3 key issues, or questions, on finding the deeper meaning of life…being, knowing and behavior, or in the language of the philosopher: Ontology, Epistemology and Morality.
Can we look at all three inclusively? At a certain level, yes. That level is the starting point, the origin of being or existence, how we come to know things and how we ought to live.
We have but two choices on where we start: We start with the impersonal, the result of random coincidences producing human life, as formulated and described by man. Or we start with an omnipotent personal God. There are other options, such as the pluralistic multi-god religions, or deism. But ultimately even those reduce to either of the two options. The multi-gods are too weak to answer our questions, and deism, for all intents and purposes, cannot be distinguished from other impersonal causes.
The choice is simple, yet not easy. But ultimately one must decide whether there is something great, or better, in man or not. Because that is what distinguishes man from objects. Does man exist, as a tree or rock, as a toad or lizard, as an eagle or dove, as a drop of water or a breath of air? Does man know of his own existence by and through a deterministic coherence of impersonal matter? Does he act as he does because of something great or different or special, or from the impersonal?
The impersonal origins, ironically, comes from the personal, from man who proposes to extend limited observation, thinking and conclusions to all things at all times. From the personal deliberations of persons, from their existence and knowing, comes the idea of the impersonal, the unguided, random jump from non-existence to existence, from non-being to being, from unable to know to knowing, from no sense of morality to morality.
Because the starting point is man. His ideas. His thoughts. His wishes. His desires. His methodologies. His premises. His conclusions. His circular ontology. His behavior. All from man. The leap was not from the impersonal to the personal, it was from the personal to the idea of the impersonal. Because the impersonal cannot produce the personal. The impersonal cannot know of its own being, because being is personal. The impersonal cannot know, because man’s knowledge is limited, personal and contained within. The impersonal cannot live right or wrong, because to offend the impersonal is absurd.
There can be no impersonal human life, because of the impossibility of that recognition. To recognize impersonality is impossible for the impersonal, because there is no ability for the impersonal to do so. Only personal being can recognize personhood.
So to start with the impersonal idea, and attempt to rationalize the impersonal origin is absurd, it is to cut off the very branch on which one is sitting.
There can only be a personal origin, one which has been carried forth since the dawn of time and propagated through the ages to assure our personhood. There can be only one source of being, knowing and how we ought to live, as we are all able to communicate and thus know and understand each other, knowing from our own existence how others exist, and knowing how we should live to do the other no harm.
The only origin can be a personal omnipotent God. Who endows us with being, knowing and an inherent understanding of right and wrong. So that we may love each other as ourselves. And Him above all else.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.