Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The meaning of "meaning"
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 46 of 152 (572773)
08-07-2010 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Modulous
08-07-2010 12:08 PM


Re: What is the meaning of whatever EMA is saying?
Sorry double post
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Modulous, posted 08-07-2010 12:08 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 47 of 152 (572776)
08-07-2010 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Dawn Bertot
08-07-2010 2:37 PM


Re: What is the meaning of whatever EMA is saying?
EMA writes:
If a specifc revelation is made in the form of Christ and scripture (Gods word), what would not be specific enough in its meaning and purpose for meaning overall
If a specific revelation is made in the form of Mowgli and Kaa's Hunting (Kipling's word), what would not be specific enough in its meaning and purpose for meaning overall?
If a specific revelation is made in the form of the Red Queen and Alice in Wonderland (Dodgson's word), what would not be specific enough in its meaning and purpose for meaning overall?
quote:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. "It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-07-2010 2:37 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-12-2010 12:31 PM jar has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 48 of 152 (572777)
08-07-2010 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Dawn Bertot
08-07-2010 2:37 PM


Re: What is the meaning of whatever EMA is saying?
Why does it make no sense, because you dont think its possible or you feel there is no way to find it?
It makes no sense because the grammar is all over the place.
quote:
Ultimatley we are not talking about a perspective, we are talking about meaning in and about reality itself.
Unless you can tell me what could fit the bill of 'meaning in and about reality itself' I have no idea what you think this means, let alone what I should make of it.
At this point I am only discussing that reality can have objective meaning
Then you'll have to explain what it means for there to be an objective meaning.
First, is it logically possible for there to be meaning and purpose, then what might it be
It is possible for there to be meaning and purpose. I've given some non theistic meanings and purposes. So now we've agreed that it's possible - why not take a shot at saying what it might be and we'll see if works out the way you thought.
Because I hadnt thought we had found any common ground about logic, reality, meaning or purpose.
Or language, it seems at times.
Nevertheless - it would help tremendously if you'd just say what the ultimate meaning was.
If a specifc revelation is made in the form of Christ and scripture (Gods word), what would not be specific enough in its meaning and purpose for meaning overall
No. Unless anything that was written in said scripture that addressed some kind of specific information as to the meaning of God, or whatever it is that is the 'ultimate meaning/purpose' - I don't think it would suffice. I haven't seen anything like that in the Bible. Please let me know rather than alluding to things and waiving your hands while making spooky noises. Cheers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-07-2010 2:37 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-07-2010 9:49 PM Modulous has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 49 of 152 (572809)
08-07-2010 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Blue Jay
08-07-2010 11:41 AM


I acknowledge that there is probably little distinction between the ways Theists and Atheists arrive at their conclusions. But, substituting the ways of drawing conclusions for the conclusions themselves is essentially assuming that Atheist position is right.
What is that last sentence about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Blue Jay, posted 08-07-2010 11:41 AM Blue Jay has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 50 of 152 (572843)
08-07-2010 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Modulous
08-07-2010 3:04 PM


Re: What is the meaning of whatever EMA is saying?
It makes no sense because the grammar is all over the place.
You had better extrapolate, that means explain further
Unless you can tell me what could fit the bill of 'meaning in and about reality itself' I have no idea what you think this means, let alone what I should make of it.
Its either design or chance. Since the universe has sent us no message indicating thier is not, not meaning, yet God has given us specifics about meaning. Meaning in reality would therefore be God as a reality and his specifcs he has given
Then you'll have to explain what it means for there to be an objective meaning.
Objective meaning is one of two logical possibilites. Those two logicalpossibilites are OBJECTIVE REALITY. When specified (by revelation) the meaning becomes clearer, correct? What would make a specific revelation less acceptable and meaningful verses a conclusion, readily acceptable, that nothing is meaninful concerning reality. Yet you accept THAT conclusion without hesitation. Hmmmm?
Its as hard and simple as that, BJay howerer has compromised this simplicity in his mind and been removed by constant association with twisting and manuvering of basic truths.
that is sad
EAM/DB
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Modulous, posted 08-07-2010 3:04 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Modulous, posted 08-11-2010 3:10 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 51 of 152 (573074)
08-09-2010 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Blue Jay
08-07-2010 11:11 AM


