Meaning of life? A.K.A. Does god exist?

[Iamthat]

*** erislover***

For me: I don’t think so. If it did it would be remarkably hard to quantify to the point we would need it to be in this context.

I agree.

I agree with that, but I do not agree that this existence—the one I am living—has a meaning I am not aware of. It may, but I have no way to evaluate the proposition. Moot point, IMO.

It’s speculative.

I think you have meaning that I am not aware of.

I never grasp the totality of a thing, person, event etc.

Perception is fragmented, and the rest is assumed.

The other side, and interior of this monitor has meaning that at this moment I am not aware of, and/or I guess it had meaning prior to thinking of it.

If it didn’t could it still function?

If the world isn’t greater then my observation of it at any one moment then cause and effect only comes into existence upon perception, such as in a dream. That could be the case.

I think this can be a matter of contention. I admit that I cannot think of an example of any sign or set of signs whose meaning is so utterly fixed and defined that we are done changing its meaning (intentionally or not), but I don’t know that one can rule it out.

We are in constant change so how can we get a fix on anything.

Be then again, does consciousness change?

[erislover]

I never grasp the totality of a thing, person, event etc.

What qualifies as “total”, then, that you know you never reach it? What is your yardstick here?

I think you have meaning that I am not aware of.

Oh, I agree, and vice versa.

The other side, and interior of this monitor has meaning that at this moment I am not aware of, and/or I guess it had meaning prior to thinking of it. If it didn’t could it still function?

Of course it could still function. Meaning is not synonamous with existence. But I don’t know that we can say that the interior components of a monitor are meaningful (period). [I don’t think we can say anything is meaningful (period).]

If the world isn’t greater then my observation of it at any one moment then cause and effect only comes into existence upon perception, such as in a dream. That could be the case.

I believe that there is a higher level of certainty of some propositions when viewed from a solipsistic frame of reference. This does not grant any special metaphysical status to that frame, though.

We are in constant change so how can we get a fix on anything.

If this is the case, then we must simply remove questions demanding absolute answers or perspectives from sensible speech. They cannot be answered; they are nonsense. It is then no wonder that we cannot answer, “What is life?” in the most general sense, because

1. there is no most general sense; and,
2. there is no thing called “life”.

[Azure_Eternity]

dalovindj, I just wanted to thank you for posting the link. That is an awesome site that I’m glad I saw. Thanks.

[Hazel]

I decided to respond to the question posed in the title of this thread without first reading either the OP or any of the other posts. Probably improper of me, but I find the title a bit annoying. I see these two questions as being quite separate and distinct. “What is the meaning of life?” is one question. “Does God exist?” is another.

One can, IMO, have endless discussions re the meaning of life without bringing up a supreme being or beings. Whatever meaning life has does not necessarily have anything to do with the existance or non-existance of a supreme being.

As to the 2nd question, I’d rephrase to “Does a God exist?” or “Does any God exist?” In other words, why limit your discussion to the particular God popular in your neck of the woods? It seems to me that if you do so, you’ve skipped a step. The first question should be something along the lines of “Does any God exist?” If you decide that one does exist, or that one may exist, your next question might be, “Which of the many competing ideas about God (or the Gods [how do we know there’s just one?] is correct?”

[Iamthat]

** loinburger**

Why would it matter now any more than it would matter after I’ve died?

Because it can matter, whereas after death we don’t know. This life may be an opportunity for self (whatever that is) discovery.

The same goes for my life. Why would my life be any less meaningful to me if there were no transcendent Life-Meaning? If my life has the same meaning independent of the Cosmic Life-Meaning, then why should I concern myself with the Life-Meaning at all?

But we, I at least, don’t know one way or the other. But I do believe that if I came to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that I as a transcendent being exists, and that this existence is only a small aspect of the whole being that I am, it would profoundly effect this life, it would be life transforming knowledge, if it can be called knowledge.
The meaning we have of life defines the life we have, it shapes your being.

[Apos]

—The meaning we have of life defines the life we have, it shapes your being.—

Right… but it’s already potentially present, no matter what. It doesn’t rely on whatever “transcendant” meaning you keep going on about.

[Iamthat]

** Apos**

Eh? Are you saying that if there exists a dog for whom both of our lives are meaningful, then our lives are meaningful?

I am saying if god or transcendence exists it exists for all.

You didn’t answer my question about transcendant WHAT? What is it transcending?

It is transcending this existence, in a similar way that a dreamer transcends its own dream.

