meaning is God.

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder wrote:

I agree Boagie that science and biology have their benefits and can offer great insight to things that are attainable, but we should never make the mistake of thinking that they have all the answers or that there is nothing left to discover.

Pathfinder, Smile

You seem to be inferring that there are alternative means to uncovering these mysteries, am I reading you correctly. It should be obvious to all that there are still unlimited mystery to uncover, but exploration through science seems to be the only really fruitful methods available to us, unless you wish to share some insight to the contrary here.

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Pathfinder,

You seem to be inferring that there are alternative means to uncovering these mysteries, am I reading you correctly. It should be obvious to all that there are still unlimited mystery to uncover, but exploration through science seems to be the only really fruitful methods available to us, unless you wish to share some insight to the contrary here.

No I am not going to suggest that any one form of study is any better or worse than any other.

That is where our logic and rationale come into play. IMO, there must be some credible reason to pursue any one particular study and to do so with an open mind free from baggage.

But I do acknowledge that there are credible means of study available that should be taken advantage of.

1 Reply

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder, Smile

If you are inferring intuition here, I do think that is very much a part of the scientific method, difficult to give priority over verious aspects for when you subtract one aspect and its removal aborts the quest, how can one say it is of less importance.

0 Replies

@Ola,

I might have misunderstood what you said Boag, but if its what it sounded like, than 'one bad apple dont spoil the whole bunch girl.' Michael Jackson,lol Do not ask me why I would want to quote him!

I am not really advising any particular effort or study, what I am saying is that we must be open to the possibilities that there could be a way to discover these unknowns and we have just simply not found them yet. Inability does not mean impossibility.

if we believe it impossible than we stop progressing and give uip searching. Once that happens the chances of discovery have all but been eliminated.

0 Replies

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder wrote:

Than what is the difference between a dead amoeba and a live one when both have exactly the same biological components?

A dead amoeba and a live amoeba could not have the same components. Let's imagine (because I'm not a biologist) that amoebas have X Y and Z organs, which are complex molecular structures, and perform various tasks essential to life. In a live amoeba, all function. In a dead amoeba, maybe there is an imbalance in PH in organ Y which causes a change in the molecular structure such that some enzyme no longer works properly and the amoeba starves to death. Different components.

Quote:

The simplest organisms still require that life giving force to be considered a living thing. Otherwise they are dead things.

How do you know that something is alive? Do you see the 'life force?" If so, what does it look/sound/smell/feel/taste like? You do NOT see the life force, you see certain behaviors (such as smiling, as opposed to rotting in a hole), which collectively you call life. You then imagine that the abstraction 'life' is the cause of the behavior. You've made the same mistake that all Platonists make...nothing new under the sun.

Quote:

It doesn't matter what one calls it, everything that is alive has that unknown life force in it that makes it alive. Biological components do not give life.

It is unknown because it is an abstraction: i.e. imaginary. Biological components do cause the behavior that are called life. Again, you are suggesting that your IDEA of life is the cause of the phenomena, from which you constructed the idea.

1 Reply

@Ola,

What the hell are you talking about NOON.

Are you saying you cannot tell the difference between something that is dead and something that is alive.

I wouldn't want to be your spouse!

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

A dead amoeba and a live amoeba could not have the same components. Let's imagine (because I'm not a biologist) that amoebas have X Y and Z organs, which are complex molecular structures, and perform various tasks essential to life. In a live amoeba, all function. In a dead amoeba, maybe there is an imbalance in PH in organ Y which causes a change in the molecular structure such that some enzyme no longer works properly and the amoeba starves to death. Different components.

How do you know that something is alive? Do you see the 'life force?" If so, what does it look/sound/smell/feel/taste like? You do NOT see the life force, you see certain behaviors (such as smiling, as opposed to rotting in a hole), which collectively you call life. You then imagine that the abstraction 'life' is the cause of the behavior. You've made the same mistake that all Platonists make...nothing new under the sun.

It is unknown because it is an abstraction: i.e. imaginary. Biological components do cause the behavior that are called life. Again, you are suggesting that your IDEA of life is the cause of the phenomena, from which you constructed the idea.

The living an the dead have the same componants...They may be arranged differently...Something may be added like a poison, or lost like an essential chemical, or not.. People die of violence too, or pain, and go into shock, and slip away....What we think of life is the same thing for all living things, a shared quality passed from living being to living beings...I don't have to explain what it is... We call it animus, or soul, or spirit, or life... Understanding it is beyond us... Making it better is not.... And this much is true.... Life is meaning, and to us life is God, whether we frame that as eternal life, or life in the next moment...Both are infinitly beyond our understanding, so I would suggest we not even bother...

I picked up a book the other day called Theodicy, by Leibniz...Now; I know this guy just a little, and He was very logical.... But, it was from this book that Voltaire made Pangloss.... This was Leibniz, trying to do as the medieval clerics, applying logic to theology.... And He is right, and at the same time can appear incredibly stupid, as pangloss....Once you accept God as perfect, then all that God does, Viz, this world is perfect too, if not the best one possiblle....There is simply no way to escape ones predjudice in regard to infinites....

