Meaningfulness v meaninglessness; theism vs atheism;

[Edwardo Piet]

In response to Doubtvsfaith,

*Gets hopes up*

I suppose the only point I'm trying to make is that there are legitimate systems of belief within Theism which account for an objective reason.

Not if those objective reasons are false.

This is important because it allows us to be what we are, moral creatures.

No. Whether there is objective morality or not we're still the same as we always were.

Each of us have within us the conviction that we are meaningful

Subjectively, yes. But we don't all believe we have objective meaning. I thought we were dealing with objective meaning?

and that there is in fact an objective right and wrong.

No, we don't all have that conviction. Only those of us who believe in objective morality have that conviction.

We all acknowledge a broken world, where something is missing.

No, that's a matter of perspective, once again. It depends what your subjective meaning is regardless of whether there is any objective meaning.

Why do you keep claiming that these things apply to everyone? How do they?

This thing that is missing is the unmoved mover

How?

I believe Christianity more than any other system gives an account that best fills that hole that we know exists.

So you believe it. So what? That doesn't make it true. What's your point?

Within Christianity I believe that Catholicism has the greatest claim to being the actual body that has guarded and handed down the teachings of Christ.

How is that true?

The former statement is beyond the scope of this discussiong, and frankly I do not beleive it would make any sense without first passing the initial hurdle of believeing in a God that is omnipotent and omnibenevelont.

What is the point of your statement?

After which one would accept a personal God who seeks to fellowship with us, I believe Christianity best suits the purpose, in every way, rationally and intuitively.

And how is that true?

Once that hurdle is passed I beleive one will come to the conclusion that Jesus' teachings make most sense within Catholicism.

Whether that conclusion is true or not is of course another matter.

I do not even intend to argue the latter two points because they are points that are built upon way more elementary points that would have to be made first.

Are you going to substantiate any of your points at all?

Catholicism is not irrational because you can not use reason to demonstrate that it is irrational.

You have your own rationality but the question is whether it's valid or not.

You can say that it is not necessarily true, to which I would respond, why yes, that is exactly what Jesus teaches us when He says that one must come to God with faith.

I say: "How is it true?"

That is actually a very rational thing for Jesus to say as it is irrational to say that one can have a rational knowledge of the Divine, as the Divine is not natural or temporal, but supernatural and eternal.

How is any of that true?

One could claim that it is irrational to believe that someone could be risen from the dead, but this is not irrational if one presupposes that there is a Supernatural being.

And how is such a presupposition rational?

I am not saying that this should be convincing, only that it is certainly not irrational,

The question is whether your rationality is at all valid, and how are your claims true?

It seems to me that when one hits on the ressurection you're still hitting on the same point I intend to make in this forum, that is that is death and meaninglessness the ultimate reality, or is it possible that there is the Supernatural.

Outside tautology meaning in life is a matter of opinion. If you believe there is objective meaning (besides tautology) that doesn't make it true, and you can find life equally meaningful simply by having subjective meaning. After all, any so-called "objective meaning" can be subjectively viewed as meaningless, and any so-called "objective meaninglessness" can be subjectively viewed as meaningful. It is not objective meaning that matters then, it is subjective meaning. I say, only believe in objective meaning if it is actually true. And how is it true?