# data[].attributes.body
	- If God exists, our lives have meaning
		○ God is all-powerful, all-knowing, good; if he exists, no lives are meaningless

	- Both atheists and theists can say that if God exists, life has meaning; atheists can say that God doesn't exists and life still has meaning
		○ How do atheists decide that life has meaning if they don't believe God exists?
	- God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good
		○ He knows whether human life has meaning, can make human life have meaning, and wants human life to have meaning because he is good
		○ A good analysis of why Christians and other theists believe life has meaning; the "good" part is so important
	- Theists & Atheists agree that if unwarranted suffering happens, God doesn't exist
		○ Is this really what Christians believe? He disregards the fact that God gives us free will
		○ He explains that if either suffering or our lives are meaningless, then the other is meaningless too. God's existence ensures that our suffering is not meaningless.
	- God would never create meaningless beings because there is no reason for him to
		○ This seems to agree with Christian beliefs.

Objections:
	- A theist might say that God just makes it possible for our lives to have meaning; he says this can't be true because then some unwarranted suffering would happen and that can't happen with God's existence 
		○ Again, is this what Christians believe? Suffering happens not because of God but because of a lack of Him
	- Second objection??? 
	- Third: Any meaningless lives means that their suffering is meaningless, so God doesn't exists. He says that some lives surely lack meaning, but where is that coming from?
	
	- Questions
		○ How does his argument support the main point?
		○ What is the atheist argument on this side?
	

# data[].attributes.headline
• God is sufficient, though not necessary	                    • God's existence entails that our lives are meaningful	    • If life has meaning, then God is not the source of this meaning	                            • G (god exists) and NG (God does not exist)		           ○ In NG our lives are meaningless		                   ○ The meaning of life does not depend on our experiences or anything that goes on in our life		                           ○ We can do nothing to imbue our lives with meaning.                                   I found the comparison of G and NG and the meanings of both to be very interesting. If you believe in a life with NG, you are living for nothing and your life is meaningless. I also think it was very interesting how this carried into the afterlife.   

# data[].attributes.subject
• God is sufficient, though not necessary	                    • God's existence entails that our lives are meaningful	    • If life has meaning, then God is not the source of this meaning	                            • G (god exists) and NG (God does not exist)		           ○ In NG our lives are meaningless		                   ○ The meaning of life does not depend on our experiences or anything that goes on in our life		                           ○ We can do nothing to imbue our lives with meaning.                                   I found the comparison of G and NG and the meanings of both to be very interesting. If you believe in a life with NG, you are living for nothing and your life is meaningless. I also think it was very interesting how this carried into the afterlife.   

# data[].attributes.body
-Mary Clare Trower

# data[].attributes.body
They first introduce the theist perspective that God is a significant part of our meaning of life and that He created a purpose for us. They then talked about two different possibilities if this were true. One is that human life is intrinsic (meaningful in and of itself), and the other is that we depend on something external to give us meaning. I think we can compromise that if the first one was true, then God doesn’t need to exist because He wouldn't need to be the source of our purpose. It would have to be closer to the second option, where we are dependent on God for meaning. I also think that there are a few problems with their arguments, mainly having to do with perception. I think that the meaning of life can be defined differently depending on the way an individual person defines what their purpose of life is. They can also measure the meaning of life differently as well as determine whether someone is fulfilling their purpose differently. It also depends on how they define "source". Does it mean that God is the entire and consistent source of meaning for all people or does He give us a meaning that we can base our own meaning from and change in the future? I also think we can agree that our meaning does not depend on our experiences, beliefs/morals, or actions, although I think that they can/might have some influence on our perspective of our meaning and maybe even the meaning itself. They also mentioned at one point that most theists and non-theists agree that there are individuals who have never had God intervene in their lives. I would like to argue that it depends on how they define "intervene". I think it is natural for Christians (at least Catholics) to believe that God intervenes in everyone's lives, whether directly or indirectly.

# data[].attributes.body
I think it is interesting how Megill and Linford's arguments are based around the central idea that God is not the source of meaning. To my understanding, they argue that humans have intrinsic meaning that is not dependent on God's existence. This thought process was shocking to me as a Christian because I know I typically assume that without God, we are without purpose. I wonder how the purpose of suffering would tie into this argument. Because if live has meaning without God, what is the meaning of suffering without God?

# data[].attributes.body
- Hypothetical worlds where God exists and God does not exist
- All aspects are the same, other than God existing and not existing
- We still have meaning whether God exists or not because the worlds are (mostly) identical
- They claim that if short, finite experiences are often more meaningful than eternal ones
- The meaning of life is intrinsic to human life, therefore God is not necessary

Some questions:
- How can the worlds be considered identical if something so large (in this case, God) is missing? If they are arguing to Christians, they cannot assume that God has no impacts on daily lives
- Even if human lives intrinsically have meaning, there still has to be something that allows you to fulfill your meaning (i.e. something has to give you the abilities/talents to complete this meaning)?

