So i've saved the best for last. I've gone the long way round, beginning with some philosophical ideas and some practical applications and outworkings, but for followers of Christ the discussion has to begin and end with Biblical truth. This post is primarily for believers as it will be solely based on Scripture, but I trust even unbelievers who stop by will at least see the richness that life has according to God's word.
In Acts 17:24-28, Luke records Pauls speech to the Atheneans, where he says, "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not from each one of us. For in him we live and move and have our being."
So Paul indicates that it is in God that we have meaning (live and move and have our being). He also touches on where God resides (does not live in temples built by human hands).
In 2 Corinthians 6:15b-7:1, Paul instructs those in the church in Corinth of the need to remain pure before the Lord. "What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: 'I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be there God, and they will be my people.' 'Therefore come out fro mthem and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you. I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord almighty.' Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God."
Again, we see the temple and that God does not live in a temple built by human hands, but rather lives in us that as those who have, by grace and through faith, believed in our hearts and confessed with our mouths that Jesus is Lord are the temple of the living God. What is this idea of the temple? We see that in 1 Kings chapters 5-9 (and similarly in 2 Chronicles 2-7). Therein we see a process of preparation of the OT temple, adornment of the temple and finally a dedication of the temple. Following is an excerpt from Solomon's dedication prayer for the temple:
"But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!...May your eyes be open toward this temple night and day, this place of which you said, 'My Name shall be there', so that you will hear the prayer your servant prays toward this place..."
OK, so how do we get from the temple, the physical place, in the OT to us individually being a temple and residing place for the Name? The linkage, or linch-pin, or turning point is the cross. It appears in the first three gospels. Luke 23:44-46 says, "It was now about the sixth hour, and darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour, for the sun stopped shining, and the curtain of the temple was torn in two. Jesus called out with a loud voice, Father into your hands I commit my spirit. When at last he said this, he breathed his last."
The tearing of the curtain represented a cessation of the separation between God and man. Until that point only the high priest could enter into the Holy of Holies and only then after a long series of purification (with a rope tied around his leg lest he had done something wrong and carried uncleanness in and needed to be dragged out). From that point on the temple was not a physical place, but a Comfortor within each of us.
The things to be recognized for the believer from this is that being the temple of God means more for us than just not smoking and eating right. We must continually work on purifying the temple, fully submitting all ourselves emotionally, volitionally, intellectually and physically to the Lord, dedicating ourselves to Him. This means that all we do and say should be an act of worship. Worship, in fact, is co-extensive with life. We worship God at home, at our vocation and when we relax at home. All our actions, all our words, even all our thoughts should be dedicated to God. So, worship is not just something that is done for 30 minutes on a Sunday morning when songs are sung. No, we as believers gather at a physical building but we bring the worship with us, it is only manifested for a short time in song.
In summary, biblical Christians have meaning as the very essence of their lives, where each and every thing that is done, said, thought or otherwise should be dedicated to the Lord because the Holy Spirit dwells within us and allows us to see through the things of this world to the creator and provider of all those things, and pledge our allegience and faithfulness not to a fabrication of our own or to something below us (something we fashion with our own hand or just arbitrarily choose to hold up) but to the One who is truly worthy. That would be our answer to what is the meaning in life.
jeremy wrote: " biblical Christians have meaning as the very essence of their lives, where each and every thing that is done, said, thought or otherwise should be dedicated to the Lord because the Holy Spirit dwells within us and allows us to see through the things of this world to the creator and provider of all those things, and pledge our allegience and faithfulness not to a fabrication of our own or to something below us (something we fashion with our own hand or just arbitrarily choose to hold up) but to the One who is truly worthy. That would be our answer to what is the meaning in life."
ReplyDeleteWow. How utterly sad.
Seriously - your view of what life means is that everything should be dedicated to the worship of god? Everything that is "done, said, thought or otherwise"? Even "thought"?!! Yikes!
If god wants this amount of dedicated worship then he's not worth worshiping. If he doesn't want it - then what's the point?
I'll never understand religion I guess... I'm just lucky that way I suppose.
J_A. You may one day understand the Biblical-Christian worldview, but for today, no you don't.
ReplyDeleteWhat is so offensive to you here? I'm simply saying that as a follower of Christ, I recognize that God chose to create me, that He chose to reveal Himself to me, that He gives my whole life meaning. What exactly is so sad about having everything I do and say, and yes, think be filled with meaning.
Christ has only offered this true and rich view of the meaning in life for all who will accept it. I'm not forcing you to agree with it, just sharing with you.
