(May 25, 2018 at 9:29 am)SteveII Wrote: 2. Rational
3. Moral agents 
4. Capable of complex emotions


Under a godless worldview, these things are accidental properties of humans and it makes no sense to ask "why this.

Not accidental in the slightest.

Each of the above can increase evolutionary fitness.

It;s a russian nesting doll of silly shit.  Silly, pointless shit.

Jor, if you burn a book its meaning is gone regardless of any meaning it had in the past.

Someone never read fahrenheit 451................

(May 25, 2018 at 10:06 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Jor, if you burn a book its meaning is gone regardless of any meaning it had in the past.

But the act can taken on new meaning.

I;m still wondering what the deal is with this whole thing.  Does the sheer existence of transcendent value and meaning somehow devalue god-meaning or make it less meaningful?  Is god-meaning or god-value dependent on devaluing any other meaning or value?  Is there a value and meaning economy of scarcity, where there;s only so much to go around..or something?  

What is it, exactly, that's rustling the jimmies, here?

(May 25, 2018 at 9:33 am)Khemikal Wrote: It hardly matters whether any of those things are "accidental" properties if their possession is what confers the type of meaning you think you're talking about.  I also possess those properties, therefore I also possess the type of meaning you're talking about.  

A dollar found spends the same as a dollar given.

You;re only telling us that -you- wouldn;t find any meaning in all of those oh so meaningful things in a godless universe.  Well....I have some bad news.......................but first I;d like to make sure that you have any sharp objects in your home locked up..and that you've thrown away the key.

You are simply wrong and continue to conflate the two kinds of meaning. One is derived and the other is found in the reason for human existence. 

If your answer to "why we have these properties" is some sort of version of dumb luck, then humans have no reason for existing and definitionally, no existential meaning to that existence. The distinction is clear because when a Christian answers the same question, you can get books full of answers.

There is no more meaning in maximising entropy than there is in falling off a cliff. Yet that's the reason why things generally happen in universe.

(May 25, 2018 at 10:35 am)SteveII Wrote: You are simply wrong and continue to conflate the two kinds of meaning. One is derived and the other is found in the reason for human existence. 

I have no problem finding meaning in either category.  I don;t see how we're in different positions in this regard, anyway.

Quote:If your answer to "why we have these properties" is some sort of version of dumb luck, then humans have no reason for existing and definitionally, no existential meaning to that existence. The distinction is clear because when a Christian answers the same question, you can get books full of answers.

Maybe you should talk to Neo about that, since he seems to think that if we burnt all those books that meaning would be lost.  Apparently, it can;t even transcend the pages of a novel.  I wonder if that applies equally to magic books?  It would be an interesting discussion between the two of you.  

Meanwhile, your "if" doesn;t describe any position of mine, nor would it matter to any of the transcendent meaning in my life if it did, as I made perfectly clear in the post you just quoted.  The only clear distinction between you and I is that you demand god-meaning, and I don;t.  I note that you've found your god-meaning, regardless of whether or not a god exists..and in that way your god-meaning transcends the factual reality of any god.....which is entirely in line with my own position on the subject.  Maybe you don;t think it would, but this only shows that this god-meaning transcends you and your own beliefs about it, as well. Tip of the spear.

See how easy all of this is for me?  You;re describing the shade of existential angst, it;s bubbling just beneath the surface of your current status of belief.  Doesn;t it strike you as odd, that you're the one that privately struggles with these issues.....in a comparison between our two very different sources and positions on meaning? Your life (you assert) crumbles into some meaningful meaninglessness...if you're wrong about god. That's a precarious position to be in, and doesn;t seem at all transcendent.

Neo thinks the meaning is lost if you burn the book, you think the meaning is lost if you burn the god. I think that you're both wrong. I see transcendent meaning in life. The two of you can only countenance a deeply constrained god-meaning, and any suggestion that neither of your strange beliefs is required elicits a notable panic.

How is objective meaning even logically possible? Surely the very definition of meaning is that it is subjective.