Life has Meaning, Therefore God Exists

[Oreoracle]

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?

I don’t see your point. Clearly the worth of my (name removed by moderator)ut is subjective. After all, some choose to reply to it, some choose to mock it, and others opt to ignore it. The claim that its worth is subjective is perfectly consistent with these observations and I do not hesitate in admitting this.

 

[Oreoracle]

I think Peter Plato and Tony would benefit from an analogy to see where I’m coming from on this. Consider the two following sentences:

1. Blue is my favorite color.
2. Blue is the best color.

I hope we can all agree that (1) is objective and (2) is subjective. No amount of objective analysis of the color blue could demonstrate (2). There is no way to assess the truth value of (2) without being given some objective interpretation of what “best” means. For example, one could define “best” to mean “being associated with the shortest wavelengths in the visible spectrum of light”. With that definition, (2) would indeed have a truth value and be objective.

But it’s safe to say that we would still regard (2) as subjective because this definition of “best”, while one could use it, nonetheless seems arbitrary. What if someone else doesn’t feel that wavelengths have anything to do with the quality of a color?

I would analyze the next two sentences in much the same way:

1. I feel that stealing is wrong.
2. Stealing is wrong.

Again, one could define “wrong” to mean “against the law” or “harmful to society” or “detrimental to others’ well-being” or any number of other things. These replacements would make (2) objective, but we could ask “why is it wrong to break the law?” or “why is it wrong to harm society?” or “why is it wrong to make others suffer?” These questions would ultimately be accounted for by one’s own preferences, just as some folks may prefer that their colors be of short wavelength.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t see your point. Clearly the worth of my (name removed by moderator)ut is subjective. After all, some choose to reply to it, some choose to mock it, and others opt to ignore it. The claim that its worth is subjective is perfectly consistent with these observations and I do not hesitate in admitting this.

If the worth of your (name removed by moderator)ut is only subjective then it cannot add anything of objective value. It can only have worth if there is at least the potential for it to be something more than merely subjective (name removed by moderator)ut.

That implies there must be, at least, in principle, a way of assessing objective worth. If you are saying that there is no such means, not even in principle, then there can be no means of distinguishing subjective from objective value.

The mere fact that there are different reactions to your contribution does not entail its worth is only subjective, though perhaps it does suggest that those who respond to your contribution think it does not meet their adequacy requirements. That means nothing, though, except that they implicitly accept that your contribution was susceptible to objective assessment. Otherwise, they wouldn’t even bother to respond to you.

After all, with declarations that are inherently subjective, such as: “I feel sad,” no one does raise an objection or launch a dispute. The fact that a point of view is contentious means that those contending the point assume there is an objective or correct view to be had.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Again, one could define “wrong” to mean “against the law” or “harmful to society” or “detrimental to others’ well-being” or any number of other things. These replacements would make (2) objective, but we could ask “why is it wrong to break the law?” or “why is it wrong to harm society?” or “why is it wrong to make others suffer?” These questions would ultimately be accounted for by one’s own preferences, just as some folks may prefer that their colors be of short wavelength.

I define subjective as everything that appears to me. It is only through me as subject that I can know anything.

But there is a realm of reality outside me that is objective, and that I can mistakenly perceive in a subjective way.

For example, if you look at a stick and see that it is straight, you see it as it is outside yourself.

If you position that stick straight up in the mud of a pond, you subjectively see the part below water as bent away from the part above water.

If God is an objective reality, we see him as it were subjectively, because a great deal of God is hidden from our sight. We see God bent, as it were. We see God falsely. (All the false religions in the world see God partly, but more so falsely.) The believer knows that God is hidden from us in so many ways, and that we have to approach him slowly, and earn our relationship with him and our vision of him as a result of our straining to see him below the surface.

The unbeliever will have none of that. He does not want to strain himself to see the hidden God below the surface. He wants God, if he exists, to be present to him fully visible. He wants proof, the kind of proof that cannot be denied him, for example, when he looks through a microscope or the lens of a telescope. He wants that proof of God to be altogether objective proof. Lacking that proof, he thinks that what is under the water about God is an illusion, as the bent stick is an illusion. If what is under the water is an illusion, so also what is above the water must be an illusion. Intelligent Design is an illusion. The Big Bang is an illusion. Miracles are illusions. The crying out of man to his Creator is an illusory moment in his life. And so, in the end the unbeliever shoves the entire stick deep into the mud and dismisses its objective reality in his life … he thinks.

