NationStates Jolt Archive

I was discussing this with some friends.

My position is if one asks why we are here they must posit creator(s), since without intent the answer to 'why' is equal to the answer to 'how'. Thoughts?

EDIT: To be clear, I'm trying to talk about meaning, not why we decide to do things or what potential an individual or humans might have. I'm talking about the age-old philosophical question.

The "purpose" in life is to spread your genetic materials are broadly as you can with as many fit mates as possible to breed strong offspring to continue your line.

Religion is immaterial.

Wait .... you shot who in the what now?

Other: Regardless of Creators, there is no higher fate, no higher purpose, no higher destiny. We forge our own purpose. We are free.

I think the true wonder and joy of life that makes it unique is the fact that it has no purpose. Imagine how unpleasant it would be if it did: you live all your life to fulfill your purpose, and when you finally do, you're done. This way, you choose what you want to do.

Other: Regardless of Creators, there is no higher fate, no higher purpose, no higher destiny. We forge our own purpose. We are free.

Nothing to add.

The "purpose" in life is to spread your genetic materials are broadly as you can with as many fit mates as possible to breed strong offspring to continue your line.

Religion is immaterial.

Yes, exactly, you've just equated why and how. Exactly my point. We're talking about the why are we here question. You answered with the pressures of natural law. Doesn't really address the issue, now does it? It tells how we got here and how we'll stay here (we being our species, but it says balls about why).

Somebody mention a purpose to life? 42

Other: Regardless of Creators, there is no higher fate, no higher purpose, no higher destiny. We forge our own purpose. We are free.

That's about what I wanted to say. One cannot exist without purpose, but not everyone is aware of what that purpose is or for that matter finding out what it is. If anything, I would say religion is the practice of developing consious awareness of one's purpose in life.

Yes, exactly, you've just equated why and how. Exactly my point. We're talking about the why are we here question. You answered with the pressures of natural law. Doesn't really address the issue, now does it? It tells how we got here and how we'll stay here (we being our species, but it says balls about why).

There is no why. Even if there was there's fuck all we can do about it, so why waste time pondering it?

Somebody mention a purpose to life? 42

No, that's the meaning of life.

The purpose of life is whatever you make it out to be; that's how I see it anyway.

Other: Regardless of Creators, there is no higher fate, no higher purpose, no higher destiny. We forge our own purpose. We are free.

Doesn't address the issue. You answered why you do things. Has nothing to do with the "why are we here" question that has plagued philosophy pretty much for all time.

No, that's the meaning of life.

The purpose of life is whatever you make it out to be; that's how I see it anyway.

We're talking about meaning. I told you the question "why are we here". You're talking about why we decide to do the things we do or what potential we have. It has nothing to do with a purpose for our existence.

We're talking about meaning. I told you the question "why are we here". You're talking about why we decide to do the things we do or what potential we have. It has nothing to do with a purpose for our existence.

Well in that case, there is no real purpose to life. Some chemical reactions took places and life was created. Ta-da.

There is no purpose to life other than to live and reproduce from time to time. That way the species stays alive and everyone is happy. When it gets down to it, we are no different than ants.

Other: Regardless of Creators, there is no higher fate, no higher purpose, no higher destiny. We forge our own purpose. We are free.

Fully agree, except to add the famous quote that humans "are born free, but everywhere in chains."

Doesn't address the issue. You answered why you do things. Has nothing to do with the "why are we here" question that has plagued philosophy pretty much for all time.

No, you're misinterpreting me.

I think the "why are we here" question has no general, universal answer. There is no inherent purpose in our existence. But I reject the idea that it follows that there is no purpose. There is - but it's something we create for ourselves. The question of "why are we here" is one we answer with every action we take - in making choices we affirm our own role in the universe, our own individual purpose.

Now, if you're asking about a pre-determined purpose, a purpose behind our existence instead of a purpose created by our existence, then I would say that there is no such thing.

Other: Once I can understand the complex interactions and entities that make up the "what","who", "where", and "when" of life, then I'll start on "why".

No, you're misinterpreting me.

I think the "why are we here" question has no general, universal answer. There is no inherent purpose in our existence. But I reject the idea that it follows that there is no purpose. There is - but it's something we create for ourselves. The question of "why are we here" is one we answer with every action we take - in making choices we affirm our own role in the universe, our own individual purpose.

Now, if you're asking about a pre-determined purpose, a purpose behind our existence instead of a purpose created by our existence, then I would say that there is no such thing.

So you've shown we can have intent? Great. I'm asking about something more than the fact that I can choose to save a baby or use less oil or something. If you thought I was asking if people can DECIDE to do things, I don't know what to say.

The actions we take are not more evidence of purpose than the actions individual atoms take. Again, it equates the why and how when you try to argue from that stance.

So you've shown we can have intent? Great.

No. I'm arguing that we can have purpose through our intent.

The actions we take are not more evidence of purpose than the actions individual atoms take.

Except that we are conscious beings with free will, unlike individual atoms.

If there's a purpose in life other than reproduction, then there's probably, even necessarily, a Creator...

Which is what I believe, since I think there's some purpose. I mean, most of us feel vaguely uncomfortable with absolutely nothing to work towards. 'Course, you could have a randomly developed self-made purpose that helps one preserve himself, but that seems too convenient.

Now, all we have to do in order to actually discuss this is define "purpose". Is it what you were set on earth to do? Is it what *you* want to accomplish? Is it something you can't avoid doing? Either of the first two assume some free will, the last one is deterministic - our "purpose" is to do what's going to happen anyway.

No. I'm arguing that we can have purpose through our intent.



Except that we are conscious beings with free will, unlike individual atoms.

Yes but how does our consciousness mean anything to the universe. Clearly, it means something to us. But you act as if it's of consequence to the universe. We have an effect, of course, but that effect is not really different than that of atoms unless you assign more weight to our reactions to our surroundings for some reason.

Pigs make choices too. They have free will. Should I treat that like purpose?

Other: Regardless of Creators, there is no higher fate, no higher purpose, no higher destiny. We forge our own purpose. We are free.

Indeed we are free.

Meaning is something human we apply to things to help them make sense. We need stories however abstract because we are limited linear creatures.

Purpose is to have a direction to follow. Even beasts can be said to have a pupose and show intent. A very simple example of that would be an animals intent to kill were it's purpose is to hunt.

Purpose is also reason for being. Some could successfully argue that this brings us back to meaning applied to ourselves. But if there were a creator (as I beleive there to be) then we were created with a purpose. Our freedom of will permits us to follow or deviate from it; indeed, even to convince ourselves that our purpose is under our control. But purpose, or our raison d'être is pre-defined by God (I believe) and therefore moves us away from notions of providing meanings to define our own existence.


Kin Wicked
Leader of the Wikaedian people.

If there's a purpose in life other than reproduction, then there's probably, even necessarily, a Creator...

Which is what I believe, since I think there's some purpose. I mean, most of us feel vaguely uncomfortable with absolutely nothing to work towards. 'Course, you could have a randomly developed self-made purpose that helps one preserve himself, but that seems too convenient.

Now, all we have to do in order to actually discuss this is define "purpose". Is it what you were set on earth to do? Is it what *you* want to accomplish? Is it something you can't avoid doing? Either of the first two assume some free will, the last one is deterministic - our "purpose" is to do what's going to happen anyway.

Yes, that's an excellent point. A Creator doesn't mean purpose must exist, but if we have a 'reason' for being here, there must be something that gave us that reason.

Yes but how does our consciousness mean anything to the universe. Clearly, it means something to us. But you act as if it's of consequence to the universe. We have an effect, of course, but that effect is not really different than that of atoms unless you assign more weight to our reactions to our surroundings for some reason.

Nothing is of consequence to the universe, the universe is not sentient. Our purpose is relevant to ourselves.

Pigs make choices too. They have free will. Should I treat that like purpose?

Sure.

Nothing is of consequence to the universe, the universe is not sentient. Our purpose is relevant to ourselves.


Hmmm... who said this?

in making choices we affirm our own role in the universe, our own individual purpose.

You are committing the fallacy of equivocation. You suggested we have a role in the universe and then say our purpose in only relevant to ourselves. You are clearly mixing the concept I am talking about 'our role' with another meaning that is only relevant to us.


Sure.

Okey-dokey.

The "purpose" in life is to spread your genetic materials as broadly as you can...
Yeah, I have dandruff too.

Yeah, I have dandruff too.

I was waiting for you to show up.

You are committing the fallacy of equivocation. You suggested we have a role in the universe and then say our purpose in only relevant to ourselves. You are clearly mixing the concept I am talking about 'our role' with another meaning that is only relevant to us.

You are deriving a meaning from my words that isn't there.

"Our role in the universe" is the purpose we assign to ourselves. Being in the universe, we play a part in it; that is the field in which we make choices. That is all I meant by my phrasing.

Does the universe "care"? When the universe gains feelings, we can discuss that question further.

Okey-dokey.

If you're going to claim that the pig's consciousness and free will is equivalent to that of a human, it follows quite logically, as you pointed out.

You are deriving a meaning from my words that isn't there.

"Our role in the universe" is the purpose we assign to ourselves. Being in the universe, we play a part in it; that is the field in which we make choices. That is all I meant by my phrasing.

Does the universe "care"? When the universe gains feelings, we can discuss that question further.



If you're going to claim that the pig's consciousness and free will is equivalent to that of a human, it follows quite logically, as you pointed out.

Okay. Well, when you're ready to talk about the actual topic, I'm interested in hearing it.

I put you in the "we have no purpose" category. I'm fairly certain there is no debate as to whether we can intend to do things. But if there is a debate on that, start a thread. I'd be interested to see the arguments of the other side.

And yes, if you're going to argue that the ability to make decisions marks purpose, then pigs definitely make decisions.

Everything has a purpose, a reason why it exists. Absolutely everything, even god. Purpose for an object does not imply a consciousness for the object, rather it implies a consciousness assigning the reason. That be us.

I put you in the "we have no purpose" category.

You are begging the question.

You are starting from the assumption that the only real "purpose" is a purpose for our existence made by a conscious external force.

You reject deterministic, natural law oriented purposes as answers to "how" rather than "why." You reject self-made purposes as just "making decisions." You insist that both are irrelevant.

If the only real "purpose" is a purpose made by a Creator, then yes, it logically follows that purpose is dependent on a Creator. I don't think anyone's going to argue with you there.

Is Intent Necessary for a Purpose to Life?
This question is a bit trickier. We often have no intent in identifying the purpose of things, but I think the question is actually 'Was life created with an intent?' I don't know, but I like to think it was. It certainly is a very special thing.

You are begging the question.

You are starting from the assumption that the only real "purpose" is a purpose for our existence made by a conscious external force.

You reject deterministic, natural law oriented "purposes" as answers to "how" rather than "why." You reject self-made purposes as just "making decisions." You insist that both are irrelevant.

If the only real "purpose" is a purpose made by a Creator, then yes, it logically follows that purpose is dependent on a Creator. I don't think anyone's going to argue with you there.
No, I'm starting with a question about a larger purpose and you are discussing another question. I'm not assuming we have one, so you should probably review that fallacy. I'm not saying it has to come from a Creator or Creators, just that I don't see another way we can have a greater purpose (which is the point of the why are we here question). Your answer is "of course people can have a purpose. I just intended to pick my nose. That's a purpose."

If we are talking about natural law you are equating why and how and I specifically pointed that out. You don't like it. I understand you don't like it. I don't particularly care.

Tell you what - give me a moment and I'll start a thread discussing whether human beings are capable of intending to do things.

No, I'm starting with a question about a larger purpose and you are discussing another question. I'm not assuming we have one, so you should probably review that fallacy.

No, you're not. What you're assuming is the answer to the question you asked at the start of the thread - that yes, intent is necessary for purpose, or more specifically, external intent, independent of the "intended." That necessitates, for purpose to exist, either a Creator or an "intelligent designer," which amounts to the same thing.

I'm not saying it has to come from a Creator or Creators, just that I don't see another way we can have a greater purpose (which is the point of the why are we here question).

Define "greater purpose." Perhaps this is the route of our disagreement.

Here you go -

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11176920#post11176920

I don't see it being much of debate, but feel free to prove me wrong.

No, you're not. What you're assuming is the answer to the question you asked at the start of the thread - that yes, intent is necessary for purpose, or more specifically, external intent, independent of the "intended." That necessitates, for purpose to exist, either a Creator or an "intelligent designer," which amounts to the same thing.



Define "greater purpose." Perhaps this is the route of our disagreement.

You've never heard the great philosophical question of "why are we here"? The meaning of life? You answered with "I am capable of choosing to do things." You don't see how the fact that you can intend things has NOTHING to do with the meaning of life?

and the correct answer is...communism.

You've never heard the great philosophical question of "why are we here"?

You've never heard of existentialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism)?

The meaning of life? You answered with "I am capable of choosing to do things."

No. I answered that in my choices, interpretations, and perspectives I can give myself a purpose and provide meaning.

You don't see how the fact that you can intend things has NOTHING to do with the meaning of life?

Here's what I said:

But I reject the idea that it follows that there is no purpose. There is - but it's something we create for ourselves. The question of "why are we here" is one we answer with every action we take - in making choices we affirm our own role in the universe, our own individual purpose.

Regardless of Creators, there is no higher fate, no higher purpose, no higher destiny. We forge our own purpose. We are free.

Without higher meaning, without higher purpose, there is the capability to create for ourselves our own purpose and find meaning in what we choose.

For those who are unfamiliar with begging the question or who would misuse it.

Begging the question (circular argument)
p impies q
suppose p
therefore q

However, when the question is "does p imply q"? It's actually neccessary to see what happens when you suppose p.

You've never heard of existentialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism)?

Someone doesn't understand existentialism. Please read that page and return to the discussion. That page specifically makes the point I'm talking about. Your misunderstanding of it isn't really of interest to me.

No. I answered that in my choices, interpretations, and perspectives I can give myself a purpose and provide meaning.

And you continue to talk about something else. Yes, I am aware that people can see meaning and that people can decide purposes. The question is can we believe a generalized purpose, a reason for life without intent. I ask you if you like hamburgers and you answer that you think chickens taste good.

Here's what I said:





Without higher meaning, without higher purpose, there is the capability to create for ourselves our own purpose and find meaning in what we choose.
Which would be remotely interesting if that had anything to do with the debate. I started a thread for you. Enjoy it. Meanwhile, we're talking about higher purpose. I don't know any rational people that debate whether people can assign meaning to things.

Me: Does p imply q?
You: It does if you replace it with x.
Me: Doesn't address the point. I'm asking does p imply q?
You: Begging the question. You're assuming we must be talking about p.
Me: Yes, when asking does p imply q, one must actually mind their p's and q's.
You: But I said we should replace p with x. What's confusing for you? Did I mention existentialism?
Me: Yes, I know. And if the question was does Soheran understand existentialism, that would be interesting. Or if the question was does x imply q. It's neither question, so address the question or discuss the other questions in threads dedicated to them.

Someone doesn't understand existentialism.

You?

Please read that page and return to the discussion.

I do tend to read the Wikipedia pages I link to. This was no exception.

That page specifically makes the point I'm talking about.

Point it out.

And you continue to talk about something else. Yes, I am aware that people can see meaning and that people can decide purposes. The question is can we believe a generalized purpose, a reason for life without intent.

You never said anything about "generalized purpose" until just now. As I said in my second reply to this thread, I reject any such thing.

You?



I do tend to read the Wikipedia pages I link to. This was no exception.



Point it out.



You never said anything about "generalized purpose" until just now. As I said in my second reply to this thread, I reject any such thing.
No, I said something about meaning and a bigger purpose. I'm sorry you're struggling with the concept.

You are talking about intent. Sartre knew the difference. You don't.

Why are we here =/= Am I capable of giving ourselves a purpose

Existentialism is an argument against a meaning of life or a larger purpose. That you would mention it as if it is an argument against what I'm saying is further proof that you don't understand my question. Stop telling me about x.

I'm not saying it has to come from a Creator or Creators, just that I don't see another way we can have a greater purpose (which is the point of the why are we here question).

I guess some people could confuse 'greater purpose" for "the ability to intend" but so far I've only encountered you.

And if you're wondering why I giggled about existentialism, Sartre suggested that once we loose the illusions brought on by religion that meaning disappears. Existentialism addresses the question I proposed. It supports what I believe. It suggests that without a Creator there is no meaning in the sense of the word that is suggested by the question "why are we here".

No, I said something about meaning and a bigger purpose. I'm sorry you're struggling with the concept.

I'm sorry you feel the need to change the definitions as you go.

Now, if you were really were talking about "generalized purpose," you would have mentioned that back when I rejected it ("I think the 'why are we here' question has no general, universal answer") in my second reply to you, and this would have been resolved a long time ago.

You are talking about intent. Sartre knew the difference. You don't.

I don't think I've said a word about "intent" in describing my position.

Existentialism is an argument against a meaning of life or a larger purpose. That you would mention it as if it is an argument against what I'm saying is further proof that you don't understand my question. Stop telling me about x.

It's an argument against an externally imposed meaning or purpose, but rather than arguing against the idea that the human being is capable of using his freedom to define and provide meaning to his existence, that is one of its chief tenets.

I'm sorry you feel the need to change the definitions as you go.

Now, if you were really were talking about "generalized purpose," you would have mentioned that back when I rejected it ("I think the 'why are we here' question has no general, universal answer") in my second reply to you, and this would have been resolved a long time ago.

No, instead I pointed out that you're not actually talking about the same thing as me and explained it. It's unfortunate that you're struggling here.

I assumed you would understand the question of 'meaning of life'. I guess I gave you too much credit.

I don't think I've said a word about "intent" in describing my position.

Doesn't make me giggle less or your point less spurious and off-topic. I suppose if you don't use a specific word, it can't be found in the context. I wonder if that would work in a court of law. "You can't say I threatened to kill him. Did I specifically use the word 'kill'?"

It's an argument against an externally imposed meaning or purpose, but rather than arguing against the idea that the human being is capable of using his freedom to define and provide meaning to his existence, that is one of its chief tenets.
Funny, I guess Sartre didn't know what he meant by 'meaning' when he discussed meaning. Someone should tell him.

Sartre said the meaning of life didn't exist if one stripped away the fallacious views of religious beliefs. I guess he didn't struggle with what we mean by 'meaning of life' like you do. He knew when one talks about this subject, it is not a discussion of whether or not we can choose a path in life.

The externally imposed meaning is exactly the topic of this thread. I've made that point a number of time. You've managed to miss, somehow, that my statements that we are not talking about a person's ability to choose a path, to define himself, has NOTHING to do with my question.

If you're interested in x, I made a thread for you. Why do you insist in preventing this thread from addressing the question I posed? Are you just too stubborn to go discuss this elsewhere or are you worried that someone else will point out your erroneous understanding of existentialism?

Too bad I'm not talking to Sartre. He would have actually addressed the question.

Life has no meaning the moment you loose the illusion of being eternal.

And in case you missed it, when he says life has no meaning, he uses it just the way I do. If only he were here. Then perhaps we could discuss the point rather than discussing whether human beings are capable of divining a personal purpose.

In other words, I asked "does p imply q (does meaning imply a Creator)?" And said that I believe it does. Sartre argued that p does imply q and because 'not q' then 'not p'. They then extrapolated on 'not p' and followed it out to create a different set of values that better reflected how we might see ourselves. You act as if those extrapolations are an argument about p implying q, but to argue such completely misses the point. They started with the conclusion in hand, that p implies q. Since their entire point relies on p implying q, none of the related arguments address whether p actually implies q.

No, instead I pointed out that you're not actually talking about the same thing as me and explained it.

Wait. Even going with your "generalized purpose" explanation, how is a clear rejection of "generalized purpose" not relevant to the subject of the thread?

I assumed you would understand the question of 'meaning of life'. I guess I gave you too much credit.

I think I understood it pretty clearly.

Doesn't make me giggle less

Giggle all you like.

or your point less spurious and off-topic.

Oh? Are you going to invent another term that you haven't used before to describe your new and improved meaning?

I suppose if you don't use a specific word, it can't be found in the context. I wonder if that would work in a court of law. "You can't say I threatened to kill him. Did I specifically use the word 'kill'?"

I don't think I've been talking about "intent" explicitly or implicitly, actually.

The externally imposed meaning is exactly the topic of this thread. I've made that point a number of time.

No, you haven't. You've made it once. Now.

Wait. Even going with your "generalized purpose" explanation, how is a clear rejection of "generalized purpose" not relevant to the subject of the thread?

Rejecting purpose isn't irrelevant. However, you claimed to answer the question but didn't. You said yes life has meaning absent of a Creator then used existentialism as evidence even though the actual conclusion of existentialism is exactly the opposite.


I think I understood it pretty clearly.

I know you think that. This is exactly the problem. You also think that existentialism supports your claims. Forgive me if I don't live my life by your 'understandings'.

Giggle all you like.

Thank you. That's too of use who are giving me permission to do so.

Oh? Are you going to invent another term that you haven't used before to describe your new and improved meaning?

Yes, I invented the term 'meaning of life'. No one has ever discussed this term before. Interesting that people seem to always understand the Sartre quote about meaning even without any further context. Perhaps because there is an understanding as to what the question of the meaning of life refers to.

I don't think I've been talking about "intent" explicitly or implicitly, actually.

Really? Yes, talking about free will and choices has nothing to do with intent. But hey, let's review, shall we?

No. I'm arguing that we can have purpose through our intent.
Whoops. Looks like you are talking about intent. Not only are you not reading what I posit, but not even what you posit.


No, you haven't. You've made it once. Now.
Yes, yes. I never mentioned the meaning of life or rejected a discussion of an intenally imposed meaning. Oh, wait, isn't what we're discussing my rejection of a discussion of internally imposed meaning being on-topic. Gee. I guess you're just full of the proverbial stuff.

Again, let's go to the replay -
Yes but how does our consciousness mean anything to the universe. Clearly, it means something to us. But you act as if it's of consequence to the universe. We have an effect, of course, but that effect is not really different than that of atoms unless you assign more weight to our reactions to our surroundings for some reason.

Hmmm.. perhaps you were confused by my reference to the universe.

And when you rejected the relation to the universe, I immediately replied that you are then not talking about the topic.

No, I'm starting with a question about a larger purpose and you are discussing another question.

Now, did it ever occur to you I was talking about external prior to this last post. Well, let's see - back to the replay.

more specifically, external intent,

I'm having a problem reconciling the questions.

Thread title: Is Intent Necessary for a Purpose to Life?

This question is confusing because it is unclear whose intent you're talking about. After reading the thread, I figured out you meant a higher power's intent in creating human life, but it could just as easily mean our intent, i.e. the human beings' intent. With that reading, the arguments that purpose is conveyed by our intentions are legitimate.

The question is also confusing because there is not a clear relationship between "intent" and "purpose." Are you asking if a higher power has a purpose in mind for our lives and that is why he/she/it/they created us? Thus it would be both the higher power's intent and the higher power's purpose. (And why would we need to have a sense of either of those things?) Or are you asking if we need to have a sense that we were intentionally created by a higher power in order for us to have a sense of purpose in life? In that case it would be the higher power's intent but our purpose. But that could bring us back to the question of human intent.

My take on it starts with the idea that there does not have to be a connection between "intent" and "purpose." Let's say a higher power intentionally created human life (I don't believe this, but let's just say). I see no reason why the intention couldn't simply have been to create, and having done that, the creator's purpose is fulfilled and he/she/it moves on to the next project, whatever it is. I think there is such a gap between "intent" to create something and "purpose" for the created thing, that the two concepts are entirely separate.

And "meaning" doesn't even come into it, as far as I'm concerned. "What is the meaning of life?" is, to me, as pointless a question as "what is the meaning of a pencil?"

Willamena's interpretation of the thread title: Was life created with an intent?

This question is clearer, but not much easier to answer. Again, why can't the intent simply be to create without assigning any purpose for the creation once it is created? My mind just can't make the leap between the two concepts. Again, let's say someone (a "creator") created me with intent. Why should I care about that, especially if I don't know what the intent was? And let's say this creator created me with a purpose in mind. Why should I care about that either, especially if I don't know what the purpose is?

So I guess my answer to Willamena's question would have to be "Who cares whether it was or not?"

Poll Question: Do you believe life has a purpose and do you believe in a Creator(s)?

So finally, my opinion. Only I feel like I'm giving my opinion on two unrelated issues because, as I stated, I don't see why the existence of a creator implies the existence of a purpose.

First, I do not believe life has a purpose -- meaning that I do not believe there is anything undone that life is supposed to do, or anything unfulfilled that life is supposed to fulfill. Nor do I believe that life has any inherent meaning beyond what we humans ascribe to it. It is possible to arbitrarily assign meaning to a pencil, and it is equally possible to arbitrarily assign meaning to life. But life does not need a meaning. Life is just a series of transitions and transformations, some automatic, some accidental, some controlled by us. It is a process -- a journey, if you will -- a road from one point to another. In and of itself, it has no meaning, purpose or intent. The points on the road might, but the road that connects them does not. Personally, I do not think the points along the road have any inherent meaning, either (beyond what we give them), because every point of arrival is just another point of departure. The journey never ends, and since it never ends, it has no destination, no point that it is trying to reach.

For the second part of the question: Until tonight I have been completely indifferent to the question of whether there is a creator(s), but to get into the thread, I had to think about it. And I'm kind of thinking that, no, I do not believe there is a creator(s), because when I contemplate life, I cannot see a beginning or an end. This means that I cannot comprehend a point or moment of creation.

I see life as an eternal continuum. I believe that "life" -- the life force or life spark -- is an infinite universe of energy that manifests in various forms, dissolves and re-manifests in other forms, over and over. I also believe that within this energy, there are individual souls that are immortal and for whom "life" and "death" are nothing but momentary manifestations or un-manifestations. Round and round we go, and round and round we've been going, without either beginning or end.

