INTRODUCTION:

Before we ask the question "Does God exist?" we first have to deal with our philosophical
predispositions. If, for example, I am already dedicated to the philosophical idea that nothing can
exist outside of the natural realm (i.e. there can be no supernatural God), no amount of evidence
could convince me otherwise. Asking the question "does God exist?" would be pointless. My
answer would be "No, He doesn't," regardless of whether God truly exists or not. The question
would be impossible to answer from an evidentiary standpoint simply because anything which
God might have done (that is, any supernatural act which might serve as evidence for His
existence) would have to be explained away in terms of natural causes, not because we know
what those natural causes could possibly be, but simply because a supernatural God is not
allowed to exist!

Dr. Richard Lewontin, the Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology at Harvard University, put it
like this: "It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a
material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a
priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of
concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how
mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a
Divine Foot in the door" (Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," New York
Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28).

If, on the other hand, I were neutral, and didn't already have an "a priori adherence" to a
particular worldview (be it naturalistic or otherwise), the question "does God really exist?"
wouldn't be pointless at all. Rather, it would be the first step in an objective and meaningful
search for ultimate truth. Our willingness to ask the question with an open mind is fundamental
to our ability to discover the truth behind the answer. So first of all, before you even ask the
question, decide whether or not you're really willing to accept the answer.
Does God Exist - Things to Consider
Once you're ready to ask the question, "does God exist?" here are a few observations to consider
as you begin your search for an objective answer:
Discoveries in astronomy have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe did, in
fact, have a beginning. There was a single moment of creation.
Advances in molecular biology have revealed vast amounts of information encoded in
each and every living cell, and molecular biologists have discovered thousands upon
thousands of exquisitely designed machines at the molecular level. Information requires
intelligence and design requires a designer.
Biochemists and mathematicians have calculated the odds against life arising from non-
life naturally via unintelligent processes. The odds are astronomical. In fact, scientists
aren't even sure if life could have evolved naturally via unintelligent processes. If life did
not arise by chance, how did it arise?
The universe is ordered by natural laws. Where did these laws come from and what
purpose do they serve?
Philosophers agree that a transcendent Law Giver is the only plausible explanation for an
objective moral standard. So, ask yourself if you believe in right and wrong and then ask
yourself why. Who gave you your conscience? Why does it exist?
People of every race, creed, color, and culture, both men and women, young and old,
wise and foolish, from the educated to the ignorant, claim to have personally experienced
something of the supernatural. So what are we supposed to do with these prodigious
accounts of divine healing, prophetic revelation, answered prayer, and other miraculous
phenomena? Ignorance and imagination may have played a part to be sure, but is there
something more?




















MEANING OF LIFE:
The meaning of life is a concept that provides an answer to the philosophical question
concerning the purpose and significance of life or existence in general. It can be expressed
through answering a variety of related questions, such as "Why are we here?", "What is life all
about?", and "What is the meaning of it all?". It has been the subject of much philosophical,
scientific, and theological speculation throughout history. There have been a large number of
theories to these questions from many different cultural and ideological backgrounds. But the
meaning of life could be that exact question itself "what is the meaning of life" or life trying to
find its meaning.
The meaning of life is deeply mixed with the philosophical and religious conceptions of
existence, social ties, consciousness, and happiness, and touches many other issues, such as
symbolic meaning, ontology, value, purpose, ethics, good and evil, free will, conceptions of God,
the existence of God, the soul, and the afterlife. Scientific contributions focus more on describing
related empirical facts about the universe, and the focus is more on the context and parameters
describing the "how?" of life. Science also provides its own recommendations for the pursuit of
well-being and a related conception of morality. An alternative, humanistic approach is the
question "What is the meaning of my life?" The value of the question pertaining to the purpose
of life may coincide with the achievement of ultimate reality, or a feeling of oneness, or a feeling
of sacredness.

This can be interpreted in this context to be the value or significance found in life. To say life is
meaningless without God is to say life has no importance, value or significance without God in
any way. In other words, if God did not exist, life would not have any value - all of life would be
unimportant, insignificant, and devoid of ANY value (Note: This does not mean inherently,
necessarily).
To clarify, "life" does not mean existence. It means the actual process of and living of life, not
the existence of life. Not saying that there is meaning in existence without God; It means that life
is "the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual"
and meaning can be found in that without God. That is the closest definition.

Again, I shall reiterate that life is, in fact, not meaningless without God. Meaning can still be
derived without God. There are plenty of people in this world who do not subscribe to any
religion or believe in a God, yet they find their lives to be meaningful. If they claim to have
found a meaning for their life, a value or significance in it, who are we to say they have not?

