Can there be inherent meaning without God?

The fact that you feel pleasure should show that there's meaning to life.
Pleasure good.
Sadness bad.

You can say that we all have our own meaning based on what each of us truly desires, but that's not true. The worst thing for existence is to cease existing. It's antithetical. It goes to stand that the best thing would be to exist more. To make the outside world conform with your existence, and to modify your desires so that you enjoy it. That's the meaning of life. And the road to godhood.

This is some seriously cringy teenage '''''''''philosophy'''''''''

Yes this.

Can you faggots define meaning for fucks sake? I've been hearing this question my entire life as if it is a deep wuestion that everyone considers and never got a clear answer as to what "meaning" refers to

No, however atheists believe themselves to be god or akin to.

I'm 25 and I don't mean for it to be cringey. This is the logic in a vacuum, but it's also true.

If God is omnipotent - which, while it's unclear whether he is or not in scripture, the real God would be - then everything is his will. If everything that happens is God's will, then he's ,in effect, nature - which is to say: unconscious. Life is the consciousness of God.

If one were to gain control of everything, then one would de-facto be God. By this logic, humans are relatively fast becoming God.

I'm not sure how to stop this from being teenage philosophy if that's what you consider it. As far as I can tell, my logic cuts sharper than anyone I've heard talk. Cuts well past Neitzsche.

If I were to argue this to its finish then people would just stop replying. I wish there was actually someone to talk to on this site.

No

>If everything that happens is God's will, then he's ,in effect, nature - which is to say: unconscious
No he isn't. That doesn't make any logical sense at all.

>If one were to gain control of everything, then one would de-facto be God.
That's not what "God" is by definition. You're just making shit up that sounds good to you.

>As far as I can tell, my logic cuts sharper than anyone I've heard talk.
Good Lord, you're nothing but some pseudo-intellectual faggot who thinks he has figured it all out when he clearly hasn't. Just stop.

>If one were to gain control of everything, then one would de-facto be God. By this logic, humans are relatively fast becoming God.
I kek'd. Humans are far from gaining control of everything, we don't even know what 95.1% of the universe is made of. Also omnipotent = gaining control of everything, gaining control of everything =/= omnipotent

>1st
I think it's true. Even the constitution calls God "Nature's God". Everything happens because of nature. Even the things that humans and other animals do, are all an extension of nature and in some way happen because of the laws of the universe.
If everything is God's will then God is nature. Which is essentially unconscious.

A fully omnipotent being that controls everything and created the universe is the only definition of God there would be. Even if you don't like the term nature, the more one controls the closer one is to being God. This shouldn't sound that crazy.

Think of an actual argument or don't reply. This doesn't have to be a combative thing, and I'm not a fucking pseudo intellectual. You've read 10 lines of what I think. You have no idea what you're talking about.

>omnipotent = gaining control of everything, gaining control of everything =/= omnipotent
That's the argument to be had. Define omnipotent. In order to gain control of everything you would need to know everything as it happens.

But you're right about the rest. We don't know ANYTHING completely. Not even our nutrition, not how our brain works, not the economy, not quantum mechanics etc etc. But we seem to be growing at a faster rate than anything in the known universe.
It may be AI that gets there, but in all likelihood we'll learn to expand out capabilities before we create a general intelligence.

There is obviously a large way still to go, but that's the direction. That's where evolution is taking us. Greater consciousness, and with that, greater control.

Just to expand on this, we don't even understand evolution completely. It's just a barely pieced together theory. It seems to work in a system of improvement, but how? We have zero idea.

I take the opinion that it isn't completely random. Mice show that genetic memory is a reality. On a mental level, there is an instant 1 generation evolution in a mouse's ability to get through a single maze.
But what if an entire line spent their entire lives getting through mazes? It's not a stretch to think there would be a genetic evolutionary trait that starts popping up to help them out.

This goes back to my point: the meaning of life is to strive for ultimate pleasure. Like the mouse strives for the cheese at the end of the maze, we strive to gain an understanding and thereby control of the world around us.

