Science must not become criterion of good (VIS)

Originally posted by Starrman
That's not what I was arguing. To know how existence itself came to be, one must first know what existence entails, at least in some way. If you know more about existence your knowledge about its origin must surely be more available, you've got more signposts as it were. If you have accurate and complete knowledge of existence, you have both the necessar ...[text shortened]... pproach total knowledge of existence it still follows that we would come to know its origins.

That's not what I was arguing.
Ok, but that was the basis of my own argument (which you were questioning...).

To know how existence itself came to be, one must first know what existence entails, at least in some way.
Sure, i can agree with that. At least, I can't see any examples where you could know origin and not know state. Let's then say we agree that knowing state is a necessary condition of knowing origin.

If you have accurate and complete knowledge of existence, you have both the necessary conditions for knowing its origins and sufficient conditions to give rise to knowing them.
Why sufficient? My previous post demonstrated (or tried to) why we can never fully know origin following cause - effect arguments.

I'm not sure what first cause has got to do with this, other than that it may or may not be the origin of existence, I fail to see how it impacts on what I can or cannot know of existence.
My interpretation of Bosse's words was that he was talking about first cause, when he said 'that business of existence'. Again, my argument is purely about whether we can know first cause or not, which is what I have been calling 'origin'.

If we could approach total knowledge of existence it still follows that we would come to know its origins.
Why? Think of an asymptotic approach to a level below total knowledge. You approach total knowledge but never reach it (again, for why see previous post). It does not follow then that the knowledge of origin/first cause is included.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I like the notion that the Big Bang signified the 'reincarnation' of the universe. Turtles in everydirection. Mandelbrot turtles...Riemannian turtles...

This still doesn't answer the question of who we are and why we are here.

Originally posted by Jorge Borges
I think we need meaning because we are in fact more than the sum of our parts. That which we are, the apex mentis, if you please, of a human being, literally requires a sense of real purpose and meaning. If no such meaning is discovered, then the human creature simply cannot live up to its fullest potential (as a spiritual being). The r ...[text shortened]... is a perfect (and if I say so myself, a penultimately sensible) compliment to His strength.

But the 'we are more than the sum of our parts' and 'fullest potential as a spiritual being' notions are speculative. I have yet to see a reason why I should accept either of these things as being so. A lack of meaning does not lead to material addiction, that's the fault of psychological damage for whatever reason. The question of meaning is one that should transcend those brain states. If a meaning is to be found, should it not be an absolute one, a core value which all men aim at, not just the poor, depraved or lost? Do you have any evidence to suggest such a thing exists?

Originally posted by Palynka
Why sufficient? My previous post demonstrated (or tried to) why we can never fully know origin following cause - effect arguments.

A complete knowledge of existence must surely entail knowledge of its origins. Either I'm missing something or you are, I'm not sure if we're talking past each other.

My interpretation of Bosse's words was that he was talking about first cause, when he said 'that business of existence'. Again, my argument is purely about whether we can know first cause or not, which is what I have been calling 'origin'

Bosse, is this true? I had taken it to be more on the subject of meaning than origin.

Why? Think of an asymptotic approach to a level below total knowledge. You approach total knowledge but never reach it (again, for why see previous post). It does not follow then that the knowledge of origin/first cause is included.

As I mentioned above, I consider a complete knowledge of something to include its origins. Perhaps this is where we're confusing each other?

Originally posted by Starrman
Originally posted by Palynka
[b]Why sufficient? My previous post demonstrated (or tried to) why we can never fully know origin following cause - effect arguments.[/b]

A complete knowledge of existence must surely entail knowledge of its origins. Either I'm missing something or you are, I'm not sure if we're talking past each other.

My inte of something to include its origins. Perhaps this is where we're confusing each other?

A complete knowledge of existence must surely entail knowledge of its origins.
My bad. I thought I read complete knowledge of the state of existence. If not, your argument is a tautology. True by construction, but ultimately doesn't help adding anything to the argument. The point of my post was that you can never achieve total knowledge (with origin included, of course) so using the conditional case of having a complete knowledge is not a counter argument by itself.

I consider a complete knowledge of something to include its origins.
I agree (despite my previous misreading)

Aproaching asymptotically a level below total knowledge means that you keep approaching total knowledge but not only you never reach it, but you also never reach the difference between the asymptotic level and total knowledge. In that sense, continuous increments of knowledge do not mean that you'll achieve full knowledge.

To clarify, I argue for the existence of limits to our understanding. To argue for the possibility of total knowledge is against the possibility of these limits.

Originally posted by Starrman
But the 'we are more than the sum of our parts' and 'fullest potential as a spiritual being' notions are speculative. I have yet to see a reason why I should accept either of these things as being so. A lack of meaning does not lead to material addiction, that's the fault of psychological damage for whatever reason. The question of meaning is one that sh ...[text shortened]... t just the poor, depraved or lost? Do you have any evidence to suggest such a thing exists?

But the 'we are more than the sum of our parts' and 'fullest potential as a spiritual being' notions are speculative.

Admittedly, idealistic. Have you ever read anything by Viktor Frankl? He pioneered Logotherapy, and wrote a compelling book entitled, The Will To Meaning.

I have yet to see a reason why I should accept either of these things as being so.

In order to find meaning in life, one must posit first of all that life is meaningful under all circumstances, no matter how coarse or miserable it may be. If one posits that life is not meaningful, then, of course, one will not seek meaning in it. Meaning is purely a matter of the will.

One of Frankl's essential presuppositions is that there is a certain inviolable freedom which every person possesses, even after all other conceivable freedoms are taken away, which allows one to choose the attitude with which one faces reality, no matter how harsh that reality may be; namely, the will to meaning.

A lack of meaning does not lead to material addiction, that's the fault of psychological damage for whatever reason.

I'm assuming that meaning is essential to a healthy life, and that if meaning is not found, then a healthy life is not possible.

By a 'healthy life' I refer to the well-adjusted person who is reasonably self-sacrificing and happy. Conversely, someone who does not find meaning in life will not rise above his or her self, and consequently will pursue unhealthy solutions to the problem, some of which may be addictive, selfish, or personally and interpersonally destructive.

The question of meaning is one that should transcend those brain states.

I agree.

If a meaning is to be found, should it not be an absolute one, a core value which all men aim at, not just the poor, depraved or lost?

Personally, I would question whether a person has lived, if he or she hasn't struggled with the meaning of life at least once. Meaning is not something only unhealthy people require. Though, it does take some form of hardship to force the issue.

Do you have any evidence to suggest such a thing exists?

No, but I recognize how essential it is to find it. Frankl's experience in Auschwitz showed him that those who failed to find meaning in life invariably degenerated and became less than fully human; they became indecent bug-like people. While those who exercised the will to meaning remained discernibly human, kept their humor, were relatively joyful and charitable.

In the Christian faith, the will to meaning is likewise essential. God's promises in scripture are willfully believed; one chooses to believe God's promises despite circumstances or whether one's emotions or intellect agree or not. The consolations of faith, i.e. peace, freedom, purity, joy, fortitude, victory over sin, etc., are appropriated by choosing to believe God despite everything to the contrary.

Faith is nothing more complicated than choosing to believe God's promises.