Nature and Meaning

Originally posted by JS357
Here's another response to you on this:

TW said, "The 'laws of physics' are those patterns/rules/laws that are never violated. If a violation takes place, then it is not a law."

You say, "Do you really think God is restricted by laws He made to control the operation of the Universe?"

Let's suppose the law of gravity predicts that when I jump off a bui ...[text shortened]... st, when something happens that violates the law, the law needs revision. That's all.

Why is it that you say TW is right several times, but never say RJH is
right. I suspect some prejudice in your reasoning. TW is always
right, but RJH is never right. Very convient reasoning on your side.

Originally posted by twhitehead
To echo LemonJello, any such meaning would not be an intrinsic property of the universe even if the universe was created for a purpose.
To my cat, the computer does not 'mean' something just because a human made it. Meaning is generated by the observer.

Theists often make the argument that the existence of God provides some form of superior meaning to ...[text shortened]... to say meaning provided by my cat? Why would either be superior to meaning provided by myself?

I agree that things need a mind imbuing a meaning and purpose and that they do not of themselves have
that meaning as an intrinsic property. (although you can have existential arguments over that very point)

However, the fact that the cat doesn't imbue your computer with purpose or meaning, doesn't mean that you
are not imbuing it with meaning and using it for a purpose.

If a creator god existed and had both created the universe, and was using it for, a specific purpose then for the
creator the universe would have both meaning and purpose. (possibly something to put it's feet up on, who knows)

The fact that we don't and can't know what that meaning or purpose is, or even if one exists, means that the
universe is without practical meaning as far as we are concerned.


As for what meaning (if existent) would be superior....

Well someone built the computer, they had a reason for doing so and a purpose in mind for it.
You then purchased said computer with a reason and purpose, and then used the computer for specific purposes for which
it was designed.
You KNOW why the computer exists and what it's for, the cat doesn't.
So the fact that the cat might consider it a nice source of heat, or entertaining coloured lights, doesn't mean that that is what
it is for.
Your meaning and purpose is superior (from an external perspective) because you are the reason it exists.
The cats meaning is superior from it's perspective because it can't comprehend or use the computer for it's intended function,
but it is nice and warm and the lights are pretty.

If god made the universe for a reason, be that a comfy chair to sit on, or super advanced computational device, or simply
for entertainment then that meaning and purpose is superior to any we might devise in that it's the one the person who
built the place had in mind and is using it for.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Why is it that you say TW is right several times, but never say RJH is
right. I suspect some prejudice in your reasoning. TW is always
right, but RJH is never right. Very convient reasoning on your side.

In a rational argument, where reason logic and evidence plays a part, it is often although not always
possible to objectively determine which side has the better arguments.

This is in fact the point of rational argument.

It is how you have disagreements and disputes and settle them without resorting to might makes right.

You have taken a position of faith, which is by definition irrational.
You thus find it impossible to defend this position with reason, logic and evidence, because reason logic
and evidence don't support your position and never have.

Thus, from an objective perspective, you really do (almost) always make bad arguments or wrong conclusions.

I won't be able to convince you of this unless you do accept as a starting point the rules of logic and reason but
from the perspective of all that do, your arguments are objectively false and worse than many of those you argue
against.

It might seem convenient for us that logic, reason, and evidence are on our side, but that's simply because we made
the concious choice not to support things that were not supported by evidence reason and logic.

Now sometimes we get things wrong as humans always do, but by agreeing to discuss things by a set of objective
rules and standards we can debate contentious issues and if presented with well reasoned arguments with evidentiary
backing that contradict our position we can see that we were wrong, and alter our position, and do so without any
loss of faith because we went in with our minds open and willing to change our mind if presented with a good enough
reason to do so.


So it might suck to almost always be declared wrong, but the reason is that you almost always ARE wrong.
The way to change this is to stop being wrong, ie change your beliefs to those that are supported by evidence and reason.

Originally posted by googlefudge
In a rational argument, where reason logic and evidence plays a part, it is often although not always
possible to objectively determine which side has the better arguments.

This is in fact the point of rational argument.

It is how you have disagreements and disputes and settle them without resorting to might makes right.

You have taken a posit ...[text shortened]... stop being wrong, ie change your beliefs to those that are supported by evidence and reason.

I am almost always RIGHT, not wrong.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I'm curious...

Does the cosmos possess any significance, meaning, or purpose by itself without reference to subjective human experience? If not, how do we determine this?

Can the human tendency to find meaning in nature be considered an indication that the universe 'itself' has meaning, or does the fact that human beings find meaning everywhere as ...[text shortened]... erty of being human merely render all our findings suspect?

Please, no dogmatic responses.

"Does the cosmos possess any significance, meaning, or purpose by itself..?"

Absolutely! Irrespective of human experience.

Significant by virtue of its existence. i.e. size and scope.
Meaning by virtue of its existence. i.e how and why?
Purpose by virtue of the fact that life is supported by its existence.

In answer to your second question I have to say that "meaning" exists independent of mans efforts to define the universe.. We are merely observers and discoverers of the meaning and purpose of the universe as it already exists.

Human originated meaning is meaningless. Man does not have the capacity to create meaning much less anything else.

Dogmatic enough? 😉

Originally posted by LemonJello
Okay, sorry for not being faithful to your full quote. I think I would still have the same objection, though.

