods existence is false and is nothing more than a belief.
Yup I agree with this
I can see no other way your view can be assessed
I disagree there is no reason God cannot exist and there still not be any universal meaning.
Again you are making assumptions based on your beliefs. There is no reason why God can exist and there still be no universal meaning.
Again an assumption that has no basis.
No it isn't. there is no evidence at all
The principle of sufficient reason is an illogical argument worth nothing at all. There is no evidence of God and no logical argument that God exists any more than there is evidence or logical arguments against God(s)
Apparently not
Well, it was nice seeing you again anyway. A "coffee klatch" is two or more pals chatting over coffee and whatnot in a cafe. Pret a Manger is an eatery chain in Great Britain and the USA.
You can say anything you want, David. No one's stopping you. The cogency of what you are free to say is another matter altogether. But no one's stopping you from accounting for what you are free to say. So tell us about this "invisible force located in a black hole in the center of reality." What's the story there? How did you arrive at the concept and in what way is universal meaning "reliant" on it? Only in that direction does cogency lie. Otherwise someone might suspect you of flippancy.
Of course there is an insstence there. One that states a god must exist. because no other alternative to a meaning of life is given other than an existence of a god.
It did not misrepresent, i stated quite clearly that words in bold were yours.
The argument assumes that meaning is inherent in the existence of a god. Otherwise there is no meaning to life. You could not state any more clearer that it is an argument for the existence of a god.
and as has been pointed out your arguments are flawed because they always start from a position that a god is possible without giving any reason as to why we should consider it, just assume it is true. You show faith that existence is possiblre and then argue on that basis claiming knowledge that it is true.
The very first line of the op
Sounds like you need a god to exist to have meaning.
Which contradicts your denial that no evidence or reason is required to discuss the universal meaning.
I am not disputing that. You have taken a position that a god must exist to give meaning. Without, once again giving any reason as to why we need consider a god at all.
"[Your] ability to say anything proves that anyone can make something up that has no basis at all outside of their own imagination"?
Meaning is presumably what we're both sharing in our posts to this thread, David. We're communicating mind-to-mind by proxy, exchanging ideas by way of a system of signs we both understand. The ideas may refer to something inside the mind (concepts) or outside the mind (World) or both inside and outside. Meaning is a creative, intentional act. The artist engages in essentially the same intentional act in creating a work of art. During this process the brain contains nothing but electro-chemical discharges in matter, and doesn't help us one whit in understanding the topic under discussion.
Universal meaning. Personal meaning is not denied either in the OP or anywhere else in the thread; in fact, personal meaning is affirmed.
But you didn't make it clear that the bolding wasn't mine. Look, no harm no foul, but when one alters the text of a quote, some indication of the alteration is expected in civil discourse. Let's move on, yes?
You're ignoring half the OP.
I am nowhere arguing from faith, neither in this thread or any other thread. The possibility of God is logical.
Universal meaning.
You're confusing what I said about God with what I said about universal meaning. Didn't I point you to some dozen posts wherein I provide evidence and argument on the question of meaning?
A hypothetical does not require a reason beyond the generation of discussion.
Subjectivity is empirical, and yet science cannot account for it; likewise, the universe and life on earth.
If the universe had a begining, then something brought it about. I think calling that something a "power" is an understatement.
Wherever it formed, the origin of life is a mystery. But good luck to you and Anisimov, Gibson and Wickramasinghe and all the rest of your jolly band of peers. Hollywood is always in the market for good science fiction by the way.
If nothing special, then why does it continue to elude science's best efforts to account for it?
You don't know what I know; you only believe you know, and you do so because you comprehend the world around you in reductionist scientific terms.
And neither are you, though you kid yourself in thinking otherwise.
In this case i fail to see the distinction. Universal or personal still rely on a belief in a god exists as a starting hidden premise rather than any proof of a gods existence.
The bolding was mine along with the words pointing out that the bolded part was your words. Anyone reading that would have had no problem understanding that the words were yours.
No i am quite happy to take the position of te other half, there is no god and meaning is a personal opinion rather than a fact by a non existent god. You on the other hand are taking the position that there is a god and without one life has no meaning.
The logic requires you to start with a premise that a god is possible. Unfortunately there is simply no reason as to why we should start with that premise unless we already have faith that a god is possible. Your logic is somewhat circular.
A bit like universal morality. You still need a god for it to be considered.
You are repeating the same idea over again. Either god exists and therefor there is meaning or he doesn't and there isn't. So you need a god to give meaning. If you has stated this as personal then i would have shrugged and said not my business and moved on. But you declare this to be universal. So that takes you back to prove a god or you have nothing.
The discussion however relies on you proving an existence of a god in order to maintain a universal meaning.
As a personal courtesy and as part of discursive etiquette, if you alter a quote, the alteration should be indicated.
The phrase "personal meaning" was used early in the thread to distinguish meaning found in an individual life, say through family or career or personal interests, without a belief in God. This argument came from those arguing against the need for God in order to find meaning in life.
This is almost correct. Your mistake is to attribute my position to me in the OP. This is incorrect. My position emerged in the course of the subsequent posts in the thread.
Nothing circular about it. Logic is not a matter of faith. To say that the concept of God involves no logical impossibility is not an expression of faith; it is a statement of logic. No faith required.
A bit like universal morality. You still need a god for it to be considered.
This is correct.
I don't have to prove anything. The OP presents a hypothetical -- it supposes what it proposes for the sake of argument.
This is correct. Discuss.
The discussion does not rely on my proving anything, and the OP addresses both theists and atheists, and I don't regret anything about the OP -- I'm very pleased with the way the discussion has proceeded in fact.
