(January 31, 2010 at 11:03 pm)tackattack Wrote: I can't ask for citations of logic and reason? Well that's a first. Since I'm not farmiliar with the thread where you proved there is no meaning to life and you are unwilling to provide it I'll start. Since I believe that there is meaning to life the burden of proof will probably fall on me in a debate anyways. I don't feel my view is limited, but please open my eyes. If it's all been said before please point me in that direction, but let's leave the Ad Hominemand Ad Fontem out of it ok?
Ok first definitions:
A- Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have self-sustaining biological processes from those that do not.
B-Purpose is a result, end, aim, or goal of an action intentionally undertaken
C- Meaning is to serve or intend to convey, show, or indicate. Meaning is a relationship between two sorts of things: signs and the kinds of things they mean (intend, express or signify)
D-Sign is defined as an entity that indicates another entity to some agent for some purpose
1-When given the option of life or death general rational acceptance would be for life
2-Choice proves intentionality of life.
3-Therefore intentional choosing to live is defined as having a purpose.
4-The most base purpose then being sustaining biological processes.
5-The result of sustaining a biological process is significant because it impacts others
6-The significance varies by agent
7- Therefore Life has purpose and significance that varies between agents.
8-Therefore Life has meaning
I am arguing that your assertions are groundless via definitions. It is not ad fontem, which is defined as "a class of fallacies that all work by distracting from the real issue by redirecting the argument onto the Source." I am holding you to the definitions previously mentioned, with the occasional emotional outburst that manifests itself as an ad hominem. You see, I get tired of point out to you the same definitions over and over again, only to have you counter with baseless assertions.
Now, here is why your proof is wrong.
1 is false, because not all biological things have the capacity for thought. Also, giving the 'option' for life is a clumsy statement that simply makes no sense. To whom and how do you give life? Are you asking what is already alive to decide between life and death? Really? And you are certain there is no bias?
Since this is entirely subjective among thinking beings and thoroughy mutable, it can be disregarded on grounds for being nonspecific and overtly general.
Your statement on "general rational acceptance" for life is also false - it implies argumentum ad popularium and fails to consider the situation for those where it is better for them to die than suffer tremendously.
2 is false - a fetus, for example, does not have the capacity for choice and yet is naturally brought into the world under most circumstances, so to assert choice on the part of the new thinking individual is false. And do not try claiming that the parent wants it, because that is side stepping the point here.
3 is independant of other pieces and is more of a defined given. Its statement is unneeded, and contributes as an axiom, not a proof.
4 is false, as previously noted that life is not a choice by any means.
5, 6, 7 are subjective, where an individual contributes to their own interpretation of life, thus proving that life does not have an inherent meaning, but is granted meaning by an individual.
8 is true only through dependance on 5,6,7; which in turn do not depend on 1-4. 1-4 are based on false assumptions.