There is an interesting concept in some ancient pagan god-figures -- the concept of self-creation. For instance the Egyptian Thoth, god of wisdom, is described as "The Immortal, The Self-Creating." That's kind of a tricky concept to wrap one's brain around. I haven't mastered it completely myself, but I feel it is germaine to the ideas I'm trying to express here (and probably not doing so great a job of).

Too bad I'm not talking to Sartre. <snip>
Originally Posted by Jean-Paul Sartre
Life has no meaning the moment you loose the illusion of being eternal.

Now that's funny, because I just finished going on and on at length about how I do have the illusion of being eternal, but I still think life has no meaning.


Why do I suddenly feel like I entered a Monty Python sketch? :D
http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/jpsartre.htm

Now that's funny, because I just finished going on and on at length about how I do have the illusion of being eternal, but I still think life has no meaning.


Why do I suddenly feel like I entered a Monty Python sketch? :D
http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/jpsartre.htm
The point is that my friend and I were discussing the meaning of life and it occurred to me that he is an atheist. And I said to him, if you're an atheist how can you posit a meaning to life. He thought about it for a moment and said "I suppose you have to assume a designer if one is going to posit a purpose for the design."

That was the issue. I understand that people find other ways to address their function, but the point is that if one is to look for a greater meaning how does one find it absent the idea of a Creator or something similar. I don't look at a landscape and try to find symbolism like I would in a painting, because when I look for meaning in every case I expect it is the result of intentional design.

The point is that my friend and I were discussing the meaning of life and it occurred to me that he is an atheist. And I said to him, if you're an atheist how can you posit a meaning to life. He thought about it for a moment and said "I suppose you have to assume a designer if one is going to posit a purpose for the design."

That was the issue. I understand that people find other ways to address their function, but the point is that if one is to look for a greater meaning how does one find it absent the idea of a Creator or something similar. I don't look at a landscape and try to find symbolism like I would in a painting, because when I look for meaning in every case I expect it is the result of intentional design.



If you posit a creator, then the purpose of life is the intent of the creator.

Without a creator, the purpose of life is whatever that life can improvise.

Pretty simple, really.

The point is that my friend and I were discussing the meaning of life and it occurred to me that he is an atheist. And I said to him, if you're an atheist how can you posit a meaning to life. He thought about it for a moment and said "I suppose you have to assume a designer if one is going to posit a purpose for the design."

That was the issue. I understand that people find other ways to address their function, but the point is that if one is to look for a greater meaning how does one find it absent the idea of a Creator or something similar. I don't look at a landscape and try to find symbolism like I would in a painting, because when I look for meaning in every case I expect it is the result of intentional design.
I think we have a fundamental point of disagreement on that because when I look for meaning, in every case I expect it is the result of me imposing a meaning regardless of what the designer may have intended.

It is one of my issues as an artist -- I refuse to "explain" my work to people; I refuse to tell them what any of my artworks mean. This is because my "purpose" as the artist/designer/creator is to force the viewers of my work to develop a meaningful concept of their own. I want them to use my work to explore their own minds. So when anyone asks "What does this piece mean?", I answer, "You tell me."

I feel the same way when I contemplate life. If I ask, "What does it all mean?", there will be no answer forthcoming. So what source do I have for meaning then, other than my own mind?

I guess my point is that the existence of a creator is irrelevant to the existence of a meaning or purpose for life. My point is also that one may as well apply meaning to a landscape as to a picture of one, as the meaning for both comes from the same source, oneself.

EDIT: To clarify, as the creator of art, I clearly have a purpose in mind for my creations, which is to make people think. But my purpose is irrelevant to the viewers of the work because it does not tell them what or how or to think about it. Whatever thought they come up with, it is unlikely to be "Wow, that artist is really making me think." In other words, whatever thought they come up with, I and my purpose did not put it in their head.

If you posit a creator, then the purpose of life is the intent of the creator.

Without a creator, the purpose of life is whatever that life can improvise.

Pretty simple, really.
But, as I suggested in my big long rambling post, what if the creator's intention was only to create? What if, having created life, the creator's purpose was fulfilled and he/she/it moved on to the next creative project? Now where does that leave the created life?

Now where does that leave the created life?

To improvise.

To improvise.
Exactly, but not because there is no creator.

Exactly, but not because there is no creator.

If a God created us with no particular purpose in mind, then I guess humanity is just some holy reality show.

I find that hard to believe, though. If existence was consciously created you'd think it would have a purpose. Unless it was just God taking a dump.

If there's a purpose in life other than reproduction, then there's probably, even necessarily, a Creator...

Which is what I believe, since I think there's some purpose. I mean, most of us feel vaguely uncomfortable with absolutely nothing to work towards.

That's not very logical. Just because you feel uncomfortable with nothing to work towards doesn't mean there is something to work towards. What it does mean, however, is that you're more likely to imagine a God and to believe there's some purpose to your existence.

We all exist as an extension of the organic totality we call reality. In this sense, all things serve the purpose of being the means to the existence of reality and all other things within reality.

Reality could not exist without such a level of interdependence, how could anything exist if reality did not wish to support it, how could reality exist all of existence did not wish to support it?

So there is a purpose to existence, and by extension life, but we fulfill the requirement simply by existing and there need not be any further purpose for living.

We all exist as an extension of the organic totality we call reality. In this sense, all things serve the purpose of being the means to the existence of reality and all other things within reality.

Reality could not exist without such a level of interdependence, how could anything exist if reality did not wish to support it, how could reality exist all of existence did not wish to support it?

So there is a purpose to existence, and by extension life, but we fulfill the requirement simply by existing and there need not be any further purpose for living.

That made sense until I read it. You're stoned, aren't you?

That made sense until I read it. You're stoned, aren't you?

That made sense even after I read it. And I'm not stoned. But I am really tired, so take that with a grain of salt.

Other: Regardless of Creators, there is no higher fate, no higher purpose, no higher destiny. We forge our own purpose. We are free.

I agree, but I believe that in creating our own purpose, that purpose is as real as any other "higher" purpose. :DAnd the humorous version: I agree, but I believe that in creating our own porpoise, that porpoise is as real as any other "higher" porpoise

I agree, but I believe that in creating our own purpose, that purpose is as real as any other "higher" purpose. :DAnd the humorous version: I agree, but I believe that in creating our own porpoise, that porpoise is as real as any other "higher" porpoise

Sea-dwelling mammals notwithstanding...

Perhaps the higher purpose for which we are created is to grow and develop sufficiently so that we can find our own purpose and meaning in life and be truly happy.

Sea-dwelling mammals notwithstanding...

Perhaps the higher purpose for which we are created is to grow and develop sufficiently so that we can find our own purpose and meaning in life and be truly happy.

Sounds good to me :)

I was discussing this with some friends.

My position is if one asks why we are here they must posit creator(s), since without intent the answer to 'why' is equal to the answer to 'how'. Thoughts?

EDIT: To be clear, I'm trying to talk about meaning, not why we decide to do things or what potential an individual or humans might have. I'm talking about the age-old philosophical question.

I believe, the purpose of life is to live, to learn and to experience.
This belief comes from my belief that there are souls. And given the cyclic systems of nature & universe, I think it's more likely that souls dont simply vanish, but keep existing. This might mean reincarnation and in each life time you've got things to learn and that's why you live.
Of course these are dependent on creationist theory. If universe is just a mass, and humans are just biologic (no soul), the things in 1st paragraph wouldnt happen. But given the orderly nature of universe, I think it is more likely that there is some sort of higher power than the possibility that everything is a result of coincidences after an explosion in a point billions of years ago. Of course, quantum theory proves there is no order on sub atomic level, but I think we cant deny the order in macro(universal) level.

There may be mysterious purpose why there is life. Why struggle so hard to survive? Is it to witness something in the future?

For me my purpose in life (apart from consuming chocolate, which is a shameless consumerist behavior) is to make my woman so happy that I get a decent boinking.

Without higher meaning, without higher purpose, there is the capability to create for ourselves our own purpose and find meaning in what we choose.
*polite applause*

We must separate 'higher purpose' from our purpose, and recognize that because we can assign purpose doesn't mean a 'higher' being does.

Despite whatever delusions humans maintain about possessing freedom of any true kind, I can assure each and everyone of you that any freedom we as entities native to this universe possess are all relative.

We may not know all the laws which govern existence, but it is almost without question that all operations within the universe are governed by a law of some kind.


We are creatures of a deterministic universe. Our biology, whether that is the result of internal or external influences is irrelevant, determines our actions and beliefs. Chemistry and physics determines outcomes on a more general scale. But whatever thing there is that exists within this universe it is bound by natural law.


We are anything but free. True freedom requires perfection. To be without boundary or no longer subject to influence is beyond the capacity of imperfect beings.




That all said I think there is a purpose, though I won't be so egocentric as to assume that that purpose is germain only to the human race. This purpose is unknown to us; we simply don't know enough about the way things are to come up with any kind of informed theories on the matter.

And for the record I think there is a creator being; its very tough to explain the existence of the universe and reality in general without one. No I'm not talking about "Jehovah" or "Allah" or "Vishnu" or any thing else like that. My philosophy and my religious understanding informs my faith not the other way around.


Also for the record: even if a creator being exists (which I believe one does, but I don't force others to argue under the pretext of my beliefs) it does not necessitate the existence of "higher" purpose. I assume reality has a purpose; whether or not our tiny section of reality known as the universe has purpose is another question altogether.

NT

Originally Posted by Jocabia
Someone doesn't understand existentialism.
You?
Why don't you guys talk about what you're actually talking about, for your ignorant fans so that we can follow along?

*desperately reads about intentionality, trying to catch up*

This is a reply to Jocabia, and to a lesser extent to Willamena and The Beautiful Darkness as well.

I don't feel particularly as if I am obligated, by classifying myself loosely as an existentialist, to agree with everything Sartre said. For that matter, even if I said I was a fanatical existentialist, I still wouldn't be obligated to agree with everything Sartre said. I accept "existence precedes essence," with certain rather significant reservations that I explained on the relevant thread, but I think his concept of "bad faith" misses the point and his analysis of consciousness is immaterialist nonsense. (Though his plays, whatever the shortcomings of his philosophy, are nothing short of brilliant.) But none of that is, in fact, relevant, because if we are speaking substantively Sartre happened to have an opinion rather close to mine on this subject.

This can be seen most clearly in his explanation of the dichotomy between "essence precedes existence" and "existence precedes essence." He uses the example of the paper cutter to indicate "essence precedes existence." The maker of the paper cutter pre-conceives both the object's physical nature and its specific use and role. He argues that without God, with humans it is the opposite: our "essence" is not pre-conceived but rather created by us. This is, of course, the core of existentialism - that is why I was confused as to why you didn't seem to know what I was talking about.

But anyway. I didn't bring up existentialism as "evidence" that my answer was accurate. I don't know how many existentialists would use the specific phrasing I did, and I don't think it matters. I brought up existentialism to show that an answer rather similar to mine existed - that your assertion that what I was talking about had no bearing on the question was utter nonsense. And if you really want to claim that countless theists haven't argued that nihilism is the ultimate result of atheism, and thus that my argument is so obvious as to be irrelevant, then I think that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Now the question you originally asked was "why are we here?", but I think the question you're really getting at is "why were we created?" Perhaps unlike you, I think those are substantively different questions. Answering "why were we created?" meaningfully does indeed imply a creator. Answering "why are we here?" does not. "Why are we here?" implies that we have participated in being here, because it is us doing the action of being, and us who could have walked a different path either not to be at all or to be in a place that is not "here." I would in fact go as far to say that while "why were we created?" can be answered with "we were not created" or "there is no reason that were were created," "why are we here?" is a question that must have an answer; because we are participants we have some motive in going through our lives, maintaining them, and coming to the point where we are looking at Jocabia's poll question.

If you want me to answer "why were we created?" then my answer is "no relevant reason." Perhaps the angels were wrestling with God and accidentally pushed Him on the Creation Button (and thus, since there was no motive, there is no "purpose"), or perhaps a narcissistic God chose to create a species to worship Him, or perhaps all of that is nonsense and we are the result of completely natural material processes. But as I said in my first post, Creators are irrelevant - even if there is a Creator-made purpose to humanity, it need not have anything to do with us. It is, after all, both unknowable and non-obligatory. (Now that we are on the subject of existentialism, I might as well note two works that illustrate this well - Jean-Paul Sartre's The Flies and Albert Camus's The Myth of Sisyphus.)

So, if anything, the purpose we craft for ourselves is superior to the one assumed by divine will; it's the relevant one. To borrow Muravyet's example of art, the artist can create her art with any purpose she chooses, but any viewer can take from it what she will. In the case of humans, furthermore, this effect is magnified; since we are that work of art, we not only can be interpreted in an unintended manner but we can actively reject the purpose for which we were created.

Despite whatever delusions humans maintain about possessing freedom of any true kind, I can assure each and everyone of you that any freedom we as entities native to this universe possess are all relative.

We may not know all the laws which govern existence, but it is almost without question that all operations within the universe are governed by a law of some kind.

We are creatures of a deterministic universe. Our biology, whether that is the result of internal or external influences is irrelevant, determines our actions and beliefs. Chemistry and physics determines outcomes on a more general scale. But whatever thing there is that exists within this universe it is bound by natural law.


We are anything but free. True freedom requires perfection. To be without boundary or no longer subject to influence is beyond the capacity of imperfect beings.

I think Mikhail Bakunin (of all people) wrote a good response to this train of thought in God and the State, and I'm going to quote it because I happen to agree.

What is authority? Is it the inevitable power of the natural laws which manifest themselves in the necessary concatenation and succession of phenomena in the physical and social worlds? Indeed, against these laws revolt is not only forbidden-it is even impossible. We may misunderstand them or not know them at all, but we cannot disobey them; because they constitute the basis and fundamental conditions of our existence; they envelop us, penetrate us, regulate all our movements, thoughts, and acts; even when we believe that we disobey them, we only show their omnipotence.

Yes, we are absolutely the slaves of these laws. But in such slavery there is no humiliation, or, rather, it is not slavery at all. For slavery supposes an external master, a legislator outside of him whom he commands, while these laws are not outside of us; they are inherent in us; they constitute our being, our whole being, physically-intellectually, and morally: we live, we breathe, we act, we think, we wish only through these laws. Without them we are nothing, we are not. Whence, then, could we derive the power and the wish to rebel against them?

Everything has a purpose, a reason why it exists. Absolutely everything, even god. Purpose for an object does not imply a consciousness for the object, rather it implies a consciousness assigning the reason. That be us.
This question is clearer, but not much easier to answer. Again, why can't the intent simply be to create without assigning any purpose for the creation once it is created? My mind just can't make the leap between the two concepts. Again, let's say someone (a "creator") created me with intent. Why should I care about that, especially if I don't know what the intent was? And let's say this creator created me with a purpose in mind. Why should I care about that either, especially if I don't know what the purpose is?

So I guess my answer to Willamena's question would have to be "Who cares whether it was or not?"
LOL :) We do. And yes, I mean us in general. If we believe that god created us, that is something we will care about, because we believe in things that are true. If it's "Who cares?" then it's not about something we really believe in.

I, like Soheran earlier, wasn't talking about intent, just purpose --wasn't really addressing the thread title but one point made in the thread. A minor thing. The intent *can* be simply to create, and that does not denote any purpose.

Since when is purpose itself necessary, never mind "intent?"

LOL :) We do. And yes, I mean us in general. If we believe that god created us, that is something we will care about, because we believe in things that are true. If it's "Who cares?" then it's not about something we really believe in.

Well, we might care, but we don't have to care, even if we believe.

God's motives for creating me need not play the slightest role in the actions I undertake, even if I knew them (which I do not, assuming He even exists) and certainly not if they are motives that I see as abhorrent.

If you posit a creator, then the purpose of life is the intent of the creator.

Without a creator, the purpose of life is whatever that life can improvise.

Pretty simple, really.
Assuming the creator had some purpose for life.

I think we have a fundamental point of disagreement on that because when I look for meaning, in every case I expect it is the result of me imposing a meaning regardless of what the designer may have intended.

Yes, I'm not really addressing that. I agree with the point, but what I'm addressing is how does one who believes there is no creator posit meaning at all. Ignore whether that meaning is correct or not.

We have to make lots of assumptions to posit meaning with any logic behind it. For example, if the creator of life is capable of making a mistake then that makes an examination of the world offer no clues to our purpose. Because otherwise we can't know if what we see is what that creator intended.

It is one of my issues as an artist -- I refuse to "explain" my work to people; I refuse to tell them what any of my artworks mean. This is because my "purpose" as the artist/designer/creator is to force the viewers of my work to develop a meaningful concept of their own. I want them to use my work to explore their own minds. So when anyone asks "What does this piece mean?", I answer, "You tell me."

I understand your point, but you still have to assume an artist or than can be no meaning.

I feel the same way when I contemplate life. If I ask, "What does it all mean?", there will be no answer forthcoming. So what source do I have for meaning then, other than my own mind?

I guess my point is that the existence of a creator is irrelevant to the existence of a meaning or purpose for life. My point is also that one may as well apply meaning to a landscape as to a picture of one, as the meaning for both comes from the same source, oneself.

EDIT: To clarify, as the creator of art, I clearly have a purpose in mind for my creations, which is to make people think. But my purpose is irrelevant to the viewers of the work because it does not tell them what or how or to think about it. Whatever thought they come up with, it is unlikely to be "Wow, that artist is really making me think." In other words, whatever thought they come up with, I and my purpose did not put it in their head.
Yes, you point out how we examine the creation, but that doesn't change what purpose the creator if there is one had.

That's not very logical. Just because you feel uncomfortable with nothing to work towards doesn't mean there is something to work towards. What it does mean, however, is that you're more likely to imagine a God and to believe there's some purpose to your existence.

Which explains why belief in a creator is so broadly found in history but the fact that the beliefs differ so greatly. Many try to argue as if the exists of beliefs prove that a creator must exist, but the search for meaning is explanation enough. It doesn't mean a creator does or does not exist, but simply that we cannot find evidence of a creator in belief.

I believe, the purpose of life is to live, to learn and to experience.
This belief comes from my belief that there are souls. And given the cyclic systems of nature & universe, I think it's more likely that souls dont simply vanish, but keep existing. This might mean reincarnation and in each life time you've got things to learn and that's why you live.
Of course these are dependent on creationist theory. If universe is just a mass, and humans are just biologic (no soul), the things in 1st paragraph wouldnt happen. But given the orderly nature of universe, I think it is more likely that there is some sort of higher power than the possibility that everything is a result of coincidences after an explosion in a point billions of years ago. Of course, quantum theory proves there is no order on sub atomic level, but I think we cant deny the order in macro(universal) level.

I take it you're not European.

Until tonight I have been completely indifferent to the question of whether there is a creator(s), but to get into the thread, I had to think about it. And I'm kind of thinking that, no, I do not believe there is a creator(s), because when I contemplate life, I cannot see a beginning or an end. This means that I cannot comprehend a point or moment of creation.

I see life as an eternal continuum. I believe that "life" -- the life force or life spark -- is an infinite universe of energy that manifests in various forms, dissolves and re-manifests in other forms, over and over. I also believe that within this energy, there are individual souls that are immortal and for whom "life" and "death" are nothing but momentary manifestations or un-manifestations. Round and round we go, and round and round we've been going, without either beginning or end.

There is an interesting concept in some ancient pagan god-figures -- the concept of self-creation. For instance the Egyptian Thoth, god of wisdom, is described as "The Immortal, The Self-Creating." That's kind of a tricky concept to wrap one's brain around. I haven't mastered it completely myself, but I feel it is germaine to the ideas I'm trying to express here (and probably not doing so great a job of).
Creation for you, then, is not a single event after which things continue along their merry way. That's fine, but your philosophy does not deny a creator(s). You've probably heard this before, but...

In the [Neolithic Mediterranean] goddess culture the conception of the relation between creator and creation was expressed in the image of the Mother (zoe), the eternal source, giving birth to the son (bios), the created life in time which lives and dies back into the source*. The son was the part that emerged from the whole, through which the whole might come to know itself...(Ann Baring and Jules Cashford)

*Yes, this is a continuous cycle.

*polite applause*

We must separate 'higher purpose' from our purpose, and recognize that because we can assign purpose doesn't mean a 'higher' being does.

Egg-zactly. The greater purpose doesn't exist simply because our own purpose does.

This is a reply to Jocabia, and to a lesser extent to Willamena and The Beautiful Darkness as well.

I don't feel particularly as if I am obligated, by classifying myself loosely as an existentialist, to agree with everything Sartre said. For that matter, even if I said I was a fanatical existentialist, I still wouldn't be obligated to agree with everything Sartre said. I accept "existence precedes essence," with certain rather significant reservations that I explained on the relevant thread, but I think his concept of "bad faith" misses the point and his analysis of consciousness is immaterialist nonsense. (Though his plays, whatever the shortcomings of his philosophy, are nothing short of brilliant.) But none of that is, in fact, relevant, because if we are speaking substantively Sartre happened to have an opinion rather close to mine on this subject.

This can be seen most clearly in his explanation of the dichotomy between "essence precedes existence" and "existence precedes essence." He uses the example of the paper cutter to indicate "essence precedes existence." The maker of the paper cutter pre-conceives both the object's physical nature and its specific use and role. He argues that without God, with humans it is the opposite: our "essence" is not pre-conceived but rather created by us. This is, of course, the core of existentialism - that is why I was confused as to why you didn't seem to know what I was talking about.

But anyway. I didn't bring up existentialism as "evidence" that my answer was accurate. I don't know how many existentialists would use the specific phrasing I did, and I don't think it matters. I brought up existentialism to show that an answer rather similar to mine existed - that your assertion that what I was talking about had no bearing on the question was utter nonsense. And if you really want to claim that countless theists haven't argued that nihilism is the ultimate result of atheism, and thus that my argument is so obvious as to be irrelevant, then I think that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Now the question you originally asked was "why are we here?", but I think the question you're really getting at is "why were we created?" Perhaps unlike you, I think those are substantively different questions. Answering "why were we created?" meaningfully does indeed imply a creator. Answering "why are we here?" does not. "Why are we here?" implies that we have participated in being here, because it is us doing the action of being, and us who could have walked a different path either not to be at all or to be in a place that is not "here." I would in fact go as far to say that while "why were we created?" can be answered with "we were not created" or "there is no reason that were were created," "why are we here?" is a question that must have an answer; because we are participants we have some motive in going through our lives, maintaining them, and coming to the point where we are looking at Jocabia's poll question.

If you want me to answer "why were we created?" then my answer is "no relevant reason." Perhaps the angels were wrestling with God and accidentally pushed Him on the Creation Button (and thus, since there was no motive, there is no "purpose"), or perhaps a narcissistic God chose to create a species to worship Him, or perhaps all of that is nonsense and we are the result of completely natural material processes. But as I said in my first post, Creators are irrelevant - even if there is a Creator-made purpose to humanity, it need not have anything to do with us. It is, after all, both unknowable and non-obligatory. (Now that we are on the subject of existentialism, I might as well note two works that illustrate this well - Jean-Paul Sartre's The Flies and Albert Camus's The Myth of Sisyphus.)

So, if anything, the purpose we craft for ourselves is superior to the one assumed by divine will; it's the relevant one. To borrow Muravyet's example of art, the artist can create her art with any purpose she chooses, but any viewer can take from it what she will. In the case of humans, furthermore, this effect is magnified; since we are that work of art, we not only can be interpreted in an unintended manner but we can actively reject the purpose for which we were created.

Thank you. I needed that. And is proven that knowing and understanding are not equal. My buddy and I were discussing that as well, so I'll show him this post.

Dropped arguments aside this post was among the more amusing I've seen. Now when you want to actual address my arguments rather than drop them everytime I show the error of them, we can continue.

Dropped arguments aside this post was among the more amusing I've seen. Now when you want to actual address my arguments rather than drop them everytime I show the error of them, we can continue.

See, I don't understand why you wrote this. Not only is it inaccurate (I have "dropped" nothing I've said anywhere on this thread), but it's almost deliberately provocative.

Nevermind, though. If you have no objection to that post, which I also stand by, forget about everything else if you see fit.

See, I don't understand why you wrote this. Not only is it inaccurate (I have "dropped" nothing I've said anywhere on this thread), but it's almost deliberately provocative.

Nevermind, though. If you have no objection to that post, which I also stand by, forget about everything else if you see fit.

You don't acknowledge that Sartre uses meaning the same way I do. It's a basic proof that the 'meaning' that you claim is in existentialism is not the same one that Sartre said does not exist once our illusions are exposed.

You fail to acknowledge the fact that I quoted your admission that this is about external purpose.

You fail to acknowledge the fact that my point of discussion has direct and clear throughout the thread and that when you claimed I'd just stated something, I was able to show quotes of myself clearly saying otherwise.

You fail to acknowledge that the very basis of existentialism is that it denies an external purpose, a meaning of life and instead assigns a meaning to each life with that meaning defined individually.

You fail to acknowledge the fact that you claim you were not discussing intent and then I quoted you.

Essentially you entirely fail. And when you're ready to address the points I've made and the fact that you answered the wrong question, we can deal with any arguments you choose to introduce at this point.

Me: Doesn't an examination of the meaning of life, a larger purpose, require a creator?
You: No, a meaning of life can exist without a creator. Just look at a philosophy that denies both an larger purpose and a creator.
Me: That actually supports my point.
You: How it assigns a purpose just not a larger one.
Me: Exactly but we're talking about a larger purpose.
You: I know you asked the question and started the thread but clearly you didn't know what question you were asking. Let me tell what question you were asking since reacting to the question you ACTUALLY asked seems to be something I'm incapable of.

