God and The Meaning of Life

Angel · Feb 13, 2018

devildavid said:
Trust in an unknown is trust in nothing.

The unknown is always involved in trust.

devildavid said:
Trusting a friend or parent is far different than trust in a make believe thing.

God is not make-believe, except to a certain brand of atheism.

devildavid said:
You don't know that this thing you trust in even is worthy of trust because you label it unknown.

A Power capable of creating the universe, life on earth, and mind is worthy of trust in my book, if not in yours. We're working from different books, you see.

devildavid said:
Trust in the unknown makes no sense at all. If it is unknown, you cannot possibly know that it intended at all or that the force that started things is capable of intention. Many things cause other things without intention. Your assumption of intention gives this force a human quality, but you dance around this.

The human quality derives from the divine. Trust in the unknown is answered above. Design implies intention.

devildavid said:
That things exist does not point to something that intended them to exist. But even if we were to say that things were intended it does not follow that it gives them meaning, it only means that it was purposely done by conscious entity and it has some meaning or purpose to that entity, but not necessarily to the things its created.

Intention implies meaning. All art teaches us this. All human invention does for that matter.

devildavid said:
We were all created by other human beings. Their intent in creating us is irrelevant as far as any meaning to our lives.

By proxy, yes, and the trust of a child in the parent follows naturally.

devildavid said:
Creation alone does not create meaning.

Answered above. Creation always implies meaning.

Quag · Feb 13, 2018

Angel said:
Yes, God only knows.

If all you're saying here is that all my views are personal and subjective, you're not saying much. All your views are personal and subjective as well. Everyone's views are personal and subjective.
If what you're saying here is that if Creator God exists, then the universal meaning that the existence of Creator God bestows upon the world is only my personal subjective view, then you're either falling back on the truism that subjectivity is inescapable in order to discount the objectivity of universal meaning (and with it all objective meaning by the way) or you're saying that personal meaning and universal meaning are the same thing, which is false by definition.

No I am saying you have no way of knowing of if there is a universal meaning, only belief. If your belief is wrong nothing has actually changed for you because you have no way of knowing that your belief is wrong.

What does your "it" refer to? If your "it" refers to universal meaning, then your question assumes that I claimed to know what the universal meaning is beyond a meaning that is universal, which I never claimed.

No if God(s) decide to change the universal meaning then what changes for you? how would you even know?

I've answered this already. Everything changes because all that lacked universal meaning now possesses universal meaning. The existence of Creator God changes everything in this way.

Actually no you didnt you just reiterated the claim you haven't given anything remotely coming close to explain how or why.

I already answered this as well. See what I posted about Absurdism in my reply to you.

Again I have yet to see anything that is more than a reiteration of an assertion without any argument to explain why.

Angel · Feb 13, 2018

Here is the series of exchanges on meaning and meaningfulness, Quag. Please read them over.

Quag said:
Angel said:

Quag said:

Angel said:

Quag said:

The universal meaning if it exists is meaningless to us as a species since we have no way of knowing what it is. If it is meaningless to us then whether or not it exists or not cannot have any effect upon us.
...

Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean, Quag. Does that make your post meaningless? Can I ask the question, "What do you mean?" Or is this question meaningless on its face because I do not know what you mean? More to the point, what would prompt my question in the first place? Isn't my question prompted by the fact that I trust that the person I know as "Quag" means something by his post? Now you may or may not reply to my question. You may reply by repeating your post in more or less the same way. Or you may reply in a different way.
Now, whether you are silent or reply in the same way or reply in a different way and I still don't understand what you mean, then according to you, your post is meaningless, whereas according to me, your post is meaningful though I am am unable to figure out what it means. In short, one does not have to know what the meaning of something is in order to trust, given the source, that it is meaningful.
...

Click to expand...

I can respond and try to explain the meaning of my post (such as I am doing now) and anyone on DP can see that response. Now if you continue to not understand the meaning of my post then yes for you it will remain meanignless.
...

Click to expand...

