[Poul]

Theistic Views On the Meaning of Life are a severe case of tunnel vision.

[jayceeii]

If the present-day theists have not been given an accurate existential paradigm or told what God expected from His friends, and they are not succeeding as they suppose in achieving a personal relationship to God and living in His Will, then they are not in actuality finding any more meaning than atheists, their ideas lacking existential weight.

[Levi]

“However, if the theistic view on the meaning of life is true, does
it mean that if a person has no religious beliefs or does not believe
in the existence of a divine Creator, does this mean that his life has
no meaning?”

If God is real, then everything has meaning. If God is not real, nothing has meaning. How do I know? Because purpose is given by someone, not accidental causes. A few accidental words on the computer have no meaning, no purpose. This is right, right?

[jayceeii]

You do not draw meaning from knowing God exists, but from doing things as God wants them done. Therefore only angels are finding eternal meaning, as humans keep missing. Those who act contrary to God’s Will are annoyances to Him; the relation is mere toleration. Volcanoes spewing lava find no meaning, nor humans spewing angry words.

[Levi]

“You do not draw meaning from knowing God exists, but from doing things
as God wants them done.”

Good point. I was saying that meaning can only exist if God exists, and finding out that meaning, as you said, is doing things as God is asking you to get it done.

“Therefore only angels are finding eternal
meaning, as humans keep missing.”

How does that follow?

“Those who act contrary to God’s Will
are annoyances to Him; the relation is mere toleration. Volcanoes
spewing lava find no meaning, nor humans spewing angry words.”

So?

[Anthony (Atheist)]

I agree with this post, and here is why:

The statement posits that theists believe the meaning of life is bestowed upon humans by a divine Creator, rooted in a relationship with God and the fulfillment of His will. This viewpoint suggests an objective and predetermined purpose for human existence within the framework of a larger divine plan. However, it raises questions about the meaning of life for those who do not adhere to religious beliefs or reject the concept of a divine Creator.

Naturalism and existentialism offer compelling perspectives that challenge the theistic view. Naturalism asserts that the universe operates solely within the confines of natural laws, devoid of supernatural intervention. From this standpoint, the meaning of life emerges from the interactions and experiences within the natural world, guided by empirical observation and scientific inquiry. Human existence is seen as a product of natural processes, with meaning subjectively derived from personal values, beliefs, and social interactions.

Similarly, existentialism contends that existence precedes essence, meaning that individuals must first exist and then define themselves through their actions and choices. According to thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre, humans possess the freedom and responsibility to create their own meaning and purpose in life through free will and personal choice. Existentialism rejects the notion of a predetermined meaning imposed by a divine Creator, instead affirming the autonomy of individuals to define their own existence.

In essence, both naturalism and existentialism offer alternative frameworks for understanding the meaning of life that do not depend on the existence of a divine source. By emphasizing the subjective nature of meaning and the autonomy of individuals in defining their own existence, these philosophical perspectives provide a robust counterpoint to the theistic view. Ultimately, whether one finds meaning in life through religious belief or secular philosophy is a deeply personal question, with no single answer applicable to all individuals.

[jayceeii]

By emphasizing the subjective nature of meaning and the autonomy of individuals in defining their own existence, these philosophical perspectives provide a robust counterpoint to the theistic view.  

To be fully consistent the statements by naturalists, materialists and/or existentialists should be accompanied by declarations of contentment to consider the life is temporary.

Furthermore, there should be some type of explanation why if the life is considered full and joyous (meaningful), there is no urge within the individual that the joy be continued.

In all the things humans enjoy in life, they wish they could continue in that. Except when the existentialists arrive on the scene, suddenly an unexplained claim to be content to die.

What it looks like, to be honest, is people attempting to assert intellectual domination without the wherewithal to do so consistently. It’s a fragmented approach, denying death.

[Maeve]

Personally, I believe that meaning of life is derived from the source of life, which is a divine Creator. God is our creator, so He has created us with intention and purpose. From this, we are called to live in the intentional that He foresaw for our lives to truly flourish. This derivation of a purpose is universal in seeking relationship with God but is subjective in the personal application of purpose. Each purpose has a different application and manifestation of that developing relationship with God. Is a person does not believe in a divine Creator, this does not mean that their life does not have purpose. Everyone who is created and existing has a purpose and intention for their life. This manifests in skills, talents, and interests that are natural and unique to the individual. This can help indicate that our God ordained purpose manifestation is. If a person does not believe in God, then they are not fulfilling nor living out their purpose. This does not mean that they don’t have one; just that they are not living in their full purpose.

Inherently, as a Christian, I reject naturalism. I do think there is value and inherent interest in the functioning of the natural world. Its intricacies and chain effects are fascinating; however, I do not believe that the natural world is all that there is. There are many functions and aspects of the natural world that are inexplicable, indicating that there is something more than the natural world alone. So much of brain function is unexplainable using physicality alone. For example, dreams are insanely difficult to track to a source and cannot be explained by physical manifestations alone. This is only one example that is within the extensively studied human body that is not explainable. One may say that we simply do not have the faculties to measure these things yet and that is why they are unobservable. Using this logic however, you can justify the physicality of anything by depending on an unreliable future event that cannot be proven.

As far as existentialist views, there is a sense of extensive flexibility and an “anything goes” mentality that poses issue for discovering the objective truth. Human existence and purpose seems important and intrinsic to our nature. Human nature is universal, so it follows that there is a commonality to all be striving for. This is not conducive to everyone striving for an overall purpose that they decided for themselves. For example, if happiness is the purpose of human existence, then people strive for this purpose in different ways; however, there is a unified purpose. This view of existentialism does not seem conducive to any unified purpose.

[James]

A little syllogism (because I love a little syllogism) …

P1. For any X, if X lacks a maximally great creator then the existence of X has no real meaning.
P2. For any Y, if Y lacks a cause then Y lacks a maximally great creator.
P3. The uncaused cause of the universe lacks a cause (by definition).
C. Therefore, the uncaused cause of the universe lacks a maximally great creator.
C1. Therefore, the existence of the uncaused cause of the universe has no real meaning.

It is claimed that lacking a maximally great creator renders the existence of something essentially meaningless, but then we must assume this claim false in order to start assuming that an uncaused cause (if there is one) is maximally great. This is essentially special pleading because there’s no reason to do so. To convince me that something like God is possible, you must convince me that the existence of something lacking a maximally great cause, could be meaningful.