Amusingly you try to tell me what why question I'm asking and then you answer that with how as well. If you weren't serious this would be great comedy.

By the way, Nihilism supports my point as well.

Nihilism is a philosophical position which argues that the world, and especially human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value.

Nihilism and existentialism both deny purpose and a creator.

I asked what p implies, not what 'not p' implies. Since you introduced fallacies into the argument, you of course are studied enough to know that arguing what 'not p' implies does not really speak to the point of what p implies.

We all exist as an extension of the organic totality we call reality. In this sense, all things serve the purpose of being the means to the existence of reality and all other things within reality.

Reality could not exist without such a level of interdependence, how could anything exist if reality did not wish to support it, how could reality exist all of existence did not wish to support it?

So there is a purpose to existence, and by extension life, but we fulfill the requirement simply by existing and there need not be any further purpose for living.
Existence for us is axiomatic; even if there is a purpose, a "wish to support", we can never know it.

Existence for us is axiomatic; even if there is a purpose, a "wish to support", we can never know it.

I couldn't agree more. A discussion of meaning is about what we think is the meaning, but that doesn't change what the meaning IS or if it exists. That's why this discussion is about what it would mean if a meaning did exist.

If you want me to answer "why were we created?" then my answer is "no relevant reason..."
I think the real question he wants an answer to is, "Can someone come up with a position that shows that a God is not required for there to be an intent to why/how we are here?" No one has, yet.

I think the real question he wants an answer to is, "Can someone come up with a position that shows that a God is not required for there to be an intent to why/how we are here?" No one has, yet.

Yes, there you go. Someone is giving me a bunch of examples of people who could not do so and acting as if it supports the argument that a creator is required for an intent.

And Willamena cuts right to the point.

I think Mikhail Bakunin (of all people) wrote a good response to this train of thought in God and the State, and I'm going to quote it because I happen to agree.
Brilliant, thanks.

Well, we might care, but we don't have to care, even if we believe.

God's motives for creating me need not play the slightest role in the actions I undertake, even if I knew them (which I do not, assuming He even exists) and certainly not if they are motives that I see as abhorrent.
No, I maintain that if we believe, we will care because the object of our belief is true, and we will care about truth.

God's motives for creating us are irrelevant and will never play any role in our actions, or shouldn't as we can't know them... just like the artist who keeps quiet about her motives. There is no "truth" there on which to rest belief. But if we believe a god created us, that belief rests on truth.

"Focus your intent and the energy will follow."

If you are trying to get control of your life, this should be your mantra. IOW, if you focus on pulling yourself up, you will pull yourself up. If you focus on being a victim, you will be a victim. Etc.

Creator or Not, humanity has the ability to manipulate energy in all its forms. Some call that witchcraft. I call it taking the bull by the horns.

Yes, there you go. Someone is giving me a bunch of examples of people who could not do so and acting as if it supports the argument that a creator is required for an intent.

And Willamena cuts right to the point.
Yes, well, they are all telling you basically the same thing... there is no purpose without God, so they are agreeing with you (even your friend in your example) and they can't answer your question. ;)

Yes, well, they are all telling you basically the same thing... there is no purpose without God, so they are agreeing with you (even your friend in your example) and they can't answer your question. ;)

Good, I'm not crazy. I don't argue that they haven't offered up an answer. The problem is that they said they were disagreeing and then agreed with me. Then when I said they argument that they claimed was proof they were disagreeing doesn't actually address the point they posted more philosophies that support my point, which is, of course, odd to say the least.

What I find more odd is that 14 people have voted that there is no God and that there is a meaning to life, but no one has given any example that in any way shows that's possible.

You don't acknowledge that Sartre uses meaning the same way I do. It's a basic proof that the 'meaning' that you claim is in existentialism is not the same one that Sartre said does not exist once our illusions are exposed.

As I said, I don't happen to agree with everything Sartre said. But as I also said, I think, looking at the substance of Sartre's argument and not the semantics, something very close to my claim does appear.

You fail to acknowledge the fact that I quoted your admission that this is about external purpose.

External intent, not externally-imposed purpose. The point I was making was that you started by talking about a Creator's intent, that is, external intent, and whether it was necessary for purpose. I have been assuming from the start that you were talking about external intent, because the phrasing of your poll questions makes that obvious. I have not been assuming that you were talking about externally-imposed purpose.

You fail to acknowledge the fact that my point of discussion has direct and clear throughout the thread and that when you claimed I'd just stated something, I was able to show quotes of myself clearly saying otherwise.

No. You made a number of references to "larger purpose," "greater purpose," etc., but when I asked you to define it you merely restated your original question, so I proceeded as before.

You fail to acknowledge that the very basis of existentialism is that it denies an external purpose, a meaning of life and instead assigns a meaning to each life with that meaning defined individually.

Now, that would be very strange, since both those elements comprise the core of what I've been claiming from the start, at least if "meaning of life" is meant to imply "universal meaning of life," which I don't think it does inherently.

You fail to acknowledge the fact that you claim you were not discussing intent and then I quoted you.

I had no idea where you were deriving "intent" from my posts, aside from references to it in response to you (as the part you quoted was). I suppose it might be fair to say that I am arguing that internal intent can be just as effective as external intent is at defining purpose, thinking it over; was that your meaning?

And I'm very well aware that Nihilism supports what you were saying. I happen to reject it.

What I find more odd is that 14 people have voted that there is no God and that there is a meaning to life, but no one has given any example that in any way shows that's possible.

Maybe they believe god is dead but his purposes live on.

Except the post's title flatly contradicts that interpretation, considering that he was asking whether "intent" (the divine intent of a Creator, his OP implies, because he equates the two) is "necessary for a purpose to life."

Yes, please take things out of context and try to make them say something else.

My position is if one asks why we are here they must posit creator(s), since without intent the answer to 'why' is equal to the answer to 'how'. Thoughts?

EDIT: To be clear, I'm trying to talk about meaning, not why we decide to do things or what potential an individual or humans might have. I'm talking about the age-old philosophical question.

Interesting that according to the major founders of existentialism, there is no meaning yet you claim existentialism claims the opposite.

As I said, I don't happen to agree with everything Sartre said. But as I also said, I think, looking at the substance of Sartre's argument and not the semantics, something very close to my claim does appear.

I don't disagree with your point. I disagree with your answer to my question. You claim to disagree with me but you provide evidence for the point I've made. Worse, I don't think you even know you're supporting my point or that both existentialism and nihilism do as well.

External intent, not externally-imposed purpose. I was making there the same point I touched on in replying to Willamena in this post; that you started by talking about a Creator's intent, that is, external intent, and whether it was necessary for purpose. I have been assuming from the start that you were talking about external intent, because the phrasing of your poll questions makes that obvious. I have not been assuming that you were talking about externally-imposed purpose.

I did not talk about a Creator's intent, ever. I asked a question. Is there a way to have a 'meaning to life' that does not require a creator? I specifically pointed out that such a question refers specifically to "a greater purpose", "a larger purpose", an "external meaning", etc. Since I'm asking whether that meaning requires a creator obviously I am not assuming a creator.

What you are arguing is called a strawman. You tried to change the point to be about a different type of 'meaning'. You tried to make me requiring a creator rather than asking if a creator is required. You tried to change this to anything but the point, because you screwed up and said I was wrong and then made an argument that agreed with me. I told you, I started a thread for your strawmen. Go there.

No. You made a number of references to "larger purpose," "greater purpose," etc., but when I asked you to define it you merely restated your original question, so I proceeded as before.

Uh-huh. Actually, I laughed at you. You pointed out you have a knowledge of existentialism and nihilism and if you don't understand my question you clearly don't understand either of those since both of these are based very simply on the premise I'm proposing. It's amusing that you still try to to argue and yet you completely ignore that I quoted you several times specifically referring to the meaning I've been claiming the ENTIRE thread.

Now, that would be very strange, since both those elements comprise the core of what I've been claiming from the start, at least if "meaning of life" is meant to imply "universal meaning of life," which I don't think it does inherently.

Amusing. And here I thought it was my question. Tell you what. When you ask a question, you can decide what it means. Since I asked it, I'll decide. Amusingly, it's an ancient question and I quoted to you philosophers you introduced to the thread addressed the question as a basic part of the philosophies you introduced. Funny how they understodd what 'meaning of life' means and you don't. When I ask you what the meaning of YOUR life is, then your conversation will be germaine.

I had no idea where you were deriving "intent" from my posts, aside from references to it in response to you (as the part you quoted was). I suppose it might be fair to say that I am arguing that internal intent can be just as effective as external intent is at defining purpose, thinking it over; was that your meaning?

Ha. More equivocation. Now you don't know what you mean either. Sad.

And I'm very well aware that Nihilism supports what you were saying. I happen to reject it.
Yes, so does existentialism. This is one of the reason they are so commonly found together.

I notice you avoid the posts that actually prove you wrong and then later reply to them when the arguments won't appear with them. I think this is because you realize that if people look at them side by side will make you silly.

Other: Regardless of Creators, there is no higher fate, no higher purpose, no higher destiny. We forge our own purpose. We are free.

Interesting that your claim is that you thought I meant something else by 'meaning of life' yet your first post in the thread addresses the very way I used it. You use the term 'higher purpose' saying one does not exist.

p = higher purpose (even according to you)
x = another type of purpose you introduced.

You argue what 'not p' and x imply and then you complain when I point out that they have nothing do with the question 'does p imply q'.

I think the real question he wants an answer to is, "Can someone come up with a position that shows that a God is not required for there to be an intent to why/how we are here?" No one has, yet.

Well, as I see it, either Jocabia is asking about the truth of a tautology, something along the lines of "does external intent to our creation imply the existence of a creator capable of intent," (in which case the answer, if we accept logic, is yes, and the question's answer is self-evident), or he is asking a question about which actual discussion can be had, along the lines of "can truly meaningful purpose and meaning be had in life without the existence of a Creator?"

Perhaps he meant the first, but I don't seem alone in my initial assumption that he meant the second.

I take it you're not European.

I'm disappointed. I was expecting a better response from you, not just repeating yourself at an irrevelant issue. FYI (again) I've never said you should be neither 100% christian nor christian at all to be European....

Well, as I see it, either Jocabia is asking about the truth of a tautology, something along the lines of "does external intent to our creation imply the existence of a creator capable of intent," (in which case the answer, if we accept logic, is yes, and the question's answer is self-evident), or he is asking a question about which actual discussion can be had, along the lines of "can truly meaningful purpose and meaning be had in life without the existence of a Creator?"

Perhaps he meant the first, but I don't seem alone in my initial assumption that he meant the second.

Yes, keep pretending you didn't understand what I meant by purpose.

I'm asking is can someone argue a higher purpose without first positing a Creator. You recognized that I was talking about higher purpose because your initial reply is that there is no higher purpose. However whether or not there is no higher purpose does not answer the question. The question remains can one argue for a higher purpose without a creator(s). Quit trying to change it so you can argue that I'm making a circular argument.

The original conversation I was having with someone else was arguing that the purpose of life is happiness and does not believe in a creator. The fact that he was making the argument absent of a creator shows that a higher purpose doesn't necessarily include a creator. And you could certainly find others who make the same arguments. However, the fact is that when I pointed out that a higher purpose seems to imply a creator, he giggled at himself and agreed.

I'm quite certain of what I meant by 'meaning of life'. I'm quite certain you know what I meant since you replied about the 'meaning of life'. But hey, keep blaming me because you answered the wrong question.

I'm disappointed. I was expecting a better response from you, not just repeating yourself at an irrevelant issue. FYI (again) I've never said you should be neither 100% christian nor christian at all to be European....

You defined european as white, Christian and born in Europe in the Is Turkey European thread. That was your definition. That makes you not a European according to your own definition. Please quote me as saying this before? I said you weren't part of the EU, but that's not what I said here. You might find this shocking, but EU and European are not equal. Sorry to shock you with the knowledge.

Yes, please take things out of context and try to make them say something else.

I clarified this point. See the post after the one you replied to.

I did not talk about a Creator's intent, ever.

My position is if one asks why we are here they must posit creator(s), since without intent the answer to 'why' is equal to the answer to 'how'.

You are clearly talking about a "Creator's intent" here. If you were talking about anyone else's intent, not positing creators would not create a world without that intent.

I asked a question. Is there a way to have a 'meaning to life' that does not require a creator? I specifically pointed out that such a question refers specifically to "a greater purpose", "a larger purpose", an "external meaning", etc. Since I'm asking whether that meaning requires a creator obviously I am not assuming a creator.

No, you're not assuming a Creator. But when you referenced "intent" you were referring to the intent of a Creator, and questioning whether it was necessary for there to be a purpose to life.

What you are arguing is called a strawman. You tried to change the point to be about a different type of 'meaning'. You tried to make me requiring a creator rather than asking if a creator is required. You tried to change this to anything but the point, because you screwed up and said I was wrong and then made an argument that agreed with me. I told you, I started a thread for your strawmen. Go there.

I think I've been assuming that human beings are capable of intent, not arguing it, so actually the thread you posted was irrelevant to the point I was making.

Uh-huh. Actually, I laughed at you. You pointed out you have a knowledge of existentialism and nihilism and if you don't understand my question you clearly don't understand either of those since both of these are based very simply on the premise I'm proposing. It's amusing that you still try to to argue and yet you completely ignore that I quoted you several times specifically referring to the meaning I've been claiming the ENTIRE thread.

Several times, yes, I have distinguished between externally imposed purpose or meaning and the sort we create for ourselves.

Amusing. And here I thought it was my question. Tell you what. When you ask a question, you can decide what it means. Since I asked it, I'll decide. Amusingly, it's an ancient question and I quoted to you philosophers you introduced to the thread addressed the question as a basic part of the philosophies you introduced. Funny how they understodd what 'meaning of life' means and you don't. When I ask you what the meaning of YOUR life is, then your conversation will be germaine.

Are you really saying that the question you were asking was whether externally-imposed purpose requires an external imposer?

Ha. More equivocation. Now you don't know what you mean either. Sad.

I know exactly what I meant. What I don't know is what you meant by your references to intent.

Yes, so does existentialism. This is one of the reason they are so commonly found together.

They have opposite solutions to the problem of the universe's absurdity.

I notice you avoid the posts that actually prove you wrong and then later reply to them when the arguments won't appear with them. I think this is because you realize that if people look at them side by side will make you silly.

Actually, this strange phenomenon is called "sleep."

You defined european as white, Christian and born in Europe in the Is Turkey European thread. That was your definition. That makes you not a European according to your own definition. Please quote me as saying this before? I said you weren't part of the EU, but that's not what I said here. You might find this shocking, but EU and European are not equal. Sorry to shock you with the knowledge.

LOL. Ahh, Jocabia...When you debate, you are like a boxer...Always trying to "punch" with false or irrevelant info/answers...
"Christian and born in Europe " I've never said this. You either are making it up or remember wrong or read what I said incorrectly or simply are delusional. We discussed this not in "Is Turkey European" thread but in "Who Else is Anti-Immigrant" Thread. And you are repeating yourself from there....Sorry to shock you with my good memory. :cool:
As for real argument...

I believe, the purpose of life is to live, to learn and to experience.
This belief comes from my belief that there are souls. And given the cyclic systems of nature & universe, I think it's more likely that souls dont simply vanish, but keep existing. This might mean reincarnation and in each life time you've got things to learn and that's why you live.
Of course these are dependent on creationist theory. If universe is just a mass, and humans are just biologic (no soul), the things in 1st paragraph wouldnt happen. But given the orderly nature of universe, I think it is more likely that there is some sort of higher power than the possibility that everything is a result of coincidences after an explosion in a point billions of years ago. Of course, quantum theory proves there is no order on sub atomic level, but I think we cant deny the order in macro(universal) level.

Yes, keep pretending you didn't understand what I meant by purpose.

I'm asking is can someone argue a higher purpose without first positing a Creator. You recognized that I was talking about higher purpose because your initial reply is that there is no higher purpose.

No. I distinguished between two different types of purpose, to fully answer the question. Hence "Other."

However whether or not there is no higher purpose does not answer the question. The question remains can one argue for a higher purpose without a creator(s).

I don't think Creators are relevant. As I stated clearly in my first post.

Quit trying to change it so you can argue that I'm making a circular argument.

It's a simple point. By "higher purpose" I was talking about a purpose that is imposed in us, that is, pre-determined by some other being and not subject to change. Such a purpose, tautologically, does require "some other being" to determine it, and such a being would be a Creator (or Intelligent Designer, etc.)

If that's what you were asking about, then yes, you were making a circular argument.

The original conversation I was having with someone else was arguing that the purpose of life is happiness and does not believe in a creator. The fact that he was making the argument absent of a creator shows that a higher purpose doesn't necessarily include a creator. And you could certainly find others who make the same arguments. However, the fact is that when I pointed out that a higher purpose seems to imply a creator, he giggled at himself and agreed.

Did you ask him what he meant by "higher purpose"?

I clarified this point. See the post after the one you replied to.





You are clearly talking about a "Creator's intent" here. If you were talking about anyone else's intent, not positing creators would not create a world without that intent.

No, I said that I said that absent a creator the answer to why we are here equates to how. I wasn't arguing that the question is about a creator's intent. It's asking if there is any other type of purpose that could be the maning of life and the issue is that you brought variously ideologies that state that absent a creator or creators meaning doesn't exist. You said there is no higher purpose and that somehow answers the question 'can higher purpose exist without a creator or creators?' It's absurd.

No, you're not assuming a Creator. But when you referenced "intent" you were referring to the intent of a Creator, and questioning whether it was necessary for there to be a purpose to life.

I was asking about it. I am asking if that intent has to be the intent of a creator. I'm not assuming anything. I simply asking if one believes in a higher purpose do they also have to believe in a creator of some type. Yet, you can't see that an argument that starts with 'there is no higher purpose' does not address the issue.

If p do we have to arrive at q does no assume p, but asks IF we assume p do we have to arrive at q.


I think I've been assuming that human beings are capable of intent, not arguing it, so actually the thread you posted was irrelevant to the point I was making.

No, you've been acting as if someone would disagree with that assumption. Because otherwise you have no point. Go elsewhere or address the question of the thread. You have yet to address the question other than supporting my basic point.

Several times, yes, I have distinguished between externally imposed purpose or meaning and the sort we create for ourselves.

Yes, and I pointed out that talking abou tthe one we create for ourselves is not the topic of the thread. If you can distinguish between the two, focus on the former. Thus far you've failed to do so.

Are you really saying that the question you were asking was whether externally-imposed purpose requires an external imposer?

No, whether it is possible to have an external purpose without a creator. The point being could one say, for example, that we are generally purposed to find happiness without a purposer. Obviously, you know what I think, but the point is it possible to argue a general purpose without a purposer or technically could that purposer exist if we are not created.

I know exactly what I meant. What I don't know is what you meant by your references to intent.

Really, you know what you meant and you meant it when you replied to the original post with an exact reference to the way I meant purpose and yet you claim that my meaning was vague. Ridiculous.


They have opposite solutions to the problem of the universe's absurdity.

But in both cases they say that a creator does not exist, nor does a higher purpose.

Actually, this strange phenomenon is called "sleep."
And sleep prevents you from quoting the posts with the actual arguments. Hmmm... I wonder how this phenomenon works.

Now, if only sleep would convey upon you the ability to not only distinguish between a higher purpose and a personal purpose, but to actually focuse on the higher purpose this thread is about rather than hijacking it.

No. I distinguished between two different types of purpose, to fully answer the question. Hence "Other."

Uh-huh. And if the question wasn't about higher purpose, what you think about personal purpose would matter. As it is, it doesn't.

I don't think Creators are relevant. As I stated clearly in my first post.

Yes, you believe 'not p' either way. Which doesn't address the question because regardless of what 'not p' implies p can imply something else. You answered what not p implies and it has no bearing. That's a basic tenet of logic.

It's a simple point. By "higher purpose" I was talking about a purpose that is imposed in us, that is, pre-determined by some other being and not subject to change. Such a purpose, tautologically, does require "some other being" to determine it, and such a being would be a Creator (or Intelligent Designer, etc.)

I would agree, but since someone was arguing a higher purpose absent of a higher being some others might not. I asked the question can there be a higher purpose sans a creator of some type. Your answer was 'there is no higher purpose' and does not address the question. No matter how hard you try the conclusions of not p and of x will not give us the conclusions of p.

If that's what you were asking about, then yes, you were making a circular argument.

No, I'm not. You are arguing a strawman, redefining my argument and my question, and then claiming I must be wrong. You fail. Horribly fail. An external purpose simply means external. Some might argue that such purpose could be imposed minus a creator. I don't see how, but I asked. Does p imply q. P doesn't assume q exists in any way, no matter how much you try for it to be so. Your lack of imagination is not mine. I won't be limited by your inability to be more creative.

Did you ask him what he meant by "higher purpose"?
Yes, he meant something other than our individual purposes and their effects. Something higher. More general. Universal. We are aware that human beings have individual purpose. Arguing about what purpose each of us divine for ourselves is silly. We were talking about something larger, higher.

Existence for us is axiomatic; even if there is a purpose, a "wish to support", we can never know it.

Yes, I am taking existence as axiomatic and saying that in order for there to be existence, those things that make up reality must serve reality. Reality can only exist if that which comprises reality exists, those which comprise reality can only exist if reality exists. Therefore all things are interdependent and form an organic reality.

This, of course, must not be confused with a purpose of life, it is simply a purpose of existence.

LOL. Ahh, Jocabia...When you debate, you are like a boxer...Always trying to "punch" with false or irrevelant info/answers...
"Christian and born in Europe " I've never said this. You either are making it up or remember wrong or read what I said incorrectly or simply are delusional. We discussed this not in "Is Turkey European" thread but in "Who Else is Anti-Immigrant" Thread. And you are repeating yourself from there....Sorry to shock you with my good memory. :cool:
As for real argument...

Ha, actually, I never made that argument in that thread. I was arguing that you weren't Norwegian, but this argument was based on a MISTAKE on my part that you defined European as WHITE, BORN IN EUROPE and CHRISTIAN. I'm sorry about that. It was someone else who has the same absurd views on race as you. It's summer. You'll have to forgive me if I can't keep all the 'we must protect the purity of the white race' people apart.

To be clear, the argument I made was based on a post I assigned to you but that you didn't write. I can admit when I err.

Realizing that my previous posts don't actually address the original question:

This notion of an organic reality provides a "why" to existence, a purpose to existence, but requires no higher intent. What is required is an intent (a will) of those things that exist to capitulate to the needs of their particular role.

The "purpose" in life is to spread your genetic materials are broadly as you can with as many fit mates as possible to breed strong offspring to continue your line.

Religion is immaterial.


Absolutely true in my opinion.

I think the "why are we here" question has no general, universal answer. There is no inherent purpose in our existence. But I reject the idea that it follows that there is no purpose. There is - but it's something we create for ourselves. The question of "why are we here" is one we answer with every action we take - in making choices we affirm our own role in the universe, our own individual purpose.

Nothing has a malleable "purpose", all things have their roles determined by their existence.

To counter that bolded existentialist hallmark, our choices don't define our role, our role defines our choices. To deny that would deny all of the forces that hold reality together.

Other: Regardless of Creators, there is no higher fate, no higher purpose, no higher destiny. We forge our own purpose. We are free.

Regardless of Creators, there is no higher fate, no higher purpose, no higher destiny. Existence forges our purpose, freedom is relative.

Firstly, someone may have already asid this and it may be stating the obvious, but from the results of the poll I see that most people are either highly religious or not religious at all.

Furthermore: :upyours: to religion in general, in my personal opinion, as it makes me very mad!

Lastly, religion, to me, does more bad to intelligent life than good.:mad:

No offence to anyone religious though!:) :) :) :) :)

No offence to anyone religious though!:) :) :) :) :)

In keeping with your username, I think all of your posts should be in the form of a question.

Assuming the creator had some purpose for life.

Are you an adherent of the "Celestial Dump" theory?

Yes, you believe 'not p' either way. Which doesn't address the question because regardless of what 'not p' implies p can imply something else. You answered what not p implies and it has no bearing. That's a basic tenet of logic.

You actually asked two questions.

Do you believe life has a purpose and do you believe in a Creator(s)

And:

Is Intent Necessary for a Purpose to Life?

I was responding to the first of those two in my post.

Incidentally, you didn't point any of this out when you said my post was irrelevant. What you said instead was:

Doesn't address the issue. You answered why you do things. Has nothing to do with the "why are we here" question that has plagued philosophy pretty much for all time.

Strange that if you were talking about a "higher purpose," you would have responded in such a manner to a post that explicitly rejected it.

"Why are we here," of course, is a question that deals with reality and not a hypothetical. It ties in to the question I did answer, not the one I didn't.

I would agree, but since someone was arguing a higher purpose absent of a higher being some others might not. I asked the question can there be a higher purpose sans a creator of some type. Your answer was 'there is no higher purpose' and does not address the question. No matter how hard you try the conclusions of not p and of x will not give us the conclusions of p.

Again, you in fact asked two questions, not one.

No, I'm not. You are arguing a strawman, redefining my argument and my question, and then claiming I must be wrong. You fail. Horribly fail.

You do realize you've repeated "you fail" about a dozen times in this thread? Do you think it contributes anything?

An external purpose simply means external. Some might argue that such purpose could be imposed minus a creator. I don't see how, but I asked. Does p imply q. P doesn't assume q exists in any way, no matter how much you try for it to be so. Your lack of imagination is not mine. I won't be limited by your inability to be more creative.

Well, by "external purpose" I'm going to assume you mean "externally-imposed purpose," and not purpose in something external to us.

If that is what you mean, then I don't see how an "externally-imposed purpose" does not require an external imposer; something can't be imposed passively.