No, not really. Religion created the idea of "meaning" in life, the idea that we were put here with a purpose. To truly live without god or religion is to acknowledge that life has no meaning, and that we're all just space-dust drifting randomly and all that bullshit.

I think according to Nietzsche, the ideal way to live is to create your own meaning, and life for your own purpose for your own sake. Like you can make your purpose in life to be the best painter in Duluth Minnesota for what it's worth and as long as you're striving for that goal you'll lead a fulfilling life. Yes, in the grand scheme of things, that goal is meaningless, but in a universe where everything is meaningless, that goal is as good as any, so you should follow it with full conviction if it has meaning to (you).

First of all, you should read Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery and Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolution. And perhaps the problem of induction proposed by Hume. You wouldn't be so prone to believe what you do now. You can't obtain omniscience without omnipotence but you can't be omnipotent without being omniscient. And in another vein, adding an extremely large number of finite numbers does not form an infinity.

>That's the argument to be had. Define omnipotent. In order to gain control of everything you would need to know everything as it happens.
If you really want to get into the semantics of it, you're not wrong. I assume, however, that you believe control of everything to be manipulation of matter, as in you can make a deer kill itself. Manipulation of mind would be the same thing for that matter. But control of everything also means redefinition of everything. That means making 1+1 not equal 2, the concept not the words.

>But we seem to be growing at a faster rate than anything in the known universe.
Don't be a retard. I just told you we don't know what 95.1% of the universe is made of and you come around and tell me about the known universe.
>There is obviously a large way still to go, but that's the direction. That's where evolution is taking us. Greater consciousness, and with that, greater control.
"Greater consciousness" and "greater control" isn't perfection.

You suffer from severe positivism and should get that checked out by reading the books I suggested.

>Just to expand on this, we don't even understand evolution completely. It's just a barely pieced together theory. It seems to work in a system of improvement, but how? We have zero idea.

We have a pretty good grasp on how evolution works, especially the system of improvement. We've observed it in action and have created evolution (see, breeding and eugenics) ourselves. Are you really saying you have no idea how evolution works?

tolstoy pls leave

I know you're just baiting but I'm bored. Define pleasure. Your idea of mice striving is anthropomorphism, mice can't strive, they're hungry, they'll look for things to eat so they don't starve to death. You don't understand what God is and hence your claims that we will one day be God is ludicrous. You should read the Bible and St Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, among others. Oh and perhaps learn some formal and informal logic because your arguments don't have the cause and effect result you seem to imply.

We only have a loose grasp of our genes in the first place. We just have a slowly increasingly descriptive map of what they are and what they mean, and right now we're basically seeing shadows.

lol can you make an argument instead of name dropping?
>adding an extremely large number of finite numbers does not form an infinity
What about compounding numbers for an infinite amount of time?
The universe will be evolving for all time, and consciousness is an extension of that. The universe / God is waking up. Even if we don't reach full omnipotence - which is debatable whether or not that's even a desirable situation (it may be more fun to be somewhere in the stage of becoming) - we could at least reach a level of demi-godhood.

>You can't obtain omniscience without omnipotence but you can't be omnipotent without being omniscient
Did I imply otherwise? It's not even like I didn't state how we gain control:
>we strive to gain an understanding and thereby control of the world around us
I'm just saying gaining it is being it.

The fact stands that greater control to a large enough extent would be being a demi-God, but I'll keep going.

>But control of everything also means redefinition of everything. That means making 1+1 not equal 2, the concept not the words.
Who's to say we wouldn't be able to? At a quantum level, things apparently don't obey the laws of physics. I'm sure enough power would open up some interesting possibilities.

>Don't be retarded
I misread you, but I took you a step further. I'm sure we know much less than 1% of all there is to be known. We look down on what they knew 1000 years ago. We're just one speck in all of time.

If you could argue this with their logic then that would definitely give me another reason to check out the book.
I'm wayfinding. The fact is that this is the way I have no clue what it leads to. It's a theory.

He gives eschatological and ontological meaning, even epistemological.

