The meaning of life?

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The meaning of life?

Post by Immanuel Can »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Jul 01, 2017 6:01 am
There is no objective meaning to life which therefore renders the question superfluous
How did you discover the objective statement that "there is no objective meaning to life"? Or were you just speaking subjectively -- about how you feel, not what you know to be true?
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The meaning of life?

Post by surreptitious57 »

I make the statement based upon the fact that that no evidence exists for any so called objective meaning of life which would have to
be true for every one unlike subjective meanings which do not require any evidence and only have to be true for the one holding them
What you think is the meaning of life falls into the latter category for these reasons even if you think it should belong in the other one
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The meaning of life?

Post by davidm »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Oct 21, 2017 7:34 am I make the statement based upon the fact that that no evidence exists for any so called objective meaning of life ...
Right. Amazingly elementary stuff!

Sadly, ICan can't grasp such elementary stuff. I guess he should change user name to ICan't!
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: The meaning of life?

Post by Dubious »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:30 am
surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Jul 01, 2017 6:01 am
There is no objective meaning to life which therefore renders the question superfluous
How did you discover the objective statement that "there is no objective meaning to life"? Or were you just speaking subjectively -- about how you feel, not what you know to be true?
Ever ready to call into service your logical lube jobs!

If there's meaning tell us what it is because nothing in nature tells us what that can be. Since all such connotations have been subjectively improvised by humans the "objective" conclusion is there is no "objective" meaning to life. The only way you can disprove it is to fill the "concept of meaning" with an objective value.

Any suggestions on that without the help of your impromptu god?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The meaning of life?

Post by Immanuel Can »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Oct 21, 2017 7:34 am I make the statement based upon the fact that that no evidence exists...
Then just consider that statement for a moment. What can "no evidence exists" mean? It can't mean "I have investigated all possible evidence, and found that none exists." So what can it really mean, except "I don't personally know of any evidence"?

But those two are not equivalent claims. The fact that you have no knowledge of any such evidence logically does NOT mean no such evidence exists. It means you admit to not knowing...and that's all.

In other words, your "objective" claim that there is no "objective" meaning is actually...subjective. :shock:
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The meaning of life?

Post by Dontaskme »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:34 am

In other words, your "objective" claim that there is no "objective" meaning is actually...subjective. :shock:
Yes indeed, the subject /object duality is an appearance of no thing seemingly appearing to be some thing. So any evidence is self evident but at the same time is not evident at all since the self evidence is an appearance of no thing, it's an illusion of energy appearing as multiplicity.


.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The meaning of life?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dontaskme wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:03 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:34 am In other words, your "objective" claim that there is no "objective" meaning is actually...subjective. :shock:
Yes indeed, the subject /object duality is an appearance of no thing seemingly appearing to be some thing. So any evidence is self evident but at the same time is not evident at all since the self evidence is an appearance of no thing, it's an illusion of energy appearing as multiplicity.
This is nothing like what I meant. You can say what you will, but please don't "yes indeed" me into your camp.

Thanks.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The meaning of life?

Post by davidm »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:34 am
surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Oct 21, 2017 7:34 am I make the statement based upon the fact that that no evidence exists...
Then just consider that statement for a moment. What can "no evidence exists" mean? It can't mean "I have investigated all possible evidence, and found that none exists." So what can it really mean, except "I don't personally know of any evidence"?

But those two are not equivalent claims. The fact that you have no knowledge of any such evidence logically does NOT mean no such evidence exists. It means you admit to not knowing...and that's all.
Yeah, and so what? ALL evidence works this way.

I have no evidence that an advanced civilization exists in the Andromeda galaxy. Therefore, I have no reason to believe that this claim is true. It does not logically follow from this that I KNOW the claim to be untrue. Nor does it follow that I cannot acquire, later on, evidence to support the claim.

You still don’t seem to understand that most atheists do not claim, “I KNOW that God does not exist.” Not even Dawkins says this. Most say, “I lack a belief that God exists because I don’t know of any evidence that he exists.”
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The meaning of life?

Post by Immanuel Can »

davidm wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:16 pm You still don’t seem to understand that most atheists do not claim, “I KNOW that God does not exist.” Not even Dawkins says this.
That's because Dawkins also insists he's not an Atheist.

Don't believe me? Here: see him say it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfk7tW429E4
Most say, “I lack a belief that God exists because I don’t know of any evidence that he exists.”
Right. Which makes it a terribly weak and unimpressive claim. "I don't know." Yes, we can agree you don't. I have no reason to accuse you of lying. But so?

You see, by excusing itself that way, it's really made into just a very routine confession of personal ignorance, and thus is not capable of being any kind of a challenge to Theism. It allows "I don't know, but maybe you do." :shock:

So the price an Atheist pays for denying the essence of his own Atheism (the claim, "There is no God") is the complete vacating of his own relevance to the question about which he is most concerned.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The meaning of life?

Post by davidm »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:15 pm
davidm wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:16 pm You still don’t seem to understand that most atheists do not claim, “I KNOW that God does not exist.” Not even Dawkins says this.
That's because Dawkins also insists he's not an Atheist.

Don't believe me? Here: see him say it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfk7tW429E4
Er ... Yeah. That's my point. Dawkins says he can't be certain that God does not exist.