It is true that the "external imposer" could be argued to be something other than a Creator. Something along the lines of a Platonic Form of Goodness might work, but with free will there is still the option of rejecting it; it becomes nothing more than the "personal purpose" of those who believe one should look elsewhere for purpose. Of course, the same is true of a Creator; that is why I maintain that there is in fact no higher purpose, and there cannot be as long as humans are free. If you want to argue about a possible world in which the subjects of our argument are automatons, then my view would be different.

Yes, he meant something other than our individual purposes and their effects. Something higher. More general. Universal. We are aware that human beings have individual purpose. Arguing about what purpose each of us divine for ourselves is silly. We were talking about something larger, higher.

The only words that tell me anything in that are "general" and "universal," and again, assuming the subjects of the "higher purpose" have free will, I would argue that such a purpose is impossible regardless of a Creator. So, going with "purpose" as meaning "universal purpose," and assuming that the "life" we are speaking of is human life and therefore the life of beings with free will, I don't think the question of "is intent necessary for a purpose to life" is answerable, because answering it requires assuming an impossible premise.

No, I said that I said that absent a creator the answer to why we are here equates to how.

since without intent the answer to 'why' is equal to the answer to 'how'. (my emphasis)

Thank you for proving my point.

I wasn't arguing that the question is about a creator's intent.

The "intent" you reference in the question is the Creator's "intent." Either that, or your argument makes no sense.

It's asking if there is any other type of purpose that could be the maning of life

Now you're changing the question again. First you said that you were asking about one type of purpose and one type of meaning - "higher purpose" and "higher meaning." Now you say you were asking about other kinds of purposes that could provide that "higher meaning."

You said there is no higher purpose and that somehow answers the question 'can higher purpose exist without a creator or creators?' It's absurd.

See above.

No, whether it is possible to have an external purpose without a creator. The point being could one say, for example, that we are generally purposed to find happiness without a purposer. Obviously, you know what I think, but the point is it possible to argue a general purpose without a purposer or technically could that purposer exist if we are not created.

I see. So you are also asking whether we could be passively "purposed." I think the answer is no.

Really, you know what you meant and you meant it when you replied to the original post with an exact reference to the way I meant purpose and yet you claim that my meaning was vague. Ridiculous.

I think that if I had known in my first post what you had meant by "purpose" I would have written "No" instead of "Other."

And sleep prevents you from quoting the posts with the actual arguments. Hmmm... I wonder how this phenomenon works.

No, sleep motivated me to try to bring the argument back to a point where actual reasoned discussion could occur.

To counter that bolded existentialist hallmark, our choices don't define our role, our role defines our choices. To deny that would deny all of the forces that hold reality together.

We are composed of those forces. They do not restrict our freedom, they enable it.

There are obvious physical limitations to our freedom. We can't levitate, etc. But our behavior is our own even if the universe with which we interact is not under our control. The fact that I do not like football does not mean that my freedom to not play football is restricted; in fact, rather than limiting freedom, such preferences are its essential component. Otherwise our behavior is random and no more under any "will" than the results of dice rolls.

Strange that if you were talking about a "higher purpose," you would have responded in such a manner to a post that explicitly rejected

Here is the crux of the whole thing. I'm tired of explaining to you the logical problem here while you continue to ignore the argument. Again, come back when you're ready to address ALL the arguments and not just the ones you like.

You keep adding 'imposed' though I'm not saying that. You assume things I explicitly say that I'm not saying. Imposed suggests that we have no choice but to fulfill some purpose which is not something I said at all. The point of all this is and always was if purpose exists does that imply a creator. You keep on with the logical fallacy of arguing 'not p' but it won't make your point miss the mark by less.

The only words that tell me anything in that are "general" and "universal," and again, assuming the subjects of the "higher purpose" have free will, I would argue that such a purpose is impossible regardless of a Creator. So, going with "purpose" as meaning "universal purpose," and assuming that the "life" we are speaking of is human life and therefore the life of beings with free will, I don't think the question of "is intent necessary for a purpose to life" is answerable, because answering it requires assuming an impossible premise.

I'm sorry, you're lack of understanding is captured so well right here. If I walk out of my house intending to go to the store and get shot as I'm getting into my car, does my purpose change just because I didn't end up where I intended? This is precisely why you are struggling. Because you can't imagine a purpose that wouldn't require us to fulfil it.

(my emphasis)

Thank you for proving my point.

What, you proved I have an opinion on the matter? It doesn't change that it's not inherent in the question which is what you're suggesting. I'm saying that I would like someone to demonstrate a higher purpose that doesn't require a creator. So far no one has. Given that I think a higher purpose implies a creator it's not surprised that I would suggest that absent a creator the higher purpose disappears. That's called logic. If p implies q then not q means not p. Doesn't make the question mean something else though. The question is and always will be does p imply q.

The "intent" you reference in the question is the Creator's "intent." Either that, or your argument makes no sense.

Or perhaps you are trying to make my opinion on the subject inherent in the question rather than the fact that I asked a question I wished for people to answer and then said what my answer was. See if p implies q, not q implies not p. You want to argue that not p implies something but of the possible logical points that address the original question, that does not address it. At all.

Now you're changing the question again. First you said that you were asking about one type of purpose and one type of meaning - "higher purpose" and "higher meaning." Now you say you were asking about other kinds of purposes that could provide that "higher meaning."

Are you being intentionally dense? Seriously. I'm asking about whether it is possible to have a higher purpose absent a creator. Does p imply q? One type of purpose is a creator's intent, but creator's intent is only one type of 'higher purpose'. I am asking for others since they would demonstrate that p does not imply q. Do you really not understand how saying not q implies not p addresses whether p implies q?

See above.

Yes, and since my question is and always has been does p imply q then your answer "well, but I think not p, does not address the question?" You keep skipping that argument, but it's completely germaine to the issue. How can you not understand that what not p implies says nothing about p implies.


I see. So you are also asking whether we could be passively "purposed." I think the answer is no.

Why do you keep figuring out what I say and then claiming I mean something else? I've always asked whether or not we can be purposed minus a creator. Is a creator required for us to have a higher purpsoe. If there is a meaning to life does that imply a creator. All of these things mean the same thing. You keep trying to change them into something else, but it's been does p impy q.

I think that if I had known in my first post what you had meant by "purpose" I would have written "No" instead of "Other."

No, I don't think you would have. You still argue that 'not p impliess...' is somehow an argument regarding 'does p imply q'. You've been doing it for several pages even though I've expressly pointed out my point several times. I don't suspect that if I'd only pur what I've put in the last six pages in the first post you'd be any less obtuse. All evidence indicates that explaining things to you makes no difference.

No, sleep motivated me to try to bring the argument back to a point where actual reasoned discussion could occur.
And yet, you continue to drop arguments and ignore the very simple logical point I've made all along.

Here I'll seperate it out.

Does p imply q is the question.

p = higher purpose
q = creator(s)

No, here are a couple of things I've said.

I think p implies q, because, in my opinion, not q implies not p.
(I think that a higher purpose implies a creator, because absent a creator the answer to why seems to be equal to how, or more explicitly there is no why)

See how arguing not p implies not p address whether p implies q.

Now, your argument is
Well, not p implies...
Well, x implies...

No matter how often you argue for a personal purpose or you argue that a higher purpose doesn't exist, you'll still be missing that it has not logical bearing on the question, does p imply q.

If a God created us with no particular purpose in mind, then I guess humanity is just some holy reality show.

I find that hard to believe, though. If existence was consciously created you'd think it would have a purpose. Unless it was just God taking a dump.
But that is a judgmental point of view. It implies that you expect god to have a purpose in mind. To me, it further hints that it better be a damned good purpose, too. But who are you to tell god why he should do things? Maybe, the mere act of creating was enough for god? Who are you to quibble? Now you expect god to sit around and direct your life for you? When you buy a car, do you expect the dealer to act as your chauffeur? God made a life, now you have it, go use it for something -- anything -- or not. Whatever.

All this is assuming that life was intentionally created at all. As I've said, I don't think it was.

Originally Posted by Willamena
LOL We do. And yes, I mean us in general. If we believe that god created us, that is something we will care about, because we believe in things that are true. If it's "Who cares?" then it's not about something we really believe in.
Well, we might care, but we don't have to care, even if we believe.

God's motives for creating me need not play the slightest role in the actions I undertake, even if I knew them (which I do not, assuming He even exists) and certainly not if they are motives that I see as abhorrent.
Yes, this is the basis behind what I was saying.

Yes, I'm not really addressing that. I agree with the point, but what I'm addressing is how does one who believes there is no creator posit meaning at all. Ignore whether that meaning is correct or not.

We have to make lots of assumptions to posit meaning with any logic behind it. For example, if the creator of life is capable of making a mistake then that makes an examination of the world offer no clues to our purpose. Because otherwise we can't know if what we see is what that creator intended.

I understand your point, but you still have to assume an artist or than can be no meaning.

Yes, you point out how we examine the creation, but that doesn't change what purpose the creator if there is one had.
I understand that you are not addressing these points. I'm saying that this is the point at which our roads diverge, so I cannot follow you along yours.

Why? Because my road leads to the conclusion that the existence of a creator is irrelevant. Therefore, whatever a creator's meaning, purpose, or intent may have been, it is also irrelevant. Since we cannot know either that a creator exists, or what his purpose in creating us was, we cannot use either him or his purpose in understanding life. We cannot know something we cannot know. So, as long as god refuses to answer, then the only people coming up with answers to "what is the meaning of life?" are, well, people.

So the answer to your question is that people who don't believe in a creator can still believe life has meaning because they are the ones assigning the meaning -- exactly the same as the people who believe in a creator do.

I can't follow you down this path because I disagree with your basic, foundational premise that connects the concepts of creator and purpose/meaning.

Here is the crux of the whole thing. I'm tired of explaining to you the logical problem here while you continue to ignore the argument. Again, come back when you're ready to address ALL the arguments and not just the ones you like.

You keep on saying the same thing over and over again. Do you read your own posts? There were two questions, I answered one of them. This, of course, you clearly understood when you first replied to me, and you didn't object to it; I don't see why suddenly you don't understand it now.

You keep adding 'imposed' though I'm not saying that. You assume things I explicitly say that I'm not saying. Imposed suggests that we have no choice but to fulfill some purpose which is not something I said at all.

No, it doesn't. It means we have a purpose imposed on us, that is, a purpose irrelevant to our free will. That's all it means.

Now, you could be talking about "external purpose," and not "externally imposed" purpose - that is, purpose external to us, purpose in things that aren't us - but then, from the start you've been talking about a "purpose to life" for us ("why are we here?") and not for something else, so if you are you're being rather inconsistent.

The point of all this is and always was if purpose exists does that imply a creator. You keep on with the logical fallacy of arguing 'not p' but it won't make your point miss the mark by less.

Here's my question, then. Describe a universe in which life has a "higher purpose," as you define it. What does such a "higher purpose" imply? What bearing does it have on anything? You don't mean "purpose" in "universal purpose" in the same sense I mean "purpose" in "personal purpose," clearly, since that would be obviously incompatible with free will. The only other description you've given me is variants on "higher," "larger," etc., and that tells me nothing.

Does it mean that we were created with a purpose? That is, the person who created us intended us to act in a certain role? If that's what you mean, then firstly, your argument is circular, and secondly, it still doesn't provide us with meaning. Sure, we can say, "God created me because He wanted to be worshipped," but that doesn't mean that our circumstances are any less absurd; it doesn't clarify what our role should be, merely what someone else wants it to be. It gives us a purpose, but any of us can come up with a purpose on our own; it's still the interpretation of individual minds, not some higher meaning or purpose, somehow superior to the other ones.

Before you say "but I'm asking about 'p', not 'not p'!": yes, I know that. You've repeated that several times. I am arguing that we cannot conclude anything from "p" since it doesn't make any sense in a universe where beings have free will. Now, if you're talking about a universe where beings don't have free will, that's another story entirely.

What, you proved I have an opinion on the matter?

No, actually I'm not talking about the opinion you have on the matter. I'm talking about the point where you equated "intent" with divine intent.

It doesn't change that it's not inherent in the question which is what you're suggesting.

Or perhaps you are trying to make my opinion on the subject inherent in the question rather than the fact that I asked a question I wished for people to answer and then said what my answer was. See if p implies q, not q implies not p. You want to argue that not p implies something but of the possible logical points that address the original question, that does not address it. At all.

No, the reference to "Creator's intent" wasn't meant to suggest that a Creator was inherent in the question (and I said as much), it was in response to the way you were equating "intent" and "purpose" a few posts back. Frankly, it's a pointless argument; I'm giving it up.

I'm saying that I would like someone to demonstrate a higher purpose that doesn't require a creator. So far no one has. Given that I think a higher purpose implies a creator it's not surprised that I would suggest that absent a creator the higher purpose disappears. That's called logic. If p implies q then not q means not p. Doesn't make the question mean something else though. The question is and always will be does p imply q.

Do you believe life has a purpose and do you believe in a Creator(s)

You can ignore the fact that you also asked a different question as you see fit, but it doesn't change that fact. I've posted this quote already, yet you still repeat this argument incessantly.

Creation for you, then, is not a single event after which things continue along their merry way. That's fine, but your philosophy does not deny a creator(s). You've probably heard this before, but...
Yes, I am familiar with that (good quote, btw, thanks). I know that my view of life as a continuous cycle does not deny the existence of a creator -- or perhaps more accurately, a creative power which is part of the continuous cycle. But I understood the thread to be addressing the idea of an intentional creator that has a personal agenda at work in the act of creation. The existence of a creative power in the universe does not necessarily imply any intent behind the act of creation, beyond the act of creation itself. If even that. Frankly, I don't think a creative power even needs to be particularly aware of what it is doing in order to do it.

I understand that you are not addressing these points. I'm saying that this is the point at which our roads diverge, so I cannot follow you along yours.

Why? Because my road leads to the conclusion that the existence of a creator is irrelevant. Therefore, whatever a creator's meaning, purpose, or intent may have been, it is also irrelevant. Since we cannot know either that a creator exists, or what his purpose in creating us was, we cannot use either him or his purpose in understanding life. We cannot know something we cannot know. So, as long as god refuses to answer, then the only people coming up with answers to "what is the meaning of life?" are, well, people.

So the answer to your question is that people who don't believe in a creator can still believe life has meaning because they are the ones assigning the meaning -- exactly the same as the people who believe in a creator do.

I can't follow you down this path because I disagree with your basic, foundational premise that connects the concepts of creator and purpose/meaning.

I don't deny personal meaning. It's just not what we're discussin. I do belive personal meaning exists and that even if a meaning of life exists that our inability to examine it leaves with only the personal meaning you point to. So we're not in disagreement, it's simply not the point of the thread.

No, I maintain that if we believe, we will care because the object of our belief is true, and we will care about truth.

God's motives for creating us are irrelevant and will never play any role in our actions, or shouldn't as we can't know them... just like the artist who keeps quiet about her motives. There is no "truth" there on which to rest belief. But if we believe a god created us, that belief rests on truth.
Only we don't know it. So again, the only truth we have is the truth we make.

That is, if we are understanding the existence of god and god's purpose to be external phenomena that could be proven, if only we knew how.

I couldn't agree more. A discussion of meaning is about what we think is the meaning, but that doesn't change what the meaning IS or if it exists. That's why this discussion is about what it would mean if a meaning did exist.
Surely if a meaning existed we would know what it meant because we would know what it was -- otherwise, how would we know it existed?

*snip*

You can ignore the fact that you also asked a different question as you see fit, but it doesn't change that fact. I've posted this quote already, yet you still repeat this argument incessantly.

HA. The poll question is to find out the views of people in the thread. The poll is not the subject of debate. Some polls are supporting and some polls are the point. You've correctly pointed out the the thread and the poll ask different quesitons. I find it interesting how badly you wish to pretend this isn't true when it sues you. Thank you for the entertainment value of your posts. I very rarely get to see people so badly wrap themselves around the axle. Meanwhile, you continue to drop all of the logic, YET AGAIN. No shock there. It kind of shoots you in the foot.

What I find more odd is that 14 people have voted that there is no God and that there is a meaning to life, but no one has given any example that in any way shows that's possible.
Yes, they have, by saying that the meaning is ours, created by us. If your question is, "how can there be a meaning to life if there is no god?", then I don't understand how "humans apply the meaning" is not an answer.

Surely if a meaning existed we would know what it meant because we would know what it was -- otherwise, how would we know it existed?

We wouldn't KNOW. We could speculate. However, our knowledge doesn't change its existence. If a God or gods exist, does our knowledge of Him/Her/Them change His/Her/Their existence? Nope. If there is a meaning of life, our knowledge of it is immaterial to that meaning.

Now, of course, that meaning means much to us and that's the point of discussing it.

Yes, they have, by saying that the meaning is ours, created by us. If your question is, "how can there be a meaning to life if there is no god?", then I don't understand how "humans apply the meaning" is not an answer.

Because unless we are why we are here, it doesn't answer the question. We are talking about why we as a general whole are here, not why you choose to do things or what meaning you ascribe to your personal life. Last I checked, what you personally ascribe to your life or even my life has NO EFFECT on why we are here. You are talking about what we'll do with it or how we feel about what we do with it.

HA. The poll question is to find out the views of people in the thread. The poll is not the subject of debate. Some polls are supporting and some polls are the point. You've correctly pointed out the the thread and the poll ask different quesitons. I find it interesting how badly you wish to pretend this isn't true when it sues you. Thank you for the entertainment value of your posts. I very rarely get to see people so badly wrap themselves around the axle.

Except that's not what you said when you first replied to me.

Doesn't address the issue. You answered why you do things. Has nothing to do with the "why are we here" question that has plagued philosophy pretty much for all time.

Meanwhile, you continue to drop all of the logic, YET AGAIN. No shock there. It kind of shoots you in the foot.

Before you say "but I'm asking about 'p', not 'not p'!": yes, I know that. You've repeated that several times. I am arguing that we cannot conclude anything from "p" since it doesn't make any sense in a universe where beings have free will. Now, if you're talking about a universe where beings don't have free will, that's another story entirely.

Now, do you actually have an argument somewhere? I asked you several questions; do you have answers to them?

Except that's not what you said when you first replied to me.







Now, do you actually have an argument somewhere? I asked you several questions; do you have answers to them?

Great so you're not interested in the topic. Why are you here?

There are lots of people who discuss p so I'm here to discuss what it implies, not argue whether it exists or giggle at you because you can't stay on topic. You want me to help you hijack the topic which you've done quite successfully. If you'd like to ask me those questions that you admit are off-topic please start a thread. Stop hijacking this one.

To be clear we are talking about whether p implies q. You admit that you are not willing to address that issue because you don't think p exists. Start a thread on what not p implies and I'll think about entering. And, unlike you, I'll be polite enough not to change the topic because I don't like it.

If you'd like to ask me those questions that you admit are off-topic please start a thread. Stop hijacking this one.

To the contrary. They are not at all "off-topic." I am asking you to explain what you mean by "higher purpose."

To the contrary. They are not at all "off-topic." I am asking you to explain what you mean by "higher purpose."

Uh-huh. Gee, I never explained it. Interesting how you quoted me explaining it and several times to reacted to my exact meaning of it.

Read up on Sartre. He knew what I meant by the meaning of life. Or send me 150 bucks for the hour I've already spent trying to teach you and I'll give you another hour.

Otherwise, simply admit you argued that you will not address what p implies and thus are not addressing the question of the thread at all. Interesting enough, my initial point to you was always that you were arguing what not p implies and you denied it. Then when I explained it further you admit that you are unwilling to consider what p implies, which is the topic of the thread. Given that you've admitted that you are unwilling to address the topic, will you please go discuss what not p implies elsewhere?

Uh-huh. Gee, I never explained it. Interesting how you quoted me explaining it and several times to reacted to my exact meaning of it.

What you said was:

Yes, he meant something other than our individual purposes and their effects. Something higher. More general. Universal. We are aware that human beings have individual purpose. Arguing about what purpose each of us divine for ourselves is silly. We were talking about something larger, higher.

That is to say, a "higher purpose" is "something higher," "something larger." Very helpful.

As I said when I replied to this, the only words in there that mean something (beyond variations on "higher," "larger," etc.) are "universal" and "general." However, you don't mean a "universal" personal purpose - you don't mean a purpose that all of us accept as our purpose, and is thus universal. That would violate free will. You mean a "universal" some other kind of purpose, and that's what I'm asking about.

Read up on Sartre. He knew what I meant by the meaning of life.

Sartre, unlike you, explains himself.

When we conceive God as the creator, He is generally thought of a superior sort of artisan.... Thus, the concept of man in the mind of God is comparable to the concept of the paper-cutter in the mind of the manufacturer, and, following certain techniques and a conception, God produces man, just as the artisan, following a definition and a technique, makes a paper-cutter. Thus, the individual man is the realization of a certain concept in the divine intelligence.

If that's the kind of "purpose", "meaning", etc. you're talking about, then you're not talking about a "higher purpose" - you're just talking about another view on what the proper role of human beings is.

God's actions and motives don't make reality less absurd. We can say that God created us for such and such a reason, but we can't say why we exist for such and such a reason. We can talk about actors, their motives, and the consequences of their actions, but we still can't address the core issue - why circumstances were such that we came to exist. And we also can't address the parallel question - what proper role is created for us as a result.

And you are almost certain to reply that I am arguing "not p" again. Yes, I am, but I am not simply arguing that "p" is not true. I am arguing that there cannot be a coherent universe where "p" is true, and thus that your question is unanswerable. How that is "off-topic" is beyond me.

Because unless we are why we are here, it doesn't answer the question. We are talking about why we as a general whole are here, not why you choose to do things or what meaning you ascribe to your personal life. Last I checked, what you personally ascribe to your life or even my life has NO EFFECT on why we are here. You are talking about what we'll do with it or how we feel about what we do with it.
It seems as if you are starting from the assumption that there is a meaning/purpose to life and that you are simply discounting any answer that says or implies that there is not one.

You are asking people to explain whether and how it can be possible to think life has meaning/purpose if one does not believe in a creator.

Well, there are only two possible ways to answer that question. Either "it is possible" because meaning/purpose comes from some source other than a creator, or "it is not possible" because there is no meaning/purpose to life.

Yet you reject both of those answers. Why?

We wouldn't KNOW. We could speculate. However, our knowledge doesn't change its existence. If a God or gods exist, does our knowledge of Him/Her/Them change His/Her/Their existence? Nope. If there is a meaning of life, our knowledge of it is immaterial to that meaning.

Now, of course, that meaning means much to us and that's the point of discussing it.
Our knowledge of it does not change its existence, AND its existence does not change our knowledge of it, especially if we don't have any knowledge of it.

Please explain to me how something we don't know about can mean much to us.

What you said was:



That is to say, a "higher purpose" is "something higher," "something larger." Very helpful.

I am trying to keep the idea open, not make a specific meaning for it, since too limited of a definition will not allow the question to be answered. I can give my opinion, but since I'm asking the view of others I can't be more specific than a vague higer purpose rather than something specifically ascribed to God or such, since then the argument would become circular. You keep trying to make it more specific so you can argue it doesn't exist. For instance, I notice you keep trying to make it 'imposed' so that your negated by free will argument makes sense.

As I said when I replied to this, the only words in there that mean something (beyond variations on "higher," "larger," etc.) are "universal" and "general." However, you don't mean a "universal" personal purpose - you don't mean a purpose that all of us accept as our purpose, and is thus universal. That would violate free will. You mean a "universal" some other kind of purpose, and that's what I'm asking about.


I mean a universal purpose, not what some individual or even most individuals feel is their purpose.

Sartre, unlike you, explains himself.

Yes, because Sartre was explaining his position, not trying to ask a question. However, no more context is needed with the quote of Sartre I gave. You know why? Because everyone knows what question he was answering. Is there a meaning of life? And his answer was NO and that this becomes clear when one loses their illusions. Interestingly, he didn't feel the need and people who quote him don't feel the need to add a lot of caveats to what meaning he is referring to.


If that's the kind of "purpose", "meaning", etc. you're talking about, then you're not talking about a "higher purpose" - you're just talking about another view on what the proper role of human beings is.

Sartre is talking about other views. Sartre is not talking about what p implies because he believes not p. I showed the quote of him, I'm referring to. When Sartre references the meaning of life, he uses it in the same way I am. You quote Sartre talking about something else. Who is that supposed to fool?

God's actions and motives don't make reality less absurd. We can say that God created us for such and such a reason, but we can't say why we exist for such and such a reason. We can talk about actors, their motives, and the consequences of their actions, but we still can't address the core issue - why circumstances were such that we came to exist. And we also can't address the parallel question - what proper role is created for us as a result.

And you are almost certain to reply that I am arguing "not p" again. Yes, I am, but I am not simply arguing that "p" is not true. I am arguing that there cannot be a coherent universe where "p" is true, and thus that your question is unanswerable. How that is "off-topic" is beyond me.
You're right. You are hijacking the topic. What not p implies has NOTHING to do with what p implies logically. Whether or not p is true or can be true is not germaine to what p implies were it true. Meanwhile, you add imposing to p in order to make it impossible. Again, if you were doing this on purpose I would be applauding. But I don't think you even recognize how far your position is from the point.

Since you can't be respectful enough to start another thread to discuss your point, and you've fully destroyed any discussion of whether p implies q, I think we're done here.

Our knowledge of it does not change its existence, AND its existence does not change our knowledge of it, especially if we don't have any knowledge of it.

Please explain to me how something we don't know about can mean much to us.

I'm not saying it does. Or that it exists. The question is that what it would imply if it did exist. And if it did, my belief is that it would imply a creator of some sort.

Why do you believe in Animism? Why do you ever discuss God? Because the results of those beliefs matter to you and because we have a desire to understand even if we're doing little more than guessing. That's what it means to us.