No, your post has meaning whether I grasp it or not -- that was my point. If I were to call it meaningless because I don't understand it (which I did not do, let's remember), as you call my post on universal meaning meaningless in se because you don't understand it, I would be contradicting myself, and I never do that. You, however, in calling my post on universal meaning meaningless in se because you don't understand it -- you, in this instance, are contradicting yourself inasmuch as all you can assert is that my post on the universality of meaning given the existence of Creator God, is meaningless for you.
...

I am saying that, given a Creator God, even though man does not know what that meaning is, man can trust in the meaningfulness of the universe -- just as, given the existence of the reasonable "Quag," I can trust in the meaningfulness of his post even though I do not know what that meaning is.

You are saying that, given a Creator God, unless man knows what the meaning is, man cannot trust in the meaningfulness of the universe.
...

Click to expand...

NO!!!!!
Why are you changing my words?
I am stating that as we cannot know what this universal meaning is its existence or non existence is irrelevant to humanity

At that point you claimed I had misrepresented your view in this matter, and I asked you to please point out the misrepresentation.
You post the following in reply:

Quag said:
You are talking about trust which is in the realm of belief I am talking about knowledge. I am saying that you can continue to believe in a universal meaning (whatever you think it may be) but its existence or non existence is irrelevant as our lives will not be changed regardless. I am not saying do not believe I am saying your belief whether correct or incorrect changes nothing. Your statement implies I am claiming that unless we know it is wrong to believe.

Do you think this reply fairly represents what you were saying in the course of our exchanges, Quag? I've bolded a few lines to help you see that I did not misrepresent what you were saying, and that what you are saying in your latest post alters what you were saying in the earlier posts.

Now, in this latest post of alterations, you introduce the concept of relevancy. The only fair construction I can put on this new concept is that all along in the course of our exchanges whenever you used the word "meaningless" you meant "irrelevant." Is that correct?

Also, in this latest post you introduce and attribute the moral or epistemological term "wrong" -- a word I never used in either sense. What point of mine are you misunderstanding here?

Finally, the distinction you draw between knowledge and belief is idiosyncratic and perhaps incorrect. All knowledge is a form of belief. We've covered this before. Whatever you claim to know you believe and you believe you know.

So, in the hope that we can move on, are you (still) saying that if you don't know the meaning of something, you cannot trust in its meaningfulness?

Or are you (now) saying that if you don't know the meaning of something, you can trust in its meaningfulness, but its meaningfulness is irrelevant?

Angel · Feb 13, 2018

@Quag & devildavid & All who are interested in the question.

Quag said:
...

devildavid said:
...

If you saw written or inscribed or heard spoken or sung the following, can we not say that it has meaning even if we do not know what it means?

U ne la nv i u we tsi
I ga go yv he i
Hna quo tso sv wi yu lo se
I ga gu yv ho nv

Angel · Feb 13, 2018

Quag said:
No I am saying you have no way of knowing of if there is a universal meaning, only belief. If your belief is wrong nothing has actually changed for you because you have no way of knowing that your belief is wrong.

Answered in #228.

Quag said:
No if God(s) decide to change the universal meaning then what changes for you? how would you even know?

You seem not to grasp the concept of universal meaning from divine creation, Quag. Your question appears to take universal meaning as meaning something along the lines of an presidential executive order. The meaning inheres in the creation by reason of the creation.

Quag said:
Actually no you didnt you just reiterated the claim you haven't given anything remotely coming close to explain how or why.

Whether you recall what I posted earlier or not, I answer your question again here.

Everything changes because all that lacked universal meaning now possesses universal meaning. The existence of Creator God changes everything in this way.

This answers How and Why.

Quag said:
Again I have yet to see anything that is more than a reiteration of an assertion without any argument to explain why.

Do you not know what Absurdism is? At any rate, it answers your question.

Quag · Feb 13, 2018

Angel said:
Here is the series of exchanges on meaning and meaningfulness, Quag. Please read them over.
At that point you claimed I had misrepresented your view in this matter, and I asked you to please point out the misrepresentation.
You post the following in reply:
Do you think this reply fairly represents what you were saying in the course of our exchanges, Quag? I've bolded a few lines to help you see that I did not misrepresent what you were saying, and that what you are saying in your latest post alters what you were saying in the earlier posts.

