# data[].attributes.body
I liked that they offered two ideas/realities: either God does exist or he doesn't. They're not close-minded in the beginning. So they are agnostic to God's belief.

Like Christine asked, what makes life meaningful? It's hard to wrap my head around the argument because they're not making clear what their definition of meaning is.

They said that it "does not depend on any experiences that we have, on the nature of or content of our thoughts or belief, on any of our actions of accomplishments, on how moral or immoral we are, or on any relationships we form" (37).

So they're saying we can't do anything to bring meaning to our lives. I feel that this kind of contradicts their argument that God cannot give meaning to our lives. So it's hard for me to understand where they believe meaning is coming from, if God does not give it to us, and we cannot give it to ourselves.

I can understand where M&L are coming from with this idea of not everyone has experienced divine intervention. For those people who have experienced suffering or seen those they love suffer and die, while seeing others recover, it can be difficult to come to terms with that and understanding why someone you were close to suffered more severely.

I thought M&L's idea of the possibility of an afterlife without God was interesting. I had never thought about that before. I had never thought that atheists believed there could be an afterlife, even though God did not exist.

I thought they had a very valid argument when comparing a finite human life to the duration of a vacation. They said that even though a vacation may last a few days, it doesn't mean it isn't as meaningful as a longer vacation (38). Or they said that people look back to their undergraduate days with more fondness than if it would have been 20 years and not 4 (38). I think this idea that a short-lived experience can have as much meaning as a longer experience is a good argument, when saying there is a possibility that there is no afterlife. It doesn't have to mean that our lives are meaningless because they might end. We could make the world a safer and more just world to live in for future generations, and that could show our life had meaning, even though it ended when you passed away.

# data[].attributes.headline
We can compromise at the claim. By the definition of what theists believe that God is, this is objectively true. In addition, they do make very clear arguments and back up their claims with other studies or evidence. I can relate to a lot of what they are saying in this article, and I think they bring up some interesting points about all different kinds of theistic beliefs and really try to account for a lot of viewpoints. I was challenged by what the mean by "gratuitous suffering". I understand and agree with what they define it as, but I also think that gratuitous suffering can be defined by the person who is suffering. There are people who suffer for a greater good, but that greater good could actually be an evil or just not the truth. I'm confused on how other people can define suffering as gratuitous or not if they are not the ones actually suffering. Other than that, I thought the definitions were clear and the claims were well supported. I am also impressed that they were able to tackle such a broad definition of God in one argument.

# data[].attributes.subject
We can compromise at the claim. By the definition of what theists believe that God is, this is objectively true. In addition, they do make very clear arguments and back up their claims with other studies or evidence. I can relate to a lot of what they are saying in this article, and I think they bring up some interesting points about all different kinds of theistic beliefs and really try to account for a lot of viewpoints. I was challenged by what the mean by "gratuitous suffering". I understand and agree with what they define it as, but I also think that gratuitous suffering can be defined by the person who is suffering. There are people who suffer for a greater good, but that greater good could actually be an evil or just not the truth. I'm confused on how other people can define suffering as gratuitous or not if they are not the ones actually suffering. Other than that, I thought the definitions were clear and the claims were well supported. I am also impressed that they were able to tackle such a broad definition of God in one argument.

# data[].attributes.body
Megill and Linford explain how theism and atheism clash on the meaning of life. Theists believe in no intrinsic meaning of life. This means human lives matter and have meaning but some external force must be giving that life meaning. Atheists, however, believe in intrinsic meaning, stating that life is not dependent on a God, but what we make of life. You can fall into two categories, God or no God, which makes the world very black and white. I disagreed with this point because there are many gods. How are we supposed to know which Megill and Linford are referring to? They also explain how it is chosen by fate, we either have meaning or we don't and we cannot change this by doing good deeds and service. Divine intervention makes lives more meaningful (theism) but not necessarily determines a meaningful life. How does God choose whose lives to intervene? What qualifies as a meaningful life? Personally, I believe we must understand WHY we are here to be able to have a meaningful life. We must understand our purpose and if we do not, then we cannot have a meaningful life. I think the content of our lives adds on to why we are here and what our mission is. If you know your purpose in life but do not choose to act on it, then the life is lonely and meaningless. But, this brings me to another point. What are the purposes to life? To bear children? Be a good person? Does this meaning change on how we view a meaningful life? I agree with their last point about vacations. Life is what we make of it; if you choose to not do anything with your life, it lacks meaning. But, if you choose to make the best out of situations, you will have meaning. Duration does not affect this.