But, objectively, the whole stick is still there.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think Peter Plato and Tony would benefit from an analogy to see where I’m coming from on this. Consider the two following sentences:

1. Blue is my favorite color.
2. Blue is the best color.

I hope we can all agree that (1) is objective and (2) is subjective. No amount of objective analysis of the color blue could demonstrate (2). There is no way to assess the truth value of (2) without being given some objective interpretation of what “best” means. For example, one could define “best” to mean “being associated with the shortest wavelengths in the visible spectrum of light”. With that definition, (2) would indeed have a truth value and be objective.

But it’s safe to say that we would still regard (2) as subjective because this definition of “best”, while one could use it, nonetheless seems arbitrary. What if someone else doesn’t feel that wavelengths have anything to do with the quality of a color?

The problem with your examples is that they are incomplete and ambiguous.

A better way of looking at the issue is in terms of three specific types of statements.

1. Preference statements that express an emotional response. These are wholly subjective and indisputable. Your example of “Blue is my favorite colour,” is such a statement.
2. Factual statements that express raw experience or metrical types of claims. “The ambient air temperature at location x, at time y is 39.63 degrees Celsius.” Factual statements are, at least in principle, verifiable and, therefore, not generally contented, although the adequacy of the factual statement to depict reality might sometimes be disputed.
3. Statements of Judgement. These are objective and verifiable but are much more complex in terms of arriving at an adequate “answer.” These kinds of judgement claims are made all the time. Court findings, safety assessments, experimental results, etc. are of this type.

Your example (2) purports to be a judgement statement, the problem with it is that “best” is undefined. Best for what? As it stands, it appears to say nothing more than your (1) statement because it ambiguates on the word “best” as if it means nothing more than “The one I like the best.”

There is “in principle” a correct answer to judgement questions although there might be widespread agreement that such an answer is beyond current means.

Consider a similar statement of judgement where “best” is more clearly defined.

The Toyota Corolla has the best gas mileage of all compact cars sold in North America.

Clearly, that statement can be contended and objective facts can be assembled to objectively assess its “worth” as a truth statement.

What makes statements of judgement contentious is that they do not rely on simple criteria to determine their truth value. A large number of facts may be necessary, a clear understanding of concepts and terms, and sometimes even the relevancy or adequacy of some facts as opposed to others may be in dispute. This does not mean there is no correct or true answer, it means that it may be difficult to arrive at one.

This is nothing new, however. Difficult scientific questions are not answered by one or two facts, but by a collection of evidence and a great deal of analysis of that evidence on many levels. It is in the nature of some judgements to be inscrutable, absent knowledge that may not be available given current means and resources. That simply means judgement on those matters may be withheld or tentatively made. It doesn’t mean the judgement is necessarily subjective, merely more or less adequate.

Given the above, clearly a statement such as “Rape is wrong” is not a preference statement, nor a factual statement in the same sense as “The car is yellow.” It is a judgement statement and, as such, is, at least in principle, a possibly correct assessment of rape. It is not merely an expression like “I do not like rape” or “I would prefer not to be raped.” It is a judgement claim about rape that is susceptible to a determination as to its truth. It is either true that rape is morally wrong or it is not true that rape is morally wrong. Such a judgement requires the assembly of a body of evidence and a reasoned assessment regarding adequacy to make a determination. That doesn’t mean there is a simple answer but THAT complexity doesn’t, by default, make a judgement subjective.

 

[hasantas]

PietroPaolo:
Than let us say some these meanings.

There is an order in every where from an atom to galaxies. This is a great value and meaning. There must be an owner of this. İs it Natural Progress or Chances? Or nature has a natural secret mind, sight which we can not define? Or is it God?

There is an art in universe. İf There is no God than nature must has a miracle ability of art that it make everything in unattainable art because humanbeing can not make the same art in laboratories.

Everywhere is wonderful and beautiful if dirty hand of humanbeing did not deform. İf God does not this than nature and atoms have a very high quality sense of beauty. What ı know atoms, elements and forces are dead and soulless and solid.

There are countless usefulness in every objects. İf God did not decide those than materials have a wide and comprehensive mind and conscious.

There are numerous benefactions and foods. İf these are not by Mercy and Grace of God than unfeeeling nature has a high compassion for animals and mankinds.

Every food has a delicious flavor which is also is nutrious and cureful. Nature and chemical and physical laws must know our need!

…

…

…

 

[Oreoracle]

There is “in principle” a correct answer to judgement questions although there might be widespread agreement that such an answer is beyond current means.

If you seriously think there is an objectively best color (lacking an arbitrarily chosen definition of “best” like my wavelength example), even in principle, it doesn’t surprise me that you think morality is objective. We simply have no possibility of agreement if you can’t cede the subjectivity involved in having a favorite color.