But you did misrepresent it, your rewrite is not the same as what I said.

Now, in this latest post of alterations, you introduce the concept of relevancy. The only fair construction I can put on this new concept is that all along in the course of our exchanges whenever you used the word "meaningless" you meant "irrelevant." Is that correct?

I changed from meaningless to irrelevant because I though perhaps you would understand better. There is little difference between them, as a universal meaning that is unknown, unknowable as to what it is or even if it exists is both meaningless and irrelevant to humanity.

Also, in this latest post you introduce and attribute the moral or epistemological term "wrong" -- a word I never used in either sense. What point of mine are you misunderstanding here?

Wrong as in incorrect. I should have put a comma between know and it.

, the distinction you draw between knowledge and belief is idiosyncratic and perhaps incorrect. All knowledge is a form of belief. We've covered this before. Whatever you claim to know you believe and you believe you know.

Your misconceptions of what is knowledge and what is belief is possibly part of your failure to comprehend what I am saying

So, in the hope that we can move on, are you (still) saying that if you don't know the meaning of something, you cannot trust in its meaningfulness?

No. That is not what I have been saying, it never has been.

Or are you (now) saying that if you don't know the meaning of something, you can trust in its meaningfulness, but its meaningfulness is irrelevant?

Closer but still off the mark. The existence of the universal meaning is meaningless and irrelevant as not only do you not know that it actually exists you dont know what it is.
Hence it has and can never have an actual impact upon humanity except for any subjective belief you place in it making it defacto a personal meaning regardless whether it exists or not.

Quag · Feb 13, 2018

Angel said:
@Quag & devildavid & All who are interested in the question.

If you saw written or inscribed or heard spoken or sung the following, can we not say that it has meaning even if we do not know what it means?

U ne la nv i u we tsi
I ga go yv he i
Hna quo tso sv wi yu lo se
I ga gu yv ho nv

Angel you dont even know if there is a universal meaning. So no this is not the same thing.
However it may still have no meaning in any case. If you say it has meaning without having any actual reason to say it does then you are saying that on belief and belief alone.
Any meaning you believe it has is personal subjective position, including the belief that it has unknown meaning.

Angel · Feb 13, 2018

Quag said:
But you did misrepresent it, your rewrite is not the same as what I said.

This is what you said:

The universal meaning if it exists is meaningless to us as a species since we have no way of knowing what it is.

This is what I said you said:

You are saying that, given a Creator God, unless man knows what the meaning is, man cannot trust in the meaningfulness of the universe.

I'm sorry. Quag, but I don't see any misrepresentation.

Quag said:
I changed from meaningless to irrelevant because I though perhaps you would understand better. There is little difference between them, as a universal meaning that is unknown, unknowable as to what it is or even if it exists is both meaningless and irrelevant to humanity.

There is enough difference to maintain the distinction. I am talking about meaning, not relevance. Can we stick to that?

Quag said:
Wrong as in incorrect. I should have put a comma between know and it.

This is what you said:

Your statement implies I am claiming that unless we know it is wrong to believe.

So you're saying here that I am implying that you're claiming that unless we know, it is incorrect to believe (in universal meaning).
Yes, that is what I understand you to be saying.

Quag said:
Your misconceptions of what is knowledge and what is belief is possibly part of your failure to comprehend what I am saying

No, there's no misconception on my part. There is a difference of conception on our parts.

Quag said:
No. That is not what I have been saying, it never has been.

Well, that's what your posts said to me. If that is not what you're saying, then I don't know what you're saying.

Quag said:
Closer but still off the mark. The existence of the universal meaning is meaningless and irrelevant as not only do you not know that it actually exists you dont know what it is.
Hence it has and can never have an actual impact upon humanity except for any subjective belief you place in it making it defacto a personal meaning regardless whether it exists or not.

Omitting the "relevance" business, I've bolded your latest statement, and it seems to me you're still saying the same thing, the thing I've said you're saying and that you insist you're not saying.

