Favorite arguments!

[MedicMan]

Dear RecoveringPhilosopher, without God, we would be creatures of nature, be here, get older, and wither away: only bones and dust. Thank God for BEING. Greetings from Emmy, sister in Christ.

Amen! We all think that our lives have meaning - to think otherwise would lead to a very depressive worldview, one counter-productive to society. If we were all here merely by chance (which, by the way, several physicists have calculated to be a probability in the region of 1 in 10^23 [10 with 23 noughts] or so) then our lives have no meaning, so why do we all think that we do? Because there is a God, a loving God who created us and gave us meaning

 

[The Nihilist]

Dear RecoveringPhilosopher, without God, we would be creatures of nature, be here, get older, and wither away: only bones and dust. Thank God for BEING. Greetings from Emmy, sister in Christ.

Emmy that is not an argument.

 

[The Nihilist]

Amen! We all think that our lives have meaning - to think otherwise would lead to a very depressive worldview, one counter-productive to society. If we were all here merely by chance (which, by the way, several physicists have calculated to be a probability in the region of 1 in 10^23 [10 with 23 noughts] or so) then our lives have no meaning, so why do we all think that we do? Because there is a God, a loving God who created us and gave us meaning

Also not an argument. Interestingly, arising by chance is not a problem in an infinite universe.
I have no idea what you mean when you use the word "meaning," either. Can you explain it, please?

 

[MedicMan]

Surely, deep down, you feel that there is some purpose to your existence here? Everyone, at some stage of their life, has a feeling of some purpose for them being here. That is meaning.

 

[The Nihilist]

You use the word meaning in a queer way. Does life have a meaning in the way that a word has meaning? I know what it would mean to say that words have meaning, but I have no idea what it means to say that life has meaning.
Now, semantics aside, the philosophers of antiquity, and I'm thinking Plato and Aristotle, were of the opinion that a thing that was good for something else (that is, something that had a purpose), was not as good as a thing that is good in itself, because that which is good for something else is only desirable insofar as the end to which it is useful is desirable. This is undeniably of a lower good than that which is good for its own sake. My life is good in and of itself, and it is for this reason that your suggestion offends me.

 

[JohnLocke]

Three cheers for Aristotle!

And to MedicMan, remember about dimensional time, the 10 x23 to upteenth billion, has already happened. As I said, provided time is dimensional, any probabilistic MUST happen.

Besides, I am unsure that even, outside dimensional time, that extreme improbability renders anything less or more meaningful. Did not the Existentialists gaze upon the infinity of space and crushed by their own cosmic insignificance, endeavor to carve spheres of meaning for themselves in the face of that infinite indifference?

(Again, pardon the mangle-mash, mixed termed summation.)

On a personal note, doesn't it strike you as the least hubristic to require for any human life to have meaning it necessarily must be entwined in the Divine?

I am reminded of a copy of "I am Salesman" that I carry with me, even to this day. It is old, the pages yellowed, the binding glue eaten by ants, and yet I carry it with me. I have never read it. To you, this is a bunch of meaninglessness or merely an obsessive compulsive tick, perhaps.

But to me, it is the last thing that I have of my grandfather's. What it means, I couldn't tell you, but I feel a great swell of pity for the idiot that tries to take it from me.

Cheers

 

[MedicMan]

Besides, I am unsure that even, outside dimensional time, that extreme improbability renders anything less or more meaningful. Did not the Existentialists gaze upon the infinity of space and crushed by their own cosmic insignificance, endeavor to carve spheres of meaning for themselves in the face of that infinite indifference?

No, they didn't gaze on the infinity of space. Sartre simply said "There is no God," without any form of qualification.
I was not saying that the improbability in itself adds to or detracts from meaning; rather, that if the result of the probability were to have occurred (i.e. the universe came to be purely without a God) then life would have much less meaning than it would if there were a God.

