What Is Man?

[seer]

But there is justice, there is purpose, evil and good, as well as pity or empathy, but those things aren't objective realities, they are subject to existence itself.

Yes and they are as purposeless and meaningless as we as a race are.

[JimL]

Yes and they are as purposeless and meaningless as we as a race are.

Purposeless and meaningless to who? If god doesn't exist, would you rather live in a world without justice, without a moral system? Of course you wouldn't, it would be idiocy to say that you would. All you are concerned with seer is your continued and eternal existence, and therefore you need an ultimate meaning and purpose for your existence. Meaning and purpose are relative to the living, when your dead, your dead.

[Tassman]

Yes and they are as purposeless and meaningless as we as a race are.

[seer]

Purposeless and meaningless to who? If god doesn't exist, would you rather live in a world without justice, without a moral system? Of course you wouldn't, it would be idiocy to say that you would. All you are concerned with seer is your continued and eternal existence, and therefore you need an ultimate meaning and purpose for your existence. Meaning and purpose are relative to the living, when your dead, your dead.

Of course like any animal I would like to live, and I personally would like to live in a particular kind of world, but the Communists and ISIS want to live in different kind of world. And my preference is objectively no more valid or moral than theirs.

[seer]

A common religion or totalitarian rule can also be meaningful component of maintaining a cohesive society. So?

[JimL]

Of course like any animal I would like to live, and I personally would like to live in a particular kind of world, but the Communists and ISIS want to live in different kind of world. And my preference is objectively no more valid or moral than theirs.

No, they don't want to live in a different kind of world, people are people and whether they live under communist rule, socialism, theocracy, or democracy, they all generally want the same things, its just that the best way of getting there is not known or agreed upon. Don't confuse the universal desire of the people with the systems created by those who have power over them. Like you said, everyone wants to live, and everyone wants to live well, those general preferences are universal. Unfortunately power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely to the point where those who have unchecked power use it for their own personal advantage rather than to the advantage of the people.

[JimL]

A common religion or totalitarian rule can also be meaningful component of maintaining a cohesive society. So?

It could be. Like I said, in the end it is the rules that matter, not the maker of the rules. If the rules themselves are just and in the best interests of those living under them then where the rules come from wouldn't matter.

[Tassman]

A common religion or totalitarian rule can also be meaningful component of maintaining a cohesive society. So?

Not really!

Totalitarian regimes can enforce their ideologies on the populace. But enforced conformity is not the same as a cohesive society. The latter comes from within. For a truly cohesive society the components binding it together must be acceptable to the members of said society and will contain quality of life issues such as sufficient income, a good environment, health care, decent education, leisure time, and a sense of social belonging. The less of these components, the less cohesive is the society and the more prone to violence it will be.

[siam]

social cohesion and meaning---For any expression of "meaning", language is the first necessary component. Even if human values and desires/aspirations are universal, their expression may be various. For example, the pursuit of happiness is universal---how this is expressed and consequently how it is achieved may be various. Buddhism expresses the pursuit of happiness as the reduction of suffering---and consequently works on achieving such a result, Islam expresses the pursuit of happiness as the promotion of peace....etc....the end goal of everyone is the same but the language used to express and implement it makes it seem different.

Language is also helpful for "identity"---which is a necessary component of social cohesion. Human beings have individual identity (names) but it is the nature of human beings to be social/part of groups and groups also form identities. Group identities are not just labels that differentiate but can also be linked to the purpose of their existence and "purpose" identifies "meaning".

[Tassman]

social cohesion and meaning---For any expression of "meaning", language is the first necessary component. Even if human values and desires/aspirations are universal, their expression may be various. For example, the pursuit of happiness is universal---how this is expressed and consequently how it is achieved may be various. Buddhism expresses the pursuit of happiness as the reduction of suffering---and consequently works on achieving such a result, Islam expresses the pursuit of happiness as the promotion of peace....etc....the end goal of everyone is the same but the language used to express and implement it makes it seem different.

No I think 'instincts' are the first necessary component. "Language" gives voice to our instinctive needs.