You say you are lucky that you don't understand religion, yet your view is that your life is ultimately without meaning, that you are a product of genetics and ultimately just worm-food. On that view, I say that I am blessed to know the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Maybe one day you'll see the truth as well.
By the way you've said you believe that meaning is subjective, i've told you what meaning is for me and you say "how utterly sad". Is it subjective or not? I again get the distinct feeling you think your definition of meaning is the correct one.
jeremy asks: "What is so offensive to you here?"
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely nothing is "offensive" to me.
jeremy asks: "What exactly is so sad about having everything I do and say, and yes, think be filled with meaning."
Nothing is wrong with being filled with "meaning"... it's the specific "meaning" that you have that I find sad. It's the idea that everything you do centers around god. Every thought has to be in worship of god. I just think it's a terrible waste, of time and brain power, that's all.
Your whole meaning of life is to worship a being that I don't even believe exists... so to me it's sad and a waste.
jeremy wrote: "Christ has only offered this true and rich view of the meaning in life for all who will accept it. I'm not forcing you to agree with it, just sharing with you."
I understand... I didn't mean to imply that this post was offensive. I know you're not "forcing" anything on anyone here - it's ~my~ choice to read and comment here, not yours.
I'm just commenting for the fun of it - I don't mean to offend or start a fight or imply that you're out of bounds with your posts. It's ~your~ blog after all...
jeremy wrote: "Maybe one day you'll see the truth as well."
Back at you! ;)
jeremy wrote: "By the way you've said you believe that meaning is subjective, i've told you what meaning is for me and you say 'how utterly sad'. Is it subjective or not?"
Yes it's subjective... and ~I~ think the meaning you've found in life is sad, that's all.
"I again get the distinct feeling you think your definition of meaning is the correct one."
What do you mean by this?
J_A and I appreciate your comments as well. It helps me sharpen my understanding as I consider carefully my position.
ReplyDeletePerhaps offensive was the wrong word, what I meant goes to our discussion on logical consistancy from the other thread. If everything is subjective then you should be completely indifferent to my view. Sadness is an emotion which suggests you feel bad for me. While I appreciate the concern, that's not really consistant with a subjective system. Feelings wouldn't really come into it.
The comment about your definition of meaning being the correct one again just speaks to the nature of subjectivism. You said my belief made you sad, which suggested you felt bad for me, which presumably is because i'm wrong and deluding myself, which would suggest you view on subjectivism is what I should believe, which means it is the correct view, which means it is not subjective.
I really do thank you for your comments. I'm just putting my stuff out there and hoping to stimulate conversation. You state your points well and it's fun having the discussion. I think you are wrong and I know its mutual. I'm still going to be praying for you my friend.
jeremy wrote: "If everything is subjective then you should be completely indifferent to my view."
ReplyDeleteAnd I am. I believe I even said as much when I wrote (in another comment): "I don't much care that you, or other theists, believe lies. That's ~your~ business and no skin off my nose."
Until your beliefs encroach upon my life I will remain indifferent.
jeremy continued: "Sadness is an emotion which suggests you feel bad for me."
I don't. I was just commenting on a blog post - I don't ~really~ feel sadness for you, I don't even know you! It was just a sort of figure of speech, not meant to be taken to mean that I ~actually~ feel sad for you.
jeremy continues: "that's not really consistant with a subjective system. Feelings wouldn't really come into it."
And here's where you get it wrong. Just because something is "subjective" does not mean that humans can't have feelings about them. Musical taste is something that is (even you'd agree) subjective, and yet it elicits strong feelings and emotions from humans.
jeremy wrote: "You said my belief made you sad, which suggested you felt bad for me, which presumably is because i'm wrong and deluding myself, which would suggest your view on subjectivism is what I should believe, which means it is the correct view, which means it is not subjective."
BUZZ. Sorry, no. ;)
Just because I think my opinions are right about something doesn't mean that the "thing" isn't subjective. I think Sibelius' symphony #5 is the most beautiful music ever produced. I think I'm right about that. I know musical tastes are subjective. So what?
I can understand your thinking that this piece of music is crap - and I think you'd be wrong. ;)
J_A: We are not discussing Sibelius' symphony #5. What you are confusing here are preference claims and truth claims. I think vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream is my personal preference and therefore is subjective (I happen to think vanilla is the best, by the way).
ReplyDeleteWhat I am suggesting here and trying my best to focus on is the notion that meaning in life must at least be logically consistant. This is a truth claim. I am saying that logical consistancy is a real part of a truly meaningful life. That is not a claim of preference, either it is true or false.
