genkaus: the one person who actually makes any sense.
Everyone else: willful ignorance.
Genkaus:
"Before putting forward a question like this you should understand the philosophical underpinnings of the concepts involved.
You are talking about meaning, i.e. the purpose, intention or significance of life here. You are not talking about a cause. For life to have a purpose, someone must have ascribed that purpose. For life to have significance, it must be significant to someone. For life to have meaning, it must be meaningful to someone. The only thing necessary about that "someone" is that he should have the necessary sentience. That is he should be able to think and to conceptualize.
That someone need not be god. That someone need not even be the cause of that life. People assign purpose and significance to things all the time. Why should life require god?"
- People do assign purpose and significance to things all the time. If that purpose ofr meaning is purely a figment of that consciousness then it is illusory. it is not real beyond being a made up belief. Any belief that purpose is real necessitates that consciousness is real. If consciousness is real, it must exist apart from our ideas of it. The only forces science believes exist apart from its observation of and ideas about are universal constants. If consciousness is a universal constant it could correctly be called "God".
If I say the meaning to life is X and you say the meaning to life is Y we both can't be right unless 1. : there actually is a real meaning to life and 2: that meaning contains the elements X and Y. If there is no real meaning but only the meaning we personally ascribe it it is illusory. To state otherwise would be to state that reality is dictated by beliefs. Even if there was only one sentient being in the entire universe who believed that Z was the meaning to life, that would not make Z real outside of that consciousness, it would just be the only illusory belief about reality held. In order for any meaning to be real consciousness must exist as a primary function of the universe, the universe must be bound by consciousness, not the other way around. That could be called "God".
"There should be something real, but that thing need not be god. That simply needs to be sentience or consciousness."
- Correct. Kinda. There Must be something real, but that thing need not be CALLED God. In order for something to be real, it must exist apart from our ideas and feelings about it. Again, the only things science believe exist apart from its observation of or ideas about them are universal forces and constants. Those forces created everything in the universe and without them nothing would or could exist. Science does not believe the sun exists because it observes it, it believes it exists because it believes in the laws of physics the fact that we observe it does not verify it's existence anymore than the fact that science doesnt observe trillions of other stars in the universe means science believes they do not exist. If there is a real sentience to the universe, it operates as a force on everything in the universe, it can not be found in a particular locality within the universe.
"My life has meaning to me. I determine the purpose and significance of my life. Even if god were real, which he is not, I would not let him dictate the purpose and significance of MY life."
- that may be, and that is all well and good, but reality is not dictated by your beliefs anymore than it is dictated by mine. If that is how you feel know that your meaning exists only in your mind. It is not real. once you dies any meaning you ascribed to yourself is gone. Your belief in personal meaning is no more rational than my belief that God exists in that case.
"The meaning of my life is not a belief. It is not an absolute fact that you simply have to accept. It is something that you have to determine. Being alive does not automatically give your life meaning. YOU need to assign a meaning to it. If you choose to escape the responsibility and let it be assigned by anyone claiming to speak for god, then life would be less meaningful."
- this is where you go off the rails. If you determine that your life has meaning you hold a belief, there is no way around it. If you determine that your life does not have meaning you still hold a belief, there is no way around it. If you are not sure whether or not your life has meaning you still hold a belief that life possibly could have meaning, there is no way around it.
Beliefs do not dicate reality, beliefs are not absolute facts which you simply have to accept. Beliefs can be wholly true, or not true at all, or somewhere in between.
If I assign meaning to something, that does not make the meaning real outside of my belief, it simply means I hold a belief, which may be true or false.
If there is no "God" (universial sentience) then life has no real meaning. it only has the illusory meaning we each personally ascribe to it. If you believe that meaning is real, you believe that your beliefs dictate reality. If you believe that then my belief in God is no more rational than your belief in meaning. That I shrugged off "personal responsibility" by attribbuting meaning to God makes no sense. You're belief in something known as "personal responsibility" doesn't exist apart from your belief about it. To believe that people have "personal responsibility" is just as irrational as your belief in "personal meaning", my belief in God, or any other held belief by anyone. If "personal responsibility" is a real thing, it must exist apart from beliefs about what "personal responsibility" is. If that is true, consciousness must be a universal constant. A belief in consciousness as a universal constant can be called a belief in "God".
There is a big difference between believing life actually has meaning and letting someone ascribe that meaniong for you. You can't ascribe that meaning to yourself. No one else can ascribe it for you. The meaning can not be "ascribed", because the meaning is real. There is actually a meaning to life. it is always the same and the same for everyone. You can't know what it is; you can try to understand it, you can question it, you can form beliefs about it, but your beliefs are not necessarily true or false.
"Actually, it is diametrically opposite. Belief in god requires suspension in belief in human perception. Belief in god requires acceptance as valid something that cannot be perceived. Validity of reality is an axiomatic truth which has to be accepted for any knowledge to be possible and every belief you hold, even your belief in god, assumes it as true. But then the idea of god goes on to try and disprove its own axiom."
- Patently false. "God" is the axiom we must accept. Validity of reality must not be assumed. All of reality is perceived through consciousness. In order to accept reality as valid we must accept that consciousness is real. If consciousness is real it must exist apart from our beliefs about it. Therefor it muswt be a universal constant. Consciousness as a universal constant can correctly be called "God".
