Quod-est-devium,

sorry for the delayed response, I have been very busy,couldn't find time to think enough on this topic

Anyway about the argument, you should keep in mind their definition of meaning of life .. they take it to be to be some positive feature of an individual’s life that is distinct from (though perhaps related to) other positive features (wellbeing,happiness, etc.) that a life might or might not have(do you agree?). so accordingly the conclusion they want to draw is that existence of God can't be what gives ones life this positive feature..

Now the account of meaning of life you are offering is that meaning of life is having Union with God ,that we have freedom to choose it or reject it then you seek to undermine their argument for atheism and their contention that God can't create meaningless lives through this account ....but the problem is that this isn't something they don't discuss and criticize in their four arguments against God-based account of meaning of life ..(see the Four-fold distinction that they draw in their first argument)..

so If I am understanding correctly what you're trying to do .. you might try to offer a cogent Free-will theodicy or try to demonstrate confusion in their use of Meaning across their paper... to undermine their main argument and the claim that meaningless lives and God aren't compatible (thats a very difficult task in it self) but first you need to elaborate what your God-based account of meaning of life is , how can it be defended against their criticism? ..

alternatively maybe you're thinking that God-based accounts that they criticize are not exhaustive and their are more of them and you're trying to offer one such ...that would be very interesting too ,if I am not missing something they don't discuss beatific vision of God (maybe it can only be experienced given existence of God?) though it could be covered within their criticisms ..I haven't checked again..






 

Hello everyone,
Today I decided to post my first topic..I want to discuss this intriguing paper I recently read(and maybe you have read too) its titled "GOD, THE MEANING OF LIFE, AND A NEW ARGUMENT FOR ATHEISM" written by Jason Megill and Daniel Linford  ..its Penultimate Draft available online here ..

The authors argue that existence of God is not entailed by our lives having meaning because while if God of classical theism exists our life have meaning ,God can't be the source of this meaning (means we can't base meaningfulness of our lives on God even if he exists) so they try to conclude from this that atheism is rationally more justifiable than theism because while God can be sufficient and compatible with our lives having meaning,he can't be the necessary condition for our lives having meaning. Means the highly intuitive axiological arguments for theism which say that existence of God should be inferred because God is source of meaning and value fails..(this is important because this type of arguments are used in pragmatic defences of other arguments for God existence where any given premise is dubious) ..

 The authors first argue against the view that existence of God can be somehow compatible with us living meaningless lives.they argue along these lines,that we,living meaningless lives is a gratuitous evil and that is incompatible with existence of God of classical theism..

Then authors offer four arguments against God based account of meaning of life and for the conclusion that God can't be the source of meaning and addresses some potential objections 

I myself find these arguments highly plausible particularly second and third  one..

Its these four arguments I would like to read your thoughts on,from a classical theistic perspective (if you're willing to go through them )..
Otherwise I would be interested in reading about the Axiological co