I came across this old, but helpful, video of William Lane Craig on the absurdity of life without God. His argument revolves around a distinction between subjective and objective meaning. Without God, he avers, any attempt to create meaning is nothing more than pretending (contra Heidegger). See what you think.
as usual, WLC has no evidence for his claims, and simply asserts that meaning in one’s life has to be “objective” to be worth anything. Curious how he can’t support that nor can he show his imaginary friend exists at all.
With respect, his entire point on meaning is that Atheists cannot ground *their* sense of meaning in anything and therefore any sense of meaning is illusory. His argument is entirely that meaning must be grounded in something ultimate and, unless it is, it is ultimately meaningless. That strikes me as self-evidentially true and the Atheist must show how whatever subjective meaning they insist to be meaningful is, in fact, ultimately meaningful. There may be answers to that, but it is for Atheists to offer them. One cannot simply sneer one’s way out of answering.
As right as you are in this “debate,” it’s like arguing “meaning” with a fruitcake, a literal fruitcake. There’s just nothing there but nonsensical assertions, all wrapped up in aggrieved whining.
yep, you are right. of course I now have an image of a fruitcake with a comb-over stuck in my head.
“Meaning” doesn’t prove God. It would take a God, to prove meaning. My sense of meaning is grounded in what I think and feel. I can prove that I exist, and have opinions – which is more than the greatest winner of Hide and Seek can do. 😮
Nobody was arguing that the ability to provide subjective meaning proves God exists though 🤷 the argument being made was that subjective meaning is not ultimately grounded and so it is ultimately meaningless. It requires something ultimate to ground ultimate meaning otherwise it isn’t ultimate. Everybody recognises your subjective sense of meaning is grounded in what you think and feel.
There is some more he says on that here
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/16ZPfTXK3e/
Yep, that’s what WLC tries to claim and he fails miserably, as do you. We ground meaning on reality and ourselves and others, no god needed.
Neither you, nor WLC, can show your god merely exists, much less is “ultimate”. Nothing shows that meaning requires anything “ultimate” or “objective”, you both simply assert that baselessly.
That what you can’t show as true “strikes you as self-evidently true” really demonstrates just how Christians simply making things up and then insist that they are true. No need for an atheist to show how our meaning is “ultimately meaningful” since that is something a Christian simply made up. I know that my meaning is just mine. I don’t need to convince myself that my meaning is extra special, and better than others.
You need to show that your meaning is indeed “ultimate” and any better than mine. Curious how not a single theist can do that, just like how they can’t show their gods exist at all.
It’s hilarious when christians try to falsely claim that “no one was arguing” what you were literally arguing. You have argued that objective aka ultimate meaning needs your god, and you have yet to show that god merely exists. Unsurprisngly, objectivity and subjectivity doesn’t make meaning “meaningless”, in both cases it does have meaning, and no “ultimate” meaning” is needed. The arrogance and neediness of christains that their meaning will supposedly affect reality is rather silly.
Your claims that your god is needed to “ground” things is simply nonsense. You can’t show anything needs “grounded” at all, and again, no evidence of any god at all or evidence it is needed for anything.
“Nobody was arguing that the ability to provide subjective meaning proves God exists though 🤷 the argument being made was that subjective meaning is not ultimately grounded and so it is ultimately meaningless. It requires something ultimate to ground ultimate meaning otherwise it isn’t ultimate. Everybody recognises your subjective sense of meaning is grounded in what you think and feel.
There is some more he says on that here”
If I read you rightly, you seem to be of the view that because I haven’t given you arguments for the existence of God here, the point about ultimate meaning needing to be ultimately grounded is false. Which doesn’t follow logically or coherently. Ironically, *you* seem to be arguing that ultimate meaning necessitates an ultimate God in which that meaning can be grounded rather than providing some other grounds for ultimate meaning.
Whilst the existence of God does provide a grounds for ultimate meaning, the challenge to the Atheist is to find such grounds apart from God. Not only have you failed to provide any (suggesting you have none) you also appear to concede that apart from the existence of God there is no grounding of ultimate meaning. All you have is your own subjective meaning, which is no more meaningful that an entirely opposing subjective meaning I may ascribe to the same things.
You are right that I have “yet to show that god exists” because I wasn’t setting out to do that here. But it is interesting that you insist I make baseless assertions (I don’t see any I have made that are not evidentially true), but make quite a few bald assertions without any specific evidence yourself, such as:
‘We ground meaning on reality and ourselves and others, no god needed’ – I’m not entirely sure what this means, but it is stated baldly and without evidence or basis.
‘Nothing shows that meaning requires anything “ultimate” or “objective”’ – Again, you simply assert this without evidence or basis. It also implies you have missed the point that *ultimate* meaning requires *ultimate* grounding. Nobody is arguing subjective meaning requires ultimate grounding. But for something to be ultimate it must be ultimately grounded.
‘I know that my meaning is just mine. I don’t need to convince myself that my meaning is extra special, and better than others.’ – Again, you simply assert this baldly without explanation nor evidence.
