Life has Meaning, Therefore God Exists

[PietroPaolo]

I’ve been arguing (in the good sense of the word) with an atheist about a particular argument for the existence of God which I’ve been playing with. If interested you can see more details on the argument HERE, but the basic argument can be reduced to a simple syllogism:

If there is no God, then the universe lacks meaning.
But the universe has meaning.
Therefore, there must be a God.

What do you all think of this particular argument for God’s existence? I think it works as a nice compliment to cosmological arguments or St Thomas’ Contingency argument as it requires less philosophy and has a greater immediate impact.

For those who like symbolic logic, I’ve analyzed this argument HERE showing why it is a valid argument, why it “works.”

Let me know what you think.

Disclaimer: This thread is only about this particular argument for God’s existence and is not intended in any way to devolve into a thread on atheism, which is a banned topic. If this thread strays into discussing atheism in particular, the original poster (me) takes no responsibility for it so doing. The link I’m providing mentions atheism, but the argument we are looking at here has been changed to avoid all mention of the banned topic. Thanks. Pax Christ!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

but the basic argument can be reduced to a simple syllogism:

If there is no God, then the universe lacks meaning.
But the universe has meaning.
Therefore, there must be a God.

What do you all think of this particular argument for God’s existence? I think it works as a nice compliment to cosmological arguments or St Thomas’ Contingency argument as it requires less philosophy and has a greater immediate impact.

I don’t think it really get’s us anywhere.

Normally when some one says that something has “meaning” there is an implicit or explicit reference to an observer/evaluator that finds value in something. In otherwords its a relationship between an object or concept and an entity with a mind. This is often referred to as subjective meaning. When referring to something having “objective meaning” as far as I’ve can tell they seem to be refering to a special case of subjective meaning where “God” is the evaluator.

I’ve not yet come across any one descriptions of “meaning” that are independent on a mind.

 

[frizzgrig]

The atheist may validly refute you with “while your symbolic logic exercise is correct, your premise is flawed.”

Until you can provide a valid argument to prove the universe has objective meaning without relying on God as the reason, all you are doing is spinning your wheels with this.

You are better off examining the question of the universe’s existence - if there were no cause for the universe to exist, there is no reason for the universe to exist. The laws of physics suggest the preferred state of existence for a physical system is the lowest energy state: a homogeneous equal distribution of energy through out space; yet the universe is a non-homogeneous distribution of energy through out space.

The question becomes: why does the universe exist, and in a non-preferred state according to the laws that govern the universe? The obvious answer is something caused the universe to be like this.

 

[Just_Lurking]

If there is no God, then the universe lacks meaning.

Many people have different ideas about what “God” means. I think it is important to look deeper at this part of the argument to see what properties of God are needed to give the universe meaning. For example, I don’t see how Zeus gives the universe meaning.

When I encountered this argument one time in the past, it turned out what the person really meant was, “if I don’t have an immortal soul, then my life lacks meaning,” which doesn’t seem to really depend on the properties of God at all.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

An atheist would likely argue that either the universe does not need God to have “meaning” or that the universe does not in fact have “meaning.” And of course there is the whole question of what you mean by “meaning.” Remember, among non-believers “what is the meaning of life” has become a classic example of an unanswerable perennial question. It’s not something you can take for granted as common ground.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t think it really get’s us anywhere.

Normally when some one says that something has “meaning” there is an implicit or explicit reference to an observer/evaluator that finds value in something. In otherwords its a relationship between an object or concept and an entity with a mind. This is often referred to as subjective meaning. When referring to something having “objective meaning” as far as I’ve can tell they seem to be refering to a special case of subjective meaning where “God” is the evaluator.

I’ve not yet come across any one descriptions of “meaning” that are independent on a mind.

Meaning is different from “raw experience.” It is possible to merely experience reality without that experience being meaningful. “Meaning,” essentially is grasping the significance or importance of a thing or event. Entities or events may be significant to or for a subject, but why would that preclude that these entities and events could not also be significant in themselves?

Furthermore, why does meaning have to be completely independent of a mind in order to be objectively meaningful? Why couldn’t both obtain?

