Could you please show me the logically consistent argument where you get to decide what is meaningful to me?
I wasnāt talking about what was meaningful to you. I was referring to the meaningfulness of you.
ā¦your life has any meaning, especially if you are estranged from family or otherwise alone and lonely, sick and in serious pain and destitute. Shall we talk about luck.
So you think I am as meaningful as a puff of smoke? What are you driving at?
For the record, I think your existence has meaning, and I respect you as a fellow human being.
You seem to indicate that family, friends, loved ones, and experiencing life can all give someoneās life meaning. Is this true?
All that I am saying is that if Epicurean chance is the foundation of your philosophy, your worldview, then all life is ultimately meaningless. Sure, transient, puff-of-smoke, ālilies of the fieldā meaning can be derived from āfamily, friends, loved ones, and experiencing lifeā, but when those are gone (or never arrived, since you are an HIV infected orphan in your African village decimated by the disease, for instance), suicide is a reasonable solution, according to your logic (and is being chosen by increasing numbers dissatisfied with their circumstances).
Oh, and since there is no ultimate purpose or ultimate justice, mass murder with a bump stock fitted automatic rifle is still on the table, if it suits your fancy.
Chance AND NATURAL LAWS are the basis of my philosophy. You still have not explained why this leads to life being meaningless. Why canāt a species who is the product of chance and natural laws find meaning in life?
This is the type of nonsense that people trot out when they start at a conclusion, and then fail to consider the actual human condition. You have started from the position that there has to be some ultimate purpose or meaning in life as evidence for Godās existence. From there, you ignore the possibility that humans can find meaning and purpose all on their own because that doesnāt lead you to the conclusion you want. I have seen this many, many times.
@jongarvey has explained that Chance and NATURAL LAWS are NOT explanatory, to no avail, apparently.
They can, ephemerally, as already noted. And when that is goneā¦ or never realized, suicide is increasingly being chosen. So the behavior of the species argues against you.
It is you that has it backwards. I was starting with your premise. Christianity understands the human condition quite well.
Why arenāt they explanatory?
Ephemerally? What in the world are you talking about?
That is the conclusion you are starting from.
@jongarvey has already explained.
Ephemerally means transient and temporary. If the purpose you choose for yourself (if you can find one ā some people canāt and find life purposeless), if that purpose is lost, by losing your job, your family or your self-identity somehow, or is not realized because of poverty, health, or any number of other factors, then it is has flitted away, ephemeral.
No, the premise I was stating with was yours, as stated before:
Those result in no sound basis for a lasting meaning, and temporary meanings areā¦ temporary.
No, he hasnāt. Those are just assertions.
The same would apply to religious beliefs, would they not? That would seem to indicate that the purpose you claim exists in christianity is just as ephemeral.
My premise is that humans can find meaning in their own lives. From this, you somehow claim that this means humans donāt have meaning in their lives. That doesnāt make much sense.
The sound basis is what is important to each person. You find christianity important in your life, so it supplies meaning in your life. Is that temporary?
No, they were statements of fact. That you disagreed with them or did not understand or like them does not change that. For instance,
Not at all. The meaning in my life occurs because I am my Fatherās child, and that is a permanent condition.
Those are not the basis for true and lasting meaning, as already explainedā¦ how many times now?
Thatās silly. And if the person does not already have what they think is important and never gains it? Or if they already do, and lose it? If that is the foundation of their raison dāĆŖtre, suicide is a logical next step. Oh, that makes another time that Iāve said it.
ā¦the deceitfulness of wealthā¦
I seem to recall that there were quite a number of suicides following Black Thursday (October 24, 1929).
Asserting they are facts does not make them into facts. We observe these natural laws in action. These natural processes are facts.
That directly contradicts what you said before:
The explanations are false as I have already explained . . . how many times now?
Those same concepts apply to the meaning you have constructed in your life, do they not?
Pastors committing suicide:
https://www.9marks.org/article/when-a-pastor-commits-suicide/
No, they do not, because the meaning of my life was not constructed by me.
No, it does not, for the same reason.
And yet another thread that goes from the interesting issue of chance vs. providence, and becomes a dispute over whether God exists or not.
That was rather the point. You canāt have providence without God.
(see @jongarveyās reply: Chance and Providence)
This should be a āgivenā on this list. Iām not saying there canāt be any non-Christiansā¦ or non-Theistsā¦ Iām saying, that if someone wants to challenge the very premise of Christianity, it should be done in separate room, where only people who enter the room know the discussion is going on.
2 Likes