Angel · Feb 13, 2018

Angel said:
This is what you said:

This is what I said you said:

I'm sorry. Quag, but I don't see any misrepresentation.

There is enough difference to maintain the distinction. I am talking about meaning, not relevance. Can we stick to that?

This is what you said:

So you're saying here that I am implying that you're claiming that unless we know, it is incorrect to believe (in universal meaning).
Yes, that is what I understand you to be saying.

No, there's no misconception on my part. There is a difference of conception on our parts.

Well, that's what your posts said to me. If that is not what you're saying, then I don't know what you're saying.

Omitting the "relevance" business, I've bolded your latest statement, and it seems to me you're still saying the same thing, the thing I've said you're saying and that you insist you're not saying.

And to clarify what seems to be a persistent misunderstanding on your part: I trust in universal meaning because I know that God exists.

devildavid · Feb 13, 2018

Angel said:
And to clarify what seems to be a persistent misunderstanding on your part: I trust in universal meaning because I know that God exists.

You don't trust in god? Playing with wording again, I see. How can you know that something unknowable exists?

devildavid · Feb 13, 2018

Angel said:
@Quag & devildavid & All who are interested in the question.

If you saw written or inscribed or heard spoken or sung the following, can we not say that it has meaning even if we do not know what it means?

U ne la nv i u we tsi
I ga go yv he i
Hna quo tso sv wi yu lo se
I ga gu yv ho nv

No, we can't assume it has meaning. But once again you play word games. Your claim is that the existence of everything has a general universal meaning, not a specific meaning such as the meaning of a word. Physical things do not possess a thing called meaning. Stars, planets, rocks, dirt, dust, etc. do not have meaning, they just exist. There is not a thing called "Life" which has meaning. Life, God, and any accompanying Meaning are all concepts produced by imagination. They are only real as human concepts, not as things which exist independent of human concepts. The sun is a star, it is not a human concept. No matter what we call it it is still there and it doesn't bend to our concept of it or what we call it. I's location in proximity to the earth is what makes our physical existence possible. When it eventually dies, physical life forms on earth will die with it, including us and our concepts. But none of this has a meaning, it is just stuff that exists and happens.

Bodi · Feb 13, 2018

Angel said:
What do you think?
I mean, assuming "humans existed for a long time before the concept of God," what do you think?

There is no meaning to life.. . FACT.

Angel · Feb 14, 2018

Bodhisattva said:
There is no meaning to life.. . FACT.

I very much enjoyed the paradox in your post, Bodhisattva. It's quite good.

For those who do not appreciate the art of paradox, I would respectfully point out that a fact is a form of meaning.
Therefore, if life has no meaning is a fact, then life has a meaning -- namely, that life has no meaning. But that life has no meaning is not a fact unless life has meaning.

As I say, it's really quite good.
All credit to Bodhisattva.

Namaste.

Angel · Feb 14, 2018

devildavid said:
You don't trust in god? Playing with wording again, I see. How can you know that something unknowable exists?

Same thing.
You seem to be the one playing with my words, David. Mind you, I don't mind. I'm a good sport.

How can we know that something unknowable exists? Same way we know that something knowable exists. Drum roll. Through experience.

Angel · Feb 14, 2018

Angel said:
@Quag & devildavid & All who are interested in the question.

If you saw written or inscribed or heard spoken or sung the following, can we not say that it has meaning even if we do not know what it means?

U ne la nv i u we tsi
I ga go yv he i
Hna quo tso sv wi yu lo se
I ga gu yv ho nv

Quag said:
...
However it may still have no meaning in any case. If you say it has meaning without having any actual reason to say it does then you are saying that on belief and belief alone.
Any meaning you believe it has is personal subjective position, including the belief that it has unknown meaning.

devildavid said:
No, we can't assume it has meaning.

Please do click on the video, gentlemen. This rendition is breathtaking.
But besides that, I think it's pretty clear that anyone hearing this beautiful concatenation of sounds would sense that they convey meaning -- and this, without knowing the meaning of the sounds and without prior acquaintance with the song.