It does not follow that if meaning is subjective it cannot also be objective. Merely because the objective meaning of something has been grasped by a mind does not make it, ipso facto, merely subjective. Which is what your position amounts to.

The “meaning” that things have is essentially their significance in respect to some final end. Granted, this may involve the intentions of a subjective agent, but is that necessarily so? Why could the significance of things and events not exist simply with respect to the nature of what they are?

A bird’s wings are significant in relation to its ability to fly to a branch. That significance can be discovered and made meaningful to human observers, but the significance existed independent of human observers.

The problem, as far as I can tell, is that we, in modern western culture, have lost sight of the Aristotelian notion of the four causes and what it takes to fully understand what something “means.” There is a focus on the efficient and material requirements to accomplish a task or understand events, but a tacit refusal to accept that formal and final causes are necessarily aspects of a complete explanation, because these implicitly open the door to intentionality in places (the natural order) where some seek to deny it exists.

Fortunately, we could, using Aristotle, ask, “To what ends do intentional subjective agents seek to deny that final causes exist in nature?” You see, Aristotle’s requirement for a full explanation can be applied to the process of inquiry itself to understand fully why modern humans act as they do by denying final or formal causality.

Along these same lines it might be asked what your motive (subjective end) is for denying that meaning can be subjective and yet also objective. If meaning is only subjective then, presumably whatever a subjective agent (you, for example) finds meaningful (believes to be significant) is, by definition, significant. In other words, you couldn’t be wrong about the significance of things, for you. That would seem a very “safe” position to take, perhaps motivated by a kind of tautologically shielded psychological defense mechanism that amounts to, “I am right because I am right.”

What reason would any neutral observer (subjective or otherwise) have for accepting such a position? Wouldn’t it be a more reasonable position to allow that “I might be wrong” and, therefore, the possibility, at least, that meaning is objective rather than subjective, i.e., that the significance of everything, including our subjective beliefs, is a matter of objective determination, a determination that can be used to understand and assess the validity of our subjective beliefs? Minimally such an allowance does trigger the possibility that what we think might be wrong or mistaken, a possibility totally denied by accepting that all meaning is subjective, since an objective standard for weighing significance is merely precluded a priori by your “meaning is necessarily subjective” presumption.

 

[Oreoracle]

“Meaning,” essentially is grasping the significance or importance of a thing or event. Entities or events may be significant to or for a subject, but why would that preclude that these entities and events could not also be significant in themselves?

But then you have to define “significant”. You hint at a definition below:

A bird’s wings are significant in relation to its ability to fly to a branch. That significance can be discovered and made meaningful to human observers, but the significance existed independent of human observers.

It might exist independently of human observers, perhaps, but clearly there is an observer involved here implicitly (my money is on the bird!). Why else would the ability to fly be regarded as significant? Does nature care whether animals can fly?

Let’s give another example. Is it important that I drink water? Well, it is certainly important if my goal is to live, but what makes that goal any more significant than any other goal? Does the universe care whether I live or die?

No, it is the observers that determine which ends/goals are worthy of consideration.

 

[PietroPaolo]

I don’t think it really get’s us anywhere.

Normally when some one says that something has “meaning” there is an implicit or explicit reference to an observer/evaluator that finds value in something. In otherwords its a relationship between an object or concept and an entity with a mind. This is often referred to as subjective meaning. When referring to something having “objective meaning” as far as I’ve can tell they seem to be refering to a special case of subjective meaning where “God” is the evaluator.

I’ve not yet come across any one descriptions of “meaning” that are independent on a mind.

Far from refuting the argument, the fact that meaning cannot exist without a mind would prove that if there is meaning to be found in the universe (or in a part of the universe, eg. human lives) there must be a mind to give it meaning.

 

[PietroPaolo]

The atheist may validly refute you with “while your symbolic logic exercise is correct, your premise is flawed.”

Until you can provide a valid argument to prove the universe has objective meaning without relying on God as the reason, all you are doing is spinning your wheels with this.