‘objectivity and subjectivity doesn’t make meaning “meaningless”, in both cases it does have meaning, and no “ultimate” meaning” is needed.’ – This is a bald, unsubstantiated assertion. Just stating it doesn’t make it true.
It is obviously quite difficult to have a fruitful discussion when you insist on explanations for things that were not under discussion, you accuse me of making baseless statements whilst making many yourself and you use sneering and insulting language. It feels very much like you do not want a discussion, you just wish to assert your point without meaningful engagement. So, I will not say any more to you hereafter.
Stephen, your attempts to claim you aren’t using this nonsene to show your god exists are always amusing and this isn’t the first time a Christian has tried to excuse their failure in being able to show their god exists at all.
You have no evidence for your god or that it is the “ground” for meaning. So, it does indeed follow logically and coherently that you have nothing to support your claims. Your attempt to lie and claim that it is I who am arguing for a ultimate ground is just hilarious.
You have no other grounds, Stephen, and that you try to claim you do is ridiculous. Christians often try this tactic, since they don’t want to admit that their argument is based on nothing but their baseless claim that a god exists.
Atheists don’t need to meet your “challenge” since you have nothing to support your claims. I can show that there is no ultimate meaning, or god, since there is no evidence for such things. You simply assert that there is. There is literally no need for any ultimate source e.g. some god for meaning.
The presupposition of “ultimate meaning” doesn’t mean it exists, Stephen. You assume that it does since you must assume your god exists or your religion fails.
Yep, I have my own subjective meaning, and so do you. Christians often try this argument when it comes to morality. Unsurprisingly, Christians can’t agree on what morals their god wants, with each inventing their own set. You also have quite a problem in that your morals are subject to who/what someone is, since Christians have to excuse their god from following the morals it supposedly gave humans.
It’s very funny to see a Christian try to lie and claim he wasn’t setting out to show his god exists, when he claims that there needs to be some “ultimate source” which is, of course, your god. Trying to lie about that is rather peculiar.
You have made many assertions that aren’t evidentially true:
“I came across this old, but helpful, video of William Lane Craig on the absurdity of life without God. His argument revolves around a distinction between subjective and objective meaning. Without God, he avers, any attempt to create meaning is nothing more than pretending (contra Heidegger)”
Now, looking at that, it seems you agree with Craig. I can assume so since you describe yourself as “My theological convictions can be described as Modern Reformed Evangelical. I hold to the doctrines of grace, credo-baptism (significantly informed by my Grace Baptist background) and subscribe to the traditional tenets of Evangelicalism.”
You claim “His argument is entirely that meaning must be grounded in something ultimate and, unless it is, it is ultimately meaningless. That strikes me as self-evidentially true and the Atheist must show how whatever subjective meaning they insist to be meaningful is, in fact, ultimately meaningful. “
which is curious since the only thing that Craig assumes gives meaning is his god. “others were correct that2:39ultimately in the absence of of God life2:42becomes absurd there isn’t any objective2:45meaning to life and the little meanings2:48and projects we invent to fill our lives2:50are really just pretense they’re not2:52really objective meanings question“
You put up a link to a video that makes the exact argument you claim you aren’tmaking. So do you agree with Craig or not.
That you are unable to figure out how we get meaning from reality, and not your god is notable. If you can’t supposedly understand what it means, how can you know it is “stated badly”? Again, where is your god?
Again, you claim that meaning requires an ultimate source. You cannot show this source at all, and thus you bear the burden of proof to show your god exists. I have not missed any point, since Christians believe that their god is the ultimate source of everything. That you continue to try falsely claim you are not making this argument is curious. You claim that objective meaning exists and that is based on your god. Again, where’s the evidence for that? All you have so far is a circular argument “my god is ultimate so everything is from it since my god is ultimate so everything is from it, etc”.
It’s hilarious how you insist that you know that my meaning isn’t just mine. How do you know that, Stephen? And do tell how you evidently know that my meaning is extra special and better than others. I also know your meaning is just yours and isn’t special or better than others. You are a human, just like me.
If I’m wrong, then show I’m wrong, Stephen. Show this is wrong: “‘objectivity and subjectivity doesn’t make meaning “meaningless”, in both cases it does have meaning, and no “ultimate” meaning” is needed.’”
All you have is “nuh-uh”. I find that my subjective ideas have meaning and my worldview has meaning. Again, where does subjectivity and objectivity come into play here?
It’s obviously you have nothing to support your and WLCs claims. The idea of objective meaning has come into play and since WLC means nothing other than his god as the source of this objective meaning, your attempts to claim these ideas weren’t under discussion is just amusing. Christians also often use this tactic when claiming that they “really aren’t” talking about creationism when they insist that there is an “intelligent designer”. I know perfectly well what they intend.
I do want a discussion. However, it seems that you are unable to support your claims so you need to falsely accuse me of wanting otherwise. The Christian god doesn’t like lies or liars.