You position seems to be that meaning in life is exactly like a musical or ice cream preference, completely up to the individual. I have given logical reasons why this cannot be the case with illustrations and hypothetical scenarios.
To boil it down, do you think meaning in life must be logically consistant? That is the truth claim I am making. Do you think that is a true statement or a false one?
jeremy wrote: "I am saying that logical consistancy is a real part of a truly meaningful life. That is not a claim of preference, either it is true or false."
ReplyDeleteNope, it's subjective because it all depends on your meaning of the word "meaningful". What ~you~ think is meaningful might not be meaningful to me (and likely isn't given your religion-centric views on things).
jeremy asks: "do you think meaning in life must be logically consistant?"
Not the way you understand "logic", no. It's perfectly logical for me to find meaning in my life but still understand that the universe is indifferent. That my life has meaning ~to_me~ but not to everyone is logically consistent to me but not you it seems.
J_A, to be perfectly frank I don't see how we can continue here. You are saying that everything is relative and subjective and that we can all just define things the way we want. On that basis there is no way to have a discussion on anything. That view of things is very common today but is self-defeating. You say that meaning is all based on how the individual defines it, you say one way I say the other. But you are saying that very understanding must apply to both of us. And this just reinforces my point. If your definition of meaning is completely subjective and arbitrary and empty of any real significance. You are correct in saying that I am not pushing my views on you, you may try to live that way if you wish. If we cannot even agree on what meaning is, then I don't see how the conversation can continue.
ReplyDeleteI will just ask, since i've put together three full posts on what meaning is, what you would say is your definition of meaning. Maybe we can continue with me just asking you some questions relative to your definition.
jeremy wrote: "You are saying that everything is relative and subjective and that we can all just define things the way we want."
ReplyDeleteNot really. I believe words have meanings and can't just be redefined on a whim. Some things are subjective - that's all.
jeremy asks: "I will just ask, since i've put together three full posts on what meaning is, what you would say is your definition of meaning."
For me meaning is a level of importance. Not importent - not meaningful. More important - more meaningful. It's the level of significance too.
I have one question here before continuing. Is that definition of meaning "the" definition or is it "your" definition.
ReplyDeleteBoth Jeremy - merriam-webster also defines "meaning (noun)" as:
ReplyDelete"significant quality; especially..."
I suppose it's the ... that i'm concerned with.
ReplyDeleteMine reads like this:
Meaning - the end, purpose, or significance of something, ex. 'What is the meaning of life?'; meaningful - full of significance or value
meaningless - without significance or value; purposeless
Significance - importance; consequence
Importance - of much significance or consequence; prominant or large; mattering much
Consequence - importance or significance.
All these words taken together suggest something of lasting value, not cavalier or whimsical (here today, gone tomorrow). Real meaning doesn't seem to be something transitory.
You said: "I believe words have meanings and can't just be redefined on a whim." As do I. Which is why I say if you want an expression for something that you feel strongly about today, but may feel completely different about tomorrow you should use a word like want, desire or feel. I desire to be married today. I want to play basketball with my children today, it's fun.
When people sincerely ask the question: 'What is the meaning of life?' They are not looking for some transitory explanation of whatever feels good today. They are looking for something lasting, with an end on which they can base their life every day.
jeremy wrote: "When people sincerely ask the question: 'What is the meaning of life?' They are not looking for some transitory explanation of whatever feels good today. They are looking for something lasting, with an end on which they can base their life every day."
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like you just don't like the answer. There is no god, there is no universal moral code, there is no universal 'right and wrong'. That's just life I'm afraid.
Sure religions have made a BUNDLE off of peddling easy answers to that question - but they don't actually answer anything.
The 'meaning of life' is to find as much happiness that you can while you can. It's a nice side-effect that 'helping others' makes us feel good too!
J_A.
ReplyDeleteFirst you didn't even address the issue of language. I gave you six words related to meaning and a statement that followed. You said words have meaning, I gave you complete definitions that show meaning is more than a transitory idea, that it is a value laden term with more far-reaching implications that what you would accept. That is far from me not liking an answer.
For this whole topic i'm not speaking from the outside looking in like a spectator just speculating about the topic. As I stated in the first lines of my very first post I struggled with this question for many years. I tried living for the moment and found it empty and eventually got tired of fooling myself. I came to know the truth. You keep speaking of real life like i'm not a living person. I may be the only person in the whole world who thinks this way, but I would be willing to step out on a limb and say that for many people when they come to the point where they ask what the meaning of life is they are looking for something more than living for today, just like me.