 

[oldcelt]

I hear people assigning some type of perfection to the universe and humanity. The universe that I see has planets, solar systems, galaxies, etc. slamming into each other. Stars exploding, and all types of other chaos. It just is that we aren’t anywhere near it right now. It works, but I don’t think that it falls under any definition of perfection that I know.

I won’t even comment on humanity. The reason that I believe that there is a God is the starting force in creation. God is not necessary for life now to have meaning. Each of us has found that meaning or we would have a phenomenal suicide rate.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If you seriously think there is an objectively best color (lacking an arbitrarily chosen definition of “best” like my wavelength example), even in principle, it doesn’t surprise me that you think morality is objective. We simply have no possibility of agreement if you can’t cede the subjectivity involved in having a favorite color.

What are you talking about?

Where did I even hint that “there is an objectively best color?”

Using that spurious conclusion as a warrant for dismissing why I think morality is objective is, pardon my bluntness, unfettered audacity. Apparently, you “attempted” to read my post but clearly missed the entire point of it.

It is true that we likely will have no point of agreement if you continue to misread completely the points I do make.

Clearly, your use of “best” regarding colour was ambiguous. It implied “favored by me” and nothing else. So I clearly DON’T “think there is an objectively best color.” In fact, I argued that because your second sentence was preferential, while purporting to be objective, based on your ambiguation of “best” with “my preferred,” that was the reason you mistakenly claimed “best” is a subjective term.

The word “best” when clearly stipulated is amenable to objective judgement. It is a superlative, which means that with respect to some quality or purpose the item in question is more fit than any other. Clearly, that involves judgement, not preference. There might even be a “best” colour depending upon its purpose, if we clearly define “best for what.” If you simply mean “best for me” that is indistinguishable from “preferred by me,” which IS purely subjective. However, “best” for stopping traffic is clearly not merely a subjective determination. Experiments can, and I assume have, been run.

I said, basically, that both your sentences regarding colour were preferential (wholly subjective) although the second used the word “best” ambiguously, which is why you think it is objective, when clearly it isn’t.

“Blue is my favorite colour” is not an objective claim since it cannot be objectively verified, although it can be corroborated. It cannot be objectively verified because there is no way for the word “favorite” to be measured independently of your claim and your intention regarding its semantic content. We have to “take your word for it.” That is why it does not meet any criteria for “objective” verification. Yes, a certain area of your brain might “light up” every time you see the colour blue, but how does the meaning (semantic content) of the word “favorite” for you necessarily entail a causally symmetrical relationship to that specific brain event being monitored? Subjective claims are unverifiable which is why they are not objective - although they might be dismissed as unconvincing or inconsistent with behaviour, but that is another matter.

Morality is objective and has to be. You could not live with the implications of purely subjective morality. If “rape is wrong” simply means the same as “I prefer not to be raped” the rapist could counter with “I prefer to rape.” If there is no objective means of deciding which of the two preferences is objectively “better,” because, as you claim, “best” is subjective, then we have no basis upon which to say which of the two claims objectively holds in a court of law - they are both subjective. The rapist has as much a claim as the one being raped to their preferred option. Either morality is objective or we are in deep doo-doo.

Let’s call this an argument ad absurdum. If morality is subjective, there are absurd consequences that result, i.e., there is no objective means by which to distinguish between moral claims when they conflict, so “to each his own.” You couldn’t rationally live with that, unless you are certifiably insane. Are you?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The reason that I believe that there is a God is the starting force in creation. God is not necessary for life now to have meaning. Each of us has found that meaning or we would have a phenomenal suicide rate.

If God is necessary for creation, he is necessary for everything he created, including us.

We all have a purpose driven life. To say that God does not have any purpose for us is to say that God created the universe without a purpose. This is to attribute to God a mindless state of Being. How do you know that God is mindless, or that God had no purpose in creating us? How do you know that the purposes we discover in our own lives are not planted there by God?

Since you have no book of Revelation from God that this is so, you must yet have a reason for believing that God has no purpose in creating us; that he has no intention of communicating that purpose to us; and that we are left to our own devices to make up our purpose as we go along … if we can, without God.

Please clarify.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t see your point. Clearly the worth of my (name removed by moderator)ut is subjective. After all, some choose to reply to it, some choose to mock it, and others opt to ignore it. The claim that its worth is subjective is perfectly consistent with these observations and I do not hesitate in admitting this.

If the worth of your (name removed by moderator)ut is entirely and solely subjective there is no obvious reason why it should be valuable and significant for others. Is the truth never objective?