And? :? I agree with Dawkins.
Most say, “I lack a belief that God exists because I don’t know of any evidence that he exists.”
Right. Which makes it a terribly weak and unimpressive claim. "I don't know." Yes, we can agree you don't. I have no reason to accuse you of lying. But so?
Right. And you don't know that God does exist, right?
You see, by excusing itself that way, it's really made into just a very routine confession of personal ignorance, and thus is not capable of being any kind of a challenge to Theism.
No, not really. I don't KNOW that a teapot isn't orbiting the sun between Mars and Jupiter. Do you think that means I should be completely agnostic about the claim that there IS such a teapot? That I should -- what -- apportion 50/50 odds to the claim? :? How should we approach the claim in terms of Bayesian probability?
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The meaning of life?

Post by davidm »

Of course Dawkins is an atheist. Atheism doesn't mean, "I am certain God does not exist."
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The meaning of life?

Post by Immanuel Can »

davidm wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:22 pm Right. And you don't know that God does exist, right?
Now, why would you jump to that assumption? You don't know what another person does or does not know. In point of fact, even supposing it were true in my case, it would not tell you whether the next person along hasn't had some experience that neither you nor I have had.

It's irrational for an Atheist to say, "I don't know, and you cannot either." The first phrase is honest; but the second is bizarre. How could one justify telling everybody else what they are allowed to know, or what is possible for them to know?

For all you know, the next person along might have experiences you've NEVER had. In fact, I'll guarantee she or he has. Because that's easy to prove, but the opposite is impossible.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The meaning of life?

Post by Immanuel Can »

davidm wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:26 pm Of course Dawkins is an atheist. Atheism doesn't mean, "I am certain God does not exist."
Here's the next book I suggest you should read: it's called "The Atheist Who Didn't Exist," by A. Bannister.

Not only will you find it relevant, but I warrant you'll actually enjoy it.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The meaning of life?

Post by davidm »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:05 pm
davidm wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:22 pm Right. And you don't know that God does exist, right?
Now, why would you jump to that assumption?
For the same reason you tout the fact that no atheist knows that god does NOT exist.
You don't know what another person does or does not know. In point of fact, even supposing it were true in my case, it would not tell you whether the next person along hasn't had some experience that neither you nor I have had.

It's irrational for an Atheist to say, "I don't know, and you cannot either." The first phrase is honest; but the second is bizarre. How could one justify telling everybody else what they are allowed to know, or what is possible for them to know?

For all you know, the next person along might have experiences you've NEVER had. In fact, I'll guarantee she or he has. Because that's easy to prove, but the opposite is impossible.
But now the argument cuts both ways. The next person along has experiences you've NEVER had. Maybe this person KNOWS that God does NOT exist.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The meaning of life?

Post by Immanuel Can »

davidm wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:13 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:05 pm
davidm wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:22 pm Right. And you don't know that God does exist, right?
Now, why would you jump to that assumption?
For the same reason you tout the fact that no atheist knows that god does NOT exist.
Non-sequitur. There's no path from "I don't know," to "You can't know." To assert the latter requires rational justification. And what would that be?
But now the argument cuts both ways. The next person along has experiences you've NEVER had. Maybe this person KNOWS that God does NOT exist.
But the evidentiary standard is different for the two sides. The Atheist situation is epistemologically indefensible and hopeless. The Theist situation, if evidence for God does exist, is comparatively straightforward.

Put it this way: what would you have to do in order to justify the claim that God does not exist?

Richard Dawkins knows the answer, and it's the reason he won't call himself an Atheist -- it's that Atheism is inherently irrational, being dependent on a claim that simply cannot be warranted with adequate tests or evidence. There is no empirical test for ruling out the hypothesis that God exists: not travelling the world, not living at all times, not travelling outside the known cosmos...because as a concept, God is understood to transcend all these things.

In fact, if the Atheist could say this: "I've travelled the world at all places and all times, seen all phenomena, explored the entire universe, and eliminated all parallel and transcendent dimensions; having done so, I am in an empirical position to declare definitively that God does not exist," then he'd be wrong. For if the Atheist could do all those things, he would BE God.

Yet short of all that, he can never be in a position to rule out the hypothesis that God may still exist, despite his doubts.

So the Atheist is in a hopeless position, scientifically. Nothing he can do can justify a blank confidence that there is no God. And that's why Dawkins freely admits, as you have seen, that he cannot disprove the existence of God, and is a "Strong Agnostic," not an Atheist. He doesn't want to get caught in an unscientific position of claiming factual knowledge of something that he manifestly cannot know. He'd lose every debate before he started.

But let me ask you this: how many genuine miracles would I have to show you in order to justify, beyond a reasonable doubt, that God exists? How many men would genuinely have to rise from the dead? How many genuine revelations from God would I have to produce, before your Atheism was decisively disproved?

That's right: if you are honest to yourself, you know it's just one. One genuine such thing, and Atheism would be dead forever. It's like, "How many platypuses would I have to show you to prove platypuses exist? Just one.

So the Atheist's last defence is to claim no such thing CAN be ascertained as genuine. But this too is a hopeless response. For how could the Atheist claim to KNOW that? What scientific procedure would be adequate to prove that's right? Again, there is none. Moreover, IF (for argument's sake) a Supreme Being were to exist, it would be terribly easy for Him to demonstrate it. He who created the cosmos would doubtless...if He exists...be quite capable of performing all sorts of things adequate to show His existence...all the way from personal revelations to massive interventions, should He so choose.

And all the Atheist could do then is what Atheists do: refuse to acknowledge any evidence as evidence.
Post Reply