Everything I do every day has meaning, genuine long-reaching meaning, full of significance and value, mattering much, prominant and large, because life itself has been given meaning by God. It is logically consistant.
For you life itself is meaningless, pointless, without meaning or value. Each day you can desire or want to do any number of things that will at best be attempts at little punctuated valueless meanings under an over-arching meaninglessness. That is logically inconsistant.
I know that to be the case, from experience. It's not that I don't like that answer, I personally couldn't live with that answer. God is real and He gives meaning to every day. It is also no easy answer as you would suggest. The three posts were a culmination of 20 years life experience and about six months of study.
You may say that is "utterly sad" and a waste of time, but the truth is that I was in bondage before with a shallow idea of what life was really about that I was unable to live with. Now I see the truth which was truly liberating in that now I can have true meaning every day because of the overall meaning that my life has always had, but I could not always see. I pray one day you will see that truth for yourself.
You put some word definitions down and then wrote: "All these words taken together suggest something of lasting value, not cavalier or whimsical"
ReplyDeleteYour use of the word "suggest" (aka imply) is telling here. That these definitions "suggest" something of lasting value ~to you~ is fine and good but does not make it true.
jeremy wrote: "I tried living for the moment and found it empty and eventually got tired of fooling myself."
And that's fine. That ~you~ think it's "fooling" yourself implies that it's not the right lifestyle for you. Fine - use your bible to find meaning in ~your~ life if that gives you comfort, I don't want to stop you.
jeremy wrote: "You keep speaking of real life like i'm not a living person."
That's not what I meant. Of course you're a living person - I just think you avoid the obvious reality right in front of your eyes because it goes against what you've been taught to believe. You don't like what reality suggests so you deny it.
jeremy wrote: "Everything I do every day has meaning, genuine long-reaching meaning, full of significance and value, mattering much, prominant and large, because life itself has been given meaning by God. It is logically consistant."
You say this is "logically consistent", I say it's meaningless religious babble.
All I see is blah blah blah, because life itself has been given meaning by God, blah blah blah.
As soon as you turn to an imaginary being (god) you lose the ability to claim "logical" - it isn't logical to believe in something for which there is no verifiable evidence.
jeremy wrote: "For you life itself is meaningless, pointless, without meaning or value."
Still? How many times do you need to be corrected on this point?! I do NOT think life is "meaningless, pointless" etc.
I just don't believe there is an absolute meaning to life given by god. The meaning of life is different for everybody - that doesn't mean there isn't meaning.
jeremy wrote: "I know that to be the case, from experience."
That living that way didn't work for you does not mean it won't work for me or anyone else - reality suggests it works for millions of us everyday! That it doesn't work for you just makes you a prime candidate for religious indoctrination.
J_A
ReplyDeleteIn my comments regarding the definitions I used the word suggest for your benefit in hopes that you would actually consider what the words said. It is quite clear for anyone who would take the time and consideration to think about the definitions that meaning is more than a transitory idea as you would suggest.
You comment regarding "religious babble" is pretty telling as well. What you said is that if the word God is used in any conversation everything before and after, irregardless of how cogent or logical it may be, is just drivel. It's fascinating to me because as a theist i'm so often painted as a person who is an exclusivist and not tolerent and accepting of other ideas. I have thought carefully and responded to your comments with language, logic and truth and only mentioned God in relation to my position. You have taken my comments and admittedly just waived them off; "blah, blah, blah".
Once again, meaning is a word that carries more than a transitory value. It is defined as something with an end purpose that matters much and is full of significance, prominant and large. If something is here today and gone tomorrow it may be strongly desired, very much wanted and may bring much pleasure, but it cannot have real meaning.
With that definition which is not subjective but clearly defined, your position is logically inconsistant. My position is logically consistant.
Words do have meaning. No matter how many times you substitute meaning for desire or want and say it is subjective will not change the definition.
In those last three paragraphs I did not use the word God even once. I hope you will therefore actually consider what is written and address the issue of logical consistancy based on the non-subjective definition of the word meaning.
I hope you can do that and we can continue.
jeremy wrote: "What you said is that if the word God is used in any conversation everything before and after, irregardless of how cogent or logical it may be, is just drivel."
ReplyDeleteThat is NOT what I said. I was talking ~specifically~ about the sentence you wrote, and added that when belief in god is part of the idea being conveyed then logic cannot be claimed (god is not a logical proposition).
