DiscussMormonism.com

I was considering an earlier thread I had where meaning or purpose of life was assigned by God to man. Atheists are told they have no meaning to their life if they don't believe in a higher power or accept the purpose God gave them, essentially.

I never did get ANY real answers from theists as to what precisely the purpose of life was that was assigned from God. Yet, if it must be assigned then it seems to follow that meaning is only attained from an outside source. Well, if there is no outside source assigning a purpose to God is His existence meaningless?

Let me tell you, Moniker, how to get Mormons to admit that they have no ontological dispute with atheists but rather one of personal preferences. Simply bring up Calvinism. Calvinism is a well-established theological tradition and has far more respectability as serious religious philosophy than Mormonism. So, try to get a Mormon to admit that Calvinism gives life meaning. Since Calvinism maintains the existence of God yet:

1) we are predestined to heaven or hell
2) at most (per J. Edwards) we have compatibilistic freedom (as many atheists claim)
3) the righteous will view the damned in the afterlife in order to feel better about themselves, including relatives.

These are some of the reasons why Mormons hate Calvinism more than even atheism. In fact, DCP has made some very intolerent remarks about Calvinism if I remember correctly. But Calvinism is as theistic as it comes. So, shouldn't we just ask these Mormons if life has meaning in Calvinism? Any objections they give are clearly subjective, personal taste and prefernce ones. Clearly, Calvinism falls under theism, and as carefully considered theism, even if it is incorrect. Therefore, the mere existence of God doesn't seem to satisfy Mormons for grounding morality. If Calvinism is wrong, given its established tradition in theology, it is at minimum a logical possibility which should clearly ground morality to the extent that morality supervenes on the existence of God. Therefore, the objection of Mormons to atheists isn't ontological. The reality of moral obligations does not turn on the existence of God, in the mind of Mormons who say otherwise.

The reality of moral obligations for Mormons, will depend, essentially, on their own hopes and dreams in the afterlife being fulfilled, it's very hedonistic in that way. And anything short their every wish fulfilled by GTF in the next life will lead them to believe the only alternative is nihilism. So the existence of God is actually irrelevant to them for grounding moral good. If there were some kind of technological substitute that could punish and grant immortality, that would do just fine.

Moniker, don't expect any intelligent replies to this post from Mormons. They can't refute it, trust me. I've proven it over and over again. In fact, the two FARMS kiddies getting a laugh at Will's sex jokes wouldn't dare register and respond to me because they know they'll get trounced! :)

Again, what can I do other than raise my hands in victory?

Moniker wrote:Well, if there is no outside source assigning a purpose to God is His existence meaningless?

Bingo!

I realized this question/answer very early in my journey out of Mormonism and into atheism. Let's see... it was about 3 months after I broke the news to my folks and about 1 month before my wife decided she was a non-believer as well. As far as I can tell, the answer is YES, God's EXISTENCE IS TOTALLY MEANINGLESS within the framework set up by theists.

We must define the meaning of meaning.

Anyone can find meaning in life if he or she looks hard enough, but that doesn't mean they were put here for that purpose. This is where theists and atheists differ. According to theists, we were put here for a purpose. Atheists believe we are here due to a cosmological accident. So for them there really isn't a purpose behind our existence; there can only be these mini-purposes we create for ourselves which have no ultimate meaning since they will die with us. Any mother can say her child gives her life meaning, and she would be right to do so; an artist his painting, a musician his music, etc. But when theists refer to meaning of life, they are generally referring to a meaning that explains why we are here. A musician's music might provide a sense of meaning, but it doesn't explain why he exists. Poetry might provide some sense of purpose to a poet, but it doesn't explain why he exists.

Most Christians profess a belief that mankind has a preordained purpose because we are unique from other creatures. We are created in the image of God. That is what separates humanity from other forms of life. While Mormons are unique in their primitive view that God is literally a man, most versions of Christianity reject this. Yet, they see an eternal father in a figurative sense; a deity who created us and bestowed upon us unique attributes.

But most people in this world really don't know what their purpose is. This includes theists too. Even though they believe God created them special, as far as they really know, God is just a kid with an ant farm.

I never did get ANY real answers from theists as to what precisely the purpose of life was that was assigned from God.

The details of this is answered differently by all religions. But all seem to agree that God created us special, and distinct from other creatures. Most theists accept the principle that humanity was created for the purpose of ruling over the earth. That is part of the image of God. Most also believe the universe was created for our existence.

Yet, if it must be assigned then it seems to follow that meaning is only attained from an outside source. Well, if there is no outside source assigning a purpose to God is His existence meaningless?

I don't get what you're saying. God doesn't necessarily "assign" meaning to us, and I don't know how you jumped to the idea that someone had to assign meaning to God.

The outside standard for God is love within Christianity.

The dilemma is real for abstract theism but not for defined theism such as Christianity or Mormonism.

Regards, mikwut

Let me tell you, Moniker, how to get Mormons to admit that they have no ontological dispute with atheists but rather one of personal preferences.

I simply see analogs. Theists have simply given names to theirs while athiests have not.

I think he/she/it is as meaningful as you want him/her/it to be. Just as anything is. If you invest in something you give it meaning. iIf you believe God has meaning in his life then you will create God meaning. If you think God is your savior then he becomes your savior, at least in your mind. On the other hand if you let the God issue sit without paying attention to him/her/it then it will lose meaning as you find other things to give meaning. For me he/she/it has lost all meaning because I just don't think about the issue. I think about many things and do many things none of which have to do with God. He/she/it is thus meaningless to me.

It's a question that will bring a unique response from every person I suppose.

[edit: this sounded a whole lot better in my blog analogy LOL.]

I remember the first question of the roman catholic catechism for children. (By gods! It was near 60 years ago!)

Why we do exist in this world?
We exist in this world to know God, to love Him and to reach salvation hereby.
(The translation - or my memory - may be wrong ...)

When I was 12, I came to realize that I am not for these things, and ceased to believe.

You didn't understand the question Kevin. If a teleological purpose is necessary for existence to have meaning, doesn't that mean God's existence lacks meaning since God has no God-prime to assign it meaning (by creating it with a purpose)? You're supposed to respond by saying something incoherent like, "God is self-created"

Gad is, of course, right. Ask the average non-Calvinist who asserts life is meaningless for atheists if they think life would be meaningful if they were created for the purpose of eternal torment. Or you can use a non-theist hypothetical like asking about the possibility of being designed by aliens for eventual slavery on the spice mines of Claxton 8. Chances are you'll get a no and in the process the theist will demonstrate that they don't think it is teleological purpose that gives life meaning in the desired sense here, but rather the quest for personal fulfillment. And that's open to everyone, regardless of how humans acquired a nature such that they have motives and drives.

EAllusion wrote: If a teleological purpose is necessary for existence to have meaning, doesn't that mean God's existence lacks meaning since God has no God-prime to assign it meaning?

Yup. This is just a transposed version of the dialogue that runs:

A: Who made the world?
B: God made the world. Indeed the existence of the world proves God exists. For everything that exists must have a maker.
A: But who made God?
B: God is a necessary being, who does not need to have a maker.
A: But if God is of a kind that does not need a maker, why could not the world also be the kind of thing that does not need a maker?

Seems a pretty good point to me.

And it works just as well for the claim that God supplies a purpose (or 'end' Greek telos, hence 'teleology' for this kind of argument) for a world which would otherwise be purposeless.