Do you think that your existence is meaningful?

If "I am God" (and thats a distinct possibility !) then that "I" is beyond "thought". In general terms the "existence" of "God" (or "anything else" for that matter) depends on the relationship between "an objectifier" (person) and its "object" (God). Remove that relationship and you remove the "meaning" of "existence". The meaning of "me" is the shifting statistical intersection of "my relationships".

Then I shall reword it differently:

If you were God, then would you believe that the following proposition is true? "The fact that I exist is meaningful."

You can say, "I think that it is true my existence is meaningful."
Would you say the same thing if you were God?

(Surely God can think about himself, and say things about himself, for He is omnipotent.)

The rewording merely re-tosses the "word salad".

A general concept of "Gods" is that they are beyond acts of "belief" and "thought". In a transcendent or meditational state the "self " may dissipate and become "God-like" ...i.e. "at one with all". "Truth" doesn't come into it because both subjectivity and objectivity have merged within "the whole".

What does that mean? If I can think about God, why can't God?

If one is "at one with all," then obviously thinking about oneself means that one thinks about all. Yet it still doesn't mean that one can't do that, does it?

And what does it mean that "Truth" doesn't come into it? Does it mean that in this circumstance certain statements like "My existence is meaningful" become neither true nor false (or both true and false), that it becomes meaningless? If truth doesn't come into it in such a case, does that mean that it is not true in such a case that "My existence is meaningful"?

....the anthropomorphic "God" which you cite (with omnipotence etc) rests on "naive realism" in which "things" have "existence" independently of observers. This is an attempt at "meaning" by the ad hoc closure of a dualistic infinite regress. Concepts of "truth" are also based on such naive realism.

Is this "naive realism" accurate or do things not reality have exitence independently of observers? (Meaning "are you saying that 'naive realism is false?") Surely people (according to Christianity at least) have observed God before. During such a time, if you were God, would you think that "my existence is meaningful"?

Of course, you could say that nothing has obseved God, because God is "all" (as you said earlier), and therefore there nothing else to observe God. But that just means that everything is God. And since everything is God, and God does not exist independently of itself, then the whole universe, (if I understand you correctly) does not have existence, since only it exists, and was not observed by anything else. Is this what you are saying?

Do you make this statement: "If I were God, I would think that it is false that my existence is meaningful"? Or do you think that this is false?

Perhaps this is "an attempt at 'meaning' by the ad hoc closure of a dualistic infinite regress," but does that mean that the attempt has failed? How has this attempt failed? Of course, there is no infinate regress because there is only God with existence, and the meaningfulness of God's existence.

I am saying that "paternalistic God" of some believers co-exists with their "I's", whereas "a state of potental ego dissipation and its thoughts" co-exists with my "I". My semantic framework is drawn from "spiritual writers" such as Krishnamurti who advocate the transcendent observation of "thought" in order to recognize aspects of its seductive triviality and the arbitrary nature of "reality" which it constructs.

You are then saying that the statement "My existence is meaningful" and "My existence is not meaningful" you would both consider false if you were God, because those are not valid sentences? Are you saying then that nothing (including God) can be meaningful (since meaningfulness is undefined), and that God, along with everything else, do not exist (meaning that there is nothing instead of something)?

You do, of course, think that "God exists" do you not? The question is this: "Do you think that you would believe that your existence to be meaningful if you were God?" (Let the choices be "yes" and "no." Which choice is closest to your opinion?)

A clarification about that question: one's thought, of course, may not correspond with reality, but this question is about reality; this question is about your thought.

You do think that "If I were God, then I would not think that my existence is meaningful," right?

Extropy,

You don't get it !

1. All existence is about "relationship" NOT "reality".
2. Some "I's" exist by virtue of their relationship with a "paternalistic God" and vice versa
3. My "I" exists by virtue of its relationship with a "non-I state" (which some, might occasionally call "God") and vice versa.
4. "Truth" is based on "naive realism" in which "existence" is not defined in these terms of a non-dualistic reciprocal relationship. This is fine for closed contexts of "everyday experience" but breaks down in discussions of "the infinite" or "the eternal" (etc)
5. "Meaning" comes from embracing a semantic paradigm such as "naive realism" or alternatives like "non-duality".

I see:
1. Existence is about casual relations.
2. Existence is therefore relative.
3. This relative existence needs to exist due to something else.
4. Existence is not objective. (However, I need to point out to you that it is true that 1, 2, 3, ... is an infinate series. This is a true statement, and it relates with infinity.)
5. One needs to think differently in that some things are not objective.

From this, however, this means that God does not exist in relation to itself, because that is impossible by definition. God can exist only in relation to other things. The question then turns into this:

If you were God, would you think that your casual relation with the rest of the universe has any meaning? (Assume that God has a casual relation with the rest of the univere; otherwise, he would not exist in relation to the universe.)

No,,,,there is NO "rest of the universe" ! The transcendent "non-I state" is a unity without boundary. In Venn Diagram terms it not the complement of "I" but the union of "I" and "not I". (My apologies if the "vice versa" implied complementarity.)

(LAST COMMENT TONIGHT...BED CALLS)

You are saying that God is everything, and that we, along with all the rest of time, space, energy, and matter, are all a part of God?

That of course would mean that God is a completely isolated system, since there is nothing else to have a casual relation with God, since anything else would be part of God. Therefore, nothing exists in relation to God? And there is no way for God to affect anything, and that anything that happens in this universe are mere elements of God, but not existing to God?

The question now is quite the opposite of what I had asked originally, since God does not exist in relation to anything anymore (if I understand your reasoning, God does not exist to me, because I am part of God, and things cannot exist in relation to themselves): If you were God, would you think that your isolation has any meaning?

My existence being meaningful or not depends on what I do with it.

What could you possibly do to make your existence meaningful?

I can esily tell you but its gonna cost you some money.

Of course, my main question is the second one: what could you possibly do as a God to make your existence meaningful?

Re: is my existance meaningful?
YES! I dont only think it I KNOW. That all of us existing ARE ment to.

Re: is my existance meaningful?
Well then Jaden11, if you were a God, would you consider your existence to be meaningful?

Careful, Extropy. I paid Farmerman and got nothing for it.