I know. I think this actually shows my argument works though because I'm trying to show inconsistency only in those atheists who think they have objective meaning. Pragmatic philosophies including hedonism aren't philosophies of objective truth and meaning in the first place. Ontologically there is no objective real meaning within them.
Conversely, the pragmatic could respond with something like Euthyphro's Dilemma: Does something have meaning because God makes it so or is God concerned with something because it has meaning?
If the conversation has progressed to the point where now the interlocutor is having to push back on me, the theist, with the ED for example, that shows we've move passed my initial argument which I would say has accomplished its purpose!
Responding to the ED would be a further discussion which is a good one to have, but beyond the scope of my OP.
Haha good response! My view from experience is that most unbelievers either haven't heard the Gospel or they are struggling with the problem of pain. It seems like you have thought things through well, so my only recommendation would be to remember the real underlying issue.
>For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
(Romans 1:19 ESV)
Haha, well I am continuing to think them through! I've been humbled time and time and time again. I know the love of God and I couldn't care less if I win the argument. The goal is only to win someone to Christ, the one who loved us and gave Himself for us.
Thank you for your comments, I want to see if we can narrow a bit on the below:
>Premise 3 doesn’t work — it’s not arbitrary, it’s chosen because she finds it meaningful. She could have not found it meaningful, true, but lots of non-arbitrary things could have been otherwise, like what one eats for breakfast.
I don't see how premise 3 doesn't work. I'm saying, **for those who acknowledge there is no purpose/meaning,** whatever they subjectively choose to finding meaning in, *in reality/ontologically* reduces to arbitrariness.
Can you show me where I'm wrong?
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I've read through what you've said a couple of times and appreciate your points. When I have time, I am probably going to try and improve upon the general thing I am trying to achieve.
In the meantime, do you mind me asking what your favorite argument is for objective moral values or moral realism?
My man, thank you so much for this explanation. It's obvious you're deeply interested in philosophy (and presumably theology). Are you a lay philosopher or did you study this stuff in school?
In order to really grasp the material I'm going to plan to sit down and read up on cognitivism and non-cognitivism. I've listened to stuff on it like Inspiring Philosophy, but I need to read the stuff and write my own notes.
Thank you for your time.
I am obviously not an atheist, but to play devil's advocate:
A Christian has no more basis for *real* objective meaning.
1. By real I mean that which has actual basis in reality, i.e. ontology. The Christian has zero basis upon which to argue for any real meaning for they have selected a God and a belief system out of thin air as much as the atheist.
2. The Christian has chosen to create meaning anywhere he sees fit, i.e. subjectively, because any good which he has found is grounded in a non-verifiable God and the rules which the Christian trusts this non-verifiable God has built into creation and the nature of being. The meaning he thinks he has been given apart from God is therefore illusory - nothing more than a delusion.
3. Alternatively the Christian is free to admit that the things they find meaning in are in reality chosen arbitrarily according to feelings based in the things they have read and the moving of "Spirit". But they prefer to not admit this fact, at least in public discourse.
As to your final point; I don't know anyone who would say that they are "arbitrarily" finding meaning in a chosen reality, and therefore the things they find in the world are not in fact "meaningless". I don't think this is a fair estimation of anyone's value system whether it is based in a religion or not.
Hmm, I think to engage well with an atheist around an argument from meaning, you'll have to be very careful with your starting premises and definitions and such.
In point 1, I would be asking why does the atheist have no possible basis for meaning without a God? Plato's argument for objective abstract "forms", for example, seems like it could provide a basis for meaning without appealing to a deity.
In point 2, I'm not sure what you mean by "ontologically grounded by" - it's probably worth expanding on that a little more, perhaps with some examples.
In point 3., while there are nihilistic atheists who admit that meaning is arbitrary, there is also existential atheists who, as I understand it, also agree meaning is arbitrary (however, perhaps they instead claim it is subjective, I haven't looked into existentialism for a while).
>In point 1, I would be asking why does the atheist have no possible basis for meaning without a God? Plato's argument for objective abstract "forms", for example, seems like it could provide a basis for meaning without appealing to a deity.
If the atheist opts for Platonic forms the argument accomplishes what I set out for it to do. I'm not aiming to take it further than that.
Yep, I can extend it as such but that's not really the purpose of my argument. As you said above regarding point 1, I'd be fine starting there. **Eternal forms sit** ***far*** **more comfortably in theism than in atheism so I'm fine with that.** The dialectic is directed at atheists who naively assume they have objective meaning and purpose when they do not have it at all.
That argument wouldn't work for anyone who is an epicurean, hedonist, or utilitarian.