0 Replies

@Ola,

Ola wrote:

There is only meaning if there is a God.
Philosophers and scientists have no answer to the meaning of life.
But if there is one (God) he/she/it does know.
And therefore just the possibility of a God outweighs anything humans can come up with. (You are at a junction. You can take a road that goes nowhere or an unknown one. The logical choice is the unknown road.)

But who knows what God (is)?

Correction, there is only meaning if there is a Mind. When you are riding a roller coaster at an amusement park are you thinking about God?

God is the opposite of Joy, Life and Activity.

There are three knowings:

1. Things you know (like English)
2. Things you know you don't know (like the temperature on the Moon)
3. Things you don't know that you don't know (like your unconscious)

1 Reply

@FireInTheWater,

But who knows what God (is)?

FireInTheWater wrote:

Correction, there is only meaning if there is a Mind. When you are riding a roller coaster at an amusement park are you thinking about God?

God is the opposite of Joy, Life and Activity.

There are three knowings:

1. Things you know (like English)
2. Things you know you don't know (like the temperature on the Moon)
3. Things you don't know that you don't know (like your unconscious)

That is interesting; Mind > God.

A framework regarding minds perception of meaning and God is needed.

A deity holds the power to give life (true) meaning. (If it does not it isn't a deity, is it?) And nothing else has (true) meaning.
So just the possibility of such a deity (and the meaning that follows)outweighs any other construct (for creating personal meaning).
But can one trust ones own mind?
Just how powerful is: "3. Things you don't know that you don't know." here? Isn't it a destroyer in any discussion? - totally counterproductive?

Or am I being hypocritical here?
If "3. Things you don't know that you don't know." can't be used then "A deity holds the power to give life meaning. And nothing else has meaning.
So just the possibility of such a deity outweighs any other construct." shouldn't be used either?
or?

0 Replies

@Ola,

Ola,

We are the ones applying meaning -- this is the mind he speaks of. "God" is an abstract notion constructed (by the mind) which induces a sense of purpose throughout one's life. This notion varies culture to culture, religion to religion, person to person. However, "God" (deity, whatever terminology you prefer) does not have to "outweigh any other construct". I could easily grasp onto another construct, if I so chose, in order to create personal meaning. This is the beauty of the human mind, our ability to apply meaning. We are the gods.

I'm a bit confused as to what framework you're looking for.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

Ola,

We are the ones applying meaning -- this is the mind he speaks of. "God" is an abstract notion constructed (by the mind) which induces a sense of purpose throughout one's life. This notion varies culture to culture, religion to religion, person to person. However, "God" (deity, whatever terminology you prefer) does not have to "outweigh any other construct". I could easily grasp onto another construct, if I so chose, in order to create personal meaning. This is the beauty of the human mind, our ability to apply meaning. We are the gods.

I'm a bit confused as to what framework you're looking for.

Meaning is essential to humanity...Our ability to see the meaning in objects has been our survival... Yet the ability works whether there is something of meaning to percieve or not... When I finished highschool, I had my longest interupted period of thought in my life... I hate to say that I have not advanced much from that time in thirty eight years for existential thought... I laid in my bed in my basement bedroom and stared at the cieling tille, and thought for hours... As my mind worked my eyes wandered and I tried without trying consciously to find some pattern to the holes in the tile which we not uniform and not random either...Each tile was like another... And there was no meaning, no line, no pattern no matter how I enlarged my field of vision...it is the same if one looks at some art Modern Art work with pain splattered on froom a multitude of directions...The mind looks for some pattern as meaning, some intent, some massage... We have the need and the ability to find meaning... It make ghosts, and monsters, and boogiemen...It makes God...No matter how much of nothing we see we still want to see something in it... WE look without trying, and we see without light...The mind works even without eyes...

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Meaning is essential to humanity...Our ability to see the meaning in objects has been our survival... Yet the ability works whether there is something of meaning to percieve or not... When I finished highschool, I had my longest interupted period of thought in my life... I hate to say that I have not advanced much from that time in thirty eight years for existential thought... I laid in my bed in my basement bedroom and stared at the cieling tille, and thought for hours... As my mind worked my eyes wandered and I tried without trying consciously to find some pattern to the holes in the tile which we not uniform and not random either...Each tile was like another... And there was no meaning, no line, no pattern no matter how I enlarged my field of vision...it is the same if one looks at some art Modern Art work with pain splattered on froom a multitude of directions...The mind looks for some pattern as meaning, some intent, some massage... We have the need and the ability to find meaning... It make ghosts, and monsters, and boogiemen...It makes God...No matter how much of nothing we see we still want to see something in it... WE look without trying, and we see without light...The mind works even without eyes...

Exactly.

And similarly, we attach a mystical stigma to the notion "God". We apply profound meaning to this word, meaning out of nothing. Again, this is the beauty I speak of.

0 Replies

@Ola,

But after all is said and done, regardless of what the mind thinks, that unknown aspect of creation that eludes the greatest minds, still holds the key to the meaning of life and its truth concerning how that affects us as humans.