# data[].attributes.body
	• I agree with them saying that "God, a perfect being, wouldn't create beings that have a meaningless existence." This shows that if God exists, then our lives have meaning. However, we cannot prove nor disprove if ALL lives have meaning, but since I believe in God then I know all lives do have meaning. Atheists say that if God exists then all lives have meaning, but they also don't have the proof to show that all lives do have meaning. Another argument was that if gratuitous suffering exists then God does not. I agree with this concept because if our lives did lack meaning, then our suffering is gratuitous. If our lives lack meaning, there would be no greater meaning for suffering as well. The last argument made was if our lives lack meaning, then creating humans would be meaningless too. However since God chose to create the world and humans, this shows that our lives do have meaning since God had the choice to create us. 

# data[].attributes.body
	• I agree with them saying that "God, a perfect being, wouldn't create beings that have a meaningless existence." This shows that if God exists, then our lives have meaning. However, we cannot prove nor disprove if ALL lives have meaning, but since I believe in God then I know all lives do have meaning. Atheists say that if God exists then all lives have meaning, but they also don't have the proof to show that all lives do have meaning. Another argument was that if gratuitous suffering exists then God does not. I agree with this concept because if our lives did lack meaning, then our suffering is gratuitous. If our lives lack meaning, there would be no greater meaning for suffering as well. The last argument made was if our lives lack meaning, then creating humans would be meaningless too. However since God chose to create the world and humans, this shows that our lives do have meaning since God had the choice to create us. 

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, a world with God is going to result in a greater, more significant meaning of human life. God created us in his image and likeness, meaning some thought had to go into our creation. God took the time to create each of us individually, therefore giving us a strong reason to believe he created our lives to have a purpose or meaning. As humans, we were put on this earth to do create things, and I believe that that stems from God. I have always been taught to believe that no lives are meaningless, and I feel as if a world with God spreads the same message. However, this does not mean that a world without God is meaningless. God will make us stronger and make the meaning of our lives more evident and powerful, but that does not mean without him that it all disappears. I think that with or without God human lives will always have meaning, but having God in our lives will make us better able to understand and live out that meaning.

# data[].attributes.body
I can relate to his argument, considering that it's incredibely difficult ot place trust in a being we cannot see, hear, or feel. To say that God is the source and meaning of life is a very bold statment. However, if God didn't give us life, what did? Something can't come from nothing (reason series). And if we analyze the G and NG worlds next to each other, how might a NG world be different? How can we explain the  supernatural elements of this world? Also, what do atheists believe comes after this life? Is there just nothing? How would that effect the way they live their lives?

# data[].attributes.body
I do understand the logic used in the argument but I still have some questions about some statements.
I found it very interesting that they specify they are referring to the "God of classical theism"/Anselm's idea of God. Much of this argument seems to hinge on this very specific idea of what God is like. Does this proof only argue that there is no omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God or no God at all? What about a God who is only one or two of those descriptions? There are other understandings of higher power(s) than the Christian God described in classical theism that seem to be ignored here.
I also was questioning what degree of suffering qualities as "gratuitous" suffering, which is how they argue God does not exist. Gratuitous means lacking good reason, but could one argue that a "meaningless" life actually has meaning in that it causes suffering? The degree to which something has meaning, if any, is a very subjective concept.
I feel that several statements that Megill and Linford make are just assumptions about the nature of God and human life and really need to be explained and defined more.
I definitely appreciated the use of theist counterarguments in the reading- it seemed less dismissive than Russell's argument.

# data[].attributes.body
I thought it was a very logical and well thought out argument; however, I thought it missed some important points on why theists believe that God is the source of meaning in life. The big one is that we believe that God has a plan for our lives, which gives our lives meaning. Meaning doesn't necessarily have to be good because goodness is merely a choice that God gives us. God lets us choose our own paths, but all the options are meaningful to either ourselves or someone else which negates the first objection. We also do not all say that one has to know God to have a meaningful life. Everyone is created with meaning.

# data[].attributes.body
I can understand how this argument may seem harsh to an atheist--if God gives our life meaning, then does that mean atheists' lives don't matter? I think what theists believe is more along the line of this: We all have meaning, but that ultimately comes from God. There are some that recognize this, and ther are others that don't.
I also didn't like how the argument was only made for the God of Christians--a singular, "all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good" God. Would he have to rewrite his argument to accomodate for Hindus or Buddhists?
Also, point 4, "if our lives lack meaning, then creating us would be meaningless too"...I don't really understand where he is coming from. If he agrees God created us, and this God is all-powerful and all-good, then he would naturally make us with meaning. Also, it is evident we have some sort of meaning on this Earth

# data[].attributes.body
When considering the argument of imagining two possible identical worlds, one with God and one without, I think that there is a possibility that a world with God and a world without God could not be identical in every other way. It could be that there is something about our world that only exists because God exists, and therefore wouldn't be able to exist in the other world. We just don't know what that thing is. Of course, I could be completely misunderstanding the argument, so other than that, I think the first argument about God not being the source of the meaning of life is pretty good. I can follow it logically from one point to another except for the one place that I mentioned.

