- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
13 Jan 12
Originally posted by epiphinehasThis doesn't sound like a design argument although RJ has gone in that direction.
I don't mean to propose a loaded question (i.e., an argument from design, etc.). I'm just curious as to how we know that the universe has no meaning apart from what we give it.
In addition to humans, the universe could mean something to some non-human being somewhere else in the universe, or if you entertain the notion of some other universe or plane of existence, there could be a being there to whom this universe has meaning. Or in extremis, the universe could just plain have meaning, in a manner similar to it having breadth or duration in time -- its a property.
What becomes of interest when thinking about what you said, is the question of whether the universe can have different ACTUAL meanings for different beings. We all have a literal "point of view" and they differ -- does that include a "point of meaning?"
We are bouncing a bit from purpose to meaning and back. Hope that doesn't cloud things up.
13 Jan 12
Originally posted by epiphinehasTo be honest, I do not really understand these questions.
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.
At any rate, you imply it is a fact "that human beings find meaning everywhere as an intrinsic property". I seriously doubt that is a fact. It's very obvious that meaning is not an intrinsic property of things (and I mean this in the sense of intrinsic as metaphysically objective -- that is, in the sense that X has meaning independent of the existence of entities capable of serving in the capacity of something toward which the meaning of X could be). The question of what X means does not even make sense outside the context that the meaning in question is meaning *to* [enter here some entity(ies) capable of serving in this capacity], right?
13 Jan 12
Originally posted by epiphinehasI'm just curious as to how we know that the universe has no meaning apart from what we give it.
I don't mean to propose a loaded question (i.e., an argument from design, etc.). I'm just curious as to how we know that the universe has no meaning apart from what we give it.
Again, the idea of meaning as intrinsic (in the sense of metaphysically objective) is totally crazy. I consider its falsity as basically analytic to 'meaning'.
13 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeTo echo LemonJello, any such meaning would not be an intrinsic property of the universe even if the universe was created for a purpose.
For the universe itself to have meaning would require a mind create it 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 his creation, (to avoid the existential crisis you mention) but I find such claims hard to substantiate.
Why would meaning provided by God be superior to say meaning provided by my cat? Why would either be superior to meaning provided by myself?
13 Jan 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeIt's impossible to violate the laws of physics (the actual ones not necessarily the ones we have discovered) and yet god is supposed
No, no personal experience classes as evidence for god.
If I were to tell you that I had had a vision, in which it was revealed to me that dragons existed,
and wanted us to worship them, nobody would take me seriously, they would think I had had too
much to drink, or had drugs, or was delusional, or had an over-active imagination, or was overstres ...[text shortened]... v/the-atheist-experience-tv-show/aron-ra-what-we-can-and-cannot-honestly-say-we-know-5016609
to be able to violate the laws of physics at will... to be able to do the impossible. Thus you need evidence that is impossible, to be evidence of god.
If God is all-powerful, what is to stop him from suspending or 'violating' the laws of physics? Has it been established by science that God couldn't do such a thing? At any rate, are you saying that it isn't possible for God to prove his existence? Or, put another way, no evidence is admissible as far as God's existence is concerned?
13 Jan 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloAt any rate, you imply it is a fact "that human beings find meaning everywhere as an intrinsic property". I seriously doubt that is a fact. It's very obvious that meaning is not an intrinsic property of things.
To be honest, I do not really understand these questions.
At any rate, you imply it is a fact "that human beings find meaning everywhere as an intrinsic property". I seriously doubt that is a fact. It's very obvious that meaning is not an intrinsic property of things (and I mean this in the sense of intrinsic as metaphysically objective -- that is, i ...[text shortened]... ion is meaning *to* [enter here some entity(ies) capable of serving in this capacity], right?
It is probably not worth pointing out, but you've misquoted me. The full quote reads, "that human beings find meaning everywhere as an intrinsic property of being human..." I'm saying it is an intrinsic property of humans that we find meaning everywhere. Nevertheless, your critique is relevant.
The question of what X means does not even make sense outside the context that the meaning in question is meaning *to* [enter here some entity(ies) capable of serving in this capacity], right?
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? It doesn't strike me as a crazy or senseless notion either. Talk to me, LJ.
Originally posted by epiphinehasOkay, sorry for not being faithful to your full quote. I think I would still have the same objection, though.
[b]At any rate, you imply it is a fact "that human beings find meaning everywhere as an intrinsic property". I seriously doubt that is a fact. It's very obvious that meaning is not an intrinsic property of things.
It is probably not worth pointing out, but you've misquoted me. The full quote reads, "that human beings find meaning everywhere as f it? It doesn't strike me as a crazy or senseless notion either. Talk to me, LJ.[/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 to make a few points here.
For one, the idea that X has meaning apart from one's (or some population's collective) apprehension of X does not entail that meaning can exist independent of the existence of minds (which I thought was the vein of your earlier questions). Take for example a theist who holds that the universe has some overarching meaning or purpose that enjoys independence from the existence of our minds; notwithstanding, the theist still thinks this meaning still depends on the existence of some mind in the form of God, who acts in this capacity as some meta-observer. I still do not think the idea of meaning independent of the existence of minds is coherent; again, I think there is a subjective dimension that is basically analytic to 'meaning'.
