Meaningless -- Atheists? God?

[_beastie]

What an excellent thread, started by an excellent observation, mon. I'm kicking myself that I didn't think of it myself, which is the highest praise I can give. It's one of those things that is so frackin' obvious when someone else is smart enough to point it out..

How did I miss this on all those old Z conversations, Gad and EA? Did it come up over there?

Man, oh, man, this is good - not just mon's argument, but Gad's subsequent one. Anyone have a link to one of Gad's old debates about this on Z or MAD? I'd love to read it.

I've participated on internet boards for a long time, and really don't remember this particular turn on this conversation. Often the conversations end up feeling like reruns of ones from long ago, and you begin to think there's nothing new to learn. But then, suddenly, one day, you DO get a new insight...

kind of like attending the temple!! (hee hee, joke for fellow endowed apostates)

God's life has no meaning. What a miserable creature he must be. What reason does he have to be moral? Does he have the "requisite inhibitor?" (caution: some Mormons believe that moral laws exist outside god)

But, for traditional Mormons, you'd have to slightly rephrase the situation. Traditional Mormons believe our god was, indeed, created, cuz he was once a man like us. But there has to be a "first" god who started the whole god game in the first place, so the situation would be applicable to First God.

Some internet Mormons have decided that our God is the First God, in order to retain coherence with the Bible and avoid the polytheistic label, so they could work with the original situation as stated.

[Guest]

Gad and I have argued our perspective on ZLMB a few times with more philosophical detail and clarity. Both our posts here probably should be counted as simple references to past arguments. I know for a fact I used my "spice mine" analogy when replying to Mikwut. I'm all too happy to concede that your average atheist thinks life lacks meaning in some grand sense involving teleos. Most atheists will also accept that meaning they have will at some point cease to exist when they do. It's just that I do not think this is significant and if you actually get theists to self-reflect, most of them also probably admit its insignificance as well. It's not desirable in any important sense to be created with a purpose. When not trying to bludgeon unbelievers, theists thinking this typically are just feeling their life won't feel as meaningful if their particular wishes for how it will turn out (re: afterlife) don't come to pass. That's why they have a hard time saying their life will be meaningful if God created them with the intent of torturing them for eternity. They're just expressing their subjective preferences for what they want out of life. Life has meaning insofar we are driven creatures and that is fine. If anyone wants to point out that means life lacks meaning in the sense of having teleological purpose, the appropriate reply is, "So what?"

As a point of interest, you might also want to ask, "Is it horrible for God that his existence lacks teleological purpose?" as this thread does. But that has a good chance of getting you into a loop where theists talk about God creating himself.

[Guest]

There is no doubt, whatsoever, that meaninglessness permeates existence on every level. That doesn't make it bad, it just is what it is. We're the ones assigning meaning to something that has no inherent meaning.

So. The bottom line is that god-belief or the lack thereof is, in of itself, is meaningless. The problem is The Other because he is either viewed as something that threatens The Self, or is in reality, a threat. That's why debate IS important if you value your existence because The Other has historically proven to directly influence your existential experience.

As proven by the 'homosexuality' threads, The Other is more often than not is willing to subordinate anyone he considers to be outside his group. This does not bode well for the "live and let live" type because there's no such thing. Everyone and everything is ALWAYS impacting the reality of something else.

[_truth dancer]

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?

As a believer I never had the idea that God assigned purpose to us.

It was more like the universe existed for us to become Gods and Goddesses; like the purpose was inherent or primal.

I would have said that God's essence reflects this inherent essence, not that purpose was given or created.

But then we get into the fuzzy doctrine... is God the father, Head God of all the Gods and Goddesses or just the God of our particular world and the 100 billion spirits that "He" and his wives supposedly created?

Again, as a believer I held to the "doctrine" that God the Father was the God of our world and had gone through similar experiences as us with a Heavenly Father of His own, and on and on and on.

But, maybe this is no longer taught? Not sure what the current belief is on this. ;-) As you know, things change.

~dancer~

[_The Nehor]

Purpose:

I think, therefore I must become God.

[_beastie]

As a believer I never had the idea that God assigned purpose to us.

It was more like the universe existed for us to become Gods and Goddesses; like the purpose was inherent or primal.

I would have said that God's essence reflects this inherent essence, not that purpose was given or created.

But then we get into the fuzzy doctrine... is God the father, Head God of all the Gods and Goddesses or just the God of our particular world and the 100 billion spirits that "He" and his wives supposedly created?

Again, as a believer I held to the "doctrine" that God the Father was the God of our world and had gone through similar experiences as us with a Heavenly Father of His own, and on and on and on.

But, maybe this is no longer taught? Not sure what the current belief is on this. ;-) As you know, things change.

Yeah, I was trying to hint at this by warning that traditional Mormons (I've seen internet Mormons eschew this) believe that the moral "laws of the universe" exist external to any god, and god, in fact, is subservient to those rules. If he violates them, he ceases to be god. Like I said, there appears to be a movement among some internet Mormons to adhere to the mainstream Christian notion of God versus this idea.

I think this may be why, to some traditional Christians, Mormonism tends to veer towards atheism. Ironic, isn't it? Once you adhere to the idea that that which exists first and outside any conscious interference is the nature of the universe, you do move closer to atheism. In the Mormon paradigm, if these "laws of the universe" exist and are preeminent even over god, where did these laws come from? They just are, by the nature of the universe? This really does begin to sound similar to how atheists often grasp the universe.

[_Moniker]

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 purpose assigned to man, by God, gives man meaning in life. Yet, there is no outside source assigning purpose to God. So, if meaning only derives from a purpose and God had no creator that assigned Him purpose then His existence is meaningless.

[_Ray A]

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

This is an interesting speculation from an agnostic:

http://www.cs.unm.edu/~kwiley/mindRambl ... tence.html

Towards the end of the article he writes:

I have defined a way in which God, having all the powers that God must have by definition, can truthfully exist without resorting to mystical legends. It is an explanation by nature. It is the only natural definition of God that I have ever heard. I have never been told a concept like this by anyone. I don't think anyone has every really thought of it before.

He isn't the first, though, an agnostic friend of my engaged in this very same speculation in a 1991 letter to me, but not using the computer analogy. If nothing else, it's some kind of "explanation" for the persistent "problem of evil", or the "does God really care?" question.

[_cksalmon]

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?

Good stuff, Gad. As the token Calvinist here, I'd like to respond in detail, but, if my beliefs are true, God predestined me to Banquet-TV-dinner derived expulsive vomitus this evening. And I can barely think straight at this point.

[_Tarski]

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.

Reading Nehor's posts will dispell any doubt of this. He wants his 70 virgins and a pony too (or rather godhood too).