 

[tonyrey]

I hear people assigning some type of perfection to the universe and humanity. The universe that I see has planets, solar systems, galaxies, etc. slamming into each other. Stars exploding, and all types of other chaos. It just is that we aren’t anywhere near it right now. It works, but I don’t think that it falls under any definition of perfection that I know.

What makes you think a perfect, physical universe is feasible?

I won’t even comment on humanity

. You write everyone off with the stroke of the pen?

The reason that I believe that there is a God is the starting force in creation. God is not necessary for life now to have meaning. Each of us has found that meaning or we would have a phenomenal suicide rate.

To be precise, each of us thinks we have found a meaning - which not infrequently turns out to be an illusion…

 

[tonyrey]

Than let us say some these meanings.

There is an order in every where from an atom to galaxies. This is a great value and meaning. There must be an owner of this. İs it Natural Progress or Chances? Or nature has a natural secret mind, sight which we can not define? Or is it God?

There is an art in universe. İf There is no God than nature must has a miracle ability of art that it make everything in unattainable art because humanbeing can not make the same art in laboratories.

Everywhere is wonderful and beautiful if dirty hand of humanbeing did not deform. İf God does not this than nature and atoms have a very high quality sense of beauty. What ı know atoms, elements and forces are dead and soulless and solid.

There are countless usefulness in every objects. İf God did not decide those than materials have a wide and comprehensive mind and conscious.

There are numerous benefactions and foods. İf these are not by Mercy and Grace of God than unfeeeling nature has a high compassion for animals and mankinds.

Every food has a delicious flavor which is also is nutrious and cureful. Nature and chemical and physical laws must know our need!

In other words the effect is out of all proportion to the cause, i.e. we’re getting everything from nothing!

 

[St_Redemption]

It really all come down to what ones idea of “purpose” is. So it’s a tough question to tackle. But I do personally pretty much agree with the OP.

 

[Bradski]

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.

You’re assuming that there can’t be meaning in an individual life if there is no ultimate purpose to the universe.

You are saying that if an atheist finds meaning in her own life, then she must acknowledge that there is a God. Or rather, acknowledge that there is something outside of the material which gives it meaning (and which you claim happens to be the god in which you believe).

Nonsense.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You’re assuming that there can’t be meaning in an individual life if there is no ultimate purpose to the universe.

You are saying that if an atheist finds meaning in her own life, then she must acknowledge that there is a God. Or rather, acknowledge that there is something outside of the material which gives it meaning (and which you claim happens to be the god in which you believe).

Nonsense.

No, I think what he is saying is that if meaning flows from an infinite source it is bound to be more full, more real and more lasting than meaning from an inherently limited source that has no capacity to ensure its longevity. Better to drink from an everlasting spring than from a small cup.

 

[tonyrey]

I think it doesn’t work at all:
First, how do you know if there is no God, then the universe lacks meaning?
Second, how do you know the universe has meaning?
The two lines of your argument are only your opinion, not fact.

.

What do you mean by “meaning”? Value, purpose or reason?

 

[tonyrey]

You’re assuming that there can’t be meaning in an individual life if there is no ultimate purpose to the universe.

You are saying that if an atheist finds meaning in her own life, then she must acknowledge that there is a God. Or rather, acknowledge that there is something outside of the material which gives it meaning (and which you claim happens to be the god in which you believe).

Nonsense.

Do you mean we can invent purposes?

 

[Bradski]

Do you mean we can invent purposes?

I don’t know what the question has to do with what I said. You need to skip the fortune cookie comments and start making some substantial posts that actually men something.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This is very much a generalization on what and how Atheists think.
The Atheist only wants the same level of proof most of us usually require when we believe something to exist. Something more than anecdotal claims, something solid. It doesn’t have to be nobel-prize-winningly scientific.

There is something solid. It can’t be helped if the atheist thinks it is not solid enough.

The skeptics of religion used to think the universe is eternal. There was no proof one way or the other, so they could with impunity opt for an eternal universe. Now God has revealed to us through science that the universe was created (the Big Bang). It used to be thought that all life was randomly produced without being intelligently designed. Now God has revealed to us through science that this in no way explains the irreducible complexity of abiogenesis. The evidence is mounting ever so gradually that the skeptic’s position is increasingly untenable. It can’t be helped that there is no Nobel-prize-winning argument for God. But what evidence there is should give skeptics an alarm call to rethink their suppositions.

Atheist Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

Genesis, 1200 B.C. : “In the beginning God said: ‘Let there be light.’”

As astronomer Robert Jastrow pointed out in God and the Astronomers.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”