Question about meaning and perception of reality from a theist.

[amkerman]

Welsch: "can people find a sence of purpose in their life w/o imaginary friends..."
- it is YOU who are presupposing God is imaginary. Straight off the gun you beg the question.

"You made the erroneous presumption God exists without evidence."
- where? Not once did I state God exists. None of my claims or queries needs God. In fact my entire question is how life can have objective purpose without God.

"We're not in denial."
- I never said anyone on here is. Until now. You most definitely ARE in denial.

"No deity has ever been demonstrated to exist."
- commits the fallacy of invincible ignorance. You know this.

"Existence is void of real (objective) meaning."
- so your answer is real meaning doesn't exist and neither does God. No problem with that, you should have just stated it from the get go.

"Rationalization is the wrong word"
- No. It's not. Rationalization is the mental act of justifying ones beliefs or actions...

"People haven't done anything inherently wrong or unacceptable by simply trying to justify their own lives (rationalization), giving themselves a reason to live, and then living them accordingly."
- well if it's a false belief (which you just stated above) then it is just a belief in God by another name. If there is nothing inherently wrong or unacceptable with believing in real purpose then there is nothing inherently wrong or unacceptable with believing in God. Both are fine by me.

"what is the point you are trying to make"
- that any belief in an objective reality is equivalent to a belief in God.

[reverendjeremiah]

Can life have meaning w/o God?

Maybe. It would be a personal and temporary meaning, but a meaning none the less. There would be no universal meaning.

I mean I understand how we could perceive it to be have meaninb w/o God, but that perception is just illusory isn't it?

"God" does not fix the problem of meaning. If a God exists then it still does nothing to fix the problem as many contradicting religions exist. Many contradicting governing models exist. Many contradicting philosophies exist. If a God exist, and a God is supposed to clear up said "illusory meanings", then why does so much confusion continue in this world...and dont you dare say "because of the devil", because this does nothing to change the fact that this all powerful god ALLOWS such an illusion to exist...."God" does nothing to fix the human condition of the absurd.

Without God aren't life and death ultimately meaningless?

My life is not meaningless to me, and I would see that regardless of wether a God or a million gods or no gods existed. It doesnt effect the opinion. What you are asking is an OPINION. "Meaning" is an opinion. So if you suddenly quit believing in god you would become a mass murderer? My life is personally meaningful to ME. Damned be to you or anyone elses opinion on it. Is that not enough that even though I realize there is no inherent purpose in life that I can still consider my own life precious for the sake of my own life?

As far as I can understand EITHER life has real meaning and there must be something real which we call "God" or "meaning" OR any "meaning" in life is illusory and people choose to believe in the illusion of God to give their life meaning.

In other words, your OPINION is that life is meaningless without your God telling you what to do. If you so desperately need that crutch to give you meaning then continue to cling to it. You have comited intellectual suicide. "I refuse to accept that I can have my own personal meaning in life. Therefore I will kill my will and allow someone elses meaning to be opposed upon me." I understand. Life is difficult and decisions are hard. Its easy to let someone else take over and tell you right from wrong.

Believing that meaning is real but that "God" is illusory doesn't make any sense.

Only to you. Why? Because you have chosen to give up and let someone else call all of the shots. You have killed your power to be and allowed authority of another over your life. You are week and cannot cope with reality, therefore you have given your life over to your "Lord and savior Jesus Christ". Even if he exists, it does not change that fact that meaning is merely an opinion. I follow my opinions, and I am very aware that it is merely an opinion. You, on the other hand, allow some other persons (God) opinion to control you.

This of course is assuming that your god actually exists in reality. If your God DOESNT exist in reality, then you are following the opinions of a dusty old book written thousands of years ago.

It's exactly the same belief. It would just be another unverifiable belief for which the word "God" has been replaced with the word "meaning".

Excuse me? My "meaning" is not anywhere near the definition of a "god". Please dont mix up definitions if you wish to be taken seriously.

If someone could explain how life has real meaning without "God" I am all ears. Honestly I'm not trying to get into an argument I just want to hear the rationalization.

Your problem is that you are putting all meaning into this "god" fellow.

When you have sex, what is the MEANING behind it for you? God? Be honest. do you have sex because god made you to have or want sex? Or do you have sex because you like to feel good? Things can have temporary and personal meaning in the moment. Suggesting that some phantasmal "grand meaning" exist is not only tedious, but impossible for the human mind to attain regardless of wether a "god" exists or not.