I'm not baiting. You're playing devil's advocate without any substance.
Pleasure: a more than typical amount of serotonin running through the body.
How the fuck do you know how mice experience consciousness you faggot fucking moron? I'm sure I've read more of the bible than you. Read my posts.
And, yes there is a cause and effect argument.
maximal pleasure -> requires maximal power -> maximal power = the definition of omnipotence. Then I support it with surrounding arguments. You're an idiot and your post is a waste of time.

Inherent meaning to what? Chairs? There is no meaning inherent to objects.

God is reality, God is Truth.

>If God is omnipotent - which, while it's unclear whether he is or not in scripture, the real God would be
>the real God would be

Lost me here.

Here's a post I made on the bible.
What I don;t talk about is how in Genesis, God and Lord God (Yahweh) are clearly two different people. Or how this played out when Saul became anointed. Or what the (paraphrased) What is true on earth shall be so in heaven, implies regarding this.

I love how people think they can argue by referencing books.

Nothing can have meaning if it means something only to you. We are relational and therefore meaning arises between people, hence the connection between meaning and morality. This relationality can happen at an unconscious level, just like the fact your 'meaningful' ideas are based on something someone else has said.

Without a sense of the eternal, that which religion is always directed, then there is nothing that can connect people together and we live in an absurd solipsistic universe. Yet the question remains how is it that we direct ourselves? To use an example of Wittgensteins it would be like pushing a car along from the inside.

Mentally rewrite that as "an omnipotent being would be" and quit getting lost. Are you a kid? Can you infer your own reasoning?

...

What if the real God isn't omnipotent? If scripture doesn't confirm either way then it could be the case.

Except meaning is a personal thing, and the lens through which we experience the world. This world only inherently matters to this experience isofar as it effects the experience.
Life is eternal within existence the same way time is eternal within the universe.

Learn to think for yourself.

The fact that you think I'm namedropping exposes your dilettantism. Those are some of the most basic works of philosophy of science. And Hume's problem has plagued science for as long as it existed.
You can't argue a fucking concept, say we can achieve that concept, and then come around and say hmm perhaps we don't want to achieve that concept because we can't achieve that concept you fucking mongoloid.
You did in fact claim that we can one day become God. And then after realizing your mistake because you haven't mastered basic logic, you claim that humans can't become God because "we don't want to". A simple explanation to why your idea of "imperfection being fun" is absolutely autistic is because boredom itself is an imperfection.
The problem of induction is that we may see thousands of thousands of swans that are white and make the claim that swans are white. But one day we will or might see a black swan. We can't claim anything is true, only falsify it. And that is Popper's argument against the positivism you are so inclined to. We can say after seeing a black swan that not all swans are white but nothing else. Whereas Thomas Kuhn argues that science isn't even an accumulation of facts but the revolution of paradigms to take into account anomalies and a promise of simpler solutions.

Your pride and confirmation bias is common for a highschooler with a limited knowledge of science and philosophy. You should read more and talk less.
>inb4 omg you condescending shit why don't you make an argument instead

I love how people think they can argue by extolling ignorance. Your claims of "ultimate science" is wrong. If you actually read the books instead of shitposting on chinese calligraphy forums you would know. I fail to understand how that has anything to do with our inability to become God. God is because he is, that's how he would be omnipotent no? If he was created he wouldn't have been capable of creating himself. We can't become God because we aren't

>What if the real God isn't omnipotent?
>the real God would be.

At least the God I choose to worship.
Show a person who knows nothing about the bible or the concept of God the OT and that person would come out wanted to rebel against that God.

In religion the cannon God isn't omnipotent. In scripture, I'm unsure because I think they talk about multiple Gods (God, Lord God, Lord) and I haven't checked the passages that imply he isn't omnipotent.

Naming up so someone could recognize me in a different thread and carry on a conversation, and to lessen how much I'm pouring my energy into the abyss by posting here.

>At least the God I choose to worship.

That doesn't have a whole lot to do with the logic. And anyway if the scripture is true then it doesn't matter if you worship him or not since you can't opt out of his system.