# data[].attributes.body
The argument regarding G and NG  is an interesting perspective on meaning. I agree with their point that length should not determine meaning. For example, a vacation of 5 days doesn't by law have less meaning than a longer one. However, I find it difficult to draw concrete conclusions between the existence of an afterlife compared to whether we have meaning. No human has experienced the afterlife, so why would that determine what has meaning? I think meaning does come from God, but I do understand why some may have different views than me. I wish they would have provided criteria for what constitutes "meaning" because meaning as a concept is subjective. I dictate what things have meaning in my life, but that doesn't mean those things I don't assign meaning to don't have meaning outside of my realm. I think we as humans are giving ourselves too much credit if we believe we can assign objective meaning to other people. In debating what has meaning, in a way we are attempting to mimic God, as he is all-knowing and the only one who has the power to dictate meaning. I don't think our perception of meaning can determine who else has meaning. 

# data[].attributes.body
I found the counter arguments for the G and NG example interesting. The statements made by Thesists do nothing to change the ideas that the world are exactly the same but instead poke holes in the aftermath of seperating God from the world. Without God there would be no miracles would change parts of G where they would not change in NG however, this would not affect all people and would have a greater effect people who lived through those experiences. Theists also state that the afterlives of the two worlds would be drastically different. This would be correct since there would be no belief in an afterlife on NG. But this does not stop an afterlife from existing, since we have no tangable evidence other than the stories of others. The worlds also differ through meaning in life. God does give meaning to all lives,so a woild without God would have no meaning. Meaning changes the way people act and the way they spend thier lives which would make this the greatest difference between G and NG

# data[].attributes.body
I think the argument about how God is not in one of the "afterlives" is an interesting argument because if God is not in a particular person's afterlife then that means he does not exist there. If he does not not exist there then whatever human is there does not have meaning. I thought this was interesting and challenging because it makes us think about how afterlives may affect a person's meaning or if they have an impact on them. This made me wonder what exactly an afterlife without a God would be like and it challenged the theist belief that says God does not exist in hell. I also am interested in what gives our lives purpose and how we have meaning if we do not accomplish something on Earth because in that perspective you would not be changing anything or have meaning.

# data[].attributes.body
If God exists and our life has meaning, then God is good, but he gives us the opportunity to choose the way we want to go, with our free will. We can choose the good or the bad, and this gives our life meaning because God gives us the ability to choose good. If God gives us more than one way to do things, then we can understand that he loves us so much he gives us many different opportunities to see good. One of the arguments was that if one human life didn't have meaning, then there was no purpose for life and God did not create humans to have a purpose so he does not have one. This argument is flawed, because as humans, we have the ability to find meaning in places where we didn't think there was any, and we can somewhat do this with or without God. Even if God did not exist there would still be meaning to things. Even if suffering exists and God is good, it does not mean that God is the reason for suffering and he is not there. I think that part of human life is suffering and just because that happens it doesn't disprove the idea that God is there or not. Also, everyone's meaning of life could be interpreted at a personal level, so someone next to you might find meaning in different things and if anything this proves God even more because if there can be more than one way to find a reason for something, there can be more than one reason God intended for that to happen.

# data[].attributes.body
How do you think you can compromise or relate to an atheist with this perspective?

They talk about the things both atheists and theists can agree upon, so there is definitely agreement there. Since we believe God exists, we believe there is no gratuitous suffering and all life has meaning.

I find it difficult to compromise with the belief that some lives are meaningless, which is a major portion of the argument. I agree that if God does not exist, there is still the potential for some lives to have meaning, but in my experience and beliefs, all lives have meaning. Without God, what would give meaning? It certainly would not be something that applied to everyone unless it came from something above the physical world. I cannot imagine a world in which only some lives have meaning.

Opinions, challenges, and other analysis?

I don't think a theist, or at least a Christian, would ever argue that God does not bestow meaning onto everyone. They claim theists might argue God makes it possible for a meaningful life, but we have to achieve it ourselves. I don't believe this is the case. All lives have meaning, but some people may choose to reject their meaning or purpose in life. God gives us free will to choose our paths, but He creates innate meaning in human life. We just may choose to reject our meaning.