You are better off examining the question of the universe’s existence - if there were no cause for the universe to exist, there is no reason for the universe to exist. The laws of physics suggest the preferred state of existence for a physical system is the lowest energy state: a homogeneous equal distribution of energy through out space; yet the universe is a non-homogeneous distribution of energy through out space.

The question becomes: why does the universe exist, and in a non-preferred state according to the laws that govern the universe? The obvious answer is something caused the universe to be like this.

Certainly the atheist is free to declare that there is no meaning and thus avoid the conclusion “God exists”. Most atheists, at least that I’ve encountered, are hesitant to do so. The argument basically pushes the atheist to decide between there being meaning in the universe (or in a part of the universe, eg the atheists life) and atheism. If they are willing to jettison meaning, then other arguments would be needed. It is a lot of give up, though.

 

[Peter_Plato]

But then you have to define “significant”. You hint at a definition below:

It might exist independently of human observers, perhaps, but clearly there is an observer involved here implicitly (my money is on the bird!). Why else would the ability to fly be regarded as significant? Does nature care whether animals can fly?

Let’s give another example. Is it important that I drink water? Well, it is certainly important if my goal is to live, but what makes that goal any more significant than any other goal? Does the universe care whether I live or die?

This is a reasonable question. Yet, your dismissal is a completely subjective one…

No, it is the observers that determine which ends/goals are worthy of consideration.

Which observers? Merely because you are not “subjectively” aware of any others, you use this absence of awareness (by you) as a positive reason to dismiss the possibility that any exist.

In addition, why should subjectivity of the type and quality available to human agents be the determiner by which objectivity is denied or defined?

In effect, your reasoning is tautological.

 

[Oreoracle]

Which observers? Merely because you are not “subjectively” aware of any others, you use this absence of awareness (by you) as a positive reason to dismiss the possibility that any exist.

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I’m not denying the existence of anyone’s subjectivity, I’m saying that “importance”, “value”, etc., are merely statements that express subjects’ preferences. In other words, they don’t have truth values.

Consider the following:

1. It is important that I drink water.
2. It is important to me that I drink water.

My position is that (1) is subjective and (2) is objective. In other words, (2) has a truth value in its own right (in principle, we could all read my mind and agree on it), whereas (1)'s truth value cannot be assessed without implicitly assuming an ethical claim (such as “human lives are important”).

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I’m not denying the existence of anyone’s subjectivity, I’m saying that “importance”, “value”, etc., are merely statements that express subjects’ preferences. In other words, they don’t have truth values.

This is where your logic runs into difficulty. You cannot claim “they don’t have truth values” merely because they also express subjects’ preferences. You don’t know that both cannot hold. They may be an expression of subjects’ preferences that DO have truth value.

In fact, a moral claim such as “Rape is wrong” is an expression of a subject’s preference, but that need not exclude the claim from also having objective truth value independent of the subject’s preferences.

Again, you are making a false claim that subjective preferences, by default, cannot also have objective truth value. There is nothing logically incoherent in holding that a truth value could ALSO be a subjective preference. You have not shown this can’t be the case except by setting up a false dichotomy between subjective and objective realms.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If there is no God, then the universe lacks meaning.
But the universe has meaning.
Therefore, there must be a God.

The syllogism is valid as to form, but the minor premise is assumed rather than proven.

So the conclusion must also be considered assumed rather than proven.

Nice try.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Far from refuting the argument, the fact that meaning cannot exist without a mind would prove that if there is meaning to be found in the universe (or in a part of the universe, eg. human lives) there must be a mind to give it meaning.

A mind can give meaning (purpose, if that’s what you mean) to human lives. But that does not mean the universe as a whole must have a mind to give it meaning. The problem is still with the minor premise. Only God could assign meaning to the universe as a whole.

So your syllogism really reads:

If there is no God, then the universe lacks meaning.
But God has assigned meaning to the universe.
Therefore, there must be a God.

You can see how this amounts to circular logic.

 

[Oreoracle]

In fact, a moral claim such as “Rape is wrong” is an expression of a subject’s preference, but that need not exclude the claim from also having objective truth value independent of the subject’s preferences.

