Question about meaning and perception of reality from a theist.

[Shell B]

Acke, why are you still using the term universal constants when you do not understand its meaning? You admitted yesterday that you do not know what it means.

[J.D.]

Sorry, but I don't understand why a god is required for there to be meaning to life. George Washington's life has meaning to me, and there is no god that makes his life meaningful. It was his actions while he lived that gave meaning to it (to you). The same goes with me. I am not the father of my country, but I can still make some small difference that will have made my life meaningful (to you).

The bolded part is where you seem to be having trouble. You BELIEVE your life has meaning, but beliefs to not dictate reality. Just because you have the opinion that your life has meaning doesn't make it true. That is the same as saying that because someone has the opinion that God exists, God actually exists...

The italics is an unfounded conclusion. Provide evidence that God does not exist. Evidence can be limited to a logical argument.

I guess it is a matter of perspective. From my point of view, there is no god and I feel that life is meaningful, and to you there is a god who gives meaning to life, so you have to try to imagine how life without god has meaning.

The bold part again is the only thing you really aren't getting. You "feel" your life has meaning, but in reality if there is no God meaning isn't real. You could "feel" that your meaning in life was to rape children and it would be an equally valid meaning.

The italics is your mischaracterization of my argument. Whether or not God exists is not central to my argument. My argument does not assume God exists.

You are correct when you said that through Gods existence life has meaning. If God exists it is possible for life to have an actual meaning regardless of whether or not any of us believe it does. I have no problem imagining how people FEEL life has has meaning if God does not exist. We are conscious, we have beliefs, we can believe life has meaning. No God necessary. If you believe that the meaning you think you have is objectively true a belief in God is necessary.

If you feel that your life has meaning, than you know it is possible without god because there really is no god.

This statement is travesty. I refuse to respond to it. Think.

"if you feel that you are a cantaloupe, than you know it is possible without Batman because there really is no vampire."[/code]

I guess I just don't complicate things so much. When you talk about meaningfulness in life, it is purely a subjective thing based on how you feel about your life. Ultimately, we die and none of this existence will mean anything after that. It is only while we live that it even matters.

If a person believes in god, I suppose they believe there is an actual being who created them and the universe. This is entirely different from believing your life has meaning.

This was my first attempt to engage in a debate. I have to say it seems kind of silly.

[Shell B]

You chose the wrong person to debate. This is a silly debate. You can surely find better.

[amkerman]

J.D.:

Nice response. The only thing I would disagree with is your statement, "it is only during life that meaning matters" (sorry I'm paraphrasing but I think that was the point you were making? Correct me if I am wrong)

- I would suggest that if meaning is purely subjective it doesn't matter at all in life.

P.s. Don't listen to shelly, she only "debates" people with views which coincide with hers. If you think differently you will just be told to go fuck yourself.

[Shell B]

Don't listen to shelly

Yeah, good advice, dipshit. Go fuck yourself.

[genkaus]

If they are real they must be universal constants. If you are saying only that they exist they do not.

Nonsense. A lot of things exist without being universal constants.

Consciousness can't be observed, just like gravity cant be observed. We observe the effects of consciousness, not consciousness itself.

No object can actually be observed. What you are observing is the energy being reflected or radiated from that object. It is the effect of the object that you observe, not the object itself.

Guess what genius, observation of consequences of an objects presence is the same as observing the object itself.

Neither gravity nor consciousness are universal constants.

Time and space are not real. They have not always existed, at least in theory. They are a constrcuct neccessary for the observation of physical reality.

Where did you get your high school degree? Time and space are not real? They do not exist?

Existence itself depends on time and space. To exist means to be at a particular point at a particular time.

Knives aren't real. They exist in physical reality. If knives were real they would be universal constants. Knives would have always existed everywhere in the universe. If knives were real then the reason the apple falls from the tree is "knives".

Where the hell did you get the idea that everything that is real must be a universal constant? That's frankly the most idiotic thing I've ever heard of.

To exist means to be at some place at some time. It does not require to be at all places at all times.

If you say the purpose of the knife is cutting tomatoes and I say it is stabbing people we have differing perceptions about the purpose of the knife. Knives aren't real, they have no inherent purpose. If you believe that consciousness is real, it would have inherent purpose, what that purpose is is open for debate. If you believe consciousness merely exists in time and space there can be no real purpose to it. Just as there can be no purpose for knives. Do with them what you will in that case, it doesn't matter.

Nothing in existence has an inherent purpose. Both knives and consciousness are real and neither has an inherent purpose.

I think you are confusing "inherent" purpose with "real" purpose. Purposes are assigned by a consciousness. When the objects they are assigned to are put to that purpose, it becomes real. Very much so. It need not be inherent, i.e. it need not be assigned universally.

As I stated before it lies in the terms "real" and "exist". I believe you are using the term "real" incorrectly. The part I bolded is exactly my argument; consciousness is responsible for the creation of the universe and everything in it. Consciousness is real rather than something temporal and spacial. It is universal constant.

Actually, what I said is not your argument.

Consciousness did not create the universe or anything in it. Multiple consciousness are responsible for identifying how the universe works and creating concepts and laws about it. All of these were temporal and not universal constants.

And you are the on using the terms 'exist' and 'real' incorrectly. To exist means to be within the context of space and time.

the meaning cannot remain if there is no meaning. You percieve that it remains because you are conscious of it. If ciousness is temporal and exists only as an emergent function of complex systems such as the brain, once all consciousness expires any and all meaning expires with it. meaning will no longer exist. It won't exist because it isn't real. Meaning can't be real unless consciousness is. you may belive it is real, but it is an irraltional belief unless you also believe consciousness is universal constant.