I read what you wrote. It was meaningless religious babble to me. You are claiming that god gives life ultimate meaning - since I don't believe god exists this idea is ridiculous to me.
When the ideas you're trying to convey require a god they are meaningless to me... as no god exists.
jeremy wrote: "You have taken my comments and admittedly just waived them off"
Not true. I ~have~ read your comments, I ~have~ thought about them. I "wave them off" because they don't make sense to me, because they rest on a foundation that I don't accept (god).
That you have not convinced me of anything does not mean I haven't heard you... it's just that your points aren't convincing.
jeremy wrote: "...meaning is a word... It is defined as something with an end purpose that matters much and is full of significance, prominant and large."
Ok, we'll use this definition when reading your subsequent statement:
"If something is here today and gone tomorrow it may be strongly desired, very much wanted and may bring much pleasure, but it cannot have real meaning."
That just doesn't follow from the definition you gave. Your definition doesn't say anything about a time-limit on meaning. It says nothing about a requirement that to be "real meaning" it has to be that way forever. ~You~ are adding requirements on to the definition to fit ~your~ ideas - but they aren't there.
J_A said: "when belief in god is part of the idea being conveyed then logic cannot be claimed (god is not a logical proposition)."
ReplyDeleteI disagree. I think logic is no respector of beliefs. An idea is logical or it is not. Once again, here is what I am stipulating with regard to logical consistancy, using the definition of the word meaning.
The following statement is logically consistant:
Life has an ultimate meaning, therefore daily life can have meaning.
The following statement is also logically consistant: Life is ultimately meaningless, therefore daily life is meaningless.
The following statement is not logically consistant: Life is ultimately meaningless, but daily life can have meaning.
God only comes in because I have said God is what seems to me to be the best explanation for ultimate meaning in life. The logic of the statement stands on its own irrespective of what the object of ultimate meaning happens to be. You missed this because you read a post on God and immediately threw logic out because "belief in god is part of the idea."
J_A said: "It says nothing about a requirement that to be "real meaning" it has to be that way forever." The portion of the definition that says, "something with an end purpose that matters much and is full of significance, prominant and large" does exactly that.
Let me try one more illustration. Supposing I had a friend over and told him that caring for my pet hampster was meaningful to me. The next day when my friend is over I take the hamster out of the cage and feed it to my cat. Would my friend thus conclude that caring for my hamster was really meaningful to me?
You are right about logical statements. I agree that an idea is "logical or it is not."
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this though: "The following statement is not logically consistant: Life is ultimately meaningless, but daily life can have meaning."
I disagree whole heartedly. EVERYTHING, literally everything, is meaningless when you're dead. Death is the place we will all find ourselves at some point - and from then on literally everything will cease to 'be'. Holding these beliefs - yes, "belief"... I know these are beliefs of mine - does not hinder me from finding meaning in everyday life.
I am living evidence that your statement is false.
jeremy wrote: "Supposing I had a friend over and told him that caring for my pet hampster was meaningful to me. The next day when my friend is over I take the hamster out of the cage and feed it to my cat. Would my friend thus conclude that caring for my hamster was really meaningful to me?"
He could logically conclude:
- you don't really feel that caring for your hamster is meaningful
- you have a bizaar idea of what "meaningful" means
- you have had a change of feelings and now don't find caring for your hamster meaningful
Those are all logical conclusions to draw from your story IMO. I'm sure there are others too, but this is off the top of my head.
J_A said:
ReplyDelete"He could logically conclude:
- you don't really feel that caring for your hamster is meaningful
- you have a bizaar idea of what "meaningful" means
- you have had a change of feelings and now don't find caring for your hamster meaningful
Those are all logical conclusions to draw from your story IMO"
In the first and third conclusions you came to you inserted the idea of feelings. This is not a part of our definition of meaning. We're not talking about feelings, we are discussing meaning. Something that has an end result, matters much and is full of significance.
Your second conclusion is most accurate. A bizarre idea of meaningfulness. The meaningfulness of caring for the hamster in the illustration was just a feeling, not real meaning. The next day, the feeling was to feed it to the cat. If caring for the hamster really meant something, it would not be based on feelings alone feeding it one day, kiling it the next. It's not that he doesn't really feel that caring for the hamster is meaningful; it is that caring for the hamster is not meaningful at all.
I disagree (surprise surprise!).
ReplyDeleteWhat a person thinks is "meaningful" indeed does involve his feelings. That's why is subjective.
Who am I to say that this person doesn't find caring for his hamster meaningful?