Re: What is the meaning of God/whatever?
I understand you're no longer participating on this thread, so no pressure to respond. My reply to you here is more a reply to anyone else who's reading and (perhaps) is looking for a response to what you said.
I see the Theistic argument looking like this:
intrinsic (created) meaning --> sense of meaning --> roles/duties
And, and I see the Atheistic view looking like this:
sense of meaning 
There's not enough room to make my point horizontally, so I need to change your statement into vertical form, this should be equivalent:
Theistic view:
1. Intrinsic (created) meaning
V
2. Sense of Meaning
V
3. Roles/Duties
Atheistic view:
2. Sense of Meaning
^
3. Roles/Duties
..and you're saying the Atheistic view has no "1." I understand what you're getting at (I think). Here is what the others are trying to show you (I think):
Theistic view:
2. God's Sense of Meaning
^ (or maybe V)
3. God's Roles/Duties
V
4. God deciding to create humans
V
5. Intrinsic (created) meaning
V
6. Man's Sense of Meaning
V
7. Man's Roles/Duties
Atheistic view:
2. Man's Sense of Meaning
^
3. Man's Roles/Duties
So... how is it different that in the Atheistic view Man doesn't have a "1.", but in the Theistic view it's God who doesn't have a "1."?
We can see how it's different to man, specifically... but if the point is to find the "ultimate meaning of it all"... isn't it strange to stop without considering God if we're including God's existence within "all"?
Also, another side point:
Having a "created-meaning" can be a negative thing, too... depending on the creator.
If God was an evil God, and created humans in order to laugh at their strife... that would mean that our created-meaning is to live in strife so that God can laugh.
...why would anyone want to respect such a created-meaning in this sort of situation? Therefore, it would be "superior" for the Atheist View to have-no-equivalent to this created-meaning.
If we are able to show the subjectivity of created-meaning vs. sense-of-meaning for such situations (evil God vs. good God)... does it not follow that the "superiority" of created-meaning vs. sense-of-meaning is therefore subjective as well? That is, even if there is an external meaning that some creator-being has created us for... it is our own subjective feelings that gives this created-meaning any respect or not... which means it's our own Sense of Meaning that is either accepting or rejecting this external-meaning anyway.
Just like if an absolute morality actually did exist... we would all still use our own personal sense of morality and judge if we wanted to accept or reject the external absolute morality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Blue Jay, posted 08-07-2010 11:11 AM Blue Jay has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 52 of 152 (573361)
08-11-2010 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Dawn Bertot
08-07-2010 9:49 PM


Re: What is the meaning of whatever DB is saying?
You had better extrapolate, that means explain further
No it doesn't. And I don't see why it's necessary to explain further.
Its either design or chance.
Proof?
Since the universe has sent us no message indicating thier is not, not meaning, yet God has given us specifics about meaning.
Not not meaning? What specifics about meaning?
Meaning in reality would therefore be God as a reality and his specifcs he has given
What does sentence this mean and how did you get from 'God has given us specifics' to 'therefore' meaning is 'God as a reality'?
Objective meaning is one of two logical possibilites
Can you prove that objective meaning is possible? Can you explain what it means?
When specified (by revelation) the meaning becomes clearer, correct?
And yet 'becoming clearer' is not something you seem keen on, correct?
What would make a specific revelation less acceptable and meaningful verses a conclusion, readily acceptable, that nothing is meaninful concerning reality. Yet you accept THAT conclusion without hesitation. Hmmmm?
I don't accept it at all. I just don't think that reality has meaning beyond that which subjective entities might assign to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-07-2010 9:49 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-12-2010 10:57 AM Modulous has replied

sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 53 of 152 (573519)
08-11-2010 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
08-06-2010 2:51 PM