That there is more to this entity that I am then the appearances of it. And this more is not present here in a way that is perceivable, possibly because it is not a precept, it can’t be thought of.

How can a fact have effects on the mind when the mind doesn’t know it?

We are not aware of the operations of our brain or mind; all the activity that appears to produce thoughts, which obviously defines who we think we are.

The brain is not aware of its own activity.

Consciousness or the awareness that we are is not aware of brain activity, and many, if not most bodily activities, which effect the mind.

Do you agree that this existence has meaning you are not aware of.—

I can’t possibly be even potentially meaningful TO ME until I know about it. Only then can I consider whether it’s meaningful to me.

I don’t know of all the thousands of causes that produce this room environment I am presently in yet they have meaning to me in as much as this environment does, for if they don’t function the way they are designed to this environment is affected.

Most thing and events are proceeded by their reputation. They are familiar, which means their meaning is known prior to their coming into perceptual range.

When I look at an apple I am not usually puzzled by its appearance because its meaning is known beforehand.

I am not aware at any one time of all the meanings I have assigned to objects, people and events etc. and understandings that I have formed them.

This existence has many meanings that I have acquired over a life time that I am not aware of at this moment.

If my parents had me so that I could grow up to be a lawyer, that doesn’t make the law a meaningful career to me.

If there is no reason why you or I exist, if that is possible, then nothing matters.

That’s my view.

—If you were created for a purpose and you knew it would it not give meaning above and beyond this life?

Maybe, maybe not. But how would the meaning another being takes in my existence be necessarily any more important to me than the love of a friend?

I am asking, if you were created for a purpose and you knew it would it not give meaning TO YOU above and beyond this life?

[Iamthat]

** erislover**

What qualifies as “total”, then, that you know you never reach it? What is your yardstick here?

Perception.

Putting aside temporal existence, I never perceive a thing in its totality, e.g. a ball or apple, but only the surface and only part of the surface at a time. Perception is fragmented.

Of course it could still function.

If it has no meaning it can still function?

If an interior part of you monitor is absent, it will affect the function of the monitor which has meaning, so therefore the part has to have meaning. If it didn’t have meaning it wouldn’t be needed as a meaningful component.

Meaning is not synonamous with existence.

Name or point to an existent that has no meaning.

Name or point to a meaning that has no existence.

But I don’t know that we can say that the interior components of a monitor are meaningful (period). [I don’t think we can say anything is meaningful (period).

If you mean that objects do not embody meaning I agree from a dualist perspective.

I think nondualism would state that the meaning and the object are identical.

The apple IS its meaning.

If this is the case, then we must simply remove questions demanding absolute answers or perspectives from sensible speech. They cannot be answered; they are nonsense. It is then no wonder that we cannot answer, “What is life?” in the most general sense, because

1. there is no most general sense; and,
2. there is no thing called “life”.

There is a thing called life, but it may only be a thing called life.

[Apos]

—I am saying if god or transcendence exists it exists for all.—

It exists for all just as easily, in just the same way, if there is a person who thinks “wow, everything is meaningful to me.” And there are such people. So, what’s your point?

I still think you’re missing entirely how this “meaning” thing works. Indeed, the rest of your post stumbles off to the point where I’m not sure you even remember the points at issue in what we were talking about.

—If there is no reason why you or I exist, if that is possible, then nothing matters. That’s my view.—

Nothing matters TO WHO? Can you PLEASE stop running around asserting that “nothing matters” or “this matters” as if “mattering” were some objective characteristic inherent in objects, as opposed to particular judgements made by subjects?
To you? So, you’re an oddly eager potential nihilist. Big deal. It would still matter to me.

—I am asking, if you were created for a purpose and you knew it would it not give meaning TO YOU above and beyond this life?—

I already dealt with this example in the case of the boy whose parents had him hoping he’d become a lawyer, but whom it turns out has no interest in his parent’s designs and purposes for him. So no, it does not necessarily give any meaning to my life: to do so, I must first FIND IT MEANINGFUL for some reason of my own.

It would certainly be interesting additional piece of information. But it isn’t what all meaning is premised upon. Meaning is premised simply on my ability and practice of finding things to be meaningful.

