You propose two perspectives that hold implicit assumptions. They’re missing premises, so I added the assumptions to the your arguments:

First argument:
1. Without God, life is absurd.
2. God does not exist.
3. So, life is absurd. (MP 1, 2)

Second argument:
1. Without God, life is absurd.
2. Life is not absurd.
3. So, God exists. (MT 1, 2)

I want to address your definition of absurdity. You consider absurdity as the inexplicability of existence without God. But even if God exists, life is still absurd, or inexplicable. Consider the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco. 3, 000 people died and over 80% of the city was destroyed. Or even something as simple as waking up before your alarm. We could attempt at explaining these horrors, but God merely existing would not be a sufficient reason. In fact, the existence of these horrors and God taint God’s character. If God allows these horrors, or absurdities, then he isn’t entirely good, but if he can’t control these horrors, then he isn’t entirely powerful. As a result, these absurdities remain inexplicable even after assuming God’s existence and also introduce components to God’s character that cannot be explained. So given that life is absurd regardless of God’s existence, the conclusion of the second argument is no longer secure. Instead, we would conclude that God does not exist because life is absurd. With this alteration to the second proof, both arguments now promote the nonexistence of God because of the absurdity that exists. According to your reasoning, once we acknowledge that inexplicability exists, we must believe that God doesn’t exist.

Nahh, being more practical, it refers to the experience that led you to think that life is absurd. Well any statement that would agree with the term life being meaningless is gonna be true to be spoken, I guess. But it still depends if you are like, OHH IM A NIHILIST!!! vs a depressed individual.

So, it depends on the situation and the individual, as always :)

Man, just saw this.

Seems to me there are two arguments here:

1.) God does not exist, and therefore life is absurd.

2.) Life is absurd without god, therefore god exists. — darthbarracuda

If existence is absurd because its being is beyond the principle of sufficient reason, and one seeks to make existence meaningful by deeming it the creation of God, who is beyond the principle of sufficient reason, then that would quite naturally entail that God is absurd. And, if God is absurd, how would anything God creates not be?

I think everybody from Tristan Tzara – a prominent founder of Dadaism - to folk such as Eugene Ionesco and clan - playwrights of the Theater of the Absurd - would approve. :halo:

… and yet there’s meaning within existence, such as in some of the posts on this forum, arguably excluding this one. :naughty:

1.) God does not exist, and therefore life is absurd.

2.) Life is absurd without god, therefore god exists. — darthbarracuda

I've been pondering upon the nexus between God and meaning for the past 7 years or so, off and on though.

Here's what I discovered: It's all got to do with infinity in general or, to be more specific, immortality, the other side of this coin being finitude/end or, in more familiar language, death & decay. Think of it, if we're mortal creatures, death will ready or not take us one day. What happens next is important. After the Grim Reaper claims us, we will be but memories in the minds and hearts of those who we shared our lives with, these memories will fade over time no doubt and these very people who were kind enough to remember you will too perish. In short, you will, in time, sometimes even taking millennia, cease to be in any way, shape, or form. This, in my book means it's as if you never existed. This is the problem: you having existed = you having not existed. Life then becomes meaningless, does it not? After all life = no life, existence = nonexistence and if one finds nonexistence bereft of meaning, it follows quite naturally that life/existence too is equally if not more pointless; after all, though we linger on in memories after we meet our end, these memories too die out, slowly maybe but surely.

Thus, the meaning of lie seems intertwined with immoratility of some kind. No prizes will be awarded for guessing who promises eternal life. God, because fae is the guarantor of everlasting life then becomes the key to the meaning of life. We can't conceive of meaning unless we live forever and look who's offering immortality? God!

However, there's a catch, a moral one. God's gift of immortality comes with a condition - be good and God vows to make it fun (heaven), be bad and you'd wish you were dead! (hell).

Our intuitions inform us that immortality alone just won't do. We need enjoyment/happiness/pleasure to go with it. It's like one of your favorite combinations of pizza toppings - each taken alone does nothing to your tastebuds but together, yummy! What if this is an either or but not both choice? The boredom of an immortal must be as painful as the cauldrons of boiling oil is for the denizens of hell.

This exact combo of happiness + immortality is what transhumanism is trying its best to put on the table for free consumption at a future date when this becomes possible. Are transhumanists god(s)? :chin:

Now, what's up with those who are willing to lay down their lives for God? History is full of stories about saints who would rather endure horrific torture followed by execution than turn their backs on God. Perhaps they were convinced, just like muslim suicide attackers are these days, that they would end up in heaven, restored to their former self. False lead!

Such a view of God as outlined above is disappointingly parochial but the odds are it's true, sad! God, only as a means to our own selfish ends. There's a upside to this tragic story though - we know ourselves, very well I might add. The Delphic Orcale was spot on! Temet Nosce!

Quite possibly, the point of the entire journey - from death and suffering to God and back from God to death and suffering - is a psychological one, to look at ourselves straight in the eye (don't try this with lions/tigers) and call it as you see it.

A spade is a spade or...is it?

That, my friend, is the right question — Dr. Lanning