Because of his actions, because words have meaning. Quite simply his actions betray his words, so anyone given the same illustration I gave you would come to the same conclusion, a bizarre idea of what "meaningful" means.
ReplyDeleteIf he had said I have fun caring for the hamster today, and then fed it to the cat the next day, no problem. He simply felt like feeding it to the cat was fun. His actions were based on his feelings.
If he had said caring for the hamster was meaningful to him, and he faithfully fed the hamster every day, cleaned the cage periodically, made sure it had new toys to play with and protected it from the cat until it died of natural causes then prepared a shoebox and buried it in a special place in the yard with a marker to remember it by, then his actions would confirm his statement.
Both those scenarios are plain to see and logically consistant. In the original illustration he just simply should have said he desired or felt like caring for the hamster, not that it was meaningful. If there is no ultimate meaning with far reaching implications there is no meaning for the single day.
Also, there are feelings in both scenarios I presented. In the first, pure pleasure. I want, I do because I want. The feeling lasts only as long as the activity. In the second scenario there were feelings as well; love, joy, pain, sorrow; myriad valuable experiences enriched because of the meaningfulness of the relationship, and that would be remembered for a long time to come. The feelings and emotions are important and rich and full when they are a result of the outworking of the overall meaning. The whole experience is vacuous and empty when the relationship is entirely driven by feeling and emotion. And we're just talking about a hypothetical boy and his hamster.
jeremy wrote: "If he had said caring for the hamster was meaningful to him, and he faithfully fed the hamster every day, cleaned the cage periodically, made sure it had new toys to play with and protected it from the cat until it died of natural causes then prepared a shoebox and buried it in a special place in the yard with a marker to remember it by, then his actions would confirm his statement."
ReplyDeleteLook at all of the requirements you've added to the meaning of "meaningful" here!! The shoebox, the burial, the toys... all added by ~you~ to satisfy ~your~ definition of "meaningful".
That's just ~your~ definition though... nowhere in the definition of "meaningful" does it say that truly meaningful things have to be that way forever. That's ~your~ addition.
J_A,
ReplyDeleteIt has been a pleasure discoursing on this topic with you, but we just disagree at a fundamental level.
If meaning is something with an end purpose that matters much and is full of significance, prominant and large, then it cannot be here today and gone tomorrow. I know you disagree and so I don't see much need to continue. Plus i'm all out of illustrations.
Great conversation as always, I look forward to next time. Have a great day.
Cheers.
ReplyDeleteJoe,
ReplyDeleteIt would seem odd that you would call yourself "Agnost" since you express yourself with absolute certainty that God cannot exist -- He can only be imaginary. You also affirm (not imply or suggest) that there is no possibility that a belief in God could be supported by logic or evidence. Since you are certain of these things, you would need to classify yourself as atheist, not agnostic, and it would be logically consistent to believe that those who worship an imaginary being would be sad and meaningless.
Can I ask a question? IF there was an actual God, a Supreme Being, like the one described in the Bible (go along with me here for fantasy's sake if nothing else), would it be sad and meaningless for humans to be devoted to Him?
Stan wrote: "It would seem odd that you would call yourself "Agnost" since you..."
ReplyDeleteIt's just a 'handle' - there is a story behind it.
I am an atheist.
Stan continues: "You also affirm (not imply or suggest) that there is no possibility that a belief in God could be supported by logic or evidence."
Not at all. I affirm that there is no evidence ~at the moment~ which supports the god hypothesis. I will consider ALL the evidence when it presents itself.
Stan continues: "IF there was an actual God, a Supreme Being, like the one described in the Bible (go along with me here for fantasy's sake if nothing else), would it be sad and meaningless for humans to be devoted to Him?"
To be "devoted" to him? It depends on what that entails... if it involved worship and constant praising then I'd consider that sad. It would be logical to do it though since that's (presumably) what he wants... it would be sad that a god would want that though.
Would it be meaningless? No.
Does that answer your question?
I can' help but wonder, Joe, if you have examined all the evidence in the entire universe in order to make the assumption that there is no God.
ReplyDeleteGina asked: "I can' help but wonder, Joe, if you have examined all the evidence in the entire universe in order to make the assumption that there is no God."
ReplyDeleteOnly the evidence that's available to me.
Have you examined all of the evidence in the entire universe for unicorns? Likely not - yet you likely don't believe in unicorns. The ~available~ evidence shows that unicorns don't exist... same with god.
gina wrote: "I can' help but wonder, Joe, if you have examined all the evidence in the entire universe in order to make the assumption that there is no God."
ReplyDeleteWhat a silly question. Of course I haven't examined all the evidence in the entire universe!