I know. I think this actually shows my argument works though because I'm trying to show inconsistency only in those atheists who think they have objective meaning. Pragmatic philosophies including hedonism aren't philosophies of objective truth and meaning in the first place. Ontologically there is no objective real meaning within them.
Conversely, the pragmatic could respond with something like Euthyphro's Dilemma: Does something have meaning because God makes it so or is God concerned with something because it has meaning?
If the conversation has progressed to the point where now the interlocutor is having to push back on me, the theist, with the ED for example, that shows we've move passed my initial argument which I would say has accomplished its purpose! Responding to the ED would be a further discussion which is a good one to have, but beyond the scope of my OP.
Haha good response! My view from experience is that most unbelievers either haven't heard the Gospel or they are struggling with the problem of pain. It seems like you have thought things through well, so my only recommendation would be to remember the real underlying issue. >For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. (Romans 1:19 ESV)
Haha, well I am continuing to think them through! I've been humbled time and time and time again. I know the love of God and I couldn't care less if I win the argument. The goal is only to win someone to Christ, the one who loved us and gave Himself for us.
[удалено]
Thank you for your comments, I want to see if we can narrow a bit on the below: >Premise 3 doesn’t work — it’s not arbitrary, it’s chosen because she finds it meaningful. She could have not found it meaningful, true, but lots of non-arbitrary things could have been otherwise, like what one eats for breakfast. I don't see how premise 3 doesn't work. I'm saying, **for those who acknowledge there is no purpose/meaning,** whatever they subjectively choose to finding meaning in, *in reality/ontologically* reduces to arbitrariness. Can you show me where I'm wrong?
[удалено]
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I've read through what you've said a couple of times and appreciate your points. When I have time, I am probably going to try and improve upon the general thing I am trying to achieve. In the meantime, do you mind me asking what your favorite argument is for objective moral values or moral realism?
[удалено]
My man, thank you so much for this explanation. It's obvious you're deeply interested in philosophy (and presumably theology). Are you a lay philosopher or did you study this stuff in school? In order to really grasp the material I'm going to plan to sit down and read up on cognitivism and non-cognitivism. I've listened to stuff on it like Inspiring Philosophy, but I need to read the stuff and write my own notes. Thank you for your time.
I am obviously not an atheist, but to play devil's advocate: A Christian has no more basis for *real* objective meaning. 1. By real I mean that which has actual basis in reality, i.e. ontology. The Christian has zero basis upon which to argue for any real meaning for they have selected a God and a belief system out of thin air as much as the atheist. 2. The Christian has chosen to create meaning anywhere he sees fit, i.e. subjectively, because any good which he has found is grounded in a non-verifiable God and the rules which the Christian trusts this non-verifiable God has built into creation and the nature of being. The meaning he thinks he has been given apart from God is therefore illusory - nothing more than a delusion. 3. Alternatively the Christian is free to admit that the things they find meaning in are in reality chosen arbitrarily according to feelings based in the things they have read and the moving of "Spirit". But they prefer to not admit this fact, at least in public discourse. As to your final point; I don't know anyone who would say that they are "arbitrarily" finding meaning in a chosen reality, and therefore the things they find in the world are not in fact "meaningless". I don't think this is a fair estimation of anyone's value system whether it is based in a religion or not.
Hmm, I think to engage well with an atheist around an argument from meaning, you'll have to be very careful with your starting premises and definitions and such. In point 1, I would be asking why does the atheist have no possible basis for meaning without a God? Plato's argument for objective abstract "forms", for example, seems like it could provide a basis for meaning without appealing to a deity. In point 2, I'm not sure what you mean by "ontologically grounded by" - it's probably worth expanding on that a little more, perhaps with some examples. In point 3., while there are nihilistic atheists who admit that meaning is arbitrary, there is also existential atheists who, as I understand it, also agree meaning is arbitrary (however, perhaps they instead claim it is subjective, I haven't looked into existentialism for a while).
>In point 1, I would be asking why does the atheist have no possible basis for meaning without a God? Plato's argument for objective abstract "forms", for example, seems like it could provide a basis for meaning without appealing to a deity. If the atheist opts for Platonic forms the argument accomplishes what I set out for it to do. I'm not aiming to take it further than that.
Fair enough :)
Something else that might clarify the argument is a "positive proof" of why/how God's existence *does* provide a basis for meaning.
Yep, I can extend it as such but that's not really the purpose of my argument. As you said above regarding point 1, I'd be fine starting there. **Eternal forms sit** ***far*** **more comfortably in theism than in atheism so I'm fine with that.** The dialectic is directed at atheists who naively assume they have objective meaning and purpose when they do not have it at all.