Originally posted by whodeyWhat "meaning" do you give for human existence? To be one of the few who after death get to grovel and sing the praises of a being more superior to you than you are to an amoeba? What a degrading existence for all eternity! And why would such a being WANT such lowly beings around kissing his a**?
But when you say your life has meaning it is an illusion or at least in relation to the material world. The "meaning" only comes from you and your loved ones, not from the universe in which you reside. In essence, you could then say that your perspective is not based upon reality. Your meaning has no empiracal evidence, or at least as much empiracal evidence as I have for claiming there is a God.
The whole Fundie belief system is filled with self-loathing for the human race. And by extension God, too since in their view he is nothing but a Super Duper Big Daddy who seems to have a self-image problem he can only cure by having things around praising him.
Originally posted by no1marauderThat sounds about right.
What "meaning" do you give for human existence? To be one of the few who after death get to grovel and sing the praises of a being more superior to you than you are to an amoeba? What a degrading existence for all eternity! And why would such a being WANT such lowly beings around kissing his a**?
The whole Fundie belief system is filled with ...[text shortened]... who seems to have a self-image problem he can only cure by having things around praising him.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyHowever, this subjective view point is also objective in that he sees all, and knows all.
You are right in that I am equating our value based upon the subjective viewpoint of God. However, this subjective view point is also objective in that he sees all, and knows all. His viewpoint is not skewed as ours is skewed. God's perspective is reality rather than trying to percieve reality in the way that we do.
You're equivocating on the distinction between subjective and objective. If indeed He "sees all, and knows all", that wouldn’t mean His perspective is 'objective' in this particular context – it would just mean that His perspective is comprehensive and accurate.
God's perspective is reality
Wow, so reality just consists of some set of psychological states, mental representations, propositional attitudes? Reality just is whatever it is like to be God? I have to wonder why you choose to privilege metaphysically one particular agent's perspective to the exclusion of all others.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyBut a meaning of some kind must exist to life. In order to concieve of an entity or notion of some kind we must have a point of reference.
But a meaning of some kind must exist to life. In order to concieve of an entity or notion of some kind we must have a point of reference. It is akin to trying to think of God outside of time. There is no way to do so because we have no point of reference in terms of experiencing this existence. So if there were no meaning to life then how could we know t ...[text shortened]... Granted, this meaning may not be as we invision it, however, there must be meaning nonetheless.
What is meant here by 'point of reference'? Your claim, as I understand it, is that we could not hold concepts of value or meaning if such things as value and meaning didn't actually exist. But I don’t understand from what you are drawing this conclusion. It is certainly possible for one to hold concepts that fail to be instantiated or that have no referent. Can't we hold notions and concepts about unicorns, for example? What makes 'meaning' different in this regard?
It is akin to trying to think of God outside of time. There is no way to do so because we have no point of reference in terms of experiencing this existence.
No, we cannot think coherently about God (as a causal agent) existing outside time because the notion itself is incoherent. Any thing that exists outside of temporal relations must be changeless, and changeless entities cannot be causal agents. Anyway, I fail to see how this example helps your cause. Probably, if anything, you're refuting yourself by forming notions and conversing conceptually about some agent that doesn't exist (namely, God -- and more specifically, the particular version of 'God' that you endorse).
So if there were no meaning to life then how could we know that there was no meaning to begin with?
Well, in that case, we could hold justified belief concerning propositional content that corresponds to that fact. But this isn’t really relevant to your earlier claim. Your earlier claim was basically that the fact that people are prone to consider their lives meaningful (and can conceive of meaning in their lives) implies that their lives really are meaningful. Again, I hold that in and of itself your claim takes something descriptive and confuses it with something normative.
However, since there is meaning to life we can relate to such a notion because to us our lives have meaning.
Again, this is irrelevant to your earlier claim. Your claim was not if meaning exists, then we can conceive of it; your claim was if we can conceive of it, then meaning exists.
Originally posted by LemonJelloYikes, you're giving it with both barrels up in here. I love it that you do this so well.
[b]But a meaning of some kind must exist to life. In order to concieve of an entity or notion of some kind we must have a point of reference.
What is meant here by 'point of reference'? Your claim, as I understand it, is that we could not hold concepts of value or meaning if such things as value and meaning didn't actually exist. But I don’t und ...[text shortened]... n we can conceive of it; your claim was if we can conceive of it, then meaning exists.[/b]
Originally posted by LemonJelloBut a unicorn is nothing more than a horse with a big horn on its nose. You can't be serious by saying that a unicorn has no point of reference. I think God existing outside of time is a better example because you yourself are dumbfounded by such a notion.
[b]But a meaning of some kind must exist to life. In order to concieve of an entity or notion of some kind we must have a point of reference.
What is meant here by 'point of reference'? Your claim, as I understand it, is that we could not hold concepts of value or meaning if such things as value and meaning didn't actually exist. But I don’t und ...[text shortened]... ions and concepts about unicorns, for example? What makes 'meaning' different in this regard?
Originally posted by scottishinnzOK so the postassium ions are the physical basis for the meaning of your life. It is interesting how we can study the physical basis for being conscious but at the same time are overwhelemed by the complexity of it all. Even though the potassium ions may play a role, they have nothing whatsoever to do with the meaning for your life.