 

[JohnLocke]

MedicMan,

You are awfully well read for one so young. There are, however, a great number of Existentialists, e.g. Kierkegaard, Heidigger, etc. At the time of my post, I, perhaps mistakenly, was thinking more along the lines of Camus' Stranger, e.g. the "benign indifference of the universe" than Sartre.

As to your second point, I'm a bit confused. Would it be fair to say that, in your view, the improbability of the universe is not connected to its meaning, but a Divine Creation of the universe, is, and as such necessarily carries with it quantitatively more meaning than a universe not so created?

So then, Life, the Universe, and Everything would still have meaning, even in the absence of God, but each has more meaning in the presence of God?

If, then, there might be meaning to life without God, then the observation of meaning to life cannot, by itself, be very good proof of the existence of God, since meaning to life can exist with or without God.

Cheers!

 

[Im_A]

The thing that annoys me about the ontological arguments is that I know they don't prove the existence of God even remotely, but I can't for the life of me work out what is wrong with them in formal logic terms. Anyone?

peace

even tho i do not know too much about the reasoning behind that argument you quoted, but i do know one thing...

anything multiplied by zero, equals zero.

 

[MedicMan]

John,

Heh I'm not that well read. The only works I've properly studied are The Republic, and Existentialism & Humanism, as part of my course.

As to your second point, I'm a bit confused. Would it be fair to say that, in your view, the improbability of the universe is not connected to its meaning, but a Divine Creation of the universe, is, and as such necessarily carries with it quantitatively more meaning than a universe not so created?

So then, Life, the Universe, and Everything would still have meaning, even in the absence of God, but each has more meaning in the presence of God?

If, then, there might be meaning to life without God, then the observation of meaning to life cannot, by itself, be very good proof of the existence of God, since meaning to life can exist with or without God.

You're correct that the improbability of the universe is unconnected to its meaning, rather the method of its creation is the determining factor, if you follow. What I mean is that if the universe did spring into existence from nothing, then the improbability of this occuring would not affect the meaning that the occurance imparted.

Now, then, I had better make a response to your claim that the existence of meaning cannot be a proof of the existence of God. Firstly I had better more closely define what I mean by meaning, as otherwise you might acuse me of all sorts of ambiguity . I take meaning (in the sense of 'the meaning of life' / 'my life has no meaning') to stand for something like 'purpose', or 'reason'. I think it will be easier to define this by way of the via negativa; a man's life does not have meaning if he is simply living out his natural lifespan for no other reason than to procreate (as if he were a being no higher than a monkey for example), or to make money (a cause that cannot possibly be construed as having any spiritual connotations, as the very concept of currency is purely man-made). It is a very difficult concept to convey in words, but I hope I have done my best. Now then perhaps you can predict my argument for how the presence of meaning in life can prove the existence of God.

I'm going to borrow the analogy of the paper knife (from E&S) as it is highly appropriate here.

• There are items in this world that have a meaning or purpose, such as paper knives or tables
• These items have a purpose because they were designed for something specific (i.e. a paper knife's purpose is to open letters, because that is what it was designed for)
• Thus, in order for an item to possess meaning or purpose (the Sartrian essence) it must have been designed by something or someone, who conceived of its purpose prior to making it

Sartre then goes on to argue that man does not have essence, because he believes there is no God that could give it to us. I, however, argue the reverse: because our lives do have meaning, the only way we can have come by this is if we were thought of and designed prior to being created / coming into existence. If the universe was simply an astrophysical accident, then from this you must see how there can be, not just very little meaning, but no meaning to life, and therefore the presence of any meaning at all is proof of the existence of at least some form of higher power, capable of designing us and giving us this meaning.

 

[TeddyKGB]

I take meaning (in the sense of 'the meaning of life' / 'my life has no meaning') to stand for something like 'purpose', or 'reason'. I think it will be easier to define this by way of the via negativa; a man's life does not have meaning if he is simply living out his natural lifespan for no other reason than to procreate (as if he were a being no higher than a monkey for example), or to make money (a cause that cannot possibly be construed as having any spiritual connotations, as the very concept of currency is purely man-made). It is a very difficult concept to convey in words, but I hope I have done my best.

