What Is The Meaning Of Life?

[Immanuel Can]

Or, if for his own sake, he preferred to be rational, not irrational. The hallmark of rationality is reasoning that shows justification.

If by this you mean that it's irrational to be an atheist, all I can say in my defense is that I'm not aware of the rational argument for being otherwise.

Well, I think there are good arguments for that.

But let's suppose that there weren't. The rational position would be that of the agnostic, then...essentially, "There may be a God, but if there is, I don't know." And there an end of it.

To go beyond that, to become an Atheist, and to say things like, "I disbelieve in God," or "I don't believe anybody else CAN have reasons to believe in God," is to open oneself up to the necessity of providing reasons and proof to substantiate one's affirmation of fact.

And silliest of all, is the rejoinder, "I don't disbelieve in God; I believe in no Gods." For if all one means is, "I don't HAPPEN to believe in God," then that's trivial but true, perhaps. But so what? It stops short of saying anything anybody else needs to be concerned about, save oneself.

But if, by "I believe in no Gods," one means, "Because I don't have any beliefs about God at all, then I'm an Atheist," then one isn't an Atheist at all, analytically speaking: for rocks, emus and amoeba also have, to our knowledge, no beliefs about God, but who would say that makes them "Atheists"? One is then merely confessing complete ignorance, which might be true...but hardly complimentary. In any case, that analytically makes one an "agnostic" again...a/gnostic, meaning "to not know."

If one makes any knowledge claim, one owes reasons and evidence. If Atheists are claiming complete ignorance, then they owe none, but are also merely confessing to be personally unaware. If they are saying either that they doubt or disbelieve in God, then that is an affirmation, and they owe reasons and evidence again.

To say that Atheism is a rational position would require rational justification; every bit as much as to be a Theist would.

But all this misses the OP, so we should go to it, I suppose.

[Immanuel Can]

And Immanuel Can believes that he knows God's true nature all right.

It makes no difference to you what I may think or not think I know.

It makes all the difference in the world what's actually true about God.

[Harbal]

If one makes any knowledge claim, one owes reasons and evidence.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that in all cases but, seeing as this is a philosophy forum, I suppose it applies here. I think I can afford to compromise here without losing too much face. I'm going to re-designate myself a very sceptical agnostic and hope that will be sufficient to spare me from having to construct a rational argument to support it. As far as my view that there is no requirement to believe in God to be able to function morally is concerned, I'm not budging an inch.

[Belinda]

And Immanuel Can believes that he knows God's true nature all right.

It makes no difference to you what I may think or not think I know.

It makes all the difference in the world what's actually true about God.

Yes, it does matter to me what you think why else would I reply? Your main point is a good one and makes me think.

The truth about God is not for us to know, surely? It's idolatrous to try to encapsulate God in language. You cannot do it. If you claim to be able to describe or define God you are idolising an aspect of your own self.

[Dubious]

You've got no answer, though. Just a bunch of ad hominems, ranting rhetoric and sundry distraction.

That's alright. Not Atheist I've ever met has any answer, so I didn't expect you'd come up with anything.

Wow! It's not possible to argue against such a powerful, logical and coherent argument. Brilliance personified! How do you do it!

Still no answer. Nothing, nada, zip.

Hey genius! I can't answer if I don't know what you're specifically asking even though it's an absolute given that whatever response may follow by anyone will not suffice since none ever has, establishing the fact that none ever will as acceptance of proof or even minimalist credibility.

~ None or no intelligent response expected here ~

This outcome has been verified a thousand times since you started posting. What kind of proof could ever apply when facing your certainty that Jesus was god, that he rose from the dead offering salvation to believers and that consequently secularists and atheists have no means or methodology to justify their morals, etc. The question is, how could anyone reasonable have come to a conclusion even theists would find embarrassing?

~ ditto ~


How thoroughly ignorant does one have to be not to realize that there can be NO PROOF aside from firm disciplines like math and science. Our behaviors are based on rationalizations...often brilliantly employed to rationalize the irrational.

~ another ditto, consecutive to the one above ~

Of course, this won't do for someone on a mental merry-go-round who constantly asks for certificates of proof where none was ever written. If you lived 400 hundred years still writing on philosophy forums no one would have noticed any difference from one day to the next during that entire period still requiring proof from others that your idiot ideas are incorrect. By "idiot ideas" I don't include belief in Jesus or what remains of Christianity. The "idiot ideas" I'm referring to are the kind no other intelligent theist would come up with.

...so, what's your question?

[Dubious]

And Immanuel Can believes that he knows God's true nature all right.

It makes no difference to you what I may think or not think I know.

It makes all the difference in the world what's actually true about God.

... and like the prophets of old, Immanuel, the god-enlightened thinks he knows what's true about God. If not true he'd be far less certain about everything else he's saying. What's "true about god" is also the possibility that there ain't one.

[Immanuel Can]

If one makes any knowledge claim, one owes reasons and evidence.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that in all cases but, seeing as this is a philosophy forum, I suppose it applies here. I think I can afford to compromise here without losing too much face. I'm going to re-designate myself a very sceptical agnostic and hope that will be sufficient to spare me from having to construct a rational argument to support it.