>implying when referencing the book isn't referencing its arguments, just the name
When a guy tells you to eat an apple do you also get confused about what he's saying because words aren't edible? How fucking autistic are you.

If two things are perfect then they're the same thing. If we become all powerful then it would have been us that created ourselves. We wouldn't experience time the same. It would've always been us.

And you're still fucking doing it. Philosophy is a giant waste of time. If it were a conversation, sure. But I'm not going to sit there and consistently disagree with a book. The only person I have to argue to is myself. I'm not going to make it worse.

In the above link I show a possibility of how we could become omnipotent God. Also here:
>Who's to say we wouldn't be able to? At a quantum level, things apparently don't obey the laws of physics. I'm sure enough power would open up some interesting possibilities.
>What about compounding numbers for an infinite amount of time?

I loosely imagine this may look like waking up in a new dimension, but regardless, I personally would want to stay a demi god. The misunderstood Gnostic "Demiurge". Yahweh.

Induction has nothing to do with anything and you just used that as an opportunity to namedrop again. You're actually the one using induction.
>I've soon what 'more power' looks like so I know what 'complete power' looks like.
I'm deducing what would happen at ultimate power

Neither of us can speak for it's arguments, I'm just saying the religious canon is wrong though it's possible that it was always off the mark. If a guy tells me to eat the apple to my left, but there's only an apple to my right then I'm going right. I'll also wonder whether or not this random guy is trying to poison me.

Time isn't even infinite.
>tfw science isn't induction
>tfw we're actually all omniscient
wew lad great argument.
Learn the difference between inducing and deducing you fucking mongoloid holy fuck I got baited didn't I fuck it I should've just gone on /tv/ instead of getting baited.

Goodbye my friend, I refuse to continue getting baited. If you weren't baiting I sincerely hope for your sake that you'll spend some time reading instead of shitposting. But then again, it doesn't really matter if you just work at most a middle management white collar job your whole life. But I do sincerely hope you'll learn to read, it really helps. You should start by reading How to Read a Book by Mortimer Adler, it's great.

Time is infinite within the universe. There will be no after time. There was no before time. Infinite.

I do read, YOU GENUINE FUCKING MORON. A Brief History for example. I'm not going to bother reading philosophy *because* I desire more than middle management.

Maybe if you read more you'd be able to argue something other than syntax.

>If one were to gain control of everything, then one would de-facto be God. By this logic, humans are relatively fast becoming God.

We don't even have free will.

I never said we did, though we still perceive it.
What you're saying isn't an argument. Make an argument.

there can be no inherent meaning even with god

Here's a tip: philosophy is bullshit.

>my logic cuts sharper than anyone I've heard talk. Cuts well past Neitzsche.

(You)

God is the fullness of being, so nothing can even exist without him. Consequentally everything is searching and finding meaning inside of him.

>I Am that I Am

God is by definition an/the absolute. His existence would fundamentally diminish subjectivity and thus permit meaning, in essence he is objectivity from which all other things then derive value or 'meaning'.

See above. Any definition would be meaningless since there is no god.

I'm late to the party but if you're 25 and still haven't figured out how pleasure and sadness correlate with our evolution, you probably shouldn't try spreading "logic" or life philosophies.

>it's morally bad when old people die but it's morally good if I pass on an STD because there's a hormone rush in that moment

>maximal pleasure -> requires maximal power -> maximal power = the definition of omnipotence
Dude how fucking retarded are you hahaha

>defining something into being meaningful
doesn't work that way chap
furthermore "the absolute" is itself nothing more than appeal to authority, for subjects, the only absolute is their subjective experience.

>Can there be inherent meaning without God?

Meaning is created by human perception and induction.

woah dude TIL

Im not trying to be edgy, its just part of the limitations of our ability to understand reality outside of our own experience as humans

>Make an argument.
I can't because I have no free will. :^)

What are you talking about?
I don't subscribe to morality but I'm just saying we don't have a definite grasp on evolution. It's a theory based on a big lack of information regarding its parts.