This is putting me in a lot of boxes im not in. But i grow weary of trying to break out of them.

I will say yes it is faith or a guess there is no intrinsic meaning. I could be wrong and with or without God there might be.

You are slightly confused here.

(a) is the view I have endorsed ITT. But a) is NOT the position held by nihilists. Nihilists do not think that "intrinsic meaning" is contradictory (gibberish) they just think it doesn't actually obtain in this universe. So while (b) might be a sensible challenge* against a nihilist, it doesn't apply to view (a), in the same way that I don't need to explain anything or examine any evidence to say that there are no married bachelors - it simply follows from the definitions of the words.

*Being generous here; I disagree with a load of what you went on to say, but it's orthogonal to my argument so I'll grant you it for sake of brevity.

For there to be an intrinsic meaning to life you need to invent a new meaning of intrinsic. For example, the mass of an object is an intrinsic property (it is the same in any condition and is not mind-dependent) but the weight of an object is not... it is relative to the force of a gravitational field. So your weight on the moon is different from your weight on Earth, but your mass remains the same on both. Given that "meaning" is mind-dependent (for an object to "mean" something it must mean something to someone) it is clearly not an intrinsic property but is instead an extrinsic property.

But note that just because a property is extrinsic rather than intrinsic it does not automatically follow that it is completely arbitrary. Weight is an extrinsic property, but it doesn't follow that you can weigh whatever you like, or that your weight is based on whim or social convention or w/e.

Furthermore, even when something is arbitrary it doesn't follow that anything is as good as anything else. A textbook example of something arbitrary is words. There is no necessary connection between the word "dog" and the concept of a dog. Indeed, in France you would use "chien" and even in English-speaking countries you can refer to the concept with other words like "hound", "mutt", "bow-bow", "Canis lupus familiaris" etc. But, in practise, that doesn't mean that any word is as good as another. There are real practical empirical consequences that impact your ability to make yourself understood that depend on other empirical facts (who you are speaking to, what country you are in etc).

So my problem with internet nihilists is that while I agree with the basic claim that there is no intrinsic meaning, I don't think that anything interesting logically follows from that. To develop my analogy, it's the same as the fact that 'deliciousness' is not an intrinsic property of any foodstuff has no interesting implications for professional chefs. The lack of intrinsic deliciousness in the universe does not imply that battery acid is as good as balsamic vinegar in a salad dressing.

There's no quick way to answer this tonight that would cover all those topics, but the short answer is: a truly naturalistic framework. I've been thinking about starting a detailed thread on this subject for a while though, so I'll PM you when I do.

I think i get what you are saying.

I disagree with the bolded. It is based on two assumptions, both of which I reject. First, that somehow a state of nothingness should be the starting assumption, so we need to explain why there is something rather than nothing, and that there is an explanation for every question we can ask.
Nah, there is no mystery here. Atheists here are saying that life has no intrinsic meaning, but that isn't big a deal because it has extrinsic meaning.

I don't think I assume a state of nothingness. I assume God's presence.

But you do have to explain why there is something rather than nothing, as long as the universe, space and time assumes a beginning (as it appears to.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6BkYFrw8_M

George Carlin - The Human Condition

A masterpiece imo.

Define 'nothing'.

Not really, no. It's not like we'll die from lack of explanation if we don't.

Your original question needs clarifying. "Reason" and "logic" isn't "matter", as scientifically appreciated. You don't have to go very far back in western philosophy to see that these activities of Man were considered "spiritual". From Socrates, who brought "reason" to bear on a man's moral activity to the scholastics' who debated "nominalism versus realism" and even Hegel who saw "all' as spiritual and in essence "thoughtful".

Be careful if you approach the realism of the scholastics' as material as in fact they saw the "real" as non material, or in essence the ability to conceptualize.

Reason and logic are the hallmarks of theological presentation but the only way to approach the petulance of materialistic thought (which really isn't materialistic) is to study thinking in and of itself, much as one would study the blossoming of a fruit tree. This is done in hindsight.

"In thinking I experience myself united with the stream of cosmic existence".

Or maybe you should have to explain why there's God rather than nothing. Can you can do that without any kind of special pleading?

No. I don't have to explain why there is God rather than nothing, as God (unlike the universe) doesn't have a beginning (by definition). This is a faulty analogy on your part.

"A special pleading fallacy occurs when a general rule that applies to members of a class is simply not applied to one of those members."

It isn't special pleading either, as God is the necessary demand on logic, whereas the universe is not. The universe is dependent. Whereas God is the basis of reality, and not a "thing" in the creative realm. God is not a premise, but a necessary conclusion. God is simply the ground of being, and not a member of the created class that we are discussing that assumes beginnings.

When you ask why there is God rather than nothing, you might as well be asking why there is cheese in blue cheese. Or rather, ask me why an apple is not planet-sized and pink. You are questioning necessary attributes of God. One you remove this attribute, we are no longer talking about God.

What if there is no assumption of a beginning?

I also found a Defender's Class where William
Lane Craig talks about this:

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defen...#ixzz2kN6EDLeG

A couple points. First, I know it wasn't very clear from my statement, but what I meant was not that you were assuming a state of nothingness, but rather that you are assuming that in some sense it is more natural for there to be nothing rather than something and so we need to have a reason why there is something.

Another way of putting it is like this. Let's say that there really was absolute nothing. Would you then say that there needs to be an explanation why there is nothing rather than something? If no, then that is the assumption I am pointing to that I reject.

Second, maybe you reject it, but standard Christian theology accepts creatio ex nihilio, i.e. the idea that God created the universe out of nothing. This differs from (for instance) the Aristotelian view that the universe was formed (literally) out of a primordial chaos.

I don't see how it the universe, space or time assumes a beginning. You'll have to expand.