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

Great Debates
81

** Apos**

Of course it would. If it’s meaningful to you it’s meaningful to you.

I am not being untruthful as I do not know the truth.

It was making an assertion based on your posts, in which you have repeatedly referred to ; god, other people, transcendence etc, as evaluating or judging your life or the meaning you place upon it, and whether their evaluation or derived meaning they perceive in your life, affects or has meaning or not for you.

From that I have got the impression that you perceive yourself as distinct from any god or transcendence. But if that is not the case, so be it.

So what is the case? What is your position?

No one said it did.

Different things have different and same meanings to many different subjects. We have agreed on this issue have we not?

But there is a difference between a god or transcendent being that I believe is distinct and separate from me who is evaluating and assessing my life in terms of any meaning it might have to him/her/it, and whether or not I would consider their meaning of my life meaningful to me or not if I knew it.

And

A god or transcendent self that is an aspect of myself and therefore not a separate entity and therefore not making evaluations about my life that I would take into consideration.

Can a single entity have transcendent parts or aspects, that have meaning but which it is unaware of?

If I can only be aware of some parts of myself at any one moment do the parts or aspects that I am not aware of have meaning?

I.e.

  • I have never perceived my whole body all at once, but I fill in the missing parts on an on going basis. I have to imagine the missing parts to be there because I don’t perceive them. Do they have meaning but no physical existence WHEN I imagine them? And do they have meaning when I do not imagine them, that is, transcendent meaning?*

We are not aware of the functioning of our own brains. Does that functioning have meaning?

82

** Apos**

Of course it would. If it’s meaningful to you it’s meaningful to you.

I am not being untruthful as I do not know the truth.

It was making an assertion based on your posts, in which you have repeatedly referred to ; god, other people, transcendence etc, as evaluating or judging your life or the meaning you place upon it, and whether their evaluation or derived meaning they perceive in your life, affects or has meaning or not for you.

From that I have got the impression that you perceive yourself as distinct from any god or transcendence. But if that is not the case, so be it.

So what is the case? What is your position?

No one said it did.

Different and same things have different and same meanings to many different subjects. We have agreed on this issue have we not?

But there is a difference between a god or transcendent being that I believe is distinct and separate from me who is evaluating and assessing my life in terms of any meaning it might have to him/her/it, and whether or not I would consider their meaning of my life meaningful to me or not if I knew it.

And

A god or transcendent self that is an aspect of myself and therefore not a separate entity and therefore not making evaluations about my life that I would take into consideration.

Can a single entity have transcendent parts or aspects, that have meaning but which it is unaware of?

If I can only be aware of some parts of myself at any one moment do the parts or aspects that I am not aware of have meaning?

i.e.I have never perceived my whole body all at once, but I fill in the missing parts on an on going basis. I have to imagine the missing parts to be there because I don’t perceive them. Do they have meaning but no physical existence WHEN I imagine them? And do they have meaning when I do not imagine them, that is, transcendent meaning?

We are not aware of the functioning of our own brains. Does that functioning have meaning?

83

sorry about the double post…

84

Iamthat
When is [meaning not a representation]?

Well, what do you point to for the word “not”? What does “not” represent? How about “this”? “And”?

Does love exist? Empathy?

Interesting choice. Very interesting, given your sort of Humean perspective on perception. Tell me, if love exists, can you recognize it in one of your perceptive slices that you allude to with the excerpt later in your post? I would tend to say no, love requires a duration. You can’t love, or grieve, for just an instant. Part of what compells us to use these words is a duration. And I don’t mean a duration of the feeling of love (which would suggest we can recognize it in an instant), but rather a duration of actions, lesser instantaneous feelings, and so on.

That “meaningless” can’t be pointed to.

Oh, well, that doesn’t bother me—most “meaning” can’t be pointed to.

My point is,…what I perceive is a complete image, even if it is blurred or partial, because it is all there IS at that moment. It’s a whole moment.

Why a whole moment? (I realize you respond to this in just a moment) What would a partial moment be? It is just: a moment. There is no wholeness, or incompleteness there.

It’s part of the last moment and part of the next moment, and on and on… but those other moments do not presently exist.

Then, to you, how could they have any meaning?

I have to imagine the missing parts to be there because I don’t perceive them.

Why should you have to imagine them there? Do you also need to imagine that you can speak English when you type it?

Do they have meaning but no physical existence WHEN I imagine them? And do they have meaning when I do not imagine them, that is, transcendent meaning?

No, and no. If they exist, then they exist—that is a declaration of continuity (I use the term loosely) in absence of perception. I do not know if they have meaning when you are not imagining them; what could you mean?

What is the difference between what we actually perceive and what we perceive, after we “fill in” or completed the perception?

Fill it in? With what?

What I meant was, “awareness” is prior to the term or language. Awareness or consciousness has to come first, otherwise no observer.