# data[].attributes.body
I think the argument was interesting in that it makes sense that both atheists and theists can agree on the idea that if God exists and is good, then all lives have meaning, and it is only in the idea that God exists that theists and atheists differ. I think this is a fair compromise, however I think the idea of broadly putting all theists under the same definition of God does not always work as some theists would disagree on the makeup of God's character. They also seem to take for granted the idea that some lives have less meaning than others, though I do not think this is something that is universally agreed upon, and I would also like to know how they would define or measure meaning.

# data[].attributes.body
	1. If God exists, God is good
	2. Everyone has suffering
	3. Suffering must be meaningful or else God would be evil to cause the suffering
	4. If even one person has a meaningless life and, therefore, meaningless suffering, God is not good and does not exist
	5. --- If God exists, all lives must have meaning

Question: What is meaning? I associate meaning with purpose. They said that maybe God made a life that did not have meaning in order to bring about greater good, but the life would still be meaningless. I feel like this does not make sense because the meaning of that life would be the good is brings and therefore the life would have meaning
Compromise: They are saying that if a life does not have meaning then God does not exist, but if all lives have meaning then God can exist. So their argument does not completely rule out God. 

# data[].attributes.body
To contradict the atheist response that meaning in life cannot be attributed to a God, your meaning in life is distinct from and cannot be attributed to other things in life such as your wealth, social status, happiness. It is an outside thing, and just because someone lacks something such as happiness in their life does not mean their life lacks meaning. Some outside source must be making it possible for our lives to have meaning in the lack of earthly things or successes.

# data[].attributes.body
The first argument is understandable, however, I think regardless in the scenario of living in the G or NG world, we can give our lives meaning by enjoying the things we love. I agree with the part that says that theists might object that G and NG are not identical in every respect.  Because if God created a moral code, than one would have a moral code in which would help give lives meaning, and the other would not necessarily have this, which would make the world not the same.

# data[].attributes.body
I think the first argument in part two is actually very convincing and valid. It made a lot of sense and was explained well. I really like the hypothetical G vs. NG example. I think it ties the argument together nicely. I was also really interested by the argument of the afterlife. If I were an atheist, I would use this section when in debates about religion. However, argument two makes less sense to me and I find it more challenging to follow. It's difficult to understand and I think it can be refuted easily. I don't think the intrinsic vs. non-intrinsic example makes sense - they were only explained in a few sentences, and the non-intrinsic example was not even touched upon. The argument is very weak in comparison to the first.

# data[].attributes.body
I understood the idea of life having meaning whether or not you believe in God. This made sense to me because if we live in the world with God, then our lives would have meaning, and if we lived in a world without God, then our lives wouldn't have meaning. That makes sense to me that our lives have or don't have meaning, no matter what we believe.
I would challenge the atheist in the idea that there is no afterlife. I get that there is no proof that a life without God would not lead to an afterlife, but what is this afterlife? What is the proof that there is one? I mean I guess you could also say this about an afterlife with God as well.
Another thing that interested me was there view on afterlife length and how length does not imply meaning. I would challenge that by saying that though it is important that afterlife is eternal, that is not the only thing that gives it meaning. It is also given meaning by the fact that it is joy and life and with God. I think that in the article they put too much emphasis on it being eternal when that is not the only part of heaven.

# data[].attributes.body
One point that I could relate to atheists on is the idea that "if gratuitous suffering exists, God does not". I understand why atheists think this, as I can logically see where they are coming from. It challenges me to acknowledge this point, because it makes me wonder, if God exists, why would let his people suffer so much? But the way I analyze it is by using the primary argument of part 1 that "if God exists, our lives have meaning". If our lives have meaning, then their components must also having meaning, so even suffering must have some deeper meaning beyond what we see it as.

# data[].attributes.body
I think it is interesting to think about God not being in a particular "afterlife", but I don’t think that would mean because of that he does not exist. If God were not to exist, then I can see those humans not having meaning. I would challenge that because I think that those people can still have meaning in their lives even if God wasn’t the purpose of that. Whether you have No God or God that exists, then I would say you can still have meaning. But it makes me then wonder what exactly would give meaning to our lives? What would our purpose be? Would we follow someone or something else? How would this alter who we are?

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with them saying that "God, a perfect being, wouldn't create beings that have a meaningless existence." This shows that if God exists, then our lives have meaning. However, we cannot prove nor disprove if ALL lives have meaning, but since I believe in God then I know all lives do have meaning. Atheists say that if God exists then all lives have meaning, but they also don't have the proof to show that all lives do have meaning. Another argument was that if gratuitous suffering exists then God does not. I agree with this concept because if our lives did lack meaning, then our suffering is gratuitous. If our lives lack meaning, there would be no greater meaning for suffering as well. The last argument made was if our lives lack meaning, then creating humans would be meaningless too. However since God chose to create the world and humans, this shows that our lives do have meaning since God had the choice to create us.