Purpose
Jumped Up Chimpanzee,
I saw your In what way does a creator provide a "meaning" to life thread in the Proposed Topics forum, and decided that I'd get the ball rolling here.
I'd just like to ask what this "meaning" is for theists.
Seeing as how the thread is discussing the meaning of "meaning", we need to first examine the definition of "meaning": "the end, purpose, or significance of something."
First, we need to define what entities are necessary to bring about a universe in which there is an end, purpose, or significance...In order for anything (e.g., a work of art, an automobile, a democracy...anything) to have a purpose, it must necessarily invoke the existence of a perpetrator (someone, or something to set it in motion, i.e., to get the ball rollin'), because a prerequisite for a purpose is a cause. For example, if you examine any particular thing in this universe, if that thing has a specific purpose (e.g., to bring pleasure to the optical senses of people, to transport people from here to there, to establish justice), it will always have someone's actions, or something's actions, as the cause: for where there lies a purpose, there must be a cause. This does not however mean that for everything for which there is a cause, there is also a purpose; just that everything which has a purpose, necessarily has a cause...
So another question is this: can a "non-life cause" provide a purpose? That is, can something which has no life provide a purpose? Absolutely not. Although an explosion (for example. And I am, by the way, not specifically referring to the Big Bang) certainly has a cause (perhaps the accidental mixing of chemicals), it can never provide a purpose. There is never a purpose for the accidental reactions of chemicals in which there is no life.
So we conclude that for a purpose to arise, there must be at the least a non-accidental cause. And in order for a cause to be non-accidental, that cause must have the ability to make choices about what it will or will not do. And in order for something to make choices, it must be (at the least) life...
So what question must we now ask? We must ask what the purpose of life is. And, as I've already shown, for something to have a purpose, it must have a cause, and in order for a cause to have the ability to provide a purpose, it must have life. But then one must ask: what is the purpose of that life which provided the purpose in the first place?...
Well let me first answer the question that you asked in the first place: the purpose of the universe is to bring glory to God as its Creator, through the power of His Word; and as humans, our purpose is to bring glory to God:
quote:
"Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." (I Cor. 10:31);
"And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose." (Rom. 8:28);
"But indeed for this purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth." (Exodus 9:16).
So what is God's purpose? Remember that the definition of "meaning" was "the end, purpose, or significance of something". Focusing in on the part that says "the end", we conclude that for something to have a purpose, it must be set out for a particular end, or a "concluding purpose". But God is eternal:
quote:
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, says the Lord, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.. We need not define a particular end for God, because He is the Beginning, and He is the end.

quote:
"Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!
'For who has known the mind of the LORD?
Or who has become His counselor?'
'Or who has first given to Him
And it shall be repaid to him?'
For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen." (Romans 11:33-36).
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 08-06-2010 2:51 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by GDR, posted 08-11-2010 7:47 PM sac51495 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 55 by jar, posted 08-11-2010 7:56 PM sac51495 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 56 by Blue Jay, posted 08-11-2010 8:08 PM sac51495 has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 54 of 152 (573529)
08-11-2010 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by sac51495
08-11-2010 7:20 PM


Re: Purpose
sac51495 writes:
our purpose is to bring glory to God
Three questions.
1/ How do you define glory?
2/ How do you accomplish this?
3/ Isn't the fact that God is the creator of the universe glory enough?
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by sac51495, posted 08-11-2010 7:20 PM sac51495 has seen this message but not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 55 of 152 (573534)
08-11-2010 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by sac51495
08-11-2010 7:20 PM


Re: Purpose
sac51495 writes:
Well let me first answer the question that you asked in the first place: the purpose of the universe is to bring glory to God as its Creator, through the power of His Word; and as humans, our purpose is to bring glory to God:
What a pitiful purpose and even more pitiful god.
What a small picayune god that it requires humans to bring it glory.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by sac51495, posted 08-11-2010 7:20 PM sac51495 has seen this message but not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 56 of 152 (573538)
08-11-2010 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by sac51495
08-11-2010 7:20 PM


Re: Purpose
Hi, Sac.
sac1495 writes:
So another question is this: can a "non-life cause" provide a purpose? That is, can something which has no life provide a purpose? Absolutely not. Although an explosion... certainly has a cause..., it can never provide a purpose. There is never a purpose for the accidental reactions of chemicals in which there is no life.
So we conclude that for a purpose to arise, there must be at the least a non-accidental cause.
I need to stop you here, because everything else you say derives from this, and you don't even have a logical argument here.
Here's the sequence of events from your post:
You asked a question.
You answered it negatively.
You provided a parallel example.
You stated that the parallel example is also impossible.
You restated your position that the first question's answer is, "no."
There is no reasoning and no conclusion there: there is a metaphor of dubious quality surrounded by assertions, rhetorical questions and an unsupported insertion of "life" into the equation by sleight of hand.
What is so special about life that it is capable of imparting "meaning" when non-life is not? Are you sure life is the dividing line between what can impart "meaning" and what can't?
Edited by Bluejay, : Parallel structure.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by sac51495, posted 08-11-2010 7:20 PM sac51495 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-12-2010 11:07 AM Blue Jay has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 57 of 152 (573664)
08-12-2010 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Modulous
08-11-2010 3:10 AM