- thankyou for a good reply.
Everyone else: willful ignorance.
Genkaus:
"Before putting forward a question like this you should understand the philosophical underpinnings of the concepts involved.
You are talking about meaning, i.e. the purpose, intention or significance of life here. You are not talking about a cause. For life to have a purpose, someone must have ascribed that purpose. For life to have significance, it must be significant to someone. For life to have meaning, it must be meaningful to someone. The only thing necessary about that "someone" is that he should have the necessary sentience. That is he should be able to think and to conceptualize.
That someone need not be god. That someone need not even be the cause of that life. People assign purpose and significance to things all the time. Why should life require god?"
- People do assign purpose and significance to things all the time. If that purpose ofr meaning is purely a figment of that consciousness then it is illusory. it is not real beyond being a made up belief. Any belief that purpose is real necessitates that consciousness is real. If consciousness is real, it must exist apart from our ideas of it. The only forces science believes exist apart from its observation of and ideas about are universal constants. If consciousness is a universal constant it could correctly be called "God".
If I say the meaning to life is X and you say the meaning to life is Y we both can't be right unless 1. : there actually is a real meaning to life and 2: that meaning contains the elements X and Y. If there is no real meaning but only the meaning we personally ascribe it it is illusory. To state otherwise would be to state that reality is dictated by beliefs. Even if there was only one sentient being in the entire universe who believed that Z was the meaning to life, that would not make Z real outside of that consciousness, it would just be the only illusory belief about reality held. In order for any meaning to be real consciousness must exist as a primary function of the universe, the universe must be bound by consciousness, not the other way around. That could be called "God".
"There should be something real, but that thing need not be god. That simply needs to be sentience or consciousness."
- Correct. Kinda. There Must be something real, but that thing need not be CALLED God. In order for something to be real, it must exist apart from our ideas and feelings about it. Again, the only things science believe exist apart from its observation of or ideas about them are universal forces and constants. Those forces created everything in the universe and without them nothing would or could exist. Science does not believe the sun exists because it observes it, it believes it exists because it believes in the laws of physics the fact that we observe it does not verify it's existence anymore than the fact that science doesnt observe trillions of other stars in the universe means science believes they do not exist. If there is a real sentience to the universe, it operates as a force on everything in the universe, it can not be found in a particular locality within the universe.
"My life has meaning to me. I determine the purpose and significance of my life. Even if god were real, which he is not, I would not let him dictate the purpose and significance of MY life."
- that may be, and that is all well and good, but reality is not dictated by your beliefs anymore than it is dictated by mine. If that is how you feel know that your meaning exists only in your mind. It is not real. once you dies any meaning you ascribed to yourself is gone. Your belief in personal meaning is no more rational than my belief that God exists in that case.
"The meaning of my life is not a belief. It is not an absolute fact that you simply have to accept. It is something that you have to determine. Being alive does not automatically give your life meaning. YOU need to assign a meaning to it. If you choose to escape the responsibility and let it be assigned by anyone claiming to speak for god, then life would be less meaningful."
- this is where you go off the rails. If you determine that your life has meaning you hold a belief, there is no way around it. If you determine that your life does not have meaning you still hold a belief, there is no way around it. If you are not sure whether or not your life has meaning you still hold a belief that life possibly could have meaning, there is no way around it.
Beliefs do not dicate reality, beliefs are not absolute facts which you simply have to accept. Beliefs can be wholly true, or not true at all, or somewhere in between.
If I assign meaning to something, that does not make the meaning real outside of my belief, it simply means I hold a belief, which may be true or false.
If there is no "God" (universial sentience) then life has no real meaning. it only has the illusory meaning we each personally ascribe to it. If you believe that meaning is real, you believe that your beliefs dictate reality. If you believe that then my belief in God is no more rational than your belief in meaning. That I shrugged off "personal responsibility" by attribbuting meaning to God makes no sense. You're belief in something known as "personal responsibility" doesn't exist apart from your belief about it. To believe that people have "personal responsibility" is just as irrational as your belief in "personal meaning", my belief in God, or any other held belief by anyone. If "personal responsibility" is a real thing, it must exist apart from beliefs about what "personal responsibility" is. If that is true, consciousness must be a universal constant. A belief in consciousness as a universal constant can be called a belief in "God".
There is a big difference between believing life actually has meaning and letting someone ascribe that meaniong for you. You can't ascribe that meaning to yourself. No one else can ascribe it for you. The meaning can not be "ascribed", because the meaning is real. There is actually a meaning to life. it is always the same and the same for everyone. You can't know what it is; you can try to understand it, you can question it, you can form beliefs about it, but your beliefs are not necessarily true or false.
"Actually, it is diametrically opposite. Belief in god requires suspension in belief in human perception. Belief in god requires acceptance as valid something that cannot be perceived. Validity of reality is an axiomatic truth which has to be accepted for any knowledge to be possible and every belief you hold, even your belief in god, assumes it as true. But then the idea of god goes on to try and disprove its own axiom."
- Patently false. "God" is the axiom we must accept. Validity of reality must not be assumed. All of reality is perceived through consciousness. In order to accept reality as valid we must accept that consciousness is real. If consciousness is real it must exist apart from our beliefs about it. Therefor it muswt be a universal constant. Consciousness as a universal constant can correctly be called "God".
- thankyou for a good reply.