Twisting again.
My life has meaning to me. That's the only person for whom it matters whether or not it has meaning for. The fact that my meaning comes from within (as does yours, although you'll no doubt deny it), it completely besides the point.
You seem to think that "meaning" is something physical. It is not, or at least it has no physical ...[text shortened]... either a force or has some physical basis, either of which should be detectable empirically.
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomGo read some books on the subject. The net effect of passing on ones genes is the propagation of the species, but the impetus for doing so is not the survival of the species, rather it is the propagation of an individuals genetic code.
and how do you pass on your genes? you just proved me right
You are getting confused between the cause and the effect.
Originally posted by scottishinnzwell i said the purpose is to reproduce and you said it was to pass on the genes. you have to reproduce to pass on your genes. the point is, without the belief in God the only purpose is to reproduce
Go read some books on the subject. The net effect of passing on ones genes is the propagation of the species, but the impetus for doing so is not the survival of the species, rather it is the propagation of an individuals genetic code.
You are getting confused between the cause and the effect.
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomNo you didn't. You said that the purpose was "to keep the species alive". That is a product of reproduction, but not a cause.
well i said the purpose is to reproduce and you said it was to pass on the genes. you have to reproduce to pass on your genes. the point is, without the belief in God the only purpose is to reproduce
Your statement was equivalent to saying that mass destruction of farms and villages in a valley was the cause of a dam bursting.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyProve that there is first such a thing as meaning, which exists in the world as anything more than a conceptual notion of relative description. Then if you do so, prove that the electrical energy fluctuations in the brain cannot give rise to this alone.
OK so the postassium ions are the physical basis for the meaning of your life. It is interesting how we can study the physical basis for being conscious but at the same time are overwhelemed by the complexity of it all. Even though the potassium ions may play a role, they have nothing whatsoever to do with the meaning for your life.
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanProve that there is meaning to ones life? Why? No one hear disputes that their lives have meaning. As I see it there are two possibilities. Either the meaning to ones life is only confined to ones perspective, or there is meaning via a Supreme Beings perspective in addition to our own perspective. If there is no God, such meaning is fleeting and, as a result, it is at best illusionary because it vanishes into thin air once we are gone. If our lives had meaning but it vanishes once we die then where did it go? Did it really exist to begin with?
Prove that there is first such a thing as meaning, which exists in the world as anything more than a conceptual notion of relative description. Then if you do so, prove that the electrical energy fluctuations in the brain cannot give rise to this alone.
However, if there be a God then such meaning to ones life is based upon an eternal and everlasting perspective which means such meaning to our lives actually exists in and of itself. And if there be a God, such meaning to our existence is not snuffed out simply because we die. Our value is eternal if we are valued by an eternal God, thus death should not be viewed as the end of our existence, so to speak.
I suppose you could argue that God only values our existence for a short time as he then watches us die forevermore, however, doing so would, in my view, diminish our overall value to such a God.
Originally posted by whodeyIf there is no God, such meaning is fleeting and, as a result, it is at best illusionary because it vanishes into thin air once we are gone.
Prove that there is meaning to ones life? Why? No one hear disputes that their lives have meaning. As I see it there are two possibilities. Either the meaning to ones life is only confined to ones perspective, or there is meaning via a Supreme Beings perspective in addition to our own perspective. If there is no God, such meaning is fleeting and, as a re ...[text shortened]... die forevermore, however, doing so would, in my view, diminish our overall value to such a God.
In a sense, yes. To see our ego-self (our constructed somebody-self), and all that goes with it—including our constructs and understandings of “meaning”— as non-transient is illusory. Life is fleeting.
Your whole argument here seems to be hinged on the desire or hope for an individual existence after this one. But meaning doesn’t depend on that. The fact that the symphony comes to an end does not render the symphony, while it lasts, as vain or valueless or “meaningless.”
If our lives had meaning but it vanishes once we die then where did it go? Did it really exist to begin with?
It “existed” in our consciousness; meaning/understanding arises from the application of the “grammar” of our consciousness to the syntax of reality. It is how we interpret our existence. It is the result of how we “read the text...” It is the story we tell ourselves about our lives...
Meaning is not a thing, like a tree. Don’t think that because we have a noun (a substantive) there must be some existing thing (substance) in the world that corresponds to it. Meaning is, in a sense, a process. It is not something I “have”—it is how I live.
Your belief in a particular kind of God—even if the God is real—does not “give” your life meaning; it simply factors into your reading and interpretation of the text of life. It makes the story you tell—the story that you make of your life (and that is no trivial thing!)—different from mine. It does not make it more, or less, meaningful in any objective sense. The story that I make of my life is rich with meaning: the meaning that I give it in living my life as a story, rather than as a simple series of historical/biographical events. That story is the story that I live—and is likely not to be well-captured in a newspaper obit at the end (which I will not read anyway; and I am much more interested in the story that I am living now than the one that might have been told yesterday...).
Theists and nontheists are not different in this. So—live your story, with your God. Live your torah. Live it richly. Re-write as you need to. Living our life as story (one might almost say, as myth) is precisely how we imbue it with meaning.