Now you have placed all of your meaning into this eternal tyrant wether he exists or not. And he very much is a tyrant now since you have placed all of the meaning of your life upon him. He is the end all be all of everything you do, hope and dream now. He is the tyrant of your life. You live for him willingly. You have killed your will for His sake. You are no longer your own person, but now live your life according to the will of another.

If you believe it can't and it doesn't that's fine, it's just a difference of opinion. I AM NOT ATTACKING ANYONE's BELIEFS.

But if a universal meaning existed then beliefs would not be necesary. Cant you see that? If a universal meaning existed such as what you try to suggest, then it would be obvious like gravity is obvious. It would be obvious like "this red apple is red" obvious.

Furthermore, since all of our understanding of reality is based upon our perceptions, isn't the belief in the validity of human "perception" exactly the same as a belief in "God"? They are both ultimately beliefs in the unverifiable.

Which god? What god? How many of them exist? Why not a goddess? Do you mean Thor? What is the criteria for something to be "God". Why must such a being existing conclude that I give over my will and my cherished ability to find my own personal meaning over to it in favor of living ITS meaning for me? Why create me as an individual then demand every moment of my life be subordinate to its whim. If an all powerful god exists, then it is already in control of everything, therefore the chaos of multiple religions and governments is what it intends for us to live in and form our own meanings with..which means me being an atheist is EXACTLY what your god wanted and therefore my meaning is what I chose it to be WITH your god still existing.

Yes, atheists can have personal meaning with or without your god.

[KichigaiNeko]

rev?? another one for your fan club!!

Thank you

[Jackalope]

Welsch: "can people find a sence of purpose in their life w/o imaginary friends..."
- it is YOU who are presupposing God is imaginary. Straight off the gun you beg the question.

It's fallacious to presuppose things exist who's existence is not demonstrable. This is basic to logical arguments. The burden is on the one making the positive claim.

Not once did I state God exists. None of my claims or queries needs God. In fact my entire question is how life can have objective purpose without God.

That has to be on of the most disingenuous statements I've seen here in a long time, and that's saying something.

Why the hell did I take you off ignore?

Religious Views: theist

This may come as news to you, but THIS is a claim that god exists.

*Plonk*

[Faith No More]

Life is utterly meaningless aprart from whatever purpose we humans can ascribe to it. Meaning is as subjective of a concept as beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder.

[Welsh cake]

- it is YOU who are presupposing God is imaginary. Straight off the gun you beg the question.

By asserting people who perceive life to have meaning without God is nothing more than illusory, you are making the presupposition that God already exists demonstrably, common-knowledge, plain as day. This is not the case. So far all theists have ever been able to present is a mental construct of their deity in their mind, which amkerman I have to remind you with an insufferable smugness, is all imaginary.

- where? Not once did I state God exists. None of my claims or queries needs God. In fact my entire question is how life can have objective purpose without God.

Disingenuous aren't we?

Believing that meaning is real but that "God" is illusory doesn't make any sense.

- I never said anyone on here is. Until now. You most definitely ARE in denial.

See my first response. How am I in denial? What am I denying? Go on you clown, make that hole you're digging even deeper.

- commits the fallacy of invincible ignorance. You know this.

Except you're ignoring the fact that you and your theist bum chums have never once provided extraordinary evidence to back up your extraordinary claims about the existence of an all-powerful god. All you've ever done is lobby. Any arguments presented have already since been refuted.

- so your answer is real meaning doesn't exist and neither does God. No problem with that, you should have just stated it from the get go.

That's postmodernism. And what do you mean I should've stated it from the get-go? I did. Or were you not paying attention?

- No. It's not. Rationalization is the mental act of justifying ones beliefs or actions...

No no, NO. We're addressing the theory of justification within epistemology. We're NOT unconsciously making excuses to feebly avoid any true explanation. Do you not know what the word "rationalization" means within the context of psychology and logic? Of course you do. How DARE you insinuate that. You're trying to make us inadvertently commit the informal fallacy of reasoning here.

Once again - Rationalization is not the correct word to use here.

- well if it's a false belief (which you just stated above) then it is just a belief in God by another name. If there is nothing inherently wrong or unacceptable with believing in real purpose then there is nothing inherently wrong or unacceptable with believing in God. Both are fine by me.

