The Human Predicament

Thanks Con for your response. However it seems that most of what you said actually goes to prove the human predicament rather than disprove it.Refuting Con’s ArgumentFirst if we are to use your structured argument, we would have to rewrite the first premise. As I stated earlier one can be happy in an Atheistic worldview, however his happiness is purely subjective as it is based upon subjective realities. Also I stated that one does not have to be on one particular side of the objective scale to contrive objective happiness, rather has to understand that the objective scale according to meaning, value, and purpose exist and can then base his happiness from it. So the first premise should read as follows:To be objectively happy, man needs to contrive it from objective meaning, value or purpose.Con even admits, and it is a breath of fresh air to hear an Atheist admit, that there is no such thing as objective meaning, value or purpose. The only fault in this contention is that it presupposes that Atheism is true. This contention is also logically equivalent to my overall conclusion:- If Atheism is true and God does not exist, then objective meaning, value, and purpose do not exit. Logical equivalent:- If Atheism is not true and God does exist, then objective meaning, value, and purpose do exist.So as I stated in round 1, this debate is not on whether or not God exists. So we have to take out the presupposition that God does or does not exist and consider both sides. If God does exist then we do have a good foundation for objective meaning, value, and purpose on which we can contrive our objective happiness from. Now on the other side of the argument, on the side of the Atheist, it doesn’t matter if God exists or not. According to Atheism there is no such thing as objective meaning, value, and purpose, which Con admits, and therefore has no foundation for having objective happiness. This is partially proving the truth behind the human predicament.Con further illustrates this point by writing the following: “Happiness is contingent on one's ability to accept reality for the way it is, and to embrace it.”For one this has nothing to do with objective happiness. In fact it is a perfect description of subjective happiness. I want Con, and the voter here to fully understand that I am NOT saying an Atheist cannot be happy, but I am saying that his happiness is subjective and has no objective foundation. Con’s next assertion can be summed up with his final statement of rhetorical questions. Con wrote “The question, "What is the meaning of life?" is as nonsensical a question as "What is the meaning of this rock?".” Again this is presupposing truth behind Atheism and has nothing to do with proving that an Atheist can be objectively happy. In fact the rest of Con’s entire argument is in relation to his presupposition that Atheism is true, and that objective meaning, value, and purpose cannot only not be known, but that they don’t exist entirely. In conclusion of my attack on Con’s opening argument, I would have to point out the presupposition that Atheism is true is what Con is holding as his defense against the human predicament. In fact it’s not really a defense at all, but is more of an assertion that the question of being objectively happy is overall absurd because of his beliefs on the existence of such realities to be not real. Luckily I’m not arguing if the human predicament is an absurd or non-absurd discussion, rather I’m arguing that under the Atheist’s worldview one cannot be objectively happy. Therefore for an Atheist to be objectively happy (as in to base his happiness on an objective foundation which can be provided if God exists) then he must at some level of consciousness become inconsistent with his worldview. Refuting Other Worldviews Under AtheismNow addressing some other issues Con brought up. Con showed how other worldviews could be summed up under the idea of Atheism.Pantheism: This is the worldview that everything, the entire universe, is God. This would not be able to provide us with objective meaning, value, and purpose because it is apart of the reality that we experience. It would make God not external, and not the creator of existence enabling Him to dictate meaning, value, and purpose. It takes an external creator of the universe to attribute such objective realities. Deism: This worldview says God created everything and then left and has no further intervention with his creation. This worldview would be hard to find the existence of objective meaning, value, and purpose as well due to God being so external, that he has absolutely nothing anymore to do with this reality. So without God to actively give us the foundation of objective realities we again could not be objectively happy.What’s So Important About Being Objectively Happy?Why would an Atheist even want to be inconsistent with his worldview to be objectively happy? What would be an Atheist’s motives for this inconsistent behavior? Under the Atheistic worldview one does not believe that objective meaning, value, and purpose exist. They would then believe that these ideas are subjective and ultimately without justification. Eventually it seems probable that the Atheist would realize that he was alone, and that everybody is alone, and that nothing really has any worth at all objectively. He would realize eventually that life itself is objectively worthless and without any value at all. It would be just as good if nothing EVER existed, because it would be objectively equivalent in terms of worth compared to life. This can cause a profound unhappiness in the Atheist. This sometimes causes Atheist’s to be inconsistent with their worldview in order to escape the enormous looming monster of what a subjective life means. Or what we see more commonly is that Atheist’s refuse to acknowledge that their ideas of meaning, value, and purpose are subjective. So overall the discussion of the human predicament is not what is absurd, but under the Atheistic worldview life itself is the absurdity. Round 3 ConclusionSo overall I believe that Con has not knowingly supported the truth behind the human predicament. Simply asserting his presupposition of Atheism, and that asserting that objective metaphysical realities exist is absurd, does nothing to show how the human predicament is a false contention. Con admits that an Atheist’s happiness is subjective. If you then take away his claim of Atheism being true, you would then get the logical equivalent that if God exists, objective happiness can exist. The human predicament is therefore a strong look into the philosophical paradox that presents itself to the Atheist. A Message to EveryoneFirst off what I’m about to say has absolutely nothing to do with winning this debate but is a message to those who understand this human predicament. This is purely a statement of my own assertion and can be stricken out of the overall debate. If you are an Atheist, or hold any worldview that denies God, and you feel the profound objective unhappiness that can present itself in your life, then I invite you to consider God. He is not only the source of life and all of existence, but gives us the foundation to know where we are in the world in relation to worth. You can then rejoice in the happiness that you would then have objectively. Without going to far into the area of preaching, I just wanted to conclude that hope is real, and attainable.