"We seem to think that the life of someone like Mother Theresa is 'meaningful', but in order to
claim something like that we need to be able to identify a significant goal that her actions would
work towards."

To have something be meaningful does not mean there must be a goal of any sort inherent in the
object/action/etc. A person can find meaning in an abstract painting where no meaning was
inherent in it. Was there a goal in the painting? No. Someone just decided to throw paint on a
canvas. Someone else saw something deep and provocative in that thrown paint on that canvas.
They assigned a meaning to it for themselves. This is analogous to how humans find meaning in
life. Life is a random occurrence. We have been thrown into this world without our consent,
without a purpose. Therefore, humans must assign a meaning in the purposeless and absurdity of
life. In this situation, with no God, meaning is found.

"What God really represents is an objective standard with which to measure our lives and
actions."

- To this, I would say that why is God necessary for an objective standard? Why can there not
just be universal maxims from no higher power than humanity? Those create objective standards
without God. Why not let humanity come together and decide universal maxims and create an
objective standard? There does not seem to be a true need for any sort of deity to send down
rules and values.

"We are all just perspectives in a perpetuating pool of subjective existence







DOES SOMETHING SUPERNATURAL EXIST?
Beyond discussions over the nature of the question itself, one will find competing views on what
gives life meaning, whereby meaningfulness is meant. That is to say, by virtue of what can life
be said to be meaningful, if it all? The four primary competitors are: (1) Supernaturalism, (2)
Objective Naturalism, (3) Subjective Naturalism, and (4) Nihilism (inter-subjectivism and non-
naturalism are additional options, but are much less prevalent). Importantly, both objective and
subjective naturalism can be categorized asoptimistic naturalisms, in that these views allow for a
meaningful existence in a world devoid of finite and infinite spiritual
realities. Pessimistic naturalism is what is commonly called nihilism. Nihilism is generally a
view adopted alongside an entirely naturalistic ontology (though vigorous debate exits about
whether naturalism entails nihilism), although there is nothing logically impossible about
someone adopting nihilism while being a religious believer. One will be hard-pressed, however,
to find genuine examples of this belief, save some sort of rhetorical, provisional nihilism, as
found in Ecclesiastes in the Bible.
i. Supernaturalism
Roughly, supernaturalism maintains that Gods existence, along with appropriately relating to
God, is both necessary and sufficient for securing a meaningful life, although different accounts
can be given as to the nature of this relationship. Among countless others, historic
representatives of supernaturalism in the Near-Eastern ancient world and in subsequent Western
history are Qoheleth, Jesus, Paul, Augustine,Aquinas, Edwards, Pascal, and Tolstoy. The
supernaturalist position can be plausibly viewed as possessing three distinct yet related
dimensions: metaphysical, epistemological, and relational-axiological. Metaphysically, it is
argued that Gods existence is necessary in order to ground a meaningful life because, for
example, conditions necessary for securing a meaningful existence like objective value are most
plausibly anchored in an entity like God (Cottingham 2005; Craig 2008). In addition to the
metaphysical dimension, supernaturalism often requires, at some level, orthodoxy (right belief)
andorthopraxy (right practice), although much debate exists on the details. Gods existence may
be a necessary condition for securing a meaningful life, but it is generally thought that one must
additionally relate to God in some relevant way in the epistemological and axiological
dimensions (In addition to God-based supernaturalist theories, there are soul-based theories,
where meaning in life is thought to be a function, not so much of God, but rather of having an
indestructible soul whereby immortality is possible).