I have seen no evidence so far, hense my position of disbelief. That would change should evidence present itself.
There is no evidence for unicorns. I don't believe unicorns exist although I haven't checked every corner of the universe. It's the common sense thing to ~dis~believe until there is evidence.
Do you, Gina, believe in unicorns? If not, have you examined all the evidence in the entire universe?
J_A
ReplyDeleteI've said before that what I present is Jesus Christ. His birth, life, death and resurrection as recorded in the Gospels confirms both the prophecies of the Messiah in the Old Testament and His claims to be God.
The Bible itself is the best attested and most confirmed work in all antiquity.
I assume you have just neglected the Bible as evidence?
jeremy wrote: "I assume you have just neglected the Bible as evidence?"
ReplyDeleteAs evidence of what? I think it's evidence of ~something~, nothing supernatural though. I don't believe it's evidence of a resurrection, virgin birth or any of the other fantastic claims in the bible.
It's a collection of stories, that's all.
Joe_Agnost wrote: "As evidence of what?"
ReplyDeleteWell we are talking about the existence of God, so i'm suggesting it's evidence for the existence of God.
You defined evidence earlier as verifiable data. This is a verifiable document from antiquity that speaks to the question at hand.
"I think it's evidence of ~something~, nothing supernatural though. I don't believe it's evidence of a resurrection, virgin birth or any of the other fantastic claims in the bible.
It's a collection of stories, that's all."
That's an interesting assertion, on what do you base it? I'm not sure what you mean when you say ..."it is evidence of something, nothing supernatural though..." What is it evidence of, the existance of Jesus of Nazareth? The existance of the Gospel writers? I'd be glad to start wherever you'd like.
I realize you discount the supernatural out-of-hand to begin with so you won't even allow supernatural explanations, so let's just begin with what you will allow: the people? the places? the historical information that has been verified to be accurate?
jeremy wrote: "Well we are talking about the existence of God, so i'm suggesting it's evidence for the existence of God."
ReplyDeleteIn that case, no. I most certainly do NOT think the bible is evidence of god.
jeremy continues: "You defined evidence earlier as verifiable data. This is a verifiable document from antiquity that speaks to the question at hand."
It contradicts itself and is just plain wrong about a great many things.
Is it the bible as a whole that you find compelling evidence for god, or are there specific parts you're referring to?
Joe wrote: "It's a collection of stories, that's all."
And jeremy replied: "That's an interesting assertion, on what do you base it?"
I base it on the fantastic things the book claims. Things that are, to this date, impossible. Things like walking on water, talking snakes, resurrection, global flood - in fact, the global flood story is demonstrably false. It didn't happen.
jeremy wrote: "I'm not sure what you mean when you say ...'it is evidence of something, nothing supernatural though...' What is it evidence of?"
It's evidence that someone wrote it a long time ago. It's evidence that story telling is as ancient as the book itself.
It's evidence of a global flood in the same way that Harry Potter is evidence of witches. In fact, the Harry Potter stories describe the London train station in detail. This is accurate and can be verified by visiting the London train station. This does NOT make the Harry Potter stories real though.
If the bible contains stories about verifiable places it does not follow that the stories are true. It just means that the author of the story used real places to tell the story - much like the fiction writers of today do...
J_A:
ReplyDeleteI have been through this discussion many times and the common theme is always the same, as you wrote:
"It's evidence that someone wrote it a long time ago. It's evidence that story telling is as ancient as the book itself.
It's evidence of a global flood in the same way that Harry Potter is evidence of witches. In fact, the Harry Potter stories describe the London train station in detail. This is accurate and can be verified by visiting the London train station. This does NOT make the Harry Potter stories real though.
If the bible contains stories about verifiable places it does not follow that the stories are true. It just means that the author of the story used real places to tell the story - much like the fiction writers of today do..."
Your equivocation here is that the whole of the Bible is the same as a fictional story like Harry Potter, just like the fiction writers of today. The problem is the two are nowhere near equivalent documents.
Harry Potter is intended to be a fictional story. The Gospels in particular were intended as an account of the life of Jesus Christ. I am amazed at how this fact is neglected. There are stories in the Gospels, they are called parables and are framed as such by the writers. Otherwise it is intended as a historical account. The references to people and places go to attestation but it doesn't change the intent of the writer. You cannot just say it is a fictional piece of literature, "just like fiction writers of today." You are going to have to do better than that.