Language is also helpful for "identity"---which is a necessary component of social cohesion. Human beings have individual identity (names) but it is the nature of human beings to be social/part of groups

Yes, humans are an evolved social species and natural selection has resulted in social animals such as us living in groups. The opportunities for survival and reproduction are much better in groups than living alone.

and groups also form identities. Group identities are not just labels that differentiate but can also be linked to the purpose of their existence and "purpose" identifies "meaning".

And the role of groups is to promote their own interests resulting often in tribe against tribe, religion against religion and nation against nation.

[The Thinker]

Two very stark views of mankind. In one men are just the accidental by product of the forces of nature, no ultimate purpose, no overriding justice - in reality no good or evil. In the other view men have a purpose, were created for a reason. And have a future - what we do here has eternal consequences raising our behavior to a level far beyond what is the case in a godless universe. Our behaviors are much more important because we are much more important.

Even if this were true, it doesn't make CS Lewis's view correct anymore than it would make Islam true because it made you happy. Bottom line: it's wishful thinking. Believing something because it makes you happy, or you want it to be true, doesn't make it true.

Now to some specifics.

"....no overriding justice..."

You couldn't even define "justice" when I challenged you to. Without a logically coherent definition, you have no basis to claim Christianity (or theism) gives you justice and atheism doesn't. "Justice" would be completely arbitrary, and thus, baseless.

".....in reality no good or evil...."

Again, you must define "good" and "evil" robustly and coherently otherwise this is just your opinion once again because it will be based on arbitrary definitions picked just to suit your particular theological inclinations.

In the other view men have a purpose, were created for a reason.

What if your purpose in life was to become a shoe shiner for 12 hours a day at minimum wage? Would you prefer this or to have no forced purpose on you at all and one you can decide for yourself? I personally never saw why purpose imposed from someone else would make anyone happy.

And have a future - what we do here has eternal consequences raising our behavior to a level far beyond what is the case in a godless universe.

If we're "saved" by faith, as Paul says in Gal 2, then I can rape and torture children for 50 years and get to heaven, while a humble Muslim who harmed no one gets eternal hell. So you're not even right here.

Our behaviors are much more important because we are much more important.

Another subjective claim based on a conclusion from an argument that isn't well defined beyond your subjective opinion. Try actually meeting the standards required by philosophers to make an argument and stop wasting everyone's time with your unsupported assertions.

[The Thinker]

Was it the purpose of past species that went extinct to survive?

That is a much harder question to answer under theism than under naturalism. Why did 99.9% of all species ever to exist go extinct on the view that they and the universe they exist in were created by an infinitely loving, morally perfect being who can do and know everything logically possible?

[seer]

You couldn't even define "justice" when I challenged you to. Without a logically coherent definition, you have no basis to claim Christianity (or theism) gives you justice and atheism doesn't. "Justice" would be completely arbitrary, and thus, baseless.

Nonsense, in your godless universe there is no ultimate justice, nor can there be. With God there certainly can be, even if could not fully define it. Our lack of knowledge would not change its existence nor make it arbitrary. You are again confusing ontology with epistemology. And of course the Christian can define justice. Those who love God and attempt to do good are rewarded, those who reject Him, are judged and perish.

If we're "saved" by faith, as Paul says in Gal 2, then I can rape and torture children for 50 years and get to heaven, while a humble Muslim who harmed no one gets eternal hell. So you're not even right here.

First Thinker, I lean towards a more inclusive view here, I don't think the Muslim you describe is necessarily lost. He will not be saved apart from Christ but there may be second chances. Second, does it bother you that God forgives? Would not justice also included the full reformation of the wicked man, if possible?

[The Thinker]

Nonsense, in your godless universe there is no ultimate justice, nor can there be. With God there certainly can be, even if could not fully define it. Our lack of knowledge would not change its existence nor make it arbitrary. You are again confusing ontology with epistemology. And of course the Christian can define justice. Those who love God and attempt to do good are rewarded, those who reject Him, are judged and perish.