ii. Objective Naturalism
Objective naturalism, like supernaturalism, posits that a meaningful life is possible, but denies
that a supernatural realm is necessary for such a life. Life in a purely physical world, devoid of
finite and infinite spiritual realities, is sufficient for meaning according to objective naturalism.
Objective naturalists claim that a meaningful life is a function of appropriately connecting with
mind-independent realities that are,contra supernaturalism, entirely natural. Objective naturalism
is further distinguished (from subjective naturalism) by its emphasis on mind-independence. One
way of putting the point is to say that wanting or choosing is insufficient for a meaningful life.
For example, choosing to spend ones waking hours counting and re-counting blades of grass is
likely insufficient for meaning on objective naturalism. Rather, meaning is a function of linking
ones life to inherently valuable, mind-independent conditions that are not themselves the sole
products of what one wants strongly and chooses (contra subjective naturalism). Put simply,
with objective naturalism it is possible to be wrong about what confers meaning on life
something is meaningful, at least partly, in virtue of its intrinsic nature, irrespective of what is
believed about it. This is why spending ones entire existence counting blades of grass or reading
and re-reading phone books is probably not meaningful on objective naturalism, even if the
person strongly desires to do so.
iii. Subjective Naturalism
Like objective naturalism, subjective naturalism posits that a meaningful life is possible apart
from something like supernaturalism being true, but unlike objective naturalism, it differs on
what confers meaning to life. According to subjective naturalism, what constitutes a meaningful
life varies from person to person, and is a function of one getting what one strongly wants, or by
achieving self-established goals, or through accomplishing what one believes to be really
important. Caring about or loving something deeply has been thought by some to confer
meaningfulness to life (Frankfurt 1988). Subjectivism seems most plausible to some in light of
perceived failures to ground objective value, either naturally, non-naturally, or supernaturally. A
worry for subjective naturalism, however, is analogous to ethical worries over moral relativism.
Many protest that surely deep care and love simpliciter are not sufficient to confer
meaningfulness on life. What if someone claims to find meaning in life counting blades of grass,
or reading and re-reading the phone book, or worse, torturing people for fun? Can a life centering
on such pursuits be a meaningful life? The strong, nearly universal intuition here towards
objective value in some form inclines in the direction of requiring an objective standard that
comes to bear on the meaningfulness of an activity or life in general. Subjectivism still has its
defenders, with some proposals moving towards grounding value inter-subjectivelyin
communityas opposed to in the individual exclusively.
Nuanced forms of naturalism, vis--vis meaningfulness in life, make room for both objective and
subjective elements, as is captured nicely by Susan Wolf, Meaning arises when subjective
attraction meets objective attractiveness (Wolf 1997: 211). On this view, the objective and the
subjective must unite in order to give birth to robust meaningfulness. Meaningfulness is not
present in a life spent believing in, being satisfied by, or caring about worthless
projects.However neither is it present in a life spent engaging in worthwhile, inherently valuable
projects without believing in, or caring about, or being satisfied by them.
Though they are in disagreement on the conditions for meaningfulness, both objective and
subjective naturalism are united in their rejection of supernaturalism and supernaturalisms
insistence that God is necessary in order to secure a meaningful life. In this way, both forms of
naturalism, vis--vis meaningfulness in life, can be thought of as optimistic naturalismsthat is,
meaningful life is possible in a godless universe. An optimistic naturalist sees no problem in
thinking that a meaningful life can be secured within an entirely naturalistic ontology. Nothing
additional, nothing of the transcendent sort, is needed to ground those things in life that we, pre-
philosophically, find to be meaningful. The raw materials for meaningfulness are available apart
from God.
iv. Pessimistic Naturalism: Nihilism
Against all views which think a meaningful existence is possible, is the view of pessimistic
naturalism, more commonly called nihilism. Roughly, nihilism is the view that denies that a
meaningful life is possible because, literally, nothing has any value. One way to understand
nihilism is by seeing it as the fusion of theses and assumptions drawn from both supernaturalism
and naturalism. That is to say, nihilism may be seen as requiring (i) that God or some
supernatural realm is likely necessary for value and a meaningful existence, but (ii) that no such
realm exists, and therefore nothing is of ultimate value. Other forms of nihilism focus on states
like boredom or dissatisfaction, arguing that boredom sufficiently infuses life so as to make it
meaningless, or that human lives lack the requisite amount of satisfaction to confer meaning
upon them. Another form of nihilism that is logically compatible with the existence of God is
one based upon a disparity between standpoints. It has been argued that from the most distant,
detached viewpoint, nothing we do seems to matter at all. If one thinks that it is possible to view
even God and the economy of his workings from some more distant standpoint, then even
supernaturalism may face a nihilistic threat of this form.










CONCLUSION:

The main conclusion of my project, then, is that individuals find meaning in their lives for
themselves, and there is no objective standard by which to judge the meaningfulness of a life. In
fact, someone who does what Mother Theresa does may have just as much meaning as someone
who mows lawns for a living and does nothing else, really. Is that the comfortable choice?
Indeed, it is not. But just because people compare the lives of people (Mother Theresa's
meaningfulness vs. a hobo's meaningfulness) does not make it the correct perspective. There is
no objective standard to judge meaning. Each person finds meaning in their own life, and this
can be done without God.

And even if there were to be an objective standard, it need not come from any sort of deity. It
could just be a Kantian sort of set of maxims that are universal, but do not come from God.
Objective standards do not necessitate supernaturalism.