That's not the point of this thread, however. The point of this thread is to discuss whether a higher purpose implies a creator.

I asked the question because I told someone that I think it does and they agreed, but I decided not to let the limits of our imagination to cause us to make an unfair assumption. So far, it seems like everyone is agreeing with me while denying they are agreeing with me. I've yet to see any example of a meaning of life that does not require a creator.

Clearly some people believe there is a higher purpose. I've encountered some among them who do not believe in a creator. This seems counter to the spirit of that higher purpose and odd to me. I asked to see if anyone could actually defend that point or give an example of how an external purpose can exist without a creator. Seems like I can get people to talk about anything but that point.

My friend for example was suggesting that this purpose was to find happiness despite adversity. Not his purpose or our purpose as we find it, but a meaning of life. I pointed out that I don't see how one can suggest we have a purpose external to ourselves (assuming you aren't simply talking about a causal purpose - e.g. a rock sitting on a leaf has the 'purpose' of holding that leaf there) without that purpose coming from a creator or creators. He thought about it and agreed.

I am trying to keep the idea open, not make a specific meaning for it, since too limited of a definition will not allow the question to be answered. I can give my opinion, but since I'm asking the view of others I can't be more specific than a vague higer purpose rather than something specifically ascribed to God or such, since then the argument would become circular. You keep trying to make it more specific so you can argue it doesn't exist. For instance, I notice you keep trying to make it 'imposed' so that your negated by free will argument makes sense.

Oh, come on. On that basis you can't object to my earlier use of "purpose" as individually-assigned purpose and meaning. Now, it's possible that you didn't have a clear conception of what you meant by "purpose" when you started this thread, but if that's the case you shouldn't object to answers that use "purpose" in ways you don't like. If you do have a clear conception of what you meant, well, I want to know it.

I mean a universal purpose, not what some individual or even most individuals feel is their purpose.

You're repeating yourself. Again, that doesn't tell me anything. I know you want a "universal purpose," and I know you don't think the purpose I was talking about before is relevant. I want to know what kind of "purpose" is being universalized.

Yes, because Sartre was explaining his position, not trying to ask a question. However, no more context is needed with the quote of Sartre I gave. You know why? Because everyone knows what question he was answering. Is there a meaning of life? And his answer was NO and that this becomes clear when one loses their illusions. Interestingly, he didn't feel the need and people who quote him don't feel the need to add a lot of caveats to what meaning he is referring to.

Sartre is talking about other views. Sartre is not talking about what p implies because he believes not p. I showed the quote of him, I'm referring to. When Sartre references the meaning of life, he uses it in the same way I am. You quote Sartre talking about something else. Who is that supposed to fool?

I am quoting Sartre talking about a kind of purpose - the purpose of the creator in creating us.

If that's the kind of purpose you're talking about, I explained my position regarding it, and responded to both your questions - though admittedly not in a manner you like.

If it's not, I want to know what is.

You're right. You are hijacking the topic. What not p implies has NOTHING to do with what p implies logically.

I wasn't talking about what "not p" implies. I was talking about the failures of one major justification for "p."

Whether or not p is true or can be true is not germaine to what p implies were it true.

You're missing the point.

In order to answer the question of whether p implies q or not, I need to conceive of a universe in which p is true. If I'm going to apply reason to that universe, it needs to be coherent - it needs to make sense. And that's where I get stuck when trying to answer this question.

We can talk about a Creator providing "p." But as I've argued repeatedly, and as Muravyets has pointed out as well, there are lots of flaws with equating the purpose the Creator desires with some sort of superior purpose.

We can talk about some kind of "absolute purpose" embodied in the universe even without a creator, like some moralists argue for when advancing moral absolutism; as I mentioned before, some sort of Platonic Form model. But if that doesn't mean anything materially, relevantly, on what basis can we say that it exists at all?

Meanwhile, you add imposing to p in order to make it impossible. Again, if you were doing this on purpose I would be applauding. But I don't think you even recognize how far your position is from the point.

I responded to this point already.

No, it doesn't. It means we have a purpose imposed on us, that is, a purpose irrelevant to our free will. That's all it means.

Now, you could be talking about "external purpose," and not "externally imposed" purpose - that is, purpose external to us, purpose in things that aren't us - but then, from the start you've been talking about a "purpose to life" for us ("why are we here?") and not for something else, so if you are you're being rather inconsistent.

I'm not saying it does. Or that it exists. The question is that what it would imply if it did exist. And if it did, my belief is that it would imply a creator of some sort.

Why do you believe in Animism? Why do you ever discuss God? Because the results of those beliefs matter to you and because we have a desire to understand even if we're doing little more than guessing. That's what it means to us.

That's not the point of this thread, however. The point of this thread is to discuss whether a higher purpose implies a creator.

I asked the question because I told someone that I think it does and they agreed, but I decided not to let the limits of our imagination to cause us to make an unfair assumption. So far, it seems like everyone is agreeing with me while denying they are agreeing with me. I've yet to see any example of a meaning of life that does not require a creator.

Clearly some people believe there is a higher purpose. I've encountered some among them who do not believe in a creator. This seems counter to the spirit of that higher purpose and odd to me. I asked to see if anyone could actually defend that point or give an example of how an external purpose can exist without a creator. Seems like I can get people to talk about anything but that point.

My friend for example was suggesting that this purpose was to find happiness despite adversity. Not his purpose or our purpose as we find it, but a meaning of life. I pointed out that I don't see how one can suggest we have a purpose external to ourselves (assuming you aren't simply talking about a causal purpose - e.g. a rock sitting on a leaf has the 'purpose' of holding that leaf there) without that purpose coming from a creator or creators. He thought about it and agreed.
Okay, I think I get where you're coming from now, and I also think I can come up with an answer, but it will take a bit of effort, and I won't be able to post it until late tomorrow on account of stupid real world stuff involving busted water heaters and phone company snafus (it's been a hell of a Saturday). So don't let this thread die until I get back to you, 'K? :)

What you are arguing is called a strawman. You tried to change the point to be about a different type of 'meaning'. You tried to make me requiring a creator rather than asking if a creator is required. You tried to change this to anything but the point, because you screwed up and said I was wrong and then made an argument that agreed with me. I told you, I started a thread for your strawmen. Go there.
Except that a strawman arguement is done deliberately, and that is not the case here, so it is not a strawman but a misunderstanding.

Well, as I see it, either Jocabia is asking about the truth of a tautology, something along the lines of "does external intent to our creation imply the existence of a creator capable of intent," (in which case the answer, if we accept logic, is yes, and the question's answer is self-evident), or he is asking a question about which actual discussion can be had, along the lines of "can truly meaningful purpose and meaning be had in life without the existence of a Creator?"

Perhaps he meant the first, but I don't seem alone in my initial assumption that he meant the second.
Neither. ;)

Nothing has a malleable "purpose", all things have their roles determined by their existence.

To counter that bolded existentialist hallmark, our choices don't define our role, our role defines our choices. To deny that would deny all of the forces that hold reality together.



Regardless of Creators, there is no higher fate, no higher purpose, no higher destiny. Existence forges our purpose, freedom is relative.
What is the purpose of man, then? To be man? That is rather redundant.

We are composed of those forces. They do not restrict our freedom, they enable it.

There are obvious physical limitations to our freedom. We can't levitate, etc. But our behavior is our own even if the universe with which we interact is not under our control. The fact that I do not like football does not mean that my freedom to not play football is restricted; in fact, rather than limiting freedom, such preferences are its essential component. Otherwise our behavior is random and no more under any "will" than the results of dice rolls.
Thank you.

(You'd make a great astrologer, if not already one.)

We are composed of those forces. They do not restrict our freedom, they enable it.

I am not referring to natural forces, I am referring to the forces of will. Every object, concept, and quality in existent has a will (specifically a duality of wills), and none can rise above the interaction of these wills. One object's behavior, role, purpose, is determined by the will of the whole.

There are obvious physical limitations to our freedom. We can't levitate, etc. But our behavior is our own even if the universe with which we interact is not under our control. The fact that I do not like football does not mean that my freedom to not play football is restricted; in fact, rather than limiting freedom, such preferences are its essential component. Otherwise our behavior is random and no more under any "will" than the results of dice rolls.

One problem is that you assume that you control your preferences, but preferences happen to you.

Lack of freedom does not infer randomness, as our existence is based on the need for our existence, our behavior is based on the need for our behavior. Only by fulfilling the role that reality needs of us can we exist.

Originally Posted by Willamena
No, I maintain that if we believe, we will care because the object of our belief is true, and we will care about truth.

God's motives for creating us are irrelevant and will never play any role in our actions, or shouldn't as we can't know them... just like the artist who keeps quiet about her motives. There is no "truth" there on which to rest belief. But if we believe a god created us, that belief rests on truth.
Only we don't know it. So again, the only truth we have is the truth we make.

That is, if we are understanding the existence of god and god's purpose to be external phenomena that could be proven, if only we knew how.
Truth is truth; it is objective to us, we don't create it. That we don't know does not assign truth (or falsehood), it fails to assign truth, in which case we simply shrug and have no belief one way or another (the atheist).

Some do know a God created them, and I for one am in no position to declare they don't; I don't know that they don't. But I do know that their belief is founded in truth.

What is the purpose of man, then? To be man? That is rather redundant.

You need to shift your view of man a bit. Think of a balloon, we have a tendency to assume that what is on the inside of a balloon defines its shape, when in fact it is only taking on the shape that its atmosphere allows it.

When we change our view of man accordingly, man does not determine its own "shape", but rather fills the void that reality allows it.

So what is the purpose of man, then? To fulfill the needs that reality demands of "man".

Man could exist no other way.

I am not referring to natural forces, I am referring to the forces of will. Every object, concept, and quality in existent has a will (specifically a duality of wills), and none can rise above the interaction of these wills. One object's behavior, role, purpose, is determined by the will of the whole.

I was indeed thinking about determinism in natural processes when I replied to you, but the model you suggest here doesn't seem to be relevantly different.

One problem is that you assume that you control your preferences, but preferences happen to you.

You can't "control" your preferences without already having preferences.

Any choice made without preferences is random, and thus arbitrary - just as any "happening" of preferences.

I was discussing this with some friends.

My position is if one asks why we are here they must posit creator(s), since without intent the answer to 'why' is equal to the answer to 'how'. Thoughts?

EDIT: To be clear, I'm trying to talk about meaning, not why we decide to do things or what potential an individual or humans might have. I'm talking about the age-old philosophical question.
I do not believe in a Creator, and I do not believe there is any one purpose to "life." I believe an individual may have a purpose for their life, or multiple purposes, but there is no one universal purpose to all things that live.

I was discussing this with some friends.

My position is if one asks why we are here they must posit creator(s), since without intent the answer to 'why' is equal to the answer to 'how'. Thoughts?

EDIT: To be clear, I'm trying to talk about meaning, not why we decide to do things or what potential an individual or humans might have. I'm talking about the age-old philosophical question.
The poll is rather limited. I chose "I do not believe in Creator(s) and I think there is a purpose to life" by default, since it comes closest to what I believe, but it would be more accurate to say that "I'm not sure if I believe in a creator, but I do believe there is a purpose to life."

I asked to see if anyone could actually defend that point or give an example of how an external purpose can exist without a creator...

My friend for example was suggesting that this purpose was to find happiness despite adversity.
How is "finding happiness dispite adversity" external?

The poll is rather limited. I chose "I do not believe in Creator(s) and I think there is a purpose to life" by default, since it comes closest to what I believe, but it would be more accurate to say that "I'm not sure if I believe in a creator, but I do believe there is a purpose to life."
Ha! I chose "I do believe in a Creator(s) and I think there is a purpose to life" for the same reason.

Truth is truth; it is objective to us, we don't create it. That we don't know does not assign truth (or falsehood), it fails to assign truth, in which case we simply shrug and have no belief one way or another (the atheist).
Yes and no. My spiritual understanding, which I reach by contemplation of the question of the meaning of life is a truth -- i.e. a part of truth, a truth that is true in my life. That does not mean it is necessarily the objective truth about the thing I am contemplating. For instance, let's say I read a book about, say, cooking. Something in the book triggers a thought in my mind that helps me to reach an insight on the subject of, say, relationships. I have articulated a truth about relationships, but not about cooking. It does not make my statement untrue. It just is not an insight into the thing I was actually reading. But it would be true in the context to say that studying cooking taught me about relationships. So, just because my insight is not about cooking, does that make it untrue? No. It just means that I used the book about cooking to reach a truth about something of more immediate importance to me at the time.

Likewise, let's say I am contemplating the meaning of life. And let's say there is a god who created life with intent and for a purpose. Only I don't know what that purpose is, and my contemplation is not revealing god's purpose to me. Yet I do not walk away from my contemplations empty-handed (or -headed). I do achieve insights and understandings which are truths, but they will be truths about myself, if not about god. That does not make them any the less true; they are just about a different subject.

I think this is why Jocabia is rejecting arguments that say "humans determine life's meaning," because he wants us to imagine a scenario in which meaning comes from outside ourselves. In some strict terms, he is right that "humans determine life's meaning" is a different subject (although, if we were to split hairs, I'd have to say I disagree, but whatever).

Some do know a God created them, and I for one am in no position to declare they don't; I don't know that they don't. But I do know that their belief is founded in truth.
I don't know that they DO know anything about god, either. I can only know that they believe such things. I do not question or challenge those beliefs, but I do not accept them as objective fact, either. The only knowable fact that I see in this scenario is the fact of the existence of their belief.

So if someone says to me "I know that God created me for a purpose," I will accept that statement without challenge. But if someone else asks me "Does that person know that God created him for a purpose?", I will only answer "He says he does." Why equivocate about it? Because I have absolutely no way to test the veracity of someone's statement about what they know about God. I have no objective facts against which to compare their statements to see if they are accurate or mistaken or misled or even just plain lying about what they believe. In addition, since I do not know whether or not God created them for a purpose, how can I satisfy myself that they are correct when they say he did? The only thing I can do is "take their word for it," which is just a polite way of saying I'm not going to bother pursuing the matter.

By the way, I disagree that atheism is a failure to apply truth to a spiritual proposition. The atheist does "apply truth," i.e. he contemplates the question "is there a god?" and concludes that the true answer is "no." He believes this to be true, and we have no more way of knowing that it is not true than we have of knowing that the theist's belief is true.

I think the people who fail to "apply truth" to the question of god might be agnostics, but even that might not accurately describe their thought processes.

What is the purpose of man, then? To be man? That is rather redundant.
I get that this thread is assuming, for the sake of argument, that a purpose exists, but I would still like to hear ideas about why a purpose needs to exist.

Yes and no. My spiritual understanding, which I reach by contemplation of the question of the meaning of life is a truth -- i.e. a part of truth, a truth that is true in my life. That does not mean it is necessarily the objective truth about the thing I am contemplating. For instance, let's say I read a book about, say, cooking. Something in the book triggers a thought in my mind that helps me to reach an insight on the subject of, say, relationships. I have articulated a truth about relationships, but not about cooking. It does not make my statement untrue. It just is not an insight into the thing I was actually reading. But it would be true in the context to say that studying cooking taught me about relationships. So, just because my insight is not about cooking, does that make it untrue? No. It just means that I used the book about cooking to reach a truth about something of more immediate importance to me at the time.

Likewise, let's say I am contemplating the meaning of life. And let's say there is a god who created life with intent and for a purpose. Only I don't know what that purpose is, and my contemplation is not revealing god's purpose to me. Yet I do not walk away from my contemplations empty-handed (or -headed). I do achieve insights and understandings which are truths, but they will be truths about myself, if not about god. That does not make them any the less true; they are just about a different subject.

Well, yes and no.

When you're contemplating God's purpose, are you trying to learn God's purpose specifically, the motive behind God's creation of humankind, or are you trying to learn a purpose - an understanding of our proper role in the universe? I don't know what your answer, but for me it's always been the latter. I may contemplate God's purpose as an aid for truly understanding mine, but it will never be a definitive answer, and I reserve the right to reject it if I see fit.

Can God even provide the answers? If in a moment of deep contemplation God imparted to me that He created humankind so that we would all worship Him, I would reject that purpose. I refuse to accept that my proper role is to worship anyone, even a being that's omniscient, omnipotent, and immortal. Furthermore, I would argue that any such purpose that we don't like isn't really a purpose. If it doesn't work for us - if it doesn't provide worthwhile meaning and purpose to our world, if it merely makes us slaves of someone else's intentions - it isn't ours. I believe this because I deny objective truth as far as the "purpose" question goes - even God's view of our purpose is merely another point of view, and even less relevant than mine, because it's the point of view of someone who isn't its subject.

Of course, if God's purpose for us is not worthless, but is in fact a good one, all of that changes - accepting it, or at least incorporating it, becomes beneficial, and contemplation of it is worthwhile. Part of faith lies in accepting that any such received purpose will indeed be a good one. That part, for me, is probably the most difficult.

Well, yes and no.

When you're contemplating God's purpose, are you trying to learn God's purpose specifically, the motive behind God's creation of humankind, or are you trying to learn a purpose - an understanding of our proper role in the universe? I don't know what your answer, but for me it's always been the latter. I may contemplate God's purpose as an aid for truly understanding mine, but it will never be a definitive answer, and I reserve the right to reject it if I see fit.

Can God even provide the answers? If in a moment of deep contemplation God imparted to me that He created humankind so that we would all worship Him, I would reject that purpose. I refuse to accept that my proper role is to worship anyone, even a being that's omniscient, omnipotent, and immortal. Furthermore, I would argue that any such purpose that we don't like isn't really a purpose. If it doesn't work for us - if it doesn't provide worthwhile meaning and purpose to our world, if it merely makes us slaves of someone else's intentions - it isn't ours. I believe this because I deny objective truth as far as the "purpose" question goes - even God's view of our purpose is merely another point of view, and even less relevant than mine, because it's the point of view of someone who isn't its subject.

Of course, if God's purpose for us is not worthless, but is in fact a good one, all of that changes - accepting it, or at least incorporating it, becomes beneficial, and contemplation of it is worthwhile. Part of faith lies in accepting that any such received purpose will indeed be a good one. That part, for me, is probably the most difficult.
In this thread, I am using rhetorical pronouns. In real life, I agree with your take on it, although, in fact, I never ask such questions because I honestly do not care. My personal opinion about the "grand questions" is that one can ask either question, but one can only answer the second one.

I was indeed thinking about determinism in natural processes when I replied to you, but the model you suggest here doesn't seem to be relevantly different.

Except the scope. Natural laws and forces make up only a minute fraction of what constitutes reality, and it is the whole of reality which controls our choices.

It is one thing to guage how one acts when presented with a small number of restrictions and pressure, but you have to realize that, at all times, we have nearly infinite pressure of wills pushing us toward behaviors at all times.

Since we can only gain a foothood to resist these pressures from within reality, we are doomed to be pushed where the pressures will us to go.

You can't "control" your preferences without already having preferences.

Any choice made without preferences is random, and thus arbitrary - just as any "happening" of preferences.

I am not denying preferences and desires, I am simply saying that they happen to a person. We experience preferences in much the same way we experience heat.

I get that this thread is assuming, for the sake of argument, that a purpose exists, but I would still like to hear ideas about why a purpose needs to exist.

That has been the entire point of my posts so far, to show that without a purpose, man would not have existed, that a man is defined as his purpose, and that his purpose is a meeting of his will and the collective will of reality.

Except the scope. Natural laws and forces make up only a minute fraction of what constitutes reality, and it is the whole of reality which controls our choices.

It is one thing to guage how one acts when presented with a small number of restrictions and pressure, but you have to realize that, at all times, we have nearly infinite pressure of wills pushing us toward behaviors at all times.

Since we can only gain a foothood to resist these pressures from within reality, we are doomed to be pushed where the pressures will us to go.

How can a "will" affect anything without natural forces behind it?

I am not denying preferences and desires, I am simply saying that they happen to a person. We experience preferences in much the same way we experience heat.

And I am saying that that's irrelevant, as far as freedom goes.

What is necessary for freedom is that our base preferences, which are part of our consciousness and therefore our identity, determine the choices we make.

I was discussing this with some friends.

My position is if one asks why we are here they must posit creator(s), since without intent the answer to 'why' is equal to the answer to 'how'. Thoughts?

EDIT: To be clear, I'm trying to talk about meaning, not why we decide to do things or what potential an individual or humans might have. I'm talking about the age-old philosophical question.
Man, I thought it said "Is Internet Necessary for a Purpose in Life!" Haha. Well, anyway, yes, I think there is a purpose to life.

How can a "will" affect anything without natural forces behind it?

It cannot, but it can concentrate those forces, add a purpose to those forces.

And I am saying that that's irrelevant, as far as freedom goes.

What is necessary for freedom is that our base preferences, which are part of our consciousness and therefore our identity, determine the choices we make.

To fall back on a more practical example, would a brainwashed individual exhibit freedom if he acted in ways that were completely influenced by the brainwashing.

It cannot, but it can concentrate those forces, add a purpose to those forces.

Isn't it composed of those forces?

To fall back on a more practical example, would a brainwashed individual exhibit freedom if he acted in ways that were completely influenced by the brainwashing.

Freedom in the "free will" sense? Yes.

How is "finding happiness dispite adversity" external?

To get a really good answer, you'd have to ask him, but he views it more or less like a test. Like we are meant to face adversity and find happiness in spite of it. If it was just finding happiness, I would say that's more internal, but the adversity is part of the point, which is most certainly external.

The poll is rather limited. I chose "I do not believe in Creator(s) and I think there is a purpose to life" by default, since it comes closest to what I believe, but it would be more accurate to say that "I'm not sure if I believe in a creator, but I do believe there is a purpose to life."

Yes, sorry, I forgot the agnostic views.

Isn't it composed of those forces?

Yes

Freedom in the "free will" sense? Yes.

Then it seems to me that free will is a largely worthless proposition.

Then it seems to me that free will is a largely worthless proposition.

How so? I determine what I will do, according to my preferences - how is that "largely worthless"? Is there a formulation of free will that you find more worthwhile?

That has been the entire point of my posts so far, to show that without a purpose, man would not have existed, that a man is defined as his purpose, and that his purpose is a meeting of his will and the collective will of reality.
Yeah, I understood that from your posts (I read them, even though I didn't comment on them :)), but I read your explanations as more of a ... I hope I'm saying this clearly ... a cosmology of reality and existence as interdependent concepts/forces. As out-there as that idea is, I think it is still too ... practical, for want of a better term, for this discussion. It talks about how reality/existence work based on your observation of them at work. Your idea is entirely contained within both the physical and conceptual boundaries of "reality and existence."

This thread is positing something very different. It is talking about something purposeful and intelligent that exists outside any such conceptual boundaries. Further, it is implying that a higher purpose, outside those boundaries, is something that adds value to life.

This is what I am questioning. Why do we need a purpose? Why do we need that purpose to arise from a source outside ourselves? Why would such a purpose add value to life? How would not having such a purpose take away value from life?

How so? I determine what I will do, according to my preferences - how is that "largely worthless"? Is there a formulation of free will that you find more worthwhile?

For free will to have any meaning whatsoever, there must be some personal responsibility.

What good is free will when it exists only as our reaction to natural forces?

For free will to have any meaning whatsoever, there must be some personal responsibility.

And there is. You are responsible for your decisions because you determine them.

What good is free will when it exists only as our reaction to natural forces?

We are part of those "natural forces." We are composed of them. Our identity can be found in them. They are not external limitations upon our choices, but to the extent that they limit our actions, they only do so as a part of us, through our preferences.

Your idea is entirely contained within both the physical and conceptual boundaries of "reality and existence."

What is not contained by those boundaries?

This thread is positing something very different. It is talking about something purposeful and intelligent that exists outside any such conceptual boundaries. Further, it is implying that a higher purpose, outside those boundaries, is something that adds value to life.

This is what I am questioning. Why do we need a purpose? Why do we need that purpose to arise from a source outside ourselves? Why would such a purpose add value to life? How would not having such a purpose take away value from life?

I would not say that there is a 'higher' purpose.

There is more of a meeting of purpose, where the person's purpose is fits reality's purpose for him.

Having a purpose does not improve the value of life in itself, but if we better understand our own position, we can use that knowledge to improve the value of life.

And there is. You are responsible for your decisions because you determine them.

How, if we must follow our preferences, and our preferences are the results of natural forces, do we have any personal responsibility?

We are part of those "natural forces." We are composed of them. Our identity can be found in them. They are not external limitations upon our choices, but to the extent that they limit our actions, they only do so as a part of us, through our preferences.

I largely agree with this statement, but it must follow that if we are composed of these natural forces, our role, our purpose, our choices are determined by our interaction with reality, they are not self-determined.

Yes and no. My spiritual understanding, which I reach by contemplation of the question of the meaning of life is a truth -- i.e. a part of truth, a truth that is true in my life. That does not mean it is necessarily the objective truth about the thing I am contemplating. For instance, let's say I read a book about, say, cooking. Something in the book triggers a thought in my mind that helps me to reach an insight on the subject of, say, relationships. I have articulated a truth about relationships, but not about cooking. It does not make my statement untrue. It just is not an insight into the thing I was actually reading. But it would be true in the context to say that studying cooking taught me about relationships. So, just because my insight is not about cooking, does that make it untrue? No. It just means that I used the book about cooking to reach a truth about something of more immediate importance to me at the time.
I think I missed something --if it reveals to you a truth about relationships, then that is still not truth that we "make". We do not make truth.

Likewise, let's say I am contemplating the meaning of life. And let's say there is a god who created life with intent and for a purpose. Only I don't know what that purpose is, and my contemplation is not revealing god's purpose to me. Yet I do not walk away from my contemplations empty-handed (or -headed). I do achieve insights and understandings which are truths, but they will be truths about myself, if not about god. That does not make them any the less true; they are just about a different subject.