I read this, in the context of what it was in response to, as: Awareness needs to come before something is linked together by otherwise discontinuous perception-slices. If you think this then I see no need for transcendence at all, and it seems rather torturous to argue that meaning is only there with respect to someone—with respect to an awareness, as most of the rest of us have been putting forth.

85

erislover

Lets consider “this”…….the “this” that you typed in your original post containing this question.
Your “this” represents:

[ul]
[li] self representation[/li][li] its meaning as self referencial[/li][li] the spot it occupies on all monitors[/li][li] its own history[/li][li] its own meaning[/li][li] it represents the number four, as in 4 figures[/li][li] it represent the number three, as three spaces[/li][li] It represents four letters in the English language and other languages[/li][li] it represents the space between its letters that their form makes[/li][li] each letter is a symbol of its own history[/li][li] ‘this’ represents a certain stage in human evolution[/li][li] it also represents line drawing[/li][li] the ‘t’ represents a cross which has many references[/li][li] each letter represents a specific measurement of height and width[/li][li] ‘this’ represents its dimensions[/li][li] the ‘ I ‘ is symbolic of the “self”[/li][li] “this” represents a vocal sound when spoken[/li][li] all the letters also represent a vocal sound when spoken[/li][li] the word ”his” derived from “this” represents the male gender[/li][li] “his also represents its own history, as a word[/li][li] ‘ is “ derived from ‘This” also represents its own history, as a word[/li][li] ‘is’ also represents its many meanings[/li][li] “this” represents verticality[/li][li] ‘this’ represent its position amongst the 360, 000 English words[/li][li] ‘this’ represents the energy erislover expended to produce it[/li][li] ‘this’ represents a series of thoughts in erislover’s mind prior to its creation[/li][li] ‘this’ represents erislover’s computers functioning[/li][li] ‘this’ represents the functioning of the straightdope site[/li][li] ‘this’ represents the electricity it took to produce it[/li][li] also the electricity it takes to maintain its appearance[/li][li] ‘this’ represents a form of communication[/li][li] it represent its position in the universe[/li][li] ‘this’ represents erislover’s spelling skills[/li][li] ‘this represents all other ‘”this’s” [/li][li] ‘this’ represent erislover’s effort and motivation to produce it[/li][li] ‘this’ represents a certain monetary value in relation to electricity used[/li][li] ‘this represent the existence of its producer[/li][li] ‘this’ represent the colour black[/li][li] also the aesthetic value of the colour black[/li][li] ‘this’ represents the world wide web[/li][li] ‘this’ represents the internet[/li][li] it represents 724,000 google web sites[/li][li] etc.[/li][li] etc.[/li][/ul]

86

All those things are what I mean by ‘this’? Well, that about finishes things for me.

87

Well, maybe not what you mean. :slight_smile:

But that wasn’t the question.

What “this” represents is not limited to your meaning, or mine.

That’s why we can say the same thing but “mean” something different, and why we can be misunderstood.

88

Have I learnt anything form this thread? Or, a summary of one issue.

Well I’ve learnt that I can’t talk about meaning existing that is not someone’s, i.e. transcendent meaning. It is sort of like saying that pain exists without an experiencer or someone “feeling” it.

Although we can talk about pain in general; that some groups of individuals have similar experiences of it, or that other animals experience pain, similar to humans, or similar to “mine”

So pain can’t exist on its own, but I did have the feeling that “meaning” can. Perhaps “meaning” is the wrong word.

The word “future” has meaning in terms of what I imagine it to be from the present. My “imaginings” have meaning.
If there is a transcendent part of myself that knows this “me” I presently perceive myself to be, then this “me” has meaning to it.

But if I am unaware of its existence, then it, and any meaning it might have of “me”, has no meaning for me, except to say, that if I imagine its existence that “imagining" can have meaning, even though I may consider it to be only partially correct, or an incomplete understanding.

Some aspects of my “imaginings” of what a transcendent self might be, may correspond to the truth of what an existing ‘transcendent self’ is. But I could not know of its accuracy until I know for a fact that it exists.

If I knew for a fact that it exists then its existence would have meaning foe me.

So “transcendent meaning” is an incorrect term.

So what would be a correct term? If I say the future has meaning, I am really talking about my anticipations or imaginings of it. It doesn’t actually mean that there is “meaning” out there” in 2010 all by itself. Our goals and ambitions have meaning but the “meaning” of them is in the present, like everything else.

“transcendent meaning “ is what I understand it to be or refer to NOW. What it refers to either cannot be spoken of or is my “imaginings” of what it might be.

If it cannot be spoken of it cannot be pointed to, although I could have an intuitive feeling of it but have no words to describe it. And as such I can know as experience that a transcendent self exists but have no means to communicate its existence to others without representing it with inadequate words or “words” that in fact cannot represent it. In other words, the knowledge of the existence of a transcend self cannot be past on from one person to the next, if knowledge is experience.