What the fuck are you talking about? This is a non-sequitur. It in NO way addresses the point I was making earlier about people attempting to justify their demonstrably real lives with subjective meaning. You're going on a rant-off and finishing every fucking statement with "God". Is that all you've got for us? God this and God that?

And NO, there is something inherently wrong in believing in supernatural beings that have not been proven to exist by those arguing that they do without valid and reliable evidence. That is the tragic story of people preferring the self-indulgence of fantasy and lies over reality and truth. Such beliefs have opened people up to just about every form of abuse conceivable. If God remains unproven, the default position is to remain in disbelief until new and sufficient evidence for the claim presents itself.

- that any belief in an objective reality is equivalent to a belief in God.

Objectivity has nothing to do with magic man. Its a philosophical concept, not a religious concept. It is concerned with what is objectively true and what is independent of the judgement of a conscious entity or subject, that includes god or gods.

You believe god is reality? Prove it because I'm weary of your insincere bullshit.

[genkaus]

Can life have meaning w/o God? I mean I understand how we could perceive it to be have meaninb w/o God, but that perception is just illusory isn't it? Without God aren't life and death ultimately meaningless?

Before putting forward a question like this you should understand the philosophical underpinnings of the concepts involved.

You are talking about meaning, i.e. the purpose, intention or significance of life here. You are not talking about a cause. For life to have a purpose, someone must have ascribed that purpose. For life to have significance, it must be significant to someone. For life to have meaning, it must be meaningful to someone. The only thing necessary about that "someone" is that he should have the necessary sentience. That is he should be able to think and to conceptualize.

That someone need not be god. That someone need not even be the cause of that life. People assign purpose and significance to things all the time. Why should life require god?

As far as I can understand EITHER life has real meaning and there must be something real which we call "God" or "meaning" OR any "meaning" in life is illusory and people choose to believe in the illusion of God to give their life meaning.

There should be something real, but that thing need not be god. That simply needs to be sentience or consciousness.

Believing that meaning is real but that "God" is illusory doesn't make any sense. It's exactly the same belief. It would just be another unverifiable belief for which the word "God" has been replaced with the word "meaning".

Nonsense.

My life has meaning to me. I determine the purpose and significance of my life. Even if god were real, which he is not, I would not let him dictate the purpose and significance of MY life.

The meaning of my life is not a belief. It is not an absolute fact that you simply have to accept. It is something that you have to determine. Being alive does not automatically give your life meaning. YOU need to assign a meaning to it. If you choose to escape the responsibility and let it be assigned by anyone claiming to speak for god, then life would be less meaningful.

Furthermore, since all of our understanding of reality is based upon our perceptions, isn't the belief in the validity of human "perception" exactly the same as a belief in "God"? They are both ultimately beliefs in the unverifiable.

Actually, it is diametrically opposite. Belief in god requires suspension in belief in human perception. Belief in god requires acceptance as valid something that cannot be perceived. Validity of reality is an axiomatic truth which has to be accepted for any knowledge to be possible and every belief you hold, even your belief in god, assumes it as true. But then the idea of god goes on to try and disprove its own axiom.

[Zen Badger]

I'd like to know what meaning you think having a god gives your life.

[amkerman]

genkaus: the one person who actually makes any sense.

Everyone else: willful ignorance.

Genkaus:
"Before putting forward a question like this you should understand the philosophical underpinnings of the concepts involved.

You are talking about meaning, i.e. the purpose, intention or significance of life here. You are not talking about a cause. For life to have a purpose, someone must have ascribed that purpose. For life to have significance, it must be significant to someone. For life to have meaning, it must be meaningful to someone. The only thing necessary about that "someone" is that he should have the necessary sentience. That is he should be able to think and to conceptualize.

That someone need not be god. That someone need not even be the cause of that life. People assign purpose and significance to things all the time. Why should life require god?"
- People do assign purpose and significance to things all the time. If that purpose ofr meaning is purely a figment of that consciousness then it is illusory. it is not real beyond being a made up belief. Any belief that purpose is real necessitates that consciousness is real. If consciousness is real, it must exist apart from our ideas of it. The only forces science believes exist apart from its observation of and ideas about are universal constants. If consciousness is a universal constant it could correctly be called "God".

If I say the meaning to life is X and you say the meaning to life is Y we both can't be right unless 1. : there actually is a real meaning to life and 2: that meaning contains the elements X and Y. If there is no real meaning but only the meaning we personally ascribe it it is illusory. To state otherwise would be to state that reality is dictated by beliefs. Even if there was only one sentient being in the entire universe who believed that Z was the meaning to life, that would not make Z real outside of that consciousness, it would just be the only illusory belief about reality held. In order for any meaning to be real consciousness must exist as a primary function of the universe, the universe must be bound by consciousness, not the other way around. That could be called "God".





"There should be something real, but that thing need not be god. That simply needs to be sentience or consciousness."

- Correct. Kinda. There Must be something real, but that thing need not be CALLED God. In order for something to be real, it must exist apart from our ideas and feelings about it. Again, the only things science believe exist apart from its observation of or ideas about them are universal forces and constants. Those forces created everything in the universe and without them nothing would or could exist. Science does not believe the sun exists because it observes it, it believes it exists because it believes in the laws of physics the fact that we observe it does not verify it's existence anymore than the fact that science doesnt observe trillions of other stars in the universe means science believes they do not exist. If there is a real sentience to the universe, it operates as a force on everything in the universe, it can not be found in a particular locality within the universe.




"My life has meaning to me. I determine the purpose and significance of my life. Even if god were real, which he is not, I would not let him dictate the purpose and significance of MY life."
- that may be, and that is all well and good, but reality is not dictated by your beliefs anymore than it is dictated by mine. If that is how you feel know that your meaning exists only in your mind. It is not real. once you dies any meaning you ascribed to yourself is gone. Your belief in personal meaning is no more rational than my belief that God exists in that case.




"The meaning of my life is not a belief. It is not an absolute fact that you simply have to accept. It is something that you have to determine. Being alive does not automatically give your life meaning. YOU need to assign a meaning to it. If you choose to escape the responsibility and let it be assigned by anyone claiming to speak for god, then life would be less meaningful."
- this is where you go off the rails. If you determine that your life has meaning you hold a belief, there is no way around it. If you determine that your life does not have meaning you still hold a belief, there is no way around it. If you are not sure whether or not your life has meaning you still hold a belief that life possibly could have meaning, there is no way around it.

Beliefs do not dicate reality, beliefs are not absolute facts which you simply have to accept. Beliefs can be wholly true, or not true at all, or somewhere in between.

If I assign meaning to something, that does not make the meaning real outside of my belief, it simply means I hold a belief, which may be true or false.

If there is no "God" (universial sentience) then life has no real meaning. it only has the illusory meaning we each personally ascribe to it. If you believe that meaning is real, you believe that your beliefs dictate reality. If you believe that then my belief in God is no more rational than your belief in meaning. That I shrugged off "personal responsibility" by attribbuting meaning to God makes no sense. You're belief in something known as "personal responsibility" doesn't exist apart from your belief about it. To believe that people have "personal responsibility" is just as irrational as your belief in "personal meaning", my belief in God, or any other held belief by anyone. If "personal responsibility" is a real thing, it must exist apart from beliefs about what "personal responsibility" is. If that is true, consciousness must be a universal constant. A belief in consciousness as a universal constant can be called a belief in "God".

There is a big difference between believing life actually has meaning and letting someone ascribe that meaniong for you. You can't ascribe that meaning to yourself. No one else can ascribe it for you. The meaning can not be "ascribed", because the meaning is real. There is actually a meaning to life. it is always the same and the same for everyone. You can't know what it is; you can try to understand it, you can question it, you can form beliefs about it, but your beliefs are not necessarily true or false.





"Actually, it is diametrically opposite. Belief in god requires suspension in belief in human perception. Belief in god requires acceptance as valid something that cannot be perceived. Validity of reality is an axiomatic truth which has to be accepted for any knowledge to be possible and every belief you hold, even your belief in god, assumes it as true. But then the idea of god goes on to try and disprove its own axiom."
- Patently false. "God" is the axiom we must accept. Validity of reality must not be assumed. All of reality is perceived through consciousness. In order to accept reality as valid we must accept that consciousness is real. If consciousness is real it must exist apart from our beliefs about it. Therefor it muswt be a universal constant. Consciousness as a universal constant can correctly be called "God".


- thankyou for a good reply.

[LastPoet]

Holy shit!