To be real and to exist does not mean that it should be independent of time. Something can be real and later on cease to exist.

Seriously, where the hell did you get the idea that everything that is real must be a universal constant?

Surely. Unless consciousness is real, however, that meaning is pure perception and is illusory. whatever meaning someone else has ascribed to your life will cease once they do. Whatever meaning they ascribed wasn't real, it was just perception.

Why would being a matter of perception make something illusory? You can only perceive what is real.

You must believe that after your life has meaning, that meaning cannot be taken away.

No.

No. that statement requires no belief about whether your life already has meaning. That you wrote it, however, does. That you were able to conceive the sentence shows that you hold beliefs about meaning. If you hold beliefs about it you must be aware of it. if you are aware of it you hold it in your conscious. If you hold it in your conscious you must believe that you have already given meaning to your life.

No. Being aware of the possibility of meaning does not mean that I have already given meaning to my life.

I'm aware of many things that do not apply to my life. Some of them I even wish to apply to my life. For example, I hold beliefs about parenthood and what it means. I am fully capable of doing that by observation of other parents without actually being a parent myself. Similarly, i can hold beliefs about meaning of life without having decided upon the meaning of my life.

My questions are these:

Do you believe meaning is real?
If so does it come from consciousness?
If consciousness comes from the brain then can things without brains have meaning?
If meaning comes from consciousness then when people are not conscious do their lives lose meaning?

Yes. But it is not a universal constant.
Yes.
Yes. Things with brain can assign meaning to them.
Not necessarily. There is meaning attached to their lives by other entities with brains.

No. I believe in reality. reality is the only thing that is real. things which exist within reality only do that, "they exist within reality" they are not "real".

Things that exist within reality are not real? How can you even hold such irrational ideas where the the sentence itself is self-refuting?

Answer this: If "god" has a meaning for your life, then that meaning is also held within god's consciousness. Why would that be any more real than the meaning I hold within my consciousness?

"God" is reality. God is real. God exists independently of our ideas about or observations of God. God does not have meaning for my life, God is the meaning. God is consciousness as universal constant and all physical forces which created the universe. God is incomprehensible.

God is reality. Your consciousness exists within reality so your consciousness exists within God.

God is reality. meaning is real. meaning is a part of reality. Meaning exists apart from our ideas about it. Meaning is a part of God. it something God gives of Godsself to reality. it is the same always and the same for everyone. Whether or not the meaning you percieve coincides with meaning in reality depends on what meaning actually is and what you perceive meaning to be.

Because God is reality and God's meaning is a part of God, so it it real.

Now you seem to have devolved into incoherent babbling.

Well, whatever argument you are trying to present here, which I'm not sure can be even called that, seems to rest on the premise that consciousness called god is equivalent to reality. That is a false premise and it is axiomatically false since it goes against the first law of existence. So the rest of the argument is automatically invalid and nonsensical.

---

You have a very common misunderstanding of the difference between something that exists and something that is real. Something that is real by definition exists apart from our observations of our ideas and opinions about what they are. Neurons and "the brain" are not real. They merely exist in reality. We believe that physical interactions over billions of years eventually formed neurons and brains. before the necessary physical interactions took place neurons and brains did not exist. They could not exist. They arent real. They only exist because of our ideas about how they were created, which is through universal forces, those forces which are responsible for the creation of the universe and everything in it.

Go consult a dictionary about the definition of reality and existence before you accuse me of having the misconception and present me with this inane argument.

Something that did not exist before was not real before. That does not mean that it could never exist or never be real. At the very least, try not to present me with so mundanely self-refuting bromides such as "what exists within reality is not real".

Agreed. And even if we never interpreted how reality works, they would still exist. They are constants. They have always existed and the fact that we have observed them and called them universal constants is mere happenstance. They exist indepently of our ideas about or observations of what they are.

The laws of nature would. The constants would not. They are conceptual values created by humans to interpret the laws of nature. If we did not exist, no interpretation would take place and these constants would never be created.

[KichigaiNeko]

resons why your religiosity is cause for your downfall and should be ousted NOW.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti3mtDC2fQo

[genkaus]

Knives aren't real. They exist in physical reality. If knives were real they would be universal constants. Knives would have always existed everywhere in the universe. If knives were real then the reason the apple falls from the tree is "knives".

I'm adding you to my ignore list.

This captures my reaction when I read this piece of argument so well. Awesome, dude.

[Zen Badger]

Knives aren't real. They exist in physical reality. If knives were real they would be universal constants. Knives would have always existed everywhere in the universe. If knives were real then the reason the apple falls from the tree is "knives".

If you say the purpose of the knife is cutting tomatoes and I say it is stabbing people we have differing perceptions about the purpose of the knife. Knives aren't real, they have no inherent purpose. If you believe that consciousness is real, it would have inherent purpose, what that purpose is is open for debate. If you believe consciousness merely exists in time and space there can be no real purpose to it. Just as there can be no purpose for knives. Do with them what you will in that case, it doesn't matter.

What a load of dribbling shit!!!!!!

You sir have no fucking idea at all what the fuck you are on about.

How about I stab you in the eye with a knife and then you can tell me how fucking unreal that knife is.

"Knives aren't real. They exist in physical reality"

What the fuck is this supposed to even mean????

[KichigaiNeko]

acke/ anklebitter...you have no meaning...does that mean you are not real???