# data[].attributes.body
He proposes two hypothetical worlds in which one has God and one does not. He says that they are perfect duplicates of each other with the aforementioned exception. He gives the example of two identical lives, one in G, the other in NG. If God is the source of the meaning of life, then the life in NG, even though it is qualitatively identical to the life in G, would not have meaning. From this, he gathers that meaning in life must come from one's own actions because logic would tell you that the person's life in NG still has meaning because this life has morals and beliefs. My counter to this (which he addresses) would be that if God exists in one world and doesn't in an identical world, then the two worlds would not be identical because God is so influential on the world. He tries to combat this issue by discussing that this would imply that then for a life to have meaning, that life must have directly experienced some form of divine intervention. I believe that this is where his counter argument to my counter argument falls apart. By saying that the world with God would be drastically different, I do not mean that every individual in the world is directly in contact with or touched by God. I mean that overall, in a general sense, a world with God would be systematically different than one without.

# data[].attributes.body
The argument saying that if God is a perfect being, then he would not create beings that have a meaningless existence makes sense. I agree that lives can have different degrees of meaning. I agree that if our lives have no meaning then suffering would be gratuitous, but because God created us, we have meaning, so suffering would be for something. I relate to trying to understand what meaning is. It is different for everyone, so how does one define it? I believe that God has a plan for our lives, which would give us meaning. I challenge the argument when it says that if our lives lack meaning, then creating us would be meaningless too. If God created us, he created us for something. Which means we have a meaning. I don’t know what that meaning is, but it is different for everyone.

# data[].attributes.body
I can compromise on argument two more than I can for argument one. I think you do not have to believe God gives meaning if you do believe human lives have intrinsic meaning. I think it is important for humans to believe their lives have meaning so people are working towards an end goal (whether it get to Heaven or just living a good life). If human meaning is intrinsic, then God would not be necessary, but as a Catholic I believe God makes meaning intrinsic. Argument one is hard to compromise on because if a world has God, it will be different than a world that does not. I do not think it is possible to say the two worlds would be identical because people who believe could have very different responses to the same actions. I think the argument against God giving meaning is not valuable because they are saying someone in time has not been meaningful. For people debating if life has meaning because of God, to read that one person has not been meaningful, it could destroy their self-worth and even their life. To think you were not meaningful and could ruin you and make you see no point in living. 

# data[].attributes.body
I can compromise on argument two more than I can for argument one. I think you do not have to believe God gives meaning if you do believe human lives have intrinsic meaning. I think it is important for humans to believe their lives have meaning so people are working towards an end goal (whether it get to Heaven or just living a good life). If human meaning is intrinsic, then God would not be necessary, but as a Catholic I believe God makes meaning intrinsic. Argument one is hard to compromise on because if a world has God, it will be different than a world that does not. I do not think it is possible to say the two worlds would be identical because people who believe could have very different responses to the same actions. I think the argument against God giving meaning is not valuable because they are saying someone in time has not been meaningful. For people debating if life has meaning because of God, to read that one person has not been meaningful, it could destroy their self-worth and even their life. To think you were not meaningful and could ruin you and make you see no point in living.

# data[].attributes.body
Theists believe that because God exists, our lives have meaning. I can see where this argument can come off as harsh to some people specifically atheists. If they truly believe God doesn't exist,  then their lives don't have meaning then their lives don't matter? Although God exists and gives our lives meaning, we have to choose to allow God to give our lives meaning. There are some people who know that God exists but find their meaning in material things like money or power.

# data[].attributes.body
After analyzing the argument, "God cannot be the source of the meaning of life," I now see some perspectives that I have never thought of before. M&L explain that if God exists and is the source of meaning, then divine intervention would be necessary for one's life to have meaning. They say that there are individuals who have never had God intervene in their lives, therefore not all lives have meaning. I understand how someone would make this point, but I disagree with it. I think that God has played a huge part in every single human life ever lived, whether the people have realized it at the time or not. God protects people and plans out each detail of their lives in subtle ways that might be hard to interpret as God's work. This comes from my Christian point of view, but just because someone doesn't see God obliviously working in his or her life does not mean He is not there. Another point that was made was that if God does not exist, that does not mean there is no afterlife. I have never thought of this before. Usually the argument is that our purpose in life is to make it to heaven and if God does not exist what is our purpose? It would make sense for someone who does not believe in God to assume that there is still some type of afterlife. I personally think that at least makes the disbelief more valid because if there is no afterlife at all what are we striving for? I personally do believe that God is the source of the meaning of life, but it is hard to debate the atheist points because some are very valid. Faith plays a large part in my belief, and it is not easy to give facts and scientific arguments to back up faith.

# data[].attributes.body
In argument one, he uses the example of two different worlds, one in which god exists and one in which he does not. One of these worlds would represent our world, we just don't know which one. They are saying, if we lived in the world that god existed, then our life would have meaning, but if we didn't, then our lives would not have meaning. This would mean that even if two people, one in each world, lived identical lives, one would have meaning, and one would not, so nothing that we do in our lives matters for the meaning, only the existence or non-existence of god. This leads to the problematicness of the existence of god. In argument two, they say that if human life has meaning, it can only come from one of two ways. The first way is that human life just has meaning because of the way it is and the second is that it only has meaning because of some outside source, a relationship with something else.  So even if god does exist, if you believe that human life has meaning in and of itself, then he existence of god would be irrelevant.