[b]But can't one ask, "what does it all mean?" Doesn't this sort of question appeal to the idea that the universe could have a meaning apart from one's apprehension of it?

I would generally say yes, and yes. But, I guess I would try t ...[text shortened]... t?

By the way, nice to see you in the forums again.[/b]

It's good to see you, too, LJ.

But I'm not 100% sure I follow you. I have faith that you know what you're talking about, but I certainly don't feel confident enough to say that you have it right. Could you be a bit more explicit?

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is impossible by definition. The 'laws of physics' are those patterns/rules/laws that are never violated. If a violation takes place, then it is not a law.
The whole concept of the supernatural is based on an attempt to violate logic and simultaneously accept the existence of unbreakable laws whilst admitting the existence of violations.
To say an ob ate and avoiding difficult questions by pulling the wool over the eyes of your questioner.

It is impossible by definition. The 'laws of physics' are those patterns/rules/laws that are never violated.

Well, of course, if the laws of nature cannot be violated, then it follows that the laws of nature cannot be violated. But why think that the laws of nature are inviolable to begin with? Methinks your definition is flawed. Does science really say that an apple will never fall sideways from a tree? Or does science say that no instance of an apple, or any other object, has ever been witnessed falling sideways rather than straight down? Science is, after all, an enterprise built on inductive logic, and therefore a stranger to absolute certainty.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Does the cosmos possess any significance, meaning, or purpose by itself..?"

Absolutely! Irrespective of human experience.

Significant by virtue of its existence. i.e. size and scope.
Meaning by virtue of its existence. i.e how and why?
Purpose by virtue of the fact that life is supported by its existence.

In answer to your second questio ...[text shortened]... oes not have the capacity to create meaning much less anything else.

Dogmatic enough? 😉[/b]

Hey, Josephw, nice to see you're still around. Thanks for posting.

Human originated meaning is meaningless. Man does not have the capacity to create meaning much less anything else.

That's a bold position. Are you saying, basically, that meaning, if it is truly meaningful in the full sense of the word, must come from somewhere else? Could you elaborate?

Originally posted by googlefudge
However, the fact that the cat doesn't imbue your computer with purpose or meaning, doesn't mean that you
are not imbuing it with meaning and using it for a purpose.

But my cat may use it for its own purposes (as a source of warmth for example). Neither my purpose nor the cats purpose is superior. Being the creator does not make your purposes or meaning superior.

If a creator god existed and had both created the universe, and was using it for, a specific purpose then for the
creator the universe would have both meaning and purpose. (possibly something to put it's feet up on, who knows)
But that is in no way superior to my cats understanding of the meaning and purpose of the universe.

You KNOW why the computer exists and what it's for, the cat doesn't.
I know what I think its for. This may be quite different from what the maker in China made if for and quite different from what my cat thinks its for.

So the fact that the cat might consider it a nice source of heat, or entertaining coloured lights, doesn't mean that that is what
it is for.
I dispute that. That is exactly what it is for, as regards the cats point of view.

Your meaning and purpose is superior (from an external perspective) because you are the reason it exists.
No, I am not. I did not make it. The maker didn't even know I exist. The maker may have guessed that someone like me might use it in a way similar to the way I am using it, but the current meaning and purpose I ascribe to my computer is not the reason for its existence, and even if it was, it would not make it superior.

If god made the universe for a reason, be that a comfy chair to sit on, or super advanced computational device, or simply
for entertainment then that meaning and purpose is superior to any we might devise in that it's the one the person who
built the place had in mind and is using it for.
I disagree. I don't think you have substantiated such a claim, you have merely stated it as fact.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Well, of course, if the laws of nature cannot be violated, then it follows that the laws of nature cannot be violated. But why think that the laws of nature are inviolable to begin with?

Because they are defined to be so.

Methinks your definition is flawed. Does science really say that an apple will never fall sideways from a tree? Or does science say that no instance of an apple, or any other object, has ever been witnessed falling sideways rather than straight down?
The latter. So where is the flaw in my definition?

Science is, after all, an enterprise built on inductive logic, and therefore a stranger to absolute certainty.
Exactly. The laws of physics, are never known. We refine our understanding of them over time, but we never know them. The laws of physics are defined as the ideal unbreakable law. Any other definition would not have much utility. If we take your view, of a God violating laws, then we would have to have one set of laws that the universe follows when God is not interfering, and another set of laws when he is (or the possibility that he follows no laws at all and acts randomly). But how would we separate these two sets of laws, and how would we even define 'interference'? How do we know that it is not God that makes apples fall?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
It's good to see you, too, LJ.

But I'm not 100% sure I follow you. I have faith that you know what you're talking about, but I certainly don't feel confident enough to say that you have it right. Could you be a bit more explicit?

You had asked the following question in the opening post:

Does the cosmos possess any significance, meaning, or purpose by itself without reference to subjective human experience?

So, I would have questions concerning clarification:

(1) Do you mean specifically to target human subjects only; or is your question not specific to this, but rather intends to encompass in principle any entities capable of subjective experience?

(2) What do you mean by "without reference to subjective...experience?" Are you talking about the prospects of significance/meaning/purpose independent of the existence of entities capable of subjective experience? Or are you talking about the prospects of significance/meaning/purpose independent of the attitudes of actual entities who have subjective experience?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am almost always RIGHT, not wrong.

the above statement just brought down your being right average.