The fact is that the Gospels have been better attested than any other document in antiquity, and were intended to be an account of a person that affected a region of the world. It is only by disavowing beforehand the supernatural (i.e. miracles) and calling the writers liars or lunatics can you just dismiss and categorically say the entire document is nothing more than a collection of stories.
I don't know that there is any need to get into a long drawn out string on the topic because i'm sure you and I both have been through the discussion many times. I will answer your question to me, however, and say that I believe in the entirety of the Bible. There are many books with many different literary styles by many different people at different times and sociopolitical contexts. Understood properly it is as a whole a revelation of who God is. So, if the Old Testament is read and understood, then it is absolutely no problem to see the Messiah intervening or interrupting nature with miraculous works.
I understand you see the miracles as nothing more than fantastic claims, but that is the position you must take because miracles are by definition supernatural occurances whose very existance you have already disallowed.
I'm sure in this case as in others we will put our faith in different things.
jeremy wrote: "Harry Potter is intended to be a fictional story. The Gospels in particular were intended as an account of the life of Jesus Christ."
ReplyDeleteHarry Potter is intended as an account of the life of Harry Potter. If the books are discovered hundreds of years from now they could just as easily be considered 'truth' in the way the bible is. You are guessing that the authors didn't intend their stories to be considered fiction - you can't know one way or the other.
and: "You cannot just say it is a fictional piece of literature"
But that's the polite thing to call it. It is demonstably wrong about a great many things (global flood is the easiest to refute) so if it isn't "fiction" it is simply lies. I like to think it's fiction, but if you prefer lies that's fine with me.
Jeremy continues: "It is only by disavowing beforehand the supernatural (i.e. miracles) and calling the writers liars or lunatics can you just dismiss and categorically say the entire document is nothing more than a collection of stories."
Not true at all. I didn't call the writers "liars" or "lunatics: either.
I dismiss the bible as a mere "collection of stories" because the stories they tell are untrue. There are so many contradictions within the bible that the stories can't all be true - so which ones are true?? Subjectively you could pick and choose the stories you wish to believe are true but they can't all be true - that's a fact.
jeremy wrote: "I'm sure in this case as in others we will put our faith in different things."
Yup. I put my "faith" in what can be demonstrated and reproduced. You put your faith in an ancient book which contradicts itself a lot.
J_A said: "Harry Potter is intended as an account of the life of Harry Potter. If the books are discovered hundreds of years from now they could just as easily be considered 'truth' in the way the bible is. You are guessing that the authors didn't intend their stories to be considered fiction - you can't know one way or the other."
ReplyDeleteCome on Joe, you make a lot of great points, but honestly, even you can see the obvious answer here. You look to the author for the intent. You ask the author of Harry Potter what his intent is and he will tell you it is a fictional story, you look at outside sources and talk to others who know the author concurrent with the writing and see the intent of the writer. Therefore you know that the work "Harry Potter" the entire series in intended as fiction. The very same test is put to the Bible and the Gospels and the book of Acts is intended to be an account of the life of Jesus of Nazareth nothing else.
J_A said: "You put your faith in an ancient book which contradicts itself a lot."
I have said many times, my faith is placed in the person of Jesus Christ, who He claimed to be and what He did for you and for me. I believe the Bible is a revelatory word from God with many different authors and literary styles over thousands of years. You and others claim "a lot of contradictions" which many others have satisfied by looking at the passages in question in context.
You say you put your faith in what can be demonstrated and reproduced, but the accounts in the Gospels were demonstrations recorded by those who witnessed the events of Jesus' life, and those recording were reproduced to such a degree that even skeptics have commented on how well attested and recent those attestations are.
I don't know if you have read the Bible in its entirety, or even the Gospel accounts; but if you have not I would simply encourage you to read them through. What each one does with Jesus beyond that is up to him/her. If you have read and rejected Jesus, then my friend I leave this topic as I do others with you and say I will be praying for your change of heart.
Jeremy wrote: "You ask the author of Harry Potter what his intent is and he will tell you it is a fictional story."
ReplyDeleteYes, of course it's fiction. But hundreds of years from now, when JK Rowling is long dead and any evidence of our society long burried, reading the Harry Potter stories as fact and not fiction might be deemed reasonable. They wouldn't have the author to question, as we don't with the bible.
But you're right, this is my strongest point.
It's all moot though since the bible is just plain wrong about a great many things... there was no global flood for instance. How you can call the bible "non-fiction" when it's clearly wrong about something as big as a global flood is beyond me.
That should have read: "But you're right, this ~isn't~ my strongest point".
ReplyDeleteI should really proof-read my comments better... ;)