89

one thing to get over is that “there must be a god, otherwise our existence is meaningless.”

think about it though…at some point, it’s all meaningless. suppose god created us, and we have meaning. then what gives god meaning? did something create him?

why god?

one thing to get over is that “there must be a god, otherwise our existence is meaningless.”

think about it though…at some point, it’s all meaningless. suppose god created us, and we have meaning. then what gives god meaning? did something create him?

why god?

you can go back asking these same questions about creator’s creators forever, but at some point, it is meaningless. if there is no such point (i.e. the chain is infinite), then that itself adds to the meaninglessness.

personally, i find enough meaning in my own life to keep me occupied.

quote:

Is there a way to disprove this theory?

no. it disproves all theories that might disprove it, if you accept it as an assumption.
I think that Ramanujan’s argument here is limited because he’s thinking in finite terms. If one thinks of God as a created being, then the argument works, but if one thinks of God as an eternal being, the Ultimate Reality, then He has no creator and the point breaks down. “Before Abraham was, I Am.” Granted we can’t comprehend this, but to me it makes better sense to accept this fact without fully understanding it than to believe any of the alternatives.

I would also make this same argument against the theory that we are all ascending to godhood. This makes god finite, and a different entity than what I mean by God. In that paradigm, then Ramanujan’s argument works. But again I think when we do that we’re assuming a Naturalistic Universe, where beings and things are created and ascend on and on with no explanation of a beginning. I posit that the only explanation for our existence is that something outside our Natural Universe started the whole process, the eternal God. Of course I can’t explain the beginning of Him, other than saying that he always was, and that I believe that we will understand that “he always was” after we die, being outside of time. If you’ll permit me to make a really fundie-ish statement regarding the idea of man’s ascension to god: isn’t that how we got in this condition? “Eat of the tree and you will become like God.”

I think as created beings inside time, our existence is incomprehensible to us, yet here we are. One can say, like Nietchze, that life is a dream and we don’t really exist, or one can accept our existence and search for the reason for it. What if our purpose is to have a proper relationship with God, capital G, and help lead others into a relationship with Him? If that’s the case, the flip side of that is that we could miss out on our purpose by either not joining in the proper relationship with God or not helping others join into such a relationship. With that, this life goes from being infinitely meaningless to having infinite importance. You may argue, “What’s the purpose of having a relationship with God?” I think when one is in that state (total communion with the Ultimate Reality), the mysteries of eternity are revealed, and one will know that he is fulfilling his purpose, though it’s nothing that can be articulated this side of death with our 3D minds. Maybe that’s a little bit of a cop out, but that’s as close as I can come with my finite (you may say more finite than most) mind.

Didn’t mean to go all “witnessing” on your collective ace.

90

When one examines their perceptions, such as vision it is obvious that what you see has to be inside you if it is an idea in your mind, as ideas or thoughts only exist in minds.

All we ever perceive is the contents of our own mind. Yet what we perceive as the physical world appears to be “out there” in relation to us being “in here”, or I should say, what I perceive, which creates the dualist split.

Experience is solipsistic, but most of us tell ourselves that we are not alone and that others exist, even though there is no more proof of there existence then there is proof of the existence of a god.

That’s what it means when people say this is a dream. It’s their dream, your dream, my dream,… a commonly shared dream.

Yet most of the time we live our lives “as if” they were real because we have no choice. As long as we are in this existence as bodies we have to conform to their needs ……or die.

“When in Rome do as the Romans do”…….does not make you a Roman.
You can “know” as apparently sages do, such as Ramana, Krishnamurti, Nissargaddata and as ** Clive Staples L** stated that Nietzsche did, that this existence is an illusion, but you still have to “act as if” its real, at least to some extent.

We usually don’t know we are dreaming until we wake up, and of course death may be just the “waking up” into another dream.

The point is to wake up while you’re alive, …to see it for what it is…so I think.

91

Iamthat, I don’t want you to think I’m frustrated or anything, I just think you and I have said our piece and not much more to be done at this time. Don’t take my ceasing participation the wrong way! :slight_smile:

92

The meaning of life is to experience all things there is to experience in life. All things being important. The important additions to the equasion are Karma & Reincarnation. If you add in those, all becomes clear. Why bad things happen to good people, meaning of life, etc, etc.

Our purpose is to experience all there is to experience. That is why we live life after life. Until all has been experienced, and Karma is balanced, we reincarnate. Then we are done on this earth, recieve God-realization, and then rejoin with the one true soul.

This explains why ‘bad things happen to good people’. There isn’t a good or a bad, you have to experience all. Don’t worry though, all will be balanced in the end. For each person you cause pain, you will need to again meet up with this person to rebalance the Karma - whether in this life or the next. Think about it, I’m sure, for example, slave holders and slaves must have exchanged rolls over and over.

How else could god exist and yet, there is so much suffering in the world? (especially these days).

93

erislover
I’m okay with our interactions erislover and I hope you are too….:slight_smile: