The meaning of "meaning"

So the sum total of everything that exists is, by definition, meaningless.Such nihilism. And I guess by the same token if theists said that ducks were whatever God thinks are ducks, then atheism would amount to a denial that (theistic) ducks exist, accompanied by a redefinition of the word "duck" to reflect that denial. Though who exactly would be more guilty of "redefinition" here is not so clear as you seem to think.After all, we get our concepts of the words "meaning" and "purpose" from their use in everyday life, do we not? --- "The purpose of a chair is to be sat on" --- "The meaning of Veterans' Day is to honor those who served their country" --- and so forth.Now philosophers wish to abstract from these concepts some sort of super-duper-hyper-meaning of "meaning" and "purpose", just as (for example) they conceptualize the omniscience of God based on instances of knowledge which we can actually observe. But they could not do so meaningfully unless these concepts have meaning in the sense that they are used to refer to familiar concepts --- just as the idea "God is our Heavenly Father" would have no meaning if their was no such thing as a father in the mundane material world. In that case, the claim "God is our Heavenly Father" would have no more meaning than the claim "God is our Heavenly Glugmuckle"; and similarly the claim that "The (real, proper, true, objective) meaning of life is whatever God thinks it is" would have no more meaning than the claim that "The snufflepuff of life is whatever God thinks it is" unless I could relate the word "meaning" to instances with which I am already familiar through experience; and likewise with knowledge, power, and other attributes that people like to attribute to God.Now it seems to me that you can't kick away the ladder you stand on. If someone tells me that the real meaning of "meaning" is something in the mind of God, they are relying on us both already having a concept of "meaning" which neither of us in fact derived from telepathic communion with supernatural entities. Otherwise what he wanted to say could not be said.In the same way, I (sort of) know what is meant by "God is our Heavenly Father" --- but if you were then to add that Mr Adequate Sr is not my father, that only God is my father, that in fact atheists are denying that anyone has a father but that they are redefining "father" to conceal this ...... then I should reply: first, that it was you and not I who was having a strange way with the definition of the word "father"; and second, that under your definition of "father" I have no idea any more of what relationship you are trying to convey between me and God by calling him my father --- since my basic concepts of what "father" means are derived from the way people use the word "father" to talk about non-supernatural entities.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

He did not claim that. Because Bluejay said so: What gave you the impression that Modulous was "certain about everything"?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Could you translate that into English?

What is that last sentence about?

But this is manifestly not the case. For example, the Samaritan canon does not include any of the Gospels, which some might think quite important.This is why people with different canons also have different religions.To take another example, the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory is said to be based on a proof-text from the Apocrypha: "he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin". Er ... no.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No, but people can. And we are people.I think there is a certain amount of ambiguity to the word "purpose". On the one hand it connotes being produced for a specific task: so that according to this usage of the word "purpose" things that would have a purpose include a hammer, a sandwich, a gas-chamber, a battery hen, and the inhabitants of Huxley's Brave New World; and things without a purpose would include a cloud, a mountain, a butterfly, the Mandelbrot set, and a free human with the faculty of self-determination.On the other hand, purpose can connote intentionality and aspiration, something which is absent from a hammer or a sandwich or a gas-chamber and largely absent from a battery hen or one of Huxley's "Epsilons", but which I evidently possess.I don't particularly see why I should want a purpose in the first sense --- the sense in which a hammer or a battery hen has "purpose". It hardly seems to add to my human dignity. Why should I aspire to have a place in the Universe more comparable to that of a battery hen?After all, if there is a God, he himself lacks a purpose in that sense. But you would presumably say that he can have a purpose in the second sense --- a purpose of his own. Well in that case so can I --- even in the absence of a God to give me a purpose in the first sense of the word.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But contrapuntally the shy watermelons leapfrog the pallid gesture. In tandem the bellwether decries the nude eggplant, and all the stale misanthropes swim in the disingenuous marmalade.

And I thought my post was a non sequitur!I bow before the master.

Who are the "great leapers"?

Me too, specifically those ideas which were in the Origin of Species. But that doesn't make me a saltationist.

Very colorful but of little help considering the fact that adaptation is obvious and can be logically determined according to the data present Again what concievable argument could be advanced to remove obvious and inticate adaptation in the physical world, other than, I didnt see evolution make it and i dont like the argument watching creationists try and remove the intricacies of adaptation as obvious evolution, is of no little source of humor to myself Sorry if that the best youve got out goes your hypothesis as well and i doubt you are going to disavow fiat creation as a fact anytime soon, correct---Assertion --- it's nearly an argument!

One is not warrented is assigning the category of false appearence to evolution, when he is unable to even explain its origin. it is more reasonable to proclaim evolution than notThe proclamation and categotrical blanketing of evolution as false appearance needs to be demonstrated as false before the obvious could be dismissed. the such like is not argumentation its simply complainingThe clear evidence is on the side of evolution---Golly, this is fun, isn't it?---Many of your sentences appear to have been translated from Korean by a computer. What on Earth did you men by "the first and correct instinct is to assume that event he based parts operate independant of the whole".I don't think anyone has ever assumed "that event he based parts operate independant of the whole". Because that is not written in any known language.

And creation, even if it could be proved, has nothing to do with evolved intricate parts operating independently, but in harmony with other items. While no fiat creation of species whatsoever can be traced the entire process, assumed as it is, cannot be dug up or analyzed, only extrapolated and hypthozied Even if creation were completley demonstratable, it would do nothing to remove clearly evolved behavior(Yes, well, it makes as much sense as your sentence.)Edited by AdminPD, : Fixed quote box

I never said creation was false, I said it has nothing to do with dismantling the very clear and obvious evolution in evolution Not only do most creos want to imply that because creo is true, therefore evolution is not, they also proclaim out loud that evolution is false without providing any support or argument to the contrary.It makes them glaringly silly---Let us know when you think of some real arguments, eh?