Quag · Feb 14, 2018

Angel said:
This is what you said:

This is what I said you said:

I'm sorry. Quag, but I don't see any misrepresentation.

I have explained it many times. I can only assume the meaning is unknown to you (pun intended

)

There is enough difference to maintain the distinction. I am talking about meaning, not relevance. Can we stick to that?

OK

This is what you said:

So you're saying here that I am implying that you're claiming that unless we know, it is incorrect to believe (in universal meaning).
Yes, that is what I understand you to be saying.

Your understanding of what I am saying is incorrect. I am saying: The universal meaning if it exists is meaningless to us as a species since we have no way of knowing what it is. It is not wrong to believe in something. It is wrong to not understand that belief is different than fact. I am also pointing out that whether the belief is true or untrue changes nothing

No, there's no misconception on my part. There is a difference of conception on our parts.

When you are using different concepts than I am and rewriting my statements so they have different meaning then yes the misconception is on your part.

Well, that's what your posts said to me. If that is not what you're saying, then I don't know what you're saying.

I am also pointing out that whether the belief is true or untrue changes nothing. It is a belief and beliefs are personal.

Omitting the "relevance" business, I've bolded your latest statement, and it seems to me you're still saying the same thing, the thing I've said you're saying and that you insist you're not saying.

Quite clearly it isn't the same thing otherwise I would just agree that it is.
You have made a claim of a universal meaning that you cannot prove exists nor have any idea of what it may be. You have yet to explain in any way what would change if that belief is factual or not. My statement says that because you do not know (ie you believe) it is meaningless to humanity one way or another.
Your statement as you have agreed is: claiming that unless we know, it is incorrect to believe (in universal meaning)
I have made no comments on whether it is correct or incorrect to believe I have merely pointed out that nothing changes one way or another, your belief is personal

Quag · Feb 14, 2018

Angel said:
And to clarify what seems to be a persistent misunderstanding on your part: I trust in universal meaning because I know that God exists.

You believe God(s) exist. Doesn't matter how hard you believe it is not the same as knowledge.

Angel · Feb 14, 2018

Quag said:
You believe God(s) exist. Doesn't matter how hard you believe it is not the same as knowledge.

I say I know, you say I believe, I say there is no difference, you say there is a difference. This line of discussion promises to go nowhere.
All I'll say as we set this question aside is that I know/believe to a moral certainty that God exists, and that our different conceptions of knowledge are immaterial to that certainty. There is vastly more evidence for the existence of God, for example, than there is for the existence of a human being in real space-time corresponding to the virtual persona of a certain "Quag." That is to say, I am more certain of the actual existence of what we call "God" than I am of your actual existence. Call this knowledge or belief as you will.

Quag · Feb 14, 2018

Angel said:
I say I know, you say I believe, I say there is no difference, you say there is a difference. This line of discussion promises to go nowhere.

But there is a difference, your refusal to acknowledge that there is doesn't change anything.

All I'll say as we set this question aside is that I know/believe to a moral certainty that God exists, and that our different conceptions of knowledge are immaterial to that certainty. There is vastly more evidence for the existence of God, for example, than there is for the existence of a human being in real space-time corresponding to the virtual persona of a certain "Quag." That is to say, I am more certain of the actual existence of what we call "God" than I am of your actual existence. Call this knowledge or belief as you will.

You can believe or you can know that you believe but you do not know there is a God(s)

zyzygy · Feb 14, 2018

Quag said:
But there is a difference, your refusal to acknowledge that there is doesn't change anything.

You can believe or you can know that you believe but you do not know there is a God(s)

The English language disagrees with Angel. Belief and knowledge are not synonyms.

Angel · Feb 14, 2018

Quag said:
I have explained it many times. I can only assume the meaning is unknown to you (pun intended )

OK

Your understanding of what I am saying is incorrect. I am saying: The universal meaning if it exists is meaningless to us as a species since we have no way of knowing what it is. It is not wrong to believe in something. It is wrong to not understand that belief is different than fact. I am also pointing out that whether the belief is true or untrue changes nothing

When you are using different concepts than I am and rewriting my statements so they have different meaning then yes the misconception is on your part.