And I would have no qualms is affirming that that is indeed subjective. Rapists surely do not agree with the sentiment, and not because they lack any information–they simply don’t prefer it.

The problem is that subjectively-loaded words tend to lead you in a circle: What does it mean for something to be valuable? Well, surely valuable things are those which are important! What does it means for something to be important? Important things are definitely significant! What does it mean for something to be significant? That’s easy–significant things are valuable! And so on ad infinitum. The vicious circle only stops and becomes anchored in the verifiable, objective world when you claim that the importance is from an observer’s point of view.

This failure of words like “value”, “importance”, and “should” to have meanings independent of expressing preferences is why you can’t derive an “ought” from an “is”.

But if you insist, I will inquire as to why you think rape is wrong. I await your explanation, as I think it will be more useful than just talking about objectivity and subjectivity in the abstract. If you prefer some other ethic you may defend any claim of the form “x is wrong” or “x is good”. It doesn’t matter which you choose.

 

[tonyrey]

And I would have no qualms is affirming that that is indeed subjective. Rapists surely do not agree with the sentiment, and not because they lack any information–they simply don’t prefer it.

The problem is that subjectively-loaded words tend to lead you in a circle: What does it mean for something to be valuable? Well, surely valuable things are those which are important! What does it means for something to be important? Important things are definitely significant! What does it mean for something to be significant? That’s easy–significant things are valuable! And so on ad infinitum. The vicious circle only stops and becomes anchored in the verifiable, objective world when you claim that the importance is from an observer’s point of view.

This failure of words like “value”, “importance”, and “should” to have meanings independent of expressing preferences is why you can’t derive an “ought” from an “is”.

But if you insist, I will inquire as to why you think rape is wrong. I await your explanation, as I think it will be more useful than just talking about objectivity and subjectivity in the abstract. If you prefer some other ethic you may defend any claim of the form “x is wrong” or “x is good”. It doesn’t matter which you choose.

So you are merely expressing your preference when you say you can’t derive an “ought” from an “is”? If everything is a matter of preference nothing is true or false.

 

[tonyrey]

This is where your logic runs into difficulty. You cannot claim “they don’t have truth values” merely because they also express subjects’ preferences. You don’t know that both cannot hold. They may be an expression of subjects’ preferences that DO have truth value.

In fact, a moral claim such as “Rape is wrong” is an expression of a subject’s preference, but that need not exclude the claim from also having objective truth value independent of the subject’s preferences.

Again, you are making a false claim that subjective preferences, by default, cannot also have objective truth value. There is nothing logically incoherent in holding that a truth value could ALSO be a subjective preference. You have not shown this can’t be the case except by setting up a false dichotomy between subjective and objective realms.

Belief in subjectivity implies objectivity in at least one respect!

 

[tonyrey]

Certainly the atheist is free to declare that there is no meaning and thus avoid the conclusion “God exists”. Most atheists, at least that I’ve encountered, are hesitant to do so. The argument basically pushes the atheist to decide between there being meaning in the universe (or in a part of the universe, eg the atheists life) and atheism. If they are willing to jettison meaning, then other arguments would be needed. It is a lot of give up, though.

It’s more than a lot; it’s self-destructive!

 

[Oreoracle]

So you are merely expressing your preference when you say you can’t derive an “ought” from an “is”? If everything is a matter of preference nothing is true or false.

I didn’t say that everything is a matter of preference. You are putting words in my mouth.

 

[tonyrey]

But then you have to define “significant”. You hint at a definition below:

It might exist independently of human observers, perhaps, but clearly there is an observer involved here implicitly (my money is on the bird!). Why else would the ability to fly be regarded as significant? Does nature care whether animals can fly?

Let’s give another example. Is it important that I drink water? Well, it is certainly important if my goal is to live, but what makes that goal any more significant than any other goal? Does the universe care whether I live or die?

No, it is the observers that determine which ends/goals are worthy of consideration.

If it is only observers that determine which ends/goals are worthy of consideration none of your statements is necessarily worthy of consideration. Your end/goal is to discover and express the truth regardless of observers, is it not?

The attempt to abandon objectivity is self-destructive…