Assuming that life is objectively meaningless (i.e. no God, ultimate destruction of the universe, certain death...), can making the decision to continue living be justified? In other words, how can a person justify his existence coherently if he acknowledges that whatever he does has no real and meaningful purpose? Surely life is neither worth nor not worth living. So why does everybody insist that it is worth living? It is irrational, isn't?
I find this hard to respond to because the meaning of the relevant expressions and especially the background assumptions are not clear to me. For example: Why do you so easily deny that life it not worth living (while also denying that it is worth living)? What's the third possibility here? Why do you think (or at least suggest) that life is rendered objectively meaningless by there being no God or by there being an end to the universe or to human life? W(hy w)ould life be objectively meaningful if there were a God or if the universe and its inhabitants were sure to hum along forever? What is the thought behind connecting the three ideas the way you do: Life's being objectively meaningless, why does this make it neither worth nor not worth living? (E.g., could life's being subjectively meaningful make it worth living?) And why does life's being objectively meaningless make it harder to justify staying alive? Why does it not, for instance, also make it harder to justify suicide)?