I am also pointing out that whether the belief is true or untrue changes nothing. It is a belief and beliefs are personal.

Quite clearly it isn't the same thing otherwise I would just agree that it is.

Quag: "I am saying: The universal meaning if it exists is meaningless to us as a species since we have no way of knowing what it is."

Angel: "You are saying that, given a Creator God, unless man knows what the meaning is, man cannot trust in the meaningfulness of the universe."

Let's just leave it on the record then and move on, shall we? You claim that I misrepresent your view. I claim that I restate it exactly.

Let's also move on from talk of "relevance."

Quag said:
You have made a claim of a universal meaning that you cannot prove exists nor have any idea of what it may be. You have yet to explain in any way what would change if that belief is factual or not. My statement says that because you do not know (ie you believe) it is meaningless to humanity one way or another.

Let's leave talk of "proof" to the New Atheists, yes? In the first place nothing outside the artificial formal systems of math and logic can be proved. In the second place all I have to do is provide an argument for a hypothetical. That's all the OP demands. And I've provided that argument.

Quag said:
Your statement as you have agreed is: claiming that unless we know, it is incorrect to believe (in universal meaning)
I have made no comments on whether it is correct or incorrect to believe I have merely pointed out that nothing changes one way or another, your belief is personal

Do you misstate my view on purpose? To make a point perhaps about what you think is my misstatement of your view? At any rate, my view is the exact opposite to what you state in this portion of your post. Let's be clear about this before we move on.

As for this refrain of yours about "just a personal opinion," I addressed this in an earlier post. Must I look back through our posts and reproduce what I said? Or do you recall my dismantling of this persona;/universal canard?

Angel · Feb 14, 2018

Quag said:
...

And as my Cherokee Amazing Grace post goes to the heart of my view on unknown meaning, I would appreciate a reply, if we plan to carry on the discussion about universal meaning.

Angel · Feb 14, 2018

Quag said:
You believe God(s) exist. Doesn't matter how hard you believe it is not the same as knowledge.

Quag said:
I say I know, you say I believe, I say there is no difference, you say there is a difference. This line of discussion promises to go nowhere.

Click to expand...

But there is a difference, your refusal to acknowledge that there is doesn't change anything.

You can believe or you can know that you believe but you do not know there is a God(s)

Mine is the traditional view of knowledge in philosophy, Quag. See the article posted below.
If you peruse the article, you will see how complicated the question became in the 20th century. However, the "Gettier Problem," if not merely taken as an exception to the rule, does away with knowledge altogether, it seems to me. So I'll stick with the traditional view of knowledge as justified true belief.

The Analysis of Knowledge

1. Knowledge as Justified True Belief

There are three components to the traditional (“tripartite”) analysis of knowledge. According to this analysis, justified, true belief is necessary and sufficient for knowledge.
The Tripartite Analysis of Knowledge:
S knows that p iff

i. p is true;
ii. S believes that p;
iii. S is justified in believing that p.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/

Angel · Feb 14, 2018

zyzygy said:
The English language disagrees with Angel. Belief and knowledge are not synonyms.

Google is not your friend, zyz.

See post #248 if you're actually interested in exploring the problem of knowledge.

devildavid · Feb 14, 2018

Angel said:
Same thing.
You seem to be the one playing with my words, David. Mind you, I don't mind. I'm a good sport.

How can we know that something unknowable exists? Same way we know that something knowable exists. Drum roll. Through experience.

You can only experience that which is knowable, by definition. You can't experience the unknown. It is meaningless to say so. Stop playing word games.

God and The Meaning of Life

Angel

Quag

Angel

Angel

Angel

Quag

Quag

Angel

Angel

devildavid

Phlegmatic

devildavid

Phlegmatic

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...

Angel

Angel

Angel

Quag

Quag

Angel

Quag

zyzygy

Angel

Angel

Angel

Angel

devildavid

Phlegmatic