I think this is why Jocabia is rejecting arguments that say "humans determine life's meaning," because he wants us to imagine a scenario in which meaning comes from outside ourselves. In some strict terms, he is right that "humans determine life's meaning" is a different subject (although, if we were to split hairs, I'd have to say I disagree, but whatever).


I don't know that they DO know anything about god, either. I can only know that they believe such things. I do not question or challenge those beliefs, but I do not accept them as objective fact, either. The only knowable fact that I see in this scenario is the fact of the existence of their belief.

So if someone says to me "I know that God created me for a purpose," I will accept that statement without challenge. But if someone else asks me "Does that person know that God created him for a purpose?", I will only answer "He says he does." Why equivocate about it? Because I have absolutely no way to test the veracity of someone's statement about what they know about God. I have no objective facts against which to compare their statements to see if they are accurate or mistaken or misled or even just plain lying about what they believe. In addition, since I do not know whether or not God created them for a purpose, how can I satisfy myself that they are correct when they say he did? The only thing I can do is "take their word for it," which is just a polite way of saying I'm not going to bother pursuing the matter.
Statements and lies about truth are a side-track, though; we were talking about belief in true things, and caring about such, and that is what a person believes for themselves alone regardless of what they tell others. A man cannot lie to himself with his beliefs, he must be true to himself.

You (and I) don't really figure into it. ;)

By the way, I disagree that atheism is a failure to apply truth to a spiritual proposition. The atheist does "apply truth," i.e. he contemplates the question "is there a god?" and concludes that the true answer is "no." He believes this to be true, and we have no more way of knowing that it is not true than we have of knowing that the theist's belief is true.

I think the people who fail to "apply truth" to the question of god might be agnostics, but even that might not accurately describe their thought processes.
Not "apply truth" but "assign truth", in other words to acknowledge it with a label. The truth exists objective to us. Some see it, others do not.

And again, it's not about us.

To get a really good answer, you'd have to ask him, but he views it more or less like a test. Like we are meant to face adversity and find happiness in spite of it. If it was just finding happiness, I would say that's more internal, but the adversity is part of the point, which is most certainly external.
Ah. "Meant to be..." is fate.

Ha! I chose "I do believe in a Creator(s) and I think there is a purpose to life" for the same reason.
Perhaps I'm just a bit more skeptical than you, eh? :)

Yes, sorry, I forgot the agnostic views.
No problem. Agnostics are easily forgotten anyway. :D

Perhaps I'm just a bit more skeptical than you, eh? :)
*paints a silver lining around Eutrusca*

What is not contained by those boundaries?
<snip>
The imaginary proposition of this thread.

I think I missed something --if it reveals to you a truth about relationships, then that is still not truth that we "make". We do not make truth.
Hm, semantics trouble. I should not have used the word "make." That wasn't clear.

By "the truth we have is the one we make," I meant that what we understand to be "truth" are concepts generated by our own minds. I don't mean that they are fabrications, but rather that they are our thoughts, analyses, beliefs, interpretations, etc. They do not come from outside our own heads.

My cookbook/relationships example was meant to show that it is possible to contemplate something and not comprehend it, but comprehend some part of it or something else it reminds you of, and to construct an idea out of that partial or related comprehension, and that that idea will be true, but it will not be about the thing you were contemplating. It is a thought that is entirely your own.

I maintain that we cannot know the mind of god, no matter how much we contemplate it, meditate on it, think about it. Any purpose which human beings claims to have had revealed to them is really an idea they themselves created. That does not mean it is not "true." It just means, it is not god's purpose for mankind.

Statements and lies about truth are a side-track, though; we were talking about belief in true things, and caring about such, and that is what a person believes for themselves alone regardless of what they tell others. A man cannot lie to himself with his beliefs, he must be true to himself.

You (and I) don't really figure into it. ;)
There are two different usages of "true" in your statement. A man can know that he is being true to himself because he can use his knowledge of his own mind and self to determine that, but he cannot know that his beliefs are based on a true fact or true proposition unless he can prove the truth of it. And there is no evidence with which to prove the existence of a creator or a creator's purpose.

Not "apply truth" but "assign truth", in other words to acknowledge it with a label. The truth exists objective to us. Some see it, others do not.
Okay, but this assumes that there is an objective truth on this particular subject. There may well be, but since we cannot know it, what does it matter? I say, a truth unknown may as well not exist.

And, to be honest, I see in your statements an assumption that a creator and purpose do exist, and that this is the truth, and anyone who denies it is simply not seeing it. Although I personally do believe that the universe is spiritual, and I believe my beliefs to be true, I am not so certain of it that I would say that anyone who disagrees with me must be wrong. I could be the one who is wrong.

There's a lawyer saying: "I only know what I can prove." Anything I can't prove is a belief, not knowledge. Both belief and knowledge can lead to wisdom, and both can be true. But it's not quite the same concept of the adjective "true."

And again, it's not about us.
That depends. What do you mean by "it"? I think the universe is not about us at all, but I think any idea of a purpose or meaning for life is all about us.

Ah. "Meant to be..." is fate.

Or something like it. But I've not met anyone who claimed that a fate exists that is not designed, which is what sparked the question.

No problem. Agnostics are easily forgotten anyway. :D

I actually remembered it but it was too late to change it.

*paints a silver lining around Eutrusca*

I've always found silver linings are very comfortable inside bathing suits. And useful. That way when I'm taking my bathing suit off alone, I see the silver lining.

I'm not saying it does. Or that it exists. The question is that what it would imply if it did exist. And if it did, my belief is that it would imply a creator of some sort.

Why do you believe in Animism? Why do you ever discuss God? Because the results of those beliefs matter to you and because we have a desire to understand even if we're doing little more than guessing. That's what it means to us.

That's not the point of this thread, however. The point of this thread is to discuss whether a higher purpose implies a creator.

I asked the question because I told someone that I think it does and they agreed, but I decided not to let the limits of our imagination to cause us to make an unfair assumption. So far, it seems like everyone is agreeing with me while denying they are agreeing with me. I've yet to see any example of a meaning of life that does not require a creator.

Clearly some people believe there is a higher purpose. I've encountered some among them who do not believe in a creator. This seems counter to the spirit of that higher purpose and odd to me. I asked to see if anyone could actually defend that point or give an example of how an external purpose can exist without a creator. Seems like I can get people to talk about anything but that point.

My friend for example was suggesting that this purpose was to find happiness despite adversity. Not his purpose or our purpose as we find it, but a meaning of life. I pointed out that I don't see how one can suggest we have a purpose external to ourselves (assuming you aren't simply talking about a causal purpose - e.g. a rock sitting on a leaf has the 'purpose' of holding that leaf there) without that purpose coming from a creator or creators. He thought about it and agreed.
A disclaimer before getting into the meat:

I am going to try to offer a possible explanation for a point of view that I don't actually agree with, based on things I have read and things I have heard others say. I'm just trying to lay out the rationale of what some others think, as they have explained it to me. Since I happen to think it is an incorrect rationale, I hope this makes any kind of sense.

Now to the meat:

Some people espouse a philosophy that the universe is an inherently moral construct in and of itself. Many of these people assume that the cosmos is a living entity, of which we are parts, so that our purpose is to be expressive organs of the being of the universe. Others do not assume that the universe is a living entity, but they assert that morality is an expression of properly balanced energies in the universe. I have heard both of these concepts expressed as not requiring any force to have intentionally created the universe, or anything in it. (Often, I have heard this view expressed by people who see life and the universe as a continuous cycle, like I do.)

So, in this view (which may be seen as slightly similar to The Dangerous Maybe's view, though only slightly), and especially in the living moral universe view, there is a higher purpose in life, which is to pursue and express morality as a way of life because this adds to the vitality of all life in the universe. It is the universe's purpose, which is to maintain itself, and we are its organs. We are such a part of it, that it is not accurate to describe us as having been created by the universe (any more than we are the creators of our own lungs), but it is still external to us. And since this view can be held by people who do not believe in a purposeful creator, then we can say that, by this view, it is possible to believe in a higher purpose without believing in a creator.

Now, as I said, I do not believe that the universe is a moral construct, and, more important, I do not believe there is a meaning external to ourselves. But this may explain why some people would be able to believe in a source of meaning outside themselves without positing the existence of an intentional creator.

So there it is. I am certain you will be able to pick it apart, but don't look to me to defend it.

A disclaimer before getting into the meat:

I am going to try to offer a possible explanation for a point of view that I don't actually agree with, based on things I have read and things I have heard others say. I'm just trying to lay out the rationale of what some others think, as they have explained it to me. Since I happen to think it is an incorrect rationale, I hope this makes any kind of sense.

Now to the meat:

Some people espouse a philosophy that the universe is an inherently moral construct in and of itself. Many of these people assume that the cosmos is a living entity, of which we are parts, so that our purpose is to be expressive organs of the being of the universe. Others do not assume that the universe is a living entity, but they assert that morality is an expression of properly balanced energies in the universe. I have heard both of these concepts expressed as not requiring any force to have intentionally created the universe, or anything in it. (Often, I have heard this view expressed by people who see life and the universe as a continuous cycle, like I do.)

Nice. That's a great answer. I knew I could count on you. I can't wait to explain this to my friend. I won't see him for a week though, so I'll have to let you know.

So, in this view (which may be seen as slightly similar to The Dangerous Maybe's view, though only slightly), and especially in the living moral universe view, there is a higher purpose in life, which is to pursue and express morality as a way of life because this adds to the vitality of all life in the universe. It is the universe's purpose, which is to maintain itself, and we are its organs. We are such a part of it, that it is not accurate to describe us as having been created by the universe (any more than we are the creators of our own lungs), but it is still external to us. And since this view can be held by people who do not believe in a purposeful creator, then we can say that, by this view, it is possible to believe in a higher purpose without believing in a creator.

Now, as I said, I do not believe that the universe is a moral construct, and, more important, I do not believe there is a meaning external to ourselves. But this may explain why some people would be able to believe in a source of meaning outside themselves without positing the existence of an intentional creator.

So there it is. I am certain you will be able to pick it apart, but don't look to me to defend it.

Yes, excellent answer. Interesting enough, it would make human beings above most other parts of that universal creature the most likely to be considered cancer.

I believe in creator(s) but am unsure about having a single purpose to life.

Nice. That's a great answer. I knew I could count on you. I can't wait to explain this to my friend. I won't see him for a week though, so I'll have to let you know.
Why, thank you. :) I'm so glad my description of it made sense.

Yes, excellent answer. Interesting enough, it would make human beings above most other parts of that universal creature the most likely to be considered cancer.
I actually have heard that analogy made by people who espouse this philosophy. I suppose a quite detailed, cogent, and compelling analogy between cancer and immorality could be constructed.

I wish I knew the name of this philosophy. I'm sure it must have a name.

Why, thank you. :) I'm so glad my description of it made sense.


I actually have heard that analogy made by people who espouse this philosophy. I suppose a quite detailed, cogent, and compelling analogy between cancer and immorality could be constructed.

I wish I knew the name of this philosophy. I'm sure it must have a name.

Actually, after thinking about it, if the universe is an organism I would consider us to be more like the bad kind of virus. The majority of virii when loose in the world discover a way to exist without killing the host. There are a small number of virii that kill the host, but if you think about it you can see how this is not in the best interest of the virus and usually it mutates to become benign. We seem to have failed to become benign thus far.

Hm, semantics trouble. I should not have used the word "make." That wasn't clear.

By "the truth we have is the one we make," I meant that what we understand to be "truth" are concepts generated by our own minds. I don't mean that they are fabrications, but rather that they are our thoughts, analyses, beliefs, interpretations, etc. They do not come from outside our own heads.

My cookbook/relationships example was meant to show that it is possible to contemplate something and not comprehend it, but comprehend some part of it or something else it reminds you of, and to construct an idea out of that partial or related comprehension, and that that idea will be true, but it will not be about the thing you were contemplating. It is a thought that is entirely your own.

I maintain that we cannot know the mind of god, no matter how much we contemplate it, meditate on it, think about it. Any purpose which human beings claims to have had revealed to them is really an idea they themselves created. That does not mean it is not "true." It just means, it is not god's purpose for mankind.


There are two different usages of "true" in your statement. A man can know that he is being true to himself because he can use his knowledge of his own mind and self to determine that, but he cannot know that his beliefs are based on a true fact or true proposition unless he can prove the truth of it. And there is no evidence with which to prove the existence of a creator or a creator's purpose.
I liked your example with the cookbook. In it, you discovered a non-literal truth about relationships --a total extraneous topic --by contemplating the information in a cookbook. This demonstrates that truth is not about the facts. The facts you had were of cooking, and the truth you uncovered was about relationships. Consider this: the facts of cooking are to 'truth uncovered about relationships' as the facts of the natural world are to 'truth uncovered about divine purpose'. In other words the facts of the cookbook are just as relevant to the truth about relationships uncovered as "proof" of the existence of a creator would be to truth about divine purpose... meaning not very relevant at all.

The information about the unrelated topic garnered is what we call a sign, as opposed to fact. Non-literal information. Drawing an ephemeral connection from the literal to the non-literal is the process that allows us to understand a metaphor.

Okay, I see you saying that idea of the truth is one we make, not truth itself. That I understand. The idea of a thing is not the thing the idea is about. Only ideas reside in the mind; the thing the idea is about is external, or externalized. In your example, the idea is of a truth about relationships, but the truth itself is a part of the relationships.

Okay, but this assumes that there is an objective truth on this particular subject. There may well be, but since we cannot know it, what does it matter? I say, a truth unknown may as well not exist.

And, to be honest, I see in your statements an assumption that a creator and purpose do exist, and that this is the truth, and anyone who denies it is simply not seeing it. Although I personally do believe that the universe is spiritual, and I believe my beliefs to be true, I am not so certain of it that I would say that anyone who disagrees with me must be wrong. I could be the one who is wrong.

There's a lawyer saying: "I only know what I can prove." Anything I can't prove is a belief, not knowledge. Both belief and knowledge can lead to wisdom, and both can be true. But it's not quite the same concept of the adjective "true."
Re the objectivity of truth: the idea of an idea, for instance, is not the idea itself, but an objective examination of an idea a 'step' removed. Objectivity is taking that step back and looking at things from a perspective where they are separated from us conceptually.

I said earlier that when a person says they believe in god, that belief, if it is sincere, rests in something true. We can ONLY believe in things that are true --if it's not true, we cannot believe it. They have seen signs or have some other evidence that is sufficient for them to create a belief, and they do that subconsciously; and that is something that will matter to them, and they will care about it because it is true.

The belief I have about the existence of god is not about others, it's about me (the individual); it is particular to my understanding of god, namely how well what I understand matches what I know and experience about the world. It's not about others being able to see what I see. That they are not seeing it doesn't mean that they are wrong or somehow deficient for not seeing it, or that I am right. It just means that I see it, nothing more.

The lawyer is not looking for truth, but for proof.

And again, it's not about us.
That depends. What do you mean by "it"? I think the universe is not about us at all, but I think any idea of a purpose or meaning for life is all about us.
You had said:
"By the way, I disagree that atheism is a failure to apply truth to a spiritual proposition. The atheist does "apply truth," i.e. he contemplates the question "is there a god?" and concludes that the true answer is "no." He believes this to be true, and we have no more way of knowing that it is not true than we have of knowing that the theist's belief is true."

Truth is "it". It's not about US knowing it's true. If only one person knows something true, that's enough for the truth to be known.

The imaginary proposition of this thread.

I didn't know there was an imaginary proposition to this thread.

I answered the original question directly, that there isn't a conscious intent necessary for life to have a purpose thanks to the organic nature of reality.

We don't exist because we are wanted, we exist because we are needed.

Actually, after thinking about it, if the universe is an organism I would consider us to be more like the bad kind of virus. The majority of virii when loose in the world discover a way to exist without killing the host. There are a small number of virii that kill the host, but if you think about it you can see how this is not in the best interest of the virus and usually it mutates to become benign. We seem to have failed to become benign thus far.

Three troubles with this comparison:

1. It misinterprets the argument. Viruses would not exist in an organic reality, as it is organic based on interdependence. No entity would come into existence that did not possess a duality where it both obeyed and commanded, and functioned as a part of the whole. Therefore, no entity could act counter to the role reality defines for it.

2. It requires something external to reality.

3. It is rather difficult to determine that humanity is malignant to the universe, reality, or existence. I imagine that our view on what is beneficial or harmful to reality is rather egocentric.

Three troubles with this comparison:

1. It misinterprets the argument. Viruses would not exist in an organic reality, as it is organic based on interdependence. No entity would come into existence that did not possess a duality where it both obeyed and commanded, and functioned as a part of the whole. Therefore, no entity could act counter to the role reality defines for it.

A virus does exist in an organic reality and it does generally act in the manture that is in line with its role.

A virus that kills its host is acting counter to the forces of nature and this is precisely why it's actions counter to the interest of the host it occupies are often short-lived. The forces of nature quickly push the virus back in line by either creating for it a lack of hosts or by making a mutation of it more successful by not killing the host.

2. It requires something external to reality.

It does? Why? How are humans and the universe organism external to reality?

3. It is rather difficult to determine that humanity is malignant to the universe, reality, or existence. I imagine that our view on what is beneficial or harmful to reality is rather egocentric.
Actually, if it were egocentric we would consider it to be a boon or a malady based on whether it is good or bad for us.

The view I am presenting is whether or not we are malignant or benign to our surroundings. We do not have to be malignant to the entire universe.

Human beings, generally, are malignant to our surroundings. The analogy ends there, though, because I cannot imagine how we would be able to destroy the universe (the host). However, I can fathom several ways that our actions will result in a host reaction, a change in environment, that eventually rids the host of the problem entity, us.

yeah, i think there is but one purpose in life, creator or not. Prove that there is no purpose. that is the purpose. to prove there there is no purpose to prove.:D

Why, thank you. :) I'm so glad my description of it made sense.


I actually have heard that analogy made by people who espouse this philosophy. I suppose a quite detailed, cogent, and compelling analogy between cancer and immorality could be constructed.

I wish I knew the name of this philosophy. I'm sure it must have a name.
Stripped of the moral dimension, it looks a lot like the Anthropic Principle in cosmology, which states that the parameters of the universe must be such as to allow the existence of sentient beings such as ourselves.

Though, as I understand it, the difference is that, in the stronger forms of the principle, intelligent life is required to observe the universe rather than as its expression.

Stripped of the moral dimension, it looks a lot like the Anthropic Principle in cosmology, which states that the parameters of the universe must be such as to allow the existence of sentient beings such as ourselves.

Though, as I understand it, the difference is that, in the stronger forms of the principle, intelligent life is required to observe the universe rather than as its expression.

I've always loved such principles. (no sarcasm) Willamena gives a lot of value to our consciousness being necessary for things. The observe the universe thing is along the lines of the "does a tree make a sound" question.

It's an interesting question but it's always struck me as a bit sapiencentric for my tastes. It places us in the position as being the reason the universe is the way it is. I like to think of us as simply a rung on the ladder leading to a place we aren't capable of understanding.

I've always loved such principles. (no sarcasm)
I agree; I see them as the mental equivalent of a jolly good stretch, or perhaps extreme yoga.
Willamena gives a lot of value to our consciousness being necessary for things. The observe the universe thing is along the lines of the "does a tree make a sound" question.
Except, in cosmology, it comes from a different place - quantum mechanics, and the necessity of an observer to collapse the wave function.
It's an interesting question but it's always struck me as a bit sapiencentric for my tastes. It places us in the position as being the reason the universe is the way it is. I like to think of us as simply a rung on the ladder leading to a place we aren't capable of understanding.
I tend to agree with this. Although the anthropic principle does not necessarily specify us humans as the required sentient beings, it does feel intuitively wrong that we've cracked the secret of existence.

A virus does exist in an organic reality and it does generally act in the manture that is in line with its role.

It must act in the role the organism (reality) defines for it. Entities exist in reality to support reality, viruses enter reality in order to exploit it. They withdraw nutrients from the organism, where an entity neither takes froms or adds to reality.

A virus that kills its host is acting counter to the forces of nature and this is precisely why it's actions counter to the interest of the host it occupies are often short-lived. The forces of nature quickly push the virus back in line by either creating for it a lack of hosts or by making a mutation of it more successful by not killing the host.

It does? Why? How are humans and the universe organism external to reality?

No, the virus is an separate organism. For the analogy it would be a separate universe

Actually, if it were egocentric we would consider it to be a boon or a malady based on whether it is good or bad for us.

The view I am presenting is whether or not we are malignant or benign to our surroundings. We do not have to be malignant to the entire universe.

Human beings, generally, are malignant to our surroundings. The analogy ends there, though, because I cannot imagine how we would be able to destroy the universe (the host). However, I can fathom several ways that our actions will result in a host reaction, a change in environment, that eventually rids the host of the problem entity, us.

That is what I am saying, we would tend to judge changes to reality based on our impressions and values. While we may harm our surroundings, we really only change reality, not harming or improving it in anyway. In fact, we could only change it in ways that reality (through the collective will of all other entities) has already derived.

Your last sentence is dead on, though, as we should identify what actions will lead reality to reduce the role that it provides for us and avoid them.

I liked your example with the cookbook. In it, you discovered a non-literal truth about relationships --a total extraneous topic --by contemplating the information in a cookbook. This demonstrates that truth is not about the facts. The facts you had were of cooking, and the truth you uncovered was about relationships. Consider this: the facts of cooking are to 'truth uncovered about relationships' as the facts of the natural world are to 'truth uncovered about divine purpose'. In other words the facts of the cookbook are just as relevant to the truth about relationships uncovered as "proof" of the existence of a creator would be to truth about divine purpose... meaning not very relevant at all.
My only quibble with this is that it still implies a pre-existing acceptance of the proposition that a divine purpose exists. What if, like the atheist, the "truth" that I uncover by my contemplation of the natural world is that there is no divine purpose?

The information about the unrelated topic garnered is what we call a sign, as opposed to fact. Non-literal information. Drawing an ephemeral connection from the literal to the non-literal is the process that allows us to understand a metaphor.
Yes, indeed. The ability to make those ephemeral connections is key to understanding indirectly revealed information. In another thread, a poster made reference to occultism and the way it teaches people to access esoteric knowledge. Another poster pooh-poohed the idea of such a thing as esoteric knowledge, and I commented that I thought the first poster was entirely right, even disregarding any notion of esoteric knowledge, if we understand occultism, and spirituality and mysticism and so forth, as intellectual disciplines, techniques for developing thought, just as logic is a technique for developing thought. The mystical disciplines are extremely good for training the mind to make those ephemeral connections. Even hide-bound rationalists and secularists can learn to use them.

Okay, I see you saying that idea of the truth is one we make, not truth itself. That I understand. The idea of a thing is not the thing the idea is about. Only ideas reside in the mind; the thing the idea is about is external, or externalized. In your example, the idea is of a truth about relationships, but the truth itself is a part of the relationships.
Yes, with the addition that I think the idea of a truth is also a truth, independent of the external/externalized truth the idea is about.

Re the objectivity of truth: the idea of an idea, for instance, is not the idea itself, but an objective examination of an idea a 'step' removed. Objectivity is taking that step back and looking at things from a perspective where they are separated from us conceptually.

I said earlier that when a person says they believe in god, that belief, if it is sincere, rests in something true. We can ONLY believe in things that are true --if it's not true, we cannot believe it. They have seen signs or have some other evidence that is sufficient for them to create a belief, and they do that subconsciously; and that is something that will matter to them, and they will care about it because it is true.
I disagree with you about the bolded phrase as an issue of fact. People can and do believe, and care deeply about, many things that are not true. For centuries, many people believed with absolute sincerity that the earth was flat. Others have believed with total sincerity and faith that their god would protect them from some specific disaster or misfortune, only to learn to their cost that they were no more safe than non-believers. Today, there are people who believe with absolute sincerity that God created the world in a week 6000 years ago. All such beliefs have been proved not to be true over and over. So then, what are we to make of the belief of the people who believe(d) in them?

I say that the truth of the existence of their belief does not guarantee the truth of the object of their belief.

The belief I have about the existence of god is not about others, it's about me (the individual); it is particular to my understanding of god, namely how well what I understand matches what I know and experience about the world. It's not about others being able to see what I see. That they are not seeing it doesn't mean that they are wrong or somehow deficient for not seeing it, or that I am right. It just means that I see it, nothing more.

The lawyer is not looking for truth, but for proof.
That's what I meant when I mentioned that there are different usages of the word "true" and why I drew a distinction between "belief" and "knowledge."

You had said:
"By the way, I disagree that atheism is a failure to apply truth to a spiritual proposition. The atheist does "apply truth," i.e. he contemplates the question "is there a god?" and concludes that the true answer is "no." He believes this to be true, and we have no more way of knowing that it is not true than we have of knowing that the theist's belief is true."

Truth is "it". It's not about US knowing it's true. If only one person knows something true, that's enough for the truth to be known.
But it is not enough for it to be known by anyone other than him. That was my point. Let's say "the truth" has a consciousness and wants to be known by everyone. You have an experience that reveals this truth to you. Now you know it. You tell me about your experience and about this truth. What do I know as a result? Do I know this truth? Or do I know what you have told me about it? A truth that wishes to be known has only two options: (1) provide you with objective proof -- in the form of observable phenomena or a re-creatable experience, for instance -- that you can share with me, or (2) reveal itself independently (or simultaneously) to both of us.

I would ask you, if there is "a truth" that can be known, then how would you account for different people sincerely holding diametrically opposing beliefs about the same concept? The difference between a theist and an atheist, for instance.

define purpose ,then define life.nothing is necessary.
then prove it is an attempt to anything,and before you know it
you dont know what you are talking about anymore

It must act in the role the organism (reality) defines for it. Entities exist in reality to support reality, viruses enter reality in order to exploit it. They withdraw nutrients from the organism, where an entity neither takes froms or adds to reality.