# data[].attributes.body
Before I am able to find a compromise with this point of view, I would like to know exactly why Megill and Lindford say that not every life has/has had meaning. As I understand it, every life has a purpose, even if that purpose is just to further others' on their personal journeys. Looking beyond the Christian belief that all lives have an intrinsic value, I think about this as if the world is a novel. Every character, however minor, has an effect on the plot and other characters in some way, shape, or form. While this analogy doesn't exactly fit perfectly, everything anyone has ever done has had an effect on human history somehow. That, in itself, seems like a meaning or purpose in life to me. I'm sure they have a reason to proclaim that there is or has been a human life with no purpose, but I can't see it from just their argument.

# data[].attributes.body
The comparison between the 2 afterlives of G and NG was interesting to me. God exists in G but not in NG. If God exists, then we live in the G world, but if he doesn't, then we are living in the NG world. This is interesting because if makes us think about if we believe in God, it is like our own little "G" or "NG". It also makes us think about the meaning of our lives. A life with God in it will result in greater meanings of our lives. In the NG world, he says that our lives are meaningless and we are put here for no reason. I have been taught my whole life that that is simply just not true. I think it is a little silly though that a human is deciding what/who has meaning when they haven't been to the afterlife or seen/not seen God. Who do they think they are to decide that? I could just as easily say that God exists to an atheist but that wouldn't be valid because of what? I don't have proof? Atheists don't have proof he doesn't exist either!! I think that it is important for each sides to hear what the other has to say and be open to accepting new ideas. When humans do something good, we have a feeling that overcomes us and we feel good and proud. God is good and in this feeling so I believe we are living in a G world. I do agree though that it can be difficult to put all faith into someone/something we have never seen, felt, etc. We can give ourselves our own meaning and decide for us by doing good things we love.

# data[].attributes.body
"One person's life might be more meaningful than the other"
What determines this?
No one knows the amount of lives a person actually impacts. We all impact people if we realize it or not. Maybe some more than others but that doesn't make someone's life more or less meaningful in God's eyes.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the point when they say "God is a perfect being, would not create beings that have a meaningless existence." This shows that our lives has meaning. They also say that if our lives lack meaning, then creating us would be meaningless too and there would be no reason for a God to create us. I could understand the atheist perspective on this that some lives seem to have more meaning than others. I think that there are many example that this could be debated but as Christian I believe that God created us all with a purpose and that purpose was changed when we use our free will. I was challenged by by the idea that if gratuitous suffering exist then God does not.

# data[].attributes.body
I thought it was interesting that they focused so much on some lives not having meaning. He says that "if our lives lack meaning, the creating us would be meaningless too." I think my issue with this was because I've always approached the idea that God created us with a meaning and with a purpose but because we have free will we have the option to ignore that. I don't think that some's life can be entirely meaningless either. I agree with the part about how some can be more or less, but I think meaning can come from the small things too. So to say that a life is entirely meaningless, doesn't seem entirely possible because every life has an even that positively affects another person.

# data[].attributes.body
Megill and Lindford set up the following argument:

1. God is all-knowing and good, therefore he would give our lives the gift of meaning

2. God is omniscient, so it is within his power to give our lives meaning

3. If our lives lack meaning, our suffering would be meaningless

4. If we were created by God, then there would be no reason for us to exist if our lives lacked meaning

I think an objection to these statements is in regards to "suffering." It is stated that "if our lives lack meaning, then our suffering is gratuitous." The issue with this statement is that it doesn't support the argument at all. Many people go through "gratuitous suffering," which would then assume that our lives lack meaning.

# data[].attributes.body
It's interesting to see how the two stances (G or NG) can result in very different things. For G, our lives have meaning, which means God exists, but for NG, our lives don't have meaning, and therefore God doesn't exist. This is odd since two people can live in harmony, but since one believes in God and one doesn't, only one of the two lives have meaning. We know that such a concept isn't true and that all lives have meaning. If the person who believes in God has many differences in comparison to the person who DOESN'T believe in God, this can cancel out this argument/concept, since whether or not their lives have meaning may be determined by other factors (are they good people, do they have good thoughts/morals/intentions?)

# data[].attributes.body
I beg the question that since almost everything in our world has become subjective, how meaning and subjectivity tie together or do they at all?

# data[].attributes.body
I would be intrigued to hear Megill and Linfords respond to who determines if human lives have meaning, is it up to the individual or an external source

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the statement "If God is all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful, then no lives are meaningless." I believe God has a plan for us and we can choose follow his plan or not. We can all choose between good and evil and this gives us a meaning or a purpose for our lives. We have something to live for. God gave us choices or made it possible for us to have a meaningful life, but we need to figure out what is best for us and follow it out. Some people may choose not to follow their meaning. God gave us free will and wants us to follow our own path. But I do wonder if God gave us the choice to choose between good and evil, How many people choose evil or choose to not follow God's path for us. God wants us to follow his path so we can reach our salvation and If you don’t follow his path, Will you reach salvation?

# data[].attributes.body
Megill makes the argument