But if you cannot define "justice" then you have no right to claim god offers justice. What if god rewarded atheists for their skepticism and punished theists for their naivety and gullibility? Would you accept that as justice? Basically, all you've ever offered me is blank claim that god offers justice, but you have provided absolutely no definition or logical reasons to think that's true.

Second, I'm not at all confusing ontology with epistemology. We aren't debating ontology right now. Epistemically, you can't even know what justice is since you've utterly failed to define it. That means whatever god does, even if he rewards atheists and punishes theists, to you is "justice." If you claim that's impossible, then you must be making that claim from a theory of justice, which would force you to define justice so it isn't some arbitrary concoction.

Third, many Christians disagree with the idea that god rewards/punishes. The Lutheran view is that we are saved purely through faith, as Paul says in Galatians 2. Salvation is an act of mercy, because we all deserve hell, no matter how good we've behaved in this life. The famous apologist William Lane Craig actually wrote this to me:

The Bible says that all our righteous acts are like filthy rags

You have no way of knowing whether this view is right over yours. And also what if someone does "good" but doesn't love god, or your god? And what is good? You've never defined that. How is someone supposed to know what's good and what isn't in order to get this "reward"?

First Thinker, I lean towards a more inclusive view here, I don't think the Muslim you describe is necessarily lost. He will not be saved apart from Christ but there may be second chances. Second, does it bother you that God forgives? Would not justice also included the full reformation of the wicked man, if possible?

Why is believing a condition that must be met in order to avoid being "lost"? Why should believing silly things be a factor in how one's afterlife is? And also, if actions are a factor, then you need to logically explain libertarian free will which you haven't. You've only just asserted it.

To your second point, if god exists, and wants us to "know him" and believe in him and worship him, as almost every theist has told me, then why make the rules on this so confusing? Are we "saved" from (1) faith, (2) faith + works, (3) just works, or (4) something else? The Bible isn't even clear on this.

[seer]

But if you cannot define "justice" then you have no right to claim god offers justice. What if god rewarded atheists for their skepticism and punished theists for their naivety and gullibility? Would you accept that as justice? Basically, all you've ever offered me is blank claim that god offers justice, but you have provided absolutely no definition or logical reasons to think that's true.

I'm not asking you to believe it is true, since you are a sinner and sin makes you irrational. And yes, I certainly can claim that God is just even if I can not define His justice in totality.

Second, I'm not at all confusing ontology with epistemology. We aren't debating ontology right now. Epistemically, you can't even know what justice is since you've utterly failed to define it. That means whatever god does, even if he rewards atheists and punishes theists, to you is "justice." If you claim that's impossible, then you must be making that claim from a theory of justice, which would force you to define justice so it isn't some arbitrary concoction.

But I did define justice. And yes, it impossible for God to lie to us, about whom will or will not be saved.

Third, many Christians disagree with the idea that god rewards/punishes. The Lutheran view is that we are saved purely through faith, as Paul says in Galatians 2. Salvation is an act of mercy, because we all deserve hell, no matter how good we've behaved in this life. The famous apologist William Lane Craig actually wrote this to me:

Again, what is your point? God rewards those who love Him, and have faith in Him, and rejects those who reject Him. That is justice/just.

You have no way of knowing whether this view is right over yours. And also what if someone does "good" but doesn't love god, or your god? And what is good? You've never defined that. How is someone supposed to know what's good and what isn't in order to get this "reward"?

Since God is by definition just, He will always do what is right - so even if I don't understand every aspect.

Why is believing a condition that must be met in order to avoid being "lost"? Why should believing silly things be a factor in how one's afterlife is? And also, if actions are a factor, then you need to logically explain libertarian free will which you haven't. You've only just asserted it.

Loving God, is what connects us to God, that is the outgrowth of faith, just as works are the natural outgrowth of faith. Men are not saved by works, works points to our faith in God and love for him. And our love for God and His love for us are not silly things - they are everything. Love is at the core of the universe and currency of Heaven. Love is what unites us to the source of everlasting life, and apart from that connection we will wither and die.