You changed the analogy and complained about how I used it. Reality isn't the organism. The universe is. We're part of the universe, yes, but I was more talking about our relationship to the universe. We don't know what reality is. Is God part of reality? You can guess, but you don't know any more than I do. If God exists, he's most certainly real.

In my analogy and in Murayvet's analogy, we are talking about the universe not reality. The universe is what we observe or can observe. It's what exists under natural law. Now if you view the universe organism as simply a body, then it is not impossible to draw an analogy where that has supporting organisms within it, just as our bodies do. These organisms we rely on for our health and welfare. It's the natural order of things.


No, the virus is an separate organism. For the analogy it would be a separate universe

Don't push the analogy so hard. It falls apart pretty quickly as it is. Particularly since according to the defition of organism, even if the universe did fit it, and it might, we certainly do as well.

That is what I am saying, we would tend to judge changes to reality based on our impressions and values. While we may harm our surroundings, we really only change reality, not harming or improving it in anyway. In fact, we could only change it in ways that reality (through the collective will of all other entities) has already derived.

Dude, who said anything about reality besides you? We change the parts of the organism. Reality IS NOT the organism. The parts of the universe certainly are, as you said and we certainly harm some parts of the universe.

Your last sentence is dead on, though, as we should identify what actions will lead reality to reduce the role that it provides for us and avoid them.
Again, reality has nothing to do with it. You're not in a position to judge what is objective reality, nor am I. We are only in a position to deal with the universe as it is defined for us, which is what we observe or can observe directly or indirectly (yes, it's a loose definition, but you'll find that it does not fail to capture all of the universe but not touch on reality).

And if there is another place we go to upon death, and in no scenario can we know if their is or isn't, we would individually continue to play a role in reality. We may cease our role in the universe, but if an afterlife is real, it's a part of reality. It is wise to not confuse what we see around us and as equal to reality.

I agree; I see them as the mental equivalent of a jolly good stretch, or perhaps extreme yoga.

Except, in cosmology, it comes from a different place - quantum mechanics, and the necessity of an observer to collapse the wave function.

I tend to agree with this. Although the anthropic principle does not necessarily specify us humans as the required sentient beings, it does feel intuitively wrong that we've cracked the secret of existence.

I suspect that our belief that a sentient being's observation is what causes the wave function to collapse is quite off. It's just another in the long line of folly that places undue importance on the capabilities of our brains. While our observations are suggestive we have acquired no mechanism that would explain why such a thing is necessarily the case. It's convenient because minus our observation, we have no way of measuring such functions. We know a change occurs when we observe but it's not as if we have a control group.

You changed the analogy and complained about how I used it. Reality isn't the organism. The universe is. We're part of the universe, yes, but I was more talking about our relationship to the universe. We don't know what reality is. Is God part of reality? You can guess, but you don't know any more than I do. If God exists, he's most certainly real.

In my analogy and in Murayvet's analogy, we are talking about the universe not reality. The universe is what we observe or can observe. It's what exists under natural law. Now if you view the universe organism as simply a body, then it is not impossible to draw an analogy where that has supporting organisms within it, just as our bodies do. These organisms we rely on for our health and welfare. It's the natural order of things.

My apologies for confusing the terms of the analogy, but my objections stand for any totality that exists organically.

Don't push the analogy so hard. It falls apart pretty quickly as it is. Particularly since according to the defition of organism, even if the universe did fit it, and it might, we certainly do as well.

I don't feel that I am pushing it. The virus would represent a separate totality, as it doesn't exist to support the rest of the totality.

Now when I say that the universe would not permit a virus to exist, that might be pushing it.

Dude, who said anything about reality besides you? We change the parts of the organism. Reality IS NOT the organism. The parts of the universe certainly are, as you said and we certainly harm some parts of the universe.

Well, it seemed that the topic of this thread is not merely confined to the physical universe, and I didn't stick merely to the physical universe.

I believe everything is organistic, whether the universe represents everything or if there is more outside our universe.

Again, reality has nothing to do with it. You're not in a position to judge what is objective reality, nor am I. We are only in a position to deal with the universe as it is defined for us, but which is what we observe or can observe directly or indirectly (yes, it's a loose definition, you'll find that it does not fail to capture all of the universe but not touch on reality).

In my naivete, I like to try and define the nature of reality, or at least what form reality and existence can take. If you want a mental exercise, that is where its at.

And if there is another place we go to upon death, and in no scenario can we know if their is or isn't, we would individually continue to play a role in reality. We may cease our role in the universe, but if an afterlife is real, it's a part of reality. It is wise to not confuse what we see around us and as equal to reality.

I am certainly wary of making that mistake, but we can tend to assume that we can attempt to interpret the underlying nature of reality within everything we can observe. After all, we cannot observe without observing reality.

I didn't know there was an imaginary proposition to this thread.

I answered the original question directly, that there isn't a conscious intent necessary for life to have a purpose thanks to the organic nature of reality.

We don't exist because we are wanted, we exist because we are needed.
You expand upon the definition of organic to include inorganic matter?

I've always loved such principles. (no sarcasm) Willamena gives a lot of value to our consciousness being necessary for things. The observe the universe thing is along the lines of the "does a tree make a sound" question.

It's an interesting question but it's always struck me as a bit sapiencentric for my tastes. It places us in the position as being the reason the universe is the way it is. I like to think of us as simply a rung on the ladder leading to a place we aren't capable of understanding.
I don't propose that our consciousness is necessary, but that because we have consciousness (and the consequential subjective perspective) the subjective perspective must necessarily be taken into consideration for a full picture of reality.

You expand upon the definition of organic to include inorganic matter?

I don't mean organic in the traditional sense.

It is organic in that all things are interdependent on the functions of everything else to exist, furthermore, all changes and development occurs collectively, the term "organic" is more of just a model than a literal discription.

How, if we must follow our preferences, and our preferences are the results of natural forces, do we have any personal responsibility?

You're making an unjustified distinction between us and our preferences. Our preferences are part of us. The whole idea behind "we are responsible for our choices" is that our choices can be traced back to us - we are the factor that made them happen, and therefore we can be held responsible for them. That logic still holds true.

I largely agree with this statement, but it must follow that if we are composed of these natural forces, our role, our purpose, our choices are determined by our interaction with reality, they are not self-determined.

No. They are both. Because we are composed of those natural forces, our choices are both self-determined and determined by those natural forces. There is no contradiction.

Some people espouse a philosophy that the universe is an inherently moral construct in and of itself. Many of these people assume that the cosmos is a living entity, of which we are parts, so that our purpose is to be expressive organs of the being of the universe. Others do not assume that the universe is a living entity, but they assert that morality is an expression of properly balanced energies in the universe. I have heard both of these concepts expressed as not requiring any force to have intentionally created the universe, or anything in it. (Often, I have heard this view expressed by people who see life and the universe as a continuous cycle, like I do.)

So, in this view (which may be seen as slightly similar to The Dangerous Maybe's view, though only slightly), and especially in the living moral universe view, there is a higher purpose in life, which is to pursue and express morality as a way of life because this adds to the vitality of all life in the universe. It is the universe's purpose, which is to maintain itself, and we are its organs. We are such a part of it, that it is not accurate to describe us as having been created by the universe (any more than we are the creators of our own lungs), but it is still external to us. And since this view can be held by people who do not believe in a purposeful creator, then we can say that, by this view, it is possible to believe in a higher purpose without believing in a creator.

An interesting point of view. I have two problems with it:

1. The possibility that the universe is a living entity does not provide us with the "purpose" of maintaining it. We might, functionally, be designed (as "its organs") so as to maintain it, but then in the same sense we are designed to reproduce.
2. As far as a "proper" balance, who determines what is proper and not proper?

It's an interesting question but it's always struck me as a bit sapiencentric for my tastes. It places us in the position as being the reason the universe is the way it is. I like to think of us as simply a rung on the ladder leading to a place we aren't capable of understanding.

I think you've framed the principle badly.

It's not so much that we're the reason the universe is the way it is. It's more that we're the reason we're asking the question about this particular universe.

I think you've framed the principle badly.

It's not so much that we're the reason the universe is the way it is. It's more that we're the reason we're asking the question about this particular universe.
From Wikipedia:
* Weak anthropic principle (WAP): "The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so."(John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, 1986)
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary offers this definition: conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist.

* Strong anthropic principle (SAP):
The version of SAP held by Barrow and Tipler is that "The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history."

Another version of "the strong anthropic principle is simply the classic design argument dressed in the modern garb of cosmology. It implies that the production of life is part of the intent of the universe, with the laws of nature and their fundamental constants set to ensure the development of life as we know it." ("The Rejection of Pascal's Wager")

* Final anthropic principle (FAP): "Intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the Universe, and, once it comes into existence, it will never die out." (Barrow and Tipler, 1986)

The strong and final formulations of the principle appear to go beyond your interpretation. I may not agree with them, but they're out there.

Those definitions appear entirely consistent with what I've said.

It's not so much that there's a causal relationship starting with us, but that there's a causal relationship that ends with our negation, and we're just reversing it with a sort of cosmological modus tollens.

Those definitions appear entirely consistent with what I've said.

It's not so much that there's a causal relationship starting with us, but that there's a causal relationship that ends with our negation, and we're just reversing it with a sort of cosmological modus tollens.
I'm probably too tired to unpick the differences, but what you're saying sounds to me more like the standard criticism of the principle, which is that it is over-stating a truism, rather than (the stronger forms of) the principle itself. In which case, I tend to agree.

You're making an unjustified distinction between us and our preferences. Our preferences are part of us. The whole idea behind "we are responsible for our choices" is that our choices can be traced back to us - we are the factor that made them happen, and therefore we can be held responsible for them. That logic still holds true.

I am making no such distinction. My preferences are a part of me, but they are not ultimately a result of me. Sure my choices can be traced back to me, but to stop there ignores reality almost entirely.

No. They are both. Because we are composed of those natural forces, our choices are both self-determined and determined by those natural forces. There is no contradiction.

That which you call "self-determination" can easily be traced back to natural forces.

1. The possibility that the universe is a living entity does not provide us with the "purpose" of maintaining it. We might, functionally, be designed (as "its organs") so as to maintain it, but then in the same sense we are designed to reproduce.

It is a necessity of our existence that we maintain it. The whole of our existence is only a means of supporting the existence of the whole.

<snip>
An interesting point of view. I have two problems with it:

1. The possibility that the universe is a living entity does not provide us with the "purpose" of maintaining it. We might, functionally, be designed (as "its organs") so as to maintain it, but then in the same sense we are designed to reproduce.
2. As far as a "proper" balance, who determines what is proper and not proper?
Well, as I said, it's not my point of view, and I don't want to do any injustice to it, but from what I understand from the people I learned this from (and mind you, it's been a very long time since I've talked with any of them), "proper balance" has something to do with peace, love and understanding. For the moment, let's call it "positivity," as opposed to "negativity," which might include things like anger, conflict, hate.

One view holds that positivity is an expression of the moral nature of the universe and negativity is a suppression of the moral nature of the universe. So humanity's higher purpose would be to live a life of moral positivity, as this allows the universe to express itself, and that's what we are for. We are the universe's expressive organs, so to speak.

Another view holds that positivity is a tonic to the body of the universe, while negativity is a poison to it. The more positivity is expressed, the more evenly balanced the energies of the universe are. The more negativity is expressed, the more out of balance the energies of the universe become. This would cast humanity in the role of a regulatory power that has either a damaging or healing effect on the body of the universe. Humanity's higher purpose then, is to live a life of moral positivity in order to keep the entire universe in positive balance. This is the viewpoint in which I have heard immorality compared to cancer -- humans who live lives of moral negativity are compared to normal, healthy tissue which becomes cancerous.

There may be other concepts of "proper" but, in general, from the people I learned about it from, it tends to be about peace, love and understanding.

As I say, I don't hold with this philosophy for a few reasons, but I do find it to be a pleasant philosophy, generally held by people I found to be pleasant. A bit hippy, perhaps, but pleasant.

But as I said earlier, don't look to me defend this viewpoint. I'm just providing what information I have about it, and I think I just posted everything I've got.

My only quibble with this is that it still implies a pre-existing acceptance of the proposition that a divine purpose exists. What if, like the atheist, the "truth" that I uncover by my contemplation of the natural world is that there is no divine purpose?
That assumption is only there if you mistake "true" for "the truth". More on that later.

Yes, indeed. The ability to make those ephemeral connections is key to understanding indirectly revealed information. In another thread, a poster made reference to occultism and the way it teaches people to access esoteric knowledge. Another poster pooh-poohed the idea of such a thing as esoteric knowledge, and I commented that I thought the first poster was entirely right, even disregarding any notion of esoteric knowledge, if we understand occultism, and spirituality and mysticism and so forth, as intellectual disciplines, techniques for developing thought, just as logic is a technique for developing thought. The mystical disciplines are extremely good for training the mind to make those ephemeral connections. Even hide-bound rationalists and secularists can learn to use them.


Yes, with the addition that I think the idea of a truth is also a truth, independent of the external/externalized truth the idea is about.


I disagree with you about the bolded phrase as an issue of fact. People can and do believe, and care deeply about, many things that are not true. For centuries, many people believed with absolute sincerity that the earth was flat. Others have believed with total sincerity and faith that their god would protect them from some specific disaster or misfortune, only to learn to their cost that they were no more safe than non-believers. Today, there are people who believe with absolute sincerity that God created the world in a week 6000 years ago. All such beliefs have been proved not to be true over and over. So then, what are we to make of the belief of the people who believe(d) in them?

I say that the truth of the existence of their belief does not guarantee the truth of the object of their belief.
Your examples are good ones, and granted there are people who will "go on believing" in something regardless of information to the contrary presented them. Belief today is, sadly, a word whose meaning encompasses many things, not all of them actually beliefs. In my opinion, clinging to old "tried and true" ways beyond reason is not belief, self-delusion is not belief, and if you press those Young Earthers as to why they maintain what they say I would not be surprised to hear it's because someone they trust says so. That's not belief either, at least not in the topic --that is belief in the other person.

The people who long ago actually believed that the earth was flat did not believing in something that was untrue. You are judging their belief based on our facts, not theirs. Their "earth" was not a planet but the unbound world. Their model of the universe fit the facts available to them at the time. New information has provided US (in the modern world) with a more accurate model and made the old model obsolete, but that says nothing about them and their model --the old model was true. It fit their observations. When I drop a pencil, it falls. This is a true statement, even though new information has provided us with a model that has space bending according to the relative density of masses.

There is also the consideration that what they believed in was mythic: spiritual models that had the world as a living entity, or where the four corners are the pillars or world trees that hold up the heavens. In that case, though, because they lived in a world as a participant in the myth, there was no significant difference to them belief-wise between the profession that the earth literally has four corners and the non-literal meaning of those corners, just as there is no significant distinction made between a symbol and the thing a symbol represents.

Those modern people who have professed belief that "their faith in God" will protect them from misfortune or disaster I am uncertain about, so I have no explanation. I cannot put myself into their shoes, so I cannot know what they are really talking about. At times I see them as fools with no real understanding of god, or god's role in their lives, but that's may be because I'm too self-centered to bother trying to understand them. I have little patience for humans. ;) And, too, perhaps the definition of belief is being abused again in that case.

That's what I meant when I mentioned that there are different usages of the word "true" and why I drew a distinction between "belief" and "knowledge."
Right. You said, "Anything I can't prove is a belief, not knowledge. Both belief and knowledge can lead to wisdom, and both can be true."

So we do have different ideas going here, you and I. And this is where I have to define things. My "beliefs" exist irregardless of "the truth". "The truth" is an accurate understanding of reality. It is based on knowledge, and yes, it is available to everyone because knowledge is available to everyone. "True" is a checkmark we give when our observation of something matches our understanding (which includes but is not limited to the facts).

We do not make truth, we only recognize and acknowledge the perception of something that already exists.

When I said that people can only believe in things that are true, I did not mean that they can only believe in things that are proven. I did not mean they believe in "the truth".

If only one person knows something true, that's enough for the truth to be known.
But it is not enough for it to be known by anyone other than him. That was my point.
That doesn't make it any less true.
EDIT: I should have said "that truth" above, to differentiate it from "the truth".

Let's say "the truth" has a consciousness and wants to be known by everyone. You have an experience that reveals this truth to you. Now you know it. You tell me about your experience and about this truth. What do I know as a result? Do I know this truth? Or do I know what you have told me about it? A truth that wishes to be known has only two options: (1) provide you with objective proof -- in the form of observable phenomena or a re-creatable experience, for instance -- that you can share with me, or (2) reveal itself independently (or simultaneously) to both of us.

I would ask you, if there is "a truth" that can be known, then how would you account for different people sincerely holding diametrically opposing beliefs about the same concept? The difference between a theist and an atheist, for instance.
Because truth is not about us (everyone) knowing it.

For the same reason, some people will never be willing or able to grasp your "techniques for developing thought" to gain esoteric knowledge.

We began this discussion with the idea that belief is in true things. I didn't intend to suggest that it is belief in "the truth".

I believe in God. I do not believe that we have a set "purpose" or "meaning" to life. Life is not a statement, therefore it does not have meaning. And don't try to split hairs with me. The crap that everyone says about "what's the meaning of life?' and "why are we here?" pisses me off. As I proved above, life cannot have any meaning per se, so get a different word for it or shut your faces. And as for why we're here, well, it's for one or both of two reasons: 1) We are here as part of a divine purpose 2) We are here because we have so evolved.

Why must we apply our own definitions to the universe to make life worthwhile? Life is here, and that is enough reason for it to exist. It needs no justification. What people are trying to get at is the basic disconnect between our artificial society and what we were meant for (you can take "meant for" either in an evolutionary or spiritual sense, it comes out to the same thing, which is not our current society).

So let's say (insert deity/universal spirit/whatever divine entity of your choice here) has put us each here for a reason. Why should we assume that we can or should know what that reason is? To do so borders on hubris, and is useless besides. You cannot measure your full impact on the world without being omniscient, and so you can't know what the most important aspect of your life will be.

Sorry it took so long for me to respond to this, but it was pleasantly challenging.

That assumption is only there if you mistake "true" for "the truth". More on that later.


Your examples are good ones, and granted there are people who will "go on believing" in something regardless of information to the contrary presented them. Belief today is, sadly, a word whose meaning encompasses many things, not all of them actually beliefs. In my opinion, clinging to old "tried and true" ways beyond reason is not belief, self-delusion is not belief, and if you press those Young Earthers as to why they maintain what they say I would not be surprised to hear it's because someone they trust says so. That's not belief either, at least not in the topic --that is belief in the other person.

The people who long ago actually believed that the earth was flat did not believing in something that was untrue. You are judging their belief based on our facts, not theirs. Their "earth" was not a planet but the unbound world. Their model of the universe fit the facts available to them at the time. New information has provided US (in the modern world) with a more accurate model and made the old model obsolete, but that says nothing about them and their model --the old model was true. It fit their observations. When I drop a pencil, it falls. This is a true statement, even though new information has provided us with a model that has space bending according to the relative density of masses.

There is also the consideration that what they believed in was mythic: spiritual models that had the world as a living entity, or where the four corners are the pillars or world trees that hold up the heavens. In that case, though, because they lived in a world as a participant in the myth, there was no significant difference to them belief-wise between the profession that the earth literally has four corners and the non-literal meaning of those corners, just as there is no significant distinction made between a symbol and the thing a symbol represents.

Those modern people who have professed belief that "their faith in God" will protect them from misfortune or disaster I am uncertain about, so I have no explanation. I cannot put myself into their shoes, so I cannot know what they are really talking about. At times I see them as fools with no real understanding of god, or god's role in their lives, but that's may be because I'm too self-centered to bother trying to understand them. I have little patience for humans. ;) And, too, perhaps the definition of belief is being abused again in that case.
I see that you are using a strict definition of “belief.” I am using “belief” in a less stringent, standard dictionary usage. I think I am more interested in the concept of belief as used in the verb “to believe.” Everything I’m saying here is focused more on how people are thinking than on what they are thinking. So I guess my distinction between “belief” and “knowledge” is dependent on the thought already having been filtered through a human thought process.

In re “The people who long ago actually believed that the earth was flat did not believing in something that was untrue,” actually, the theory that the earth was not flat was around pretty much the whole time that the official story was that it was flat. Not-flat had not been proven by circumnavigation, but there were pretty good (for the times) mathematical proofs and proofs based on astronomical observation. So there was a choice of things to believe. The mythic flat earth concept was chosen over the scientific spherical earth concept, and was not displaced until something more concrete than the previous proofs was delivered, i.e. actual circumnavigation. Even then, it took a while for the idea to take hold with the general public. This sort of thing, this preference for belief over knowledge, happens all the time.

By the way, your quite excellent paragraph about -- I guess I’ll call it a mythic consciousness in which there is “no significant distinction made between a symbol and the thing a symbol represents,” may also explain Young Earthers. At least those who are not motivated solely by political or social status considerations (the minority, probably).

Right. You said, "Anything I can't prove is a belief, not knowledge. Both belief and knowledge can lead to wisdom, and both can be true."

So we do have different ideas going here, you and I. And this is where I have to define things. My "beliefs" exist irregardless of "the truth". "The truth" is an accurate understanding of reality. It is based on knowledge, and yes, it is available to everyone because knowledge is available to everyone. "True" is a checkmark we give when our observation of something matches our understanding (which includes but is not limited to the facts).

We do not make truth, we only recognize and acknowledge the perception of something that already exists.

When I said that people can only believe in things that are true, I did not mean that they can only believe in things that are proven. I did not mean they believe in "the truth".
Ah, now I get where you’re coming from. We might still have a few niggling differences about the nature of “truth,” but in general, I can agree with this. I think the biggest difference is that you seem to place the greatest importance on a “truth” that exists independently of human consciousness, while I place the greatest importance on the “truths” that exist within human consciousness.

That doesn't make it any less true.
EDIT: I should have said "that truth" above, to differentiate it from "the truth".


Because truth is not about us (everyone) knowing it.

For the same reason, some people will never be willing or able to grasp your "techniques for developing thought" to gain esoteric knowledge.

We began this discussion with the idea that belief is in true things. I didn't intend to suggest that it is belief in "the truth".
I feel like you’re evading my question. Is either the atheist or the theist right? Can either of them be right? In other words, does either one of them have an idea that more closely matches “the truth” than the other? Is that possible?

My own take on it is that I do not know whether either of their views reflects "the truth," so I refuse to declare right or wrong on either of them. Anytime I am asked which view I think is correct -- i.e. true -- I can only answer “I don’t know.”

Sorry it took so long for me to respond to this, but it was pleasantly challenging.


I see that you are using a strict definition of “belief.” I am using “belief” in a less stringent, standard dictionary usage. I think I am more interested in the concept of belief as used in the verb “to believe.” Everything I’m saying here is focused more on how people are thinking than on what they are thinking. So I guess my distinction between “belief” and “knowledge” is dependent on the thought already having been filtered through a human thought process.

In re “The people who long ago actually believed that the earth was flat did not believing in something that was untrue,” actually, the theory that the earth was not flat was around pretty much the whole time that the official story was that it was flat. Not-flat had not been proven by circumnavigation, but there were pretty good (for the times) mathematical proofs and proofs based on astronomical observation. So there was a choice of things to believe. The mythic flat earth concept was chosen over the scientific spherical earth concept, and was not displaced until something more concrete than the previous proofs was delivered, i.e. actual circumnavigation. Even then, it took a while for the idea to take hold with the general public. This sort of thing, this preference for belief over knowledge, happens all the time.

By the way, your quite excellent paragraph about -- I guess I’ll call it a mythic consciousness in which there is “no significant distinction made between a symbol and the thing a symbol represents,” may also explain Young Earthers. At least those who are not motivated solely by political or social status considerations (the minority, probably).
Thank you for the complements.

Re the flat earth thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth), I just looked it up, curious about more details. I knew that people knew that the earth was not flat long before the idea was popularized; it's basic to astrology. Wikipedia, though, places the belief in flat earth at 1828 with the publication of a book about 'The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus', but I imagine the fellow who wrote that got the idea from somewhere else. The mythic 'four corners of the earth' is... much older.

Ah, now I get where you’re coming from. We might still have a few niggling differences about the nature of “truth,” but in general, I can agree with this. I think the biggest difference is that you seem to place the greatest importance on a “truth” that exists independently of human consciousness, while I place the greatest importance on the “truths” that exist within human consciousness.
I place the greatest importance for anything in life on the individual's perspective. That's the one that matters to us.

I feel like you’re evading my question. Is either the atheist or the theist right? Can either of them be right? In other words, does either one of them have an idea that more closely matches “the truth” than the other? Is that possible?

My own take on it is that I do not know whether either of their views reflects "the truth," so I refuse to declare right or wrong on either of them. Anytime I am asked which view I think is correct -- i.e. true -- I can only answer “I don’t know.”
I am agnostic for a different reason than you. I am agnostic because, through a study of mythology, I have had 'supernatural' defined in such a way that it made sense, and religion (all of them) made sense. It was quite a pleasing epiphany, as I could no longer be undecided. My view is that the supernatural cannot be known, and therefore its existence is irrelevant to religion (as much as some people would have us place all our faith on the fact of it).

The theist is right if they do not mistake the Image of God for god.

The atheist is right to criticize belief in the literality of the Image of God.

Thank you for the complements.