[jjrt]

Originally posted by samarm

Why are we here? - Because two people met and were joined together
What purpose do we serve? – He also wondered what purpose he was serving
We are born toothless, bald and dribbling, he was born in 1919
then 82 years later we end up dying pretty much the same way. – when he left this world he was like a baby

OK, there are certain things that I believe each of us strives to achieve:

• A significant other person to love and live with – after WWII he met the woman he would marry
• Offsrping to carry on the genes – they had five children, 3 boys, 2 girls
• Wealth – after years of hard work, he obtained wealth
• Social acceptance – he was a kind hearted man who never saw a stranger

If there is a God, and he implanted these desires in us when he created man, then surely there is a higher purpose to our existence - what that is I don’t know. – in his late life he wanted to go home, only for his family to realize he wasn’t talking of his physical home.

If there isn’t a God, then what have we actually achieved by living, apart from maintaining the status quo for the generations of babies born after we’ve gone? – he never thought there wasn’t a God.

Maybe the entire concept of God is a fallacy; I sometimes wonder if any of what I perceive around me is real, or if I’m the only thing that exists everything in life is just an illusion. – before he left this world he didn’t know what was real and what wasn’t, he knew he existed but didn’t know where.
At the end of it all, what have we accomplished? – he never realized just how important he was, or how much he was loved. He loved his wife and provided for her, he raised his children with strict respect for him and his wife, He was the brace that held the family to be strong and not to be weak. He never realized just how much of him would be living in each of us.

Is there a way to disprove this theory? – visit a nursing home and talk to the residents

These throughts have been rattlling around in my head today for some reason, and I wanted to attempt to put them down and test the water. I know my questions are a little fragmented but I’m fishing for opinions and am interested in what thoughts you folks may have.

And I guess we all have rattled thoughts…

[erislover]

Name or point to an existent that has no meaning.

The color red in the dark.

Name or point to a meaning that has no existence.

Chimera.

If an interior part of you monitor is absent, it will affect the function of the monitor which has meaning, so therefore the part has to have meaning.

I don’t think this jives with how I’m looking at meaning. This post, for example, means something to me. Electrons don’t mean something to me with respect to this post.

Putting aside temporal existence, I never perceive a thing in its totality, e.g. a ball or apple, but only the surface and only part of the surface at a time.

I am not arguing with this. But you said you never grasp the totality of a thing. I don’t understand why you then still posit there is some “totality” of a thing. Looking at it like this I can see why you drive toward transcendentalism.

I think nondualism would state that the meaning and the object are identical.

I agree, and this is why I have a very hard time dealing with monism.

There is a thing called life, but it may only be a thing called life.

I think, instead, there are many things we call life, and the criteria for this use is not declared once for all time.

[Ramanujan]

i have to agree with erislover. any time i hear you saying “is meaningful”, i think “to whom?”

it doesn’t make sense to speak of meaning without a referent.

[dalovindj]

dalovindj, I just wanted to thank you for posting the link. That is an awesome site that I’m glad I saw. Thanks.

My pleasure Azure Eternity. If you enjoy the futurist/transhuman school of thought, be sure to try google searches on the words Transhuman, Singularity, Extropian, Ray Kurzweil, Max Moore, and Futurist. There are sites that gather news daily that has to do with advancing the agenda expressed in my earlier link. From the materials science breakthroughs, to AI developments, to genetic engineering. The past articles are very often incredibly thought provoking.

Things are qoing to change rather quickly rather soon, whether people like it or not. With every major breakthrough comes a new paradigm which tends to allow better and more frequent breakthroughs. The growth appears to be exponential, and if it continues, human intelligence will very soon seem quaint.

DaLovin’ Dj

[erislover]

The growth appears to be exponential, and if it continues, human intelligence will very soon seem quaint.

Now that is something I will heartily disagree with if it is meant as a value judgment.

[ranwashingt]

People please!..Famine, war and pestilence…Famine war, and pestilence…enough all ready! People, I got Satan tying up the line with obscene faxes, and all of a sudden this morning Jesus wants a Mary Magdiline tatoo and a pierced nose!..I’m only God for Christ’s sake… give me a break! Just the bullshit I gotta sort out that comes floating up out of an average Alcoholics Anonoymus meeting is enough to give me the wobbling spitz…and yer complaining about response time?

And I swear to me…if I hear 1 more Jesus, Allah, and Budda golf jokes…I’m gonna get biblically pissed…God

[dalovindj]

Now that is something I will heartily disagree with if it is meant as a value judgment.