For two, just because one can ask a question of a certain type does not mean it is well-formed, or has any sort of reasonable or satisfying answer, etc. Further, it's not really clear to me why one should care whether some thing has meaning totally independent of one's perspective; or totally independent of the perspectives of all beings such as oneself; or etc. Asking, for example, if your own existence has a purpose totally independent of your own perspective to me just sounds weird. How could you possibly care even if there were such a meta-purpose? Consider, again, the example theist described above. Suppose he lives his life according to what he takes to be God's meta-purpose for him. Does this provide an example of meaning independent from the theist's perspective? I do not think so. Living his life this way in any non-ersatz, genuine fashion can only come proximately from resonation within his own perspective. Even if such a meta-meaning could exist, it only amounts to foisting if such resonation does not occur.
For three, although I think "meaning apart from..." in the sense of metaphysically objective meaning (as I described it earlier) is totally crazy, I would add that there may be other readings of "meaning apart from..." that are not as crazy. For example, you had used the term 'intrinsic'. Again, I thought you meant this in the sense of metaphysically objective, which I think is crazy. But 'intrinsic' could also be meant in diametric opposition to something like 'instrumental', for example. In that case, for X to have intrinsic, or non-instrumental, meaning (again, to some subject S) would be for X to have meaning to S in and of itself as an end, and not merely as a means to some other end (or some such). This is not crazy, but to me this does not seem to capture what you are talking about. Another option is that 'intrinsic' could be meant in diametric opposition to something like 'relativistic'. In that case, for X to have intrinsic, or non-relativistic, meaning to S would be for X to have meaning to S independent of the meaning-ascriptions of entities that purport to ascribe meaning (or some such). Okay, come to think of it, this seems to be precisely what you mean, so sorry for probably misreading you before. In this sense, meaning is not necessarily an objective property of things (which would signify metaphysical objectiveness) but is rather an objective relation between things and minds (which would not). So, if this is what you meant, my earlier objection is not as relevant. I would say this reading is not as crazy, but before going further I would ask if I am reading you correctly now. Is this more what you meant?
By the way, nice to see you in the forums again.
13 Jan 12
Originally posted by epiphinehasIt 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.
If God is all-powerful, what is to stop him from suspending or 'violating' the laws of physics? Has it been established by science that God couldn't do such a thing?
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 observation is of supernatural origin is to say "yes I know it couldn't have happened like that, but I want to believe that it did, so please don't question me any further".
The whole supernatural concept is a highly successful mechanism for stopping debate and avoiding difficult questions by pulling the wool over the eyes of your questioner.
13 Jan 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou seem not to realize that God is the one that made the laws.
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 ...[text shortened]... ate and avoiding difficult questions by pulling the wool over the eyes of your questioner.
Do you really think God is restricted by laws He made to control
the operation of the Universe?
13 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsYes, God is restricted by laws he made, because if he isn't, then they aren't laws, by definition.
You seem not to realize that God is the one that made the laws.
Do you really think God is restricted by laws He made to control
the operation of the Universe?
And yes, I know you can change the definition to make it fit what you want to believe, (as you do with the word 'evolution'😉, but you would be talking to yourself and it wont change the fact that the laws of physics are defined as unbreakable rules.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
13 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsHere's another response to you on this:
You seem not to realize that God is the one that made the laws.
Do you really think God is restricted by laws He made to control
the operation of the Universe?
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 building, I will fall. Then, one time, I jump, and there are tons of evidence I hovered in midair for a half hour. Thousand of witnesses, video footage. I am interviewed while hovering. No one doubts it.
Meanwhile the FD has put up a people-catcher and when the fall continues (again for no apparent reason) I am OK.
As far as science is concerned, TW is right. After ruling out a wind updraft, hidden magnets, etc., the scientists will say the law was incorrect and needs revision once the situation is understood. They will investigate the situation trying to find a way to modify the law, trying to repeat what happened, etc. etc. They might never find it.
And as far as religion is concerned, God intervened. The Christian, the animist, the Hindu, the Druid, the Wiccan, all will step forward with the answer they already believed is true, before it ever happened. Of course, religious people will wonder what the situation was that led it to happen. After all, God wouldn't do this for no reason, would he? Is there a message?
Both the scientist and the religious will apply logic and reason to the situation, based on their pre-existing beliefs, to understand what happened. They will modify their beliefs (probably as little as necessary) based on what they learn.
But in any case, the law of gravity will have been found to be incomplete/incorrect. The scientist may say there will never be a scientific explanation. But TW is right about the situation from the standpoint of science. And the situation will not necessitate the scientist to accept that God did it.
You see, even God can't get around the fact that there is a whole lot of regularity in the world; enough to make people believe laws apply. (Edit: The religious will ascribe them to God, and will look for meaning in any exceptions.) And for the scientist, when something happens that violates the law, the law needs revision. That's all.