It might. Provided "I don't know," is a good enough final position for you. If it is, then there's an end of it.

As far as my view that there is no requirement to believe in God to be able to function morally is concerned, I'm not budging an inch.

We weren't disagreeing about people who disbelieve in God being able to function -- morally, or any other way; just about their ability to reason out a legitimation for their morality, whatever they might choose.

A person who has no reason for being good may still choose to be good...that's not at issue. But a rational person, if he/she is an Atheist, can't find the reasons why that choice is ultimately "better" (whatever that might mean) than the opposite.

[Immanuel Can]

And Immanuel Can believes that he knows God's true nature all right.

It makes no difference to you what I may think or not think I know.

It makes all the difference in the world what's actually true about God.

Yes, it does matter to me what you think why else would I reply? Your main point is a good one and makes me think.

No. I mean, "it doesn't matter" to the facts of the case. I appreciate that it may matter to you personally.

The truth about God is not for us to know, surely? It's idolatrous to try to encapsulate God in language.

"Encapsulate"? Why that?

Why not just say, "express various truths about God"? That seems far from idolatrous, and much more doable than "encapsulation." I can't "encapsulate" the Pacific Ocean...however, it's not hard to make various kinds of true (or false) statements about it.

[Immanuel Can]

I can't answer if I don't know what you're specifically asking ...so, what's your question?

Go back up the thread. You'll find it, if you want it. Look for the bold font, and you'll find it in statement form too. In fact, at one point, you even quoted it yourself...

If you don't care to look back, well, happy trails to you.

[Vendetta]

The truth about God is not for us to know, surely? It's idolatrous to try to encapsulate God in language.

"Encapsulate"? Why that?

Why not just say, "express various truths about God"? That seems far from idolatrous, and much more doable than "encapsulation." I can't "encapsulate" the Pacific Ocean...however, it's not hard to make various kinds of true (or false) statements about it.

Those who are trying to represent God in language are well aware that they will be incapable of capturing the whole of God's being in words, which is why "encapsulate" is inappropriate here. Nobody tries to "encapsulate" God as they are well aware that it is not possible. They seek to describe components of God or as IC says, "express various truths".

[Harbal]

But a rational person, if he/she is an Atheist, can't find the reasons why that choice is ultimately "better" (whatever that might mean) than the opposite.

I see you're not going to budge, either.

[ken]

To say that Atheism is a rational position would require rational justification; every bit as much as to be a Theist would.

But all this misses the OP, so we should go to it, I suppose.

Although you might like to go away from this, could we stay with this for a bit?

Do you say theism is a rational position?

If so, then what is your rational justification for it?

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

(Belinda)The truth about God is not for us to know, surely? It's idolatrous to try to encapsulate God in language.
(IC)"Encapsulate"? Why that?

Why not just say, "express various truths about God"? That seems far from idolatrous, and much more doable than "encapsulation." I can't "encapsulate" the Pacific Ocean...however, it's not hard to make various kinds of true (or false) statements about it.

The Pacific Ocean can be known empirically but God cannot be known empirically. You can claim that Pacific is deep, wet, fishy, intersected by islands and so on but you cannot reasonably make any empirical claims about God.

You can claim to know many attributes of the Pacific all right but to claim to literally know attributes of God is hubristic. Just as a wooden statue of God is an idol so a definition of God in words is also an idol.

Now if you were to say like "My God is just according to the Ten Commandments' encapsulation of justice" you would be saying something about yourself, although on a philosophy forum I'd expect you to justify your belief.

Vendetta wrote:

Those who are trying to represent God in language are well aware that they will be incapable of capturing the whole of God's being in words, which is why "encapsulate" is inappropriate here. Nobody tries to "encapsulate" God as they are well aware that it is not possible. They seek to describe components of God or as IC says, "express various truths".

But all representations whether made of wood, stone, or words are selections of attributes i.e. abstracts from the entire thing in itself. Neither is it possible to represent the entire Pacific Ocean, only certain attributes of it which are accessible empirically. The entire- Pacific is not a phenomenon but an abstract idea. God is nothing but an abstract idea---to claim that God is empirically accessible is true only of God idols.

[henry quirk]

Can Atheist premises be used to show that:

a) life has a plausible meaning, (as in the OP) and that

Nope.

b) an Atheist has any moral duties, and thus cannot be an amoralist (as per subsequent discussion)?

Nope.

What do you think, Henry?

I think any agnostic or atheist who claims otherwise...

...doesn't understand their own (un)beliefs

...or...

...is a fat, friggin' liar.

[Walker]

But all representations whether made of wood, stone, or words are selections of attributes i.e. abstracts from the entire thing in itself. Neither is it possible to represent the entire Pacific Ocean, only certain attributes of it which are accessible empirically. The entire- Pacific is not a phenomenon but an abstract idea. God is nothing but an abstract idea---to claim that God is empirically accessible is true only of God idols.

Just because the limitations of a human mind, limited by time via the capacity to think only one thought at a time, prevents encompassing the entirety of the Pacific as a representative concept, does not negate the Pacific’s physical existence.

Saying what God is either implies what God is not, or else the hearer infers what God is not, based on the saying of what God is. This is a limitation imposed by the Pacific-deficient mind.