My dad’s old 486 computer looks quaint compared to Deep Blue. It’s meant in a similar fashion. The abilities of modern day humans will pale in comparison to what comes post-singularity. Of course, we could debate what it means to be human. Is a sufficiently augmented human something new or just a dressed up human? Either way, my point is that if current trends continue, soon there will be intelligence and awareness that far surpasses what exists today. On this planet anyhow . . .

DaLovin’ Dj

[erislover]

Of course, we could debate what it means to be human.

Yes, we could.

Either way, my point is that if current trends continue, soon there will be intelligence and awareness that far surpasses what exists today.

I disagree. We don’t have a very good ruler for either of those to make such a claim.

[Iamthat]

Apos

Nothing matters TO WHO? Can you PLEASE stop running around asserting that “nothing matters” or “this matters” as if “mattering” were some objective characteristic inherent in objects, as opposed to particular judgements made by subjects?
To you? So, you’re an oddly eager potential nihilist. Big deal. It would still matter to me.

I said, “That’s my view.” So I
don’t know what you are going on about in the first few sentences.

Big deal.

Well if you’re not interested in this discussion or my view or other peoples view why do you bother?

It would certainly be interesting additional piece of information. But it isn’t what all meaning is premised upon. Meaning is premised simply on my ability and practice of finding things to be meaningful.

Purpose is meaning, and would certainly be significant meaning to many.

I think you are just playing the antagonist devil’s advocate.

That’s fine, it’s just a little frustrating.

[Iamthat]

erislover

Name or point to an existent that has no meaning.

The color red in the dark.

Good answer.

Although I think in your example the colour red is a nonexistent.
It doesn’t exist for you in the dark. If it did it would have meaning.

e.g… You and I are painting a long wall that is vertically divided in the middle. You have a can of blue paint and I have one of red. You are painting you side blue and I am painting my side red. Suddenly the lights go out, but we decide to continue to paint. I walk over to your section of the wall and begin to paint. And you might respond with, “Hey this is my side it gets painted in blue not red. Go back over to your wall.”…So the colour still have meaning.

e.g… You are waiting in the green room, (which is actually green) to go on a show. The power goes out in the room. It’s still the green room. and they will still know where in are…in the green room.

You are also assuming because you cannot perceive it it has no meaning. I can’t perceive my deceased friend Tim but he still has meaning for me.

I think you are also assuming that colour is inherent in an object. Apparently that’s wrong. Our eyes are essentially light detectors, that’s all they perceive. The photons enter the eye and a signal is sent to the brain that interprets as a specific colour with all its characteristics. The colour isn’t ““out there””. It’s an idea in the brain/mind. If that is the case, when the lights out there is no red,…except as idea.

Name or point to a meaning that has no existence.

Chimera.

Ideas, thoughts, images etc. exist

I am not arguing with this. But you said you never grasp the totality of a thing. I don’t understand why you then still posit there is some “totality” of a thing. Looking at it like this I can see why you drive toward transcendentalism.
quote:

Maybe I am assuming the totality of the thing exists. But cause and effect tend to do that to a person.

I think, instead, there are many things we call life, and the criteria for this use is not declared once for all time.

The meaning of life is always changing, isn’t it?

[loinburger]

*Originally posted by Iamthat *
I said, “That’s my view.” So I don’t know what you are going on about in the first few sentences.

I’m taking a stab in the dark here, but I read Apos to be asking you why you hold this view and how you justify this view. You’re being more than a bit unfair with your response of “Well if you’re not interested in this discussion…” The fact that he isn’t satisfied with your responses does not automatically lead to the conclusion that he’s not interested in your responses. If he weren’t interested then he’d probably just say “To hell with this crap” and quit posting to this thread.

Purpose is meaning, and would certainly be significant meaning to many.

Re the first clause: Whose purpose? I care deeply about the purpose that I assign to my life, but why should I care about the purpose that anybody else assigns to my life?

Re the second clause: Assuming you’re referring to “transcendent purpose/meaning” here, why would this purpose/meaning be any more significant than my own subjectively assigned purpose/meaning? Why would the transcendent meaning even be relevant?

If I eat a slice of pizza, should my enjoyment of the pizza be diminished if it turned out that the Cosmic Pizza was inedible? Would your enjoyment of the pizza be diminished by the inedibility of the Cosmic Pizza? Why? Or, on the flipside, if the Cosmic Pizza were the best pizza of all time and caused orgasmic pleasure in whoever consumed it, how would that possibly increase my enjoyment of my slice of non-transcendent pizza?

Because [the transcendent meaning of life] can matter…

How? Why?