The meaning of "meaning"

Why would you assume we dont know what the purpose behind the great plan, is not, when we have it explained in specific revelationHow would a guy that not sure about anything, be certain about everything.EAM

If as you claim there is no meaning to things and purpose, how would you know there is a cut off? Kinda self-contradictory eh Why would you assume we dont know what the purpose behind the great plan, is not, when we have it explained in specific revelationHow would a guy that not sure about anything, be certain about everything.EAM

Here again is self-contradictory nonsense. If the sum total is meaningless, you have no method to determine by DEFINITION that your conclusion is even remotley valid concerning purpose or meaning.you would need to explain by what standard you ascribed to reality, meaningleness. What is your standard of objectivity to pronounce meaninglessness as pointlessness by definitionInteresting your entire post is dedicated to the proposition that we cannot understand the meaning of meaning or that we cannot understand anything outside of our existence without reference within and you determined this objective categorical truth using your own reasoning abilites based on your subjective limited, uncertain conclusions. Yet you want me me to believe your "truth" (your conclusions) is an objective realitySo which one do I believe, what you are telling me is reality about meaning and purpose or the fact that I should understand you yourself do not understand the meaning of meaning?Which of these is true? If both are true, you could very well be wrong about the meaning of purpose and meaning and the fact that I may not be able to understand anything outside my present existence, correctBoth logically and verbally, you are speaking out yo arse. you have to watch the double talk, sometimes it flies in the face of logic and reasonEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

what question is it that you think is inherently contradictory Your ultimate argument implies itLike him, you fail to understand that thier can be no meaning to anything, (now watch)even your assured conclusion about thier not being or purpose in meaning itself or a conclusion about meaning itself ultimatley if it is really undefinable and inherently contradictorySince you are now switching gears and assuming thier is meaning in the real sense of the word, perhaps you could provide an example of something that has meaning and explain why that thing has meaning but why reality itself has no meaning that is NOT logically definableEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

That is not an argument it is an observationUltimatley we are not talking about a perspective, we are talking about meaning in and about reality itself. Meaning therefore does not depend on the scope being considered, but whether it is logically demonstratable that meaning can have meaning in the first place. Is it rational to conclude meaning could have purpose ultimatley If you think I have missed what you have said, please explain. Did you not say 'Mix it up"?EAM

Your first one is a bit contradictory. If you assume God created the universe you are by argument assuming his existence, which would eliminate any need to look for reason in meaning, because it should be obvious that it there already.Without knowing it your thread has actually presented two questions of meaning. Whether meaning is logically possible and rational as a belief and whether meaning has meaning in some greater moral sense. It would therefore depend on ones beliefs after initial conclusions were drawn concerning the logical conclusions about reality.Thus if God exists and it can be reasonable and logically demonstrated that such a belief is rational, then meaning is not only going to have purpose but it will have it objectively and ultimatley.If not then the question of meaning is a pointless as anything else would or could beEAM

EMA writes:M writes:Why does it make no sense, because you dont think its possible or you feel there is no way to find it?No no. At this point I am only discussing that reality can have objective meaning, that because someone decides that objectivity reality is not possible, that does not prove that it is notObjective reality is not logically excluded because someone has NOT deduced its very logical reality, if even only from a standpoint of logic, which besides reality itself the only real foundation in the first placeFirst, is it logically possible for there to be meaning and purpose, then what might it be Will logic and reality allow it. Answer, yes Because I hadnt thought we had found any common ground about logic, reality, meaning or purpose.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 overallEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

Sorry double postEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

You had better extrapolate, that means explain further 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 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 sadEAM/DBEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

DB writes:Mod writes 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 itselfBut it is necessary for your initial approach to be as such to avoid the conclusion that there is meaning in the first place 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 contradictionIts 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 togetherSo to answer you question, yes I can prove that objective meaning is possible, from reality itself, the design in reality and specific revelationIt 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 revealedDawn BertotEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

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 noneSpecific revelation provides the meaning of meaning. That is unless you have abandoned what you once believedSo 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 observationsDawn Bertot (EAM)Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

The actual evidence of courseBack 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 differenceEAM

Youll understand if I dont entertain, nonsensical statements and