Why not procreation? To suggest evolutionary 'height' (a common misconception, by the by) somehow precludes it is to miss the point. If there is anything at all we can say about human purpose from empirical observation alone, it is that our characteristics are adapted for maximizing our chances of passing on our genes. I can't imagine a more straightforward indication of "meaning."

 

[MedicMan]

Why not procreation? To suggest evolutionary 'height' (a common misconception, by the by) somehow precludes it is to miss the point. If there is anything at all we can say about human purpose from empirical observation alone, it is that our characteristics are adapted for maximizing our chances of passing on our genes. I can't imagine a more straightforward indication of "meaning."

Perhaps, but let me quote myself here:

the only way we can have come by [a purpose or meaning] is if we were thought of and designed prior to being created / coming into existence

The presence of any meaning at all must be the result of creation, as I argued above. And are you content to think of yourself as being on the same 'tier' as monkeys, gorillas, etc? Humans are much more advanced than any other life-form on this planet. We are more complex in almost every faculty (indeed, the mere possession of certain faculties that other beings lack sets us above and beyond - the power to introspect, for example), and as such it would make much more sense to assume that our purpose as a whole is much more complex than simple procreation. Yes, procreation may be a part of it (and indeed is - God instructed Noah's family to populate the world after all), but there is more to it than just this, and since this is so there must be a divine being that gave us this.

 

[TeddyKGB]

The presence of any meaning at all must be the result of creation, as I argued above. And are you content to think of yourself as being on the same 'tier' as monkeys, gorillas, etc?

I don't feel like I need to create an existential hierarchy in order to feel good about myself. I am comfortable self-identifying as a primate while acknowledging differences that don't necessarily make me "better" than a gorilla.

Humans are much more advanced than any other life-form on this planet.

That's a pretty subjective assessment. There are organisms that surpass each of our senses in ability. We can't photo- or chemosynthesize. We can't survive in 10 degree water for more than a few minutes. No one can build stuff or think about stuff as well as we can, but that's about it.

We are more complex in almost every faculty (indeed, the mere possession of certain faculties that other beings lack sets us above and beyond - the power to introspect, for example), and as such it would make much more sense to assume that our purpose as a whole is much more complex than simple procreation.

Or it could be that introspection is part of an elaborate mating ritual, or that it is a side-effect of higher cognition. I certainly am not compelled to conclude 'purpose' from the mere fact that we are amazed with ourselves.

Yes, procreation may be a part of it (and indeed is - God instructed Noah's family to populate the world after all), but there is more to it than just this, and since this is so there must be a divine being that gave us this.

I don't know what "more to it" means. We can contemplate a meta-meaningful existence, but that doesn't mean there is one.

 

[JohnLocke]

MedicMan,

I still don't follow:

Man's meaning in life (as in the converse of "my life has no meaning") is almost universally tied up, to a greater or lesser degree, in human relationships; family, social honor, military espirit de corps, etc.

The creator of the meaning in each instance is man. Where does God come in?

 

[MedicMan]

John,

God comes in because, as I iterated above, in order for man to possess any purpose or meaning in this world then we must have someone who is capable of giving us this meaning - if we give ourselves meaning, then it is not a meaning for all of mankind is it? All humans have meaning in this world, though we may not be aware of it. For example, people can spend years doing what they think is right for them (career-wise, for instance) and never be truly happy. Then they make an arbitrary choice to change career and find they are much happier - the man chose his own meaning and it did not satisfy him, and then decided to do something that was against his own opinion of what was right for him and found it was much better. Thus we cannot always define our own meaning.

Teddy,

Fair points all, but actually beside the point. We're not discussing evolution here