Re the flat earth thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth), I just looked it up, curious about more details. I knew that people knew that the earth was not flat long before the idea was popularized; it's basic to astrology. Wikipedia, though, places the belief in flat earth at 1828 with the publication of a book about 'The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus', but I imagine the fellow who wrote that got the idea from somewhere else. The mythic 'four corners of the earth' is... much older.
Damned American educational system. They get everything all mixed up. If we are to take Wiki's word for it, it would seem possible that there was, in 1828, a conflation of the existence of a very ancient mythic description of the world with what was actually, generally believed to be true based on real world observations at various points in history. I guess the only real issue then, and of course, Columbus et al. had nothing to do with this, was whether the earth revolved around the sun or the other way around.

Of course, I could have remembered this, if I had remembered that the stated purpose of Columbus's (et al's) voyages was not to prove the earth was spherical but to find another route from Europe to Asia.

I place the greatest importance for anything in life on the individual's perspective. That's the one that matters to us.
Then we are even closer than I thought. Perhaps it is just a semantical difference after all. I hate semantics. I find it even more troublesome than the idea of god itself.

I am agnostic for a different reason than you. I am agnostic because, through a study of mythology, I have had 'supernatural' defined in such a way that it made sense, and religion (all of them) made sense. It was quite a pleasing epiphany, as I could no longer be undecided. My view is that the supernatural cannot be known, and therefore its existence is irrelevant to religion (as much as some people would have us place all our faith on the fact of it).
And getting even closer. I might call myself "equivocal" rather than "agnostic," but I got there in a similar manner.

Personally, I reject the notion of the "supernatural." I think that anything that exists or occurs in the universe is, by definition, "natural" and, therefore, nothing is "supernatural." I include the divine in this. If there is such a thing, then it is not supernatural, imo.

The theist is right if they do not mistake the Image of God for god.

The atheist is right to criticize belief in the literality of the Image of God.
I don't know if that's quite the distinction I would draw, but it works well enough.

Let's say "the truth" has a consciousness and wants to be known by everyone. You have an experience that reveals this truth to you. Now you know it. You tell me about your experience and about this truth. What do I know as a result? Do I know this truth? Or do I know what you have told me about it? A truth that wishes to be known has only two options: (1) provide you with objective proof -- in the form of observable phenomena or a re-creatable experience, for instance -- that you can share with me, or (2) reveal itself independently (or simultaneously) to both of us.

I would ask you, if there is "a truth" that can be known, then how would you account for different people sincerely holding diametrically opposing beliefs about the same concept? The difference between a theist and an atheist, for instance.
The difference between the theist and the atheist is a unique case of opposing views, because it is belief in a thing that we have no way of knowing. There is no truth about the existence of god that can be known. The atheist and the theist are more often at odds about faith in this thing, belief in witness testamony, and the nature of knowing about this thing (the signs).

People will be people.

Personally, I reject the notion of the "supernatural." I think that anything that exists or occurs in the universe is, by definition, "natural" and, therefore, nothing is "supernatural."
Close! Now just keep that thought, while remembing that the supernatural does not occur in this universe and you've got it. ;)

Close! Now just keep that thought, while remembing that the supernatural does not occur in this universe and you've got it. ;)
Well, see I tend to expand the concept of "nature" to include everything that exists. I see "nature/natural" as descriptive of a thing's condition, not its location in a place -- or rather, in this context, I use "nature" as a synonym for reality. There may be any number of universes, dimensions, etc. There may even be a reality that is not encompassed within any universe (if universes are astronomical objects). Every one of such things -- anything that exists -- is real and therefore natural. So anything that happens in them is also natural. So even if a thing exists/happens in a different universe from ours, or outside of a universe altogether, it is still natural, in my opinion.

I tend to avoid using words like "supernatural" or "unnatural" except in limited ways in specific contexts. I use "supernatural" generally to describe a literary/artistic genre. I can't remember the last time I used the world "unnatural" outside of being sarcastic about someone. I might use "not natural" in a superficial way to describe something man-made as opposed to organic -- like something made out of plastic versus something made out of wood -- though now that I think about it, I generally use the word "artificial" as the antonym for "natural" in that case.

The difference between the theist and the atheist is a unique case of opposing views, because it is belief in a thing that we have no way of knowing. There is no truth about the existence of god that can be known. The atheist and the theist are more often at odds about faith in this thing, belief in witness testamony, and the nature of knowing about this thing (the signs).

People will be people.
That's exactly what I've been saying all along.

Well, see I tend to expand the concept of "nature" to include everything that exists. I see "nature/natural" as descriptive of a thing's condition, not its location in a place -- or rather, in this context, I use "nature" as a synonym for reality. There may be any number of universes, dimensions, etc. There may even be a reality that is not encompassed within any universe (if universes are astronomical objects). Every one of such things -- anything that exists -- is real and therefore natural. So anything that happens in them is also natural. So even if a thing exists/happens in a different universe from ours, or outside of a universe altogether, it is still natural, in my opinion.
What is existing? What is the opposite of existing? Metaphysics (i.e. some bright fellows three millennia ago who thought about things a lot) says some things that we still accept as axiomatic today. Existence is something, non-existence is nothing (no thing). There is only existence and non-existence, no inbetweenies. If you accept that, then you accept that things that exist are something, not nothing.

But not everything that exists is real; we talk often about unreal things. Imaginings are a simple example: something that is imagined is not real. If I image what you look like, that has nothing to do with reality. Hallucinations are not real, as are illusions --something that is not what it appears to be. Things that have not yet happened (have the potential to happen in the future) are also unreal.

Now, you may say those things also do not exist, but then... the antithesis of existence is non-existence, i.e. nothing, and they most certainly are not nothing; they are something. I really DO have an image in my mind of what you look like. (If they were nothing, we would have "no thing" to talk about!) And while the experience of some of them might seem (or be) real to one individual, it is unreal to everyone else.

I think reality is two things, one definition archaic and one much newer: one definition has reality as everything that is verifiable. We verify what is real through observation and experience (including science). For example, if something happens to you, I can know if it's real if I experience it too. This is the definition that allows for things to be unreal. The other definition has reality as the ideal of existence, something we compare our knowledge of existence against to judge its veracity. Reality here is something we will always strive towards with our increased knowledge through science, but can never know directly.

Do you see how close the two definitions are, related? And yet these definitions reflect two grossly adverse world-view philosophies. One empowers us to be the verifiers of reality, the other takes that power away and assigns it to an objective ideal.

(Need I mention that ideals are unreal? ;))

I tend to avoid using words like "supernatural" or "unnatural" except in limited ways in specific contexts. I use "supernatural" generally to describe a literary/artistic genre. I can't remember the last time I used the world "unnatural" outside of being sarcastic about someone. I might use "not natural" in a superficial way to describe something man-made as opposed to organic -- like something made out of plastic versus something made out of wood -- though now that I think about it, I generally use the word "artificial" as the antonym for "natural" in that case.
I'd like to hear more about that genre.

"Unnatural" is not a word I ever recall using. Generally, the context for it that comes to mind is ...well, mind, such as unnatural thoughts. Of course, that refers to the content of the thought, not the brain function.

I am making no such distinction. My preferences are a part of me, but they are not ultimately a result of me. Sure my choices can be traced back to me, but to stop there ignores reality almost entirely.

Why shouldn't we stop there? The self cannot determine itself; before it is determined there is nothing it can determine.

That which you call "self-determination" can easily be traced back to natural forces.

Of course.

It is a necessity of our existence that we maintain it. The whole of our existence is only a means of supporting the existence of the whole.

But the fact that our existence has certain qualities doesn't mean that the purpose, in a metaphysical "meaning"/"proper role" sense, of our existence is to have those qualities.

<snip>

Well, okay. But what if I said that the higher purpose of life wasn't "peace, love, and understanding," but rather war, hate, and irrational intolerance? What kind of quality could the universe have that would make one be the "proper" purpose and the other not?

I know you don't agree with the philosophy; I'm just curious to hear an answer, and I'm directing the question at anyone who has one.

Well, see I tend to expand the concept of "nature" to include everything that exists. I see "nature/natural" as descriptive of a thing's condition, not its location in a place -- or rather, in this context, I use "nature" as a synonym for reality. There may be any number of universes, dimensions, etc. There may even be a reality that is not encompassed within any universe (if universes are astronomical objects). Every one of such things -- anything that exists -- is real and therefore natural. So anything that happens in them is also natural. So even if a thing exists/happens in a different universe from ours, or outside of a universe altogether, it is still natural, in my opinion.

I tend to avoid using words like "supernatural" or "unnatural" except in limited ways in specific contexts. I use "supernatural" generally to describe a literary/artistic genre. I can't remember the last time I used the world "unnatural" outside of being sarcastic about someone. I might use "not natural" in a superficial way to describe something man-made as opposed to organic -- like something made out of plastic versus something made out of wood -- though now that I think about it, I generally use the word "artificial" as the antonym for "natural" in that case.
So I told you my ideas about existence and reality, but then I had to run off for lunch, so I'd better finish this.

I see "nature" as everything that composes reality (by either definition I gave) that we can know: solids, liquids, gasses, energy... basically "stuff", and all the relationships between that stuff: concepts, natural laws, social relationships, forces, etc. This leaves lots of room for anything else "not-stuff" to exist.

That stuff is all the things we can know, but (excuse the triple-negative) we can't know that there's not things we can't know. Being limited creatures, we can be pretty darn sure of it, though. The 'supernatural' falls into that category of unknown/unknowable.

I'm a fan of science fiction, but I don't know what-for from multiple universes and dimensions. If they are natural, they are stuff that we can know.

Other: Regardless of Creators, there is no higher fate, no higher purpose, no higher destiny. We forge our own purpose. We are free.

Our purpose is to bring glory to our Creator.

For modern people, that would be our progenitor, Chimpanzee.

For fundies, that would be Almighty God, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe.

Our purpose is to bring glory to our Creator.

For modern people, that would be our progenitor, Chimpanzee.

For fundies, that would be Almighty God, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe.

And what does that Creator think of misleading people? Or do you actually think that it's a modern belief that we come from chimpanzees?

Our purpose is to bring glory to our Creator.

Maybe our Creator thinks so, sure, and maybe that's what she intended when she created us. But is it really?

So we do have different ideas going here, you and I. And this is where I have to define things. My "beliefs" exist irregardless of "the truth". "The truth" is an accurate understanding of reality. It is based on knowledge, and yes, it is available to everyone because knowledge is available to everyone. "True" is a checkmark we give when our observation of something matches our understanding (which includes but is not limited to the facts).

I cannot buy your separation of the words "truth" and "true." Both mean "in accordance with reality or fact," true being the adjective, truth being the noun.

I also do not agree that something is true depending on our level of ignorance. You would be better off abandoning the concept altogether.

Why shouldn't we stop there?

You may if your conscience permits it.

The self cannot determine itself; before it is determined there is nothing it can determine.

So self-determination is impossible?

But the fact that our existence has certain qualities doesn't mean that the purpose, in a metaphysical "meaning"/"proper role" sense, of our existence is to have those qualities.

That is very true, I am explaining that from my view, that there is a necessary niche that we fulfill with our existence, and in that sense we are given a purpose.

So self-determination is impossible?

In that sense, yes. Which is not the same thing as free will. We cannot control the essence of what we are (because there is nothing to do the controlling), but we still determine our own actions.

That is very true, I am explaining that from my view, that there is a necessary niche that we fulfill with our existence, and in that sense we are given a purpose.

Fair enough.

I cannot buy your separation of the words "truth" and "true." Both mean "in accordance with reality or fact," true being the adjective, truth being the noun.
We were discussing the different contexts of "true", though, not word classes.

I also do not agree that something is true depending on our level of ignorance. You would be better off abandoning the concept altogether.
Actually, depending on defined reality, which is our level of understanding, not on our ignorance. We can only know what we can know.

Maybe our Creator thinks so, sure, and maybe that's what she intended when she created us. But is it really?

Gaia loves us, and the USA is killing Gaia with pollution. I hate USA. :(

Gaia loves us, and the USA is killing Gaia with pollution. I hate USA. :(

I don't know about that "Gaia loves us" assertion. What does she have against Indonesians and Pakistanis?

We were discussing the different contexts of "true", though, not word classes.

I understand that, I am just saying that truth is a noun that means "something that is true." They cannot be separated because they mean the same thing.

Actually, depending on defined reality, which is our level of understanding, not on our ignorance. We can only know what we can know.

It is both our level of understanding and ignorance.

In that sense, yes. Which is not the same thing as free will. We cannot control the essence of what we are (because there is nothing to do the controlling), but we still determine our own actions.

OK, but I have already registered my dissatisfaction with your concept of free will.

Gaia loves us, and the USA is killing Gaia with pollution. I hate USA. :(

Gaia has been killing us far longer than we have been killing it.

OK, but I have already registered my dissatisfaction with your concept of free will.

Is there a coherent concept of free will with which you would be satisfied?

I understand that, I am just saying that truth is a noun that means "something that is true." They cannot be separated because they mean the same thing.
Well, my dictionary lists 17 contexts for "true", but I chose to talk about the ones that were pertinent to the conversation I was having.

It is both our level of understanding and ignorance.
Not really. If something is dependent upon a quantity of a thing, it can hardly be said to be equally dependent upon the lack of that thing.

Well, my dictionary lists 17 contexts for "true", but I chose to talk about the ones that were pertinent to the conversation I was having.

OK, but if you say something was true, it was also the truth.

Not really. If something is dependent upon a quantity of a thing, it can hardly be said to be equally dependent upon the lack of that thing.

There is nothing between ignorance and understanding.

If something is true because we have limited understanding, it is true because we are ignorant of those things that make it false.

Is there a coherent concept of free will with which you would be satisfied?

Any meaningful free will is logically absurd.

Any meaningful free will is logically absurd.

Fair enough, then. We clearly differ on what sort of free will is "meaningful."

What is existing? What is the opposite of existing? Metaphysics (i.e. some bright fellows three millennia ago who thought about things a lot) says some things that we still accept as axiomatic today. Existence is something, non-existence is nothing (no thing). There is only existence and non-existence, no inbetweenies. If you accept that, then you accept that things that exist are something, not nothing.

But not everything that exists is real; we talk often about unreal things. Imaginings are a simple example: something that is imagined is not real. If I image what you look like, that has nothing to do with reality. Hallucinations are not real, as are illusions --something that is not what it appears to be. Things that have not yet happened (have the potential to happen in the future) are also unreal.

Now, you may say those things also do not exist, but then... the antithesis of existence is non-existence, i.e. nothing, and they most certainly are not nothing; they are something. I really DO have an image in my mind of what you look like. (If they were nothing, we would have "no thing" to talk about!) And while the experience of some of them might seem (or be) real to one individual, it is unreal to everyone else.

I think reality is two things, one definition archaic and one much newer: one definition has reality as everything that is verifiable. We verify what is real through observation and experience (including science). For example, if something happens to you, I can know if it's real if I experience it too. This is the definition that allows for things to be unreal. The other definition has reality as the ideal of existence, something we compare our knowledge of existence against to judge its veracity. Reality here is something we will always strive towards with our increased knowledge through science, but can never know directly.

Do you see how close the two definitions are, related? And yet these definitions reflect two grossly adverse world-view philosophies. One empowers us to be the verifiers of reality, the other takes that power away and assigns it to an objective ideal.

(Need I mention that ideals are unreal? ;))
I'm sorry, but adding "real/unreal" to the conversation just opens another can of conceptual worms for me. Okay, let me lay this out.

AGREED: There is existence, and there is non-existence. These are two absolute conditions, meaning that if one applies to you, then the other does not. No mixing.

ACCEPTED: Things that exist are real. Things that do not exist are not real. WITH THE CAVEAT: We cannot definitively know that a thing does not exist (things like God, etc). When we say "there is no such thing as..." we are really just expressing a very high degree of likelihood, not an absolute certainty.

AS TO REALITY OR UNREALITY: I think that when I said nature is reality, you assumed I meant a world of physical objects or measurable or observable phenomena. That is not what I meant at all. Imaginings, hallucinations, illusions, ideals, dreams, emotions, etc, etc -- all are real, even though they have no physical form. We imagine something, or we hallucinate -- the content of what we sense or think may not be real, but the sensation and the thought are definitely real. We dream -- the content of the dream is not real, but the dream is real. Even an illusion is real, as it is an effect of light or whathaveyou that can be observed. What the illusion makes us think we are seeing is not real, but the illusion effect is.

So all these immaterial things are real, and therefore, part of nature.

I am torn about whether the future exists now or the past continues to exist now. I personally think it is unlikely, but on the other hand I was a professional fortuneteller for a short time... I have a feeling this is another potential truth that I consider to be unknowable and, therefore, irrelevant.

I'd like to hear more about that genre.
Oh, it's just the genre -- or subgenre, really -- of supernatural horror/suspense (scary) and supernatural fantasy (not scary). It involves all the standard props -- magic, monsters, ghosts, vampires, werewolves, etc, etc. It's just a publisher's and filmmaker's category label. So, for instance, Ann Rice's books are supernatural dark fantasy. "Pirates of the Caribbean" was an adventure with supernatural genre elements -- the undead pirates and the cursed gold. But "Terminator" is science fiction, not supernatural. Bigfoot movies/books are speculative, not supernatural. Book publishers often print these terms on the back covers of books so stores will know where to display them.

That is exactly how I use the word.

"Unnatural" is not a word I ever recall using. Generally, the context for it that comes to mind is ...well, mind, such as unnatural thoughts. Of course, that refers to the content of the thought, not the brain function.
I only use it as hyperbole.

So I told you my ideas about existence and reality, but then I had to run off for lunch, so I'd better finish this.

I see "nature" as everything that composes reality (by either definition I gave) that we can know: solids, liquids, gasses, energy... basically "stuff", and all the relationships between that stuff: concepts, natural laws, social relationships, forces, etc. This leaves lots of room for anything else "not-stuff" to exist.

That stuff is all the things we can know, but (excuse the triple-negative) we can't know that there's not things we can't know. Being limited creatures, we can be pretty darn sure of it, though. The 'supernatural' falls into that category of unknown/unknowable.

I'm a fan of science fiction, but I don't know what-for from multiple universes and dimensions. If they are natural, they are stuff that we can know.
Well, I went into more depth on this in my previous post (above), but I would add this:

Any time I say a thing is "unknowable," we may read "at the present time" as assumed. I do not believe there is a limit to what we can comprehend. There is only a limit to what we (any given person) do comprehend at any given moment.

OK, but if you say something was true, it was also the truth.
So, rather than making truth dependent on knowledge, you are making it dependent upon claims of knowledge?

There is nothing between ignorance and understanding.

If something is true because we have limited understanding, it is true because we are ignorant of those things that make it false.
I never said it "is true because we have limited understanding."

I'm sorry, but adding "real/unreal" to the conversation just opens another can of conceptual worms for me. Okay, let me lay this out.

AGREED: There is existence, and there is non-existence. These are two absolute conditions, meaning that if one applies to you, then the other does not. No mixing.

ACCEPTED: Things that exist are real. Things that do not exist are not real. WITH THE CAVEAT: We cannot definitively know that a thing does not exist (things like God, etc). When we say "there is no such thing as..." we are really just expressing a very high degree of likelihood, not an absolute certainty.
Well, agreed, except I wouldn't say "things that do not exist are not real", I would say, rather, that there are unreal things. Re the supernatural, yes, we cannot know anything about it one way or the other.

AS TO REALITY OR UNREALITY: I think that when I said nature is reality, you assumed I meant a world of physical objects or measurable or observable phenomena. That is not what I meant at all. Imaginings, hallucinations, illusions, ideals, dreams, emotions, etc, etc -- all are real, even though they have no physical form. We imagine something, or we hallucinate -- the content of what we sense or think may not be real, but the sensation and the thought are definitely real. We dream -- the content of the dream is not real, but the dream is real. Even an illusion is real, as it is an effect of light or whathaveyou that can be observed. What the illusion makes us think we are seeing is not real, but the illusion effect is.
That content is what I was talking about; not the mechanics, the image.

So all these immaterial things are real, and therefore, part of nature.
The mechanism of them is.

I am torn about whether the future exists now or the past continues to exist now. I personally think it is unlikely, but on the other hand I was a professional fortuneteller for a short time... I have a feeling this is another potential truth that I consider to be unknowable and, therefore, irrelevant.


Oh, it's just the genre -- or subgenre, really -- of supernatural horror/suspense (scary) and supernatural fantasy (not scary). It involves all the standard props -- magic, monsters, ghosts, vampires, werewolves, etc, etc. It's just a publisher's and filmmaker's category label. So, for instance, Ann Rice's books are supernatural dark fantasy. "Pirates of the Caribbean" was an adventure with supernatural genre elements -- the undead pirates and the cursed gold. But "Terminator" is science fiction, not supernatural. Bigfoot movies/books are speculative, not supernatural. Book publishers often print these terms on the back covers of books so stores will know where to display them.

That is exactly how I use the word.

I only use it as hyperbole.
Ah. Cool. :)

Well, agreed, except I wouldn't say "things that do not exist are not real", I would say, rather, that there are unreal things.
I get you, but for some reason, my brain keeps insisting that the things you listed as examples of the "unreal" are really...real. (Uh-oh, we're veering into PDQ Bach territory; we'll soon starting singing songs about "really real reality." ;))

Re the supernatural, yes, we cannot know anything about it one way or the other.
But do you get the difference in what I'm saying? Let's take god as an example of a thing we can't know anything about. And let's assume for the sake of the point that god exists. You seem to be saying that we cannot know anything about god one way or the other because god is supernatural -- implication: we can only know about natural things, so a thing we cannot know about is supernatural.

I am trying to say that god is natural, i.e. within the concept of nature, and thus, can be comprehended. Right now, we do not have a means of proving god, so, by the way I use the words, we cannot know that god exists, because we cannot demonstrate, show, or prove that god exists. But we can still believe that god exists, which can be another way of comprehending that is not dependent on proof. The downside of belief is that it cannot be shared in its most direct form.

Now, because I do not think there is a limit to what we are capable of comprehending, there may come a time when the truth about god is known. But right now it is not, and it seems that we have not yet discovered how to translate belief in god into knowledge about god. That does not imply, however, that nobody ever will discover how to do that. So, for now, god is unknowable.

But, for me, that does not mean he is not solidly within the realm of nature.

EDIT: I'm not trying to persuade you that I'm right. I'm just trying to explain how I think.

That content is what I was talking about; not the mechanics, the image.
Well, okay, I was trying to avoid attracting the attention of the hard-core materialists/realists out there, but yes, I do think there is a likelihood that the content of those things is real in and of itself. But I have a feeling this would be where our concepts of what constitutes "real" would diverge quite a bit. However, do we really want to get into something quite that esoteric? I'll have to limber up for that.

The mechanism of them is.
Yes, but see above. Also, I think it fairly obvious that ideas are real. Even though they are not objects, they certainly have the same impact on the object world as objects do.

Somebody mention a purpose to life? 42



true true, I belive that a man does what he can untill his destiny is revealed to him.

Wow, this is a long thread, I can't possibly read the whole thing right now (I've read about half of it, and it seems to be mostly pointless arguing), so I don't know if what I'm going to say has already been said, but here goes anyway.

Firstly I will say my own personal opinion on this, now I'm an Atheist so Obviously I don't believe in any Creator(s), and I don't really believe in any meaning of life or anything like that.

Now as to the question of whether it is necessary to believe in a Creator to believe in a meaning of life. Is there any Argument/Belief system/Philosophy etc. that doesn't believe in an Intelligent creator but Does believe in a meaning to life?

Well the answer to that is Yes, Buddhism for one.
Buddhists do not believe in a God or Creator, they apparently don't even believe that the Universe was Created (i.e. Started), it's more of a continues cycle thing, with no beginning and no end.
However Buddhists do believe life has meaning (obviously they've built a whole religion around it). What that meaning is exactly, I'm not sure, I'm not an expert in the religion, for that you'll have to ask a Buddhist (probably some monk who's spent his life meditating on it;) ).

So my answer to this is, it may be that you/we are looking at it from a skewed, western religious perspective. i.e. "If God does not Exist then there is no meaning of life" whereas an Eastern Perspective can be quite different "There is no God, but there is still a Cosmic meaning of life".

Now as an Atheist (and someone trying to become a scientist), I don't agree with either the Western or Eastern Religious philosophies on this, and simply take the view that (as someone else put it a similar way earlier) asking "What is the meaning of life?" is the same as asking "What is the meaning of a Rock?", or "What is the meaning of a particular Atom?" they don't have meaning, they just exist as a result of Natural processes!

Also on the interesting question of "If we were created by a God, does that inherently mean that he/it intended to Create us and do we have an inherent purpose?", my answer to that is No, not necessarily.
Think about the "theological" possibilities, what if "God" created us by complete accident and had not intended to create us, and has no purpose for us.
In that case you would have a God, but no Purpose. (No meaning of life).

Suppose I was a scientist in a Laboratory and I slipped and smashed over some beakers containing Organic materials, and by chance I created life, now I didn't intend to do it and I have no purpose in mind for this new life.

Now I don't believe in that possibility for explaining our existence, as I stated earlier, but some may believe it, it is a possible theological position.

Also it's interesting (and encouraging) to see that the Atheists (or agnostics or whatever) are winning the poll, by quite a margin.

There is no purpose or meaning other than that which we create for ourselves.

This is my belief, this is the truth.
At least for now.

;)

God, the Creator, Made heavenly beings to worship and love him ... but one guy and some of his buddies decided to let God know that they weren't gonna .. God could have destroyed them but instead gave them a place to rule too ... now there are 2 masters "heavenly" and "earthly" ... God later made man to worship and love him, but man decided maybe there are better things and ate of that tree ... now there is a war and we are the pawns ... he who has the biggest army wins and ... our purpose is to help our "creator" gain an army ... which ever side you are on ..

The bigger question is (if you believe this thought) who is gonna win?

so as far as your question of intent (if the story is believable) yes there is intent