2 Replies

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder wrote:

But after all is said and done, regardless of what the mind thinks, that unknown aspect of creation that eludes the greatest minds, still holds the key to the meaning of life and its truth concerning how that affects us as humans.

Obviously it's not regardless of what the mind thinks as you just conjured another perspective of ultimate meaning!

You're the one applying meaning, we all are. Through your logicality, you're creating a "key". Where did this "key" come from?

Your mind.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Let me rephrase,

Regardless of how the mind can deceive...

and the key is the unknown factor of creation that we all know exists.

1 Reply

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder wrote:

Let me rephrase,

Regardless of how the mind can deceive...

and the key is the unknown factor of creation that we all know exists.

The unknown factor of creation I know exists? I know not any factor I think exists dealing with creation. Actually, I don't believe in creation at all. Why does existence have to fall in line with a logical progression, a cause and effect system, something 'created'? It's this artifact/artificer relationship we so abruptly clench onto... why? Well, Joseph Campbell decided he'd delve into this question, and I'd really recommend his work.

"A fundamental belief of Campbell's was that all spirituality is a search for the same basic, unknown force from which everything came, within which everything currently exists, and into which everything will return. This elemental force is ultimately "unknowable" because it exists before words and knowledge. Although this basic driving force cannot be expressed in words, spiritual rituals and stories refer to the force through the use of "metaphors" - these metaphors being the various stories, deities, and objects of spirituality we see in the world. For example, the Genesis myth in the Bible ought not be taken as a literal description of actual events, but rather its poetic, metaphorical meaning should be examined for clues concerning the fundamental truths of the world and our existence."

Joseph Campbell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In his last work, he describes the 4 stages of mythology humanity has taken. Though he died before it's completion, finding what he did complete is worth it.

---

Thus I understand where you're coming from: you're seeking that "fundamental truth", the truth you believe eludes humans -- the cause of existence? However, I think the "key" is conjured by us. It's perspective, it's application of meaning. It's a seeking of purpose. There's no objective purpose outside of what we construct. I think 'reason' is outside the realm of what we're dealing with here.

0 Replies

@Ola,

I am not familiar with these writings but nothing that you propose really confronts the points I am making Zeth.

You seem to be suggesting that man's inability to come up with answers means that there are no answers. Or that because man has so dismally failed in their attempt to address the creation around them by creating religion, that their failure and idiocy must mean that there is therefore no creation or Force behind it.

I am sorry friend but I do not see your point.

Just because man has created the disaster of religion, does not negate the reality of a Force behind creation, it simply means that man fails miserably to relate to it.

To better understand where you are coming from Zeth, I will need to know why you suppose man's failures to relate to the creation around him means that there is no creation around him.

0 Replies

@Ola,

Quote:

To better understand where you are coming from Zeth, I will need to know why you suppose man's failures to relate to the creation around him means that there is no creation around him.

Hm. Where did I speak of man's failures... at all? Failure and success are outside the realm of which we are speaking, or at least outside the realm of which I'm speaking.

I think to understand where you are coming from, I must understand why you believe existence necessitates 'creation'.

0 Replies

@Ola,

you said there is no constructive purpose outside of what we construct.

And you continue to support your conclusions by pointing to the failures of mans attempts at religion.

This is why I ask you!

You asked me why I believe existence necessitates creation? I do not! I believe that existence and creation are one and the same, and the fact that they are necessitates a Force beyond them; the external that you try so hard to deny.

1 Reply

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder wrote:

you said there is no constructive purpose outside of what we construct.

And you continue to support your conclusions by pointing to the failures of mans attempts at religion.

This is why I ask you!

I've had three posts with you so far, so I don't really understand why you say I 'continue to support'. All I wanted you to consider in all three posts was the possibility that there may not be any objective meaning/purpose (1) and that existence does not necessitate creation (2). I also never brought up failure on man's part: Who am I to say any mythology is a failure? You're the one that has dubbed religion a 'failure', not I. My excerpt about J.C was just bringing to light how dynamic mythology really is, the artificer/artifact relationship you hold so dear explained rationally. You obviously completely misunderstood me.

Let me continue to reiterate, because I believe I will be misunderstood again: I am not denying any mythology. For all I know, there could be a "Force": I just tend to believe there is not, but my mind is malleable. What I was addressing was the fact that creationism does not necessitate existence (2). That is, we can conjure other possibilities of existence being without creation. I will at this point also direct you to a thread I was a part of that delved very deep into this issue:

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/philosophy-science/3628-my-case-intelligent-design-behind-existence.html

Pathfinder wrote:

You asked me why I believe existence necessitates creation? I do not! I believe that existence and creation are one and the same, and the fact that they are necessitates a Force beyond them; the external that you try so hard to deny.

Believing existence and creation are one means that you believe existence necessitates creation. This is the only thing I've outwardly denied thus far.

Now, again, in order to better understand you: Why do you believe a "Force" exists -- Why do you believe everything in existence was 'created'? That is my question.

0 Replies

meaning is God.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know