Re: What is the meaning of whatever DB is saying?
DB writes:
Its either design or chance.
Mod writes
Proof?
At this point any serious thinking person begins to understand that both your approach and your conclusions cannot be taken as serious. To deny OR SET ASIDE the only real alternatives is nearly childish and demonstrates you do not wish to be considered as realistic in a discussion.
Do you need proof that you are real or that you exist?
How Could any of YOUR comments or conclusions be taken as serious, concerning reality and meaning if even the reality of only two logical conclusions is disputed.
Asking for proof of the obvious demopnstrates a mindset set that sets itself against reason itself
But it is necessary for your initial approach to be as such to avoid the conclusion that there is meaning in the first place
Can you prove that objective meaning is possible? Can you explain what it means?
I dont think you see this mistake you made in your above statement. I can proof that anything is POSSIBLE, even meaning of meaning, if it is of course, not, a logical contradiction
Its difficult to use Proof and and possible in the same sentence and then try and make a point from the use of those two words together
So to answer you question, yes I can prove that objective meaning is possible, from reality itself, the design in reality and specific revelation
It means what the purposes and intentions of the only real thing in existence ultimate and purposes desire it to be. Whatever they are, they would be unknown until specifically revealed.
It seems they have been revealed
Dawn Bertot
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Modulous, posted 08-11-2010 3:10 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Modulous, posted 08-13-2010 3:07 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 58 of 152 (573665)
08-12-2010 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Blue Jay
08-11-2010 8:08 PM


Re: Purpose
What is so special about life that it is capable of imparting "meaning" when non-life is not? Are you sure life is the dividing line between what can impart "meaning" and what can't?
Life by itself implies meaning, or atleast it is indicated by its structure and obvious design.
sure, one can ignore this obvious truth by simply saying I dont see it or rejecting it outright, but that doesnt mean it goes away or that we should cave into a simple objection in the opposite direction. Especially considering they offer no PROOF in the negative, other than I dont like the idea.
There are OBJECTIONS, then there are reasons for objections, they offer none
Specific revelation provides the meaning of meaning. That is unless you have abandoned what you once believed
So to conclude there is no meaning, is not an argument, its an observation. You like ourselves (and we do) must provide reasons and arguments for meaning to have no meaning, if that is your position.
can you offer any actual arguments against reality having meaning outside your subjective observations
Dawn Bertot (EAM)
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Blue Jay, posted 08-11-2010 8:08 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Blue Jay, posted 08-12-2010 2:21 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 59 of 152 (573680)
08-12-2010 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by jar
08-07-2010 2:49 PM


Re: What is the meaning of whatever EMA is saying?
If a specific revelation is made in the form of Mowgli and Kaa's Hunting (Kipling's word), what would not be specific enough in its meaning and purpose for meaning overall?
If a specific revelation is made in the form of the Red Queen and Alice in Wonderland (Dodgson's word), what would not be specific enough in its meaning and purpose for meaning overall?
The actual evidence of course
Back to ground zero. What would the specific and exhaustive evidence suggest. Would it suggest or indicate that the characters you present are actual and should be trusted as real or believable in any serious way, I doubt it.
On the other hand there is nearly every reason to suggest that the scriptures are what they say they are, or atleast we dont start with a belief that such things are just made up after an examination of the evidence at hand.
Any thinking person could see the difference
EAM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 08-07-2010 2:49 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by jar, posted 08-12-2010 12:49 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(3)
Message 60 of 152 (573684)
08-12-2010 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Dawn Bertot
08-12-2010 12:31 PM


Re: What is the meaning of whatever EMA is saying?
EMA writes:
jar writes:
If a specific revelation is made in the form of Mowgli and Kaa's Hunting (Kipling's word), what would not be specific enough in its meaning and purpose for meaning overall?
If a specific revelation is made in the form of the Red Queen and Alice in Wonderland (Dodgson's word), what would not be specific enough in its meaning and purpose for meaning overall?
The actual evidence of course
Back to ground zero. What would the specific and exhaustive evidence suggest. Would it suggest or indicate that the characters you present are actual and should be trusted as real or believable in any serious way, I doubt it.
On the other hand there is nearly every reason to suggest that the scriptures are what they say they are, or atleast we dont start with a belief that such things are just made up after an examination of the evidence at hand.
Any thinking person could see the difference
EAM
What evidence at hand?
How is the Bible different than The Jungle Books?
How is the Bible different than Alice in Wonderland?
One answer is that those two, the Jungle Books and Alice in Wonderland, at least do have a known author while with the possible exception of Paul (a person totally undocumented outside the Bible itself) there are no known authors, editors or redactors for the Bible.
Can we not learn meaning from the Jungle Books? I know that I did.
Can we not learn meaning from Alice in Wonderland? I know I did.
Is there some reason I should trust the meaning and lessons learned from Alice and Mowgli any more or less than the lessons learned from Peter or Paul?
Scripture does not mean the Bible; it means Inspired writings.
Is there some reason to think that the Jungle Books and Alice in Wonderland are not inspired?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-12-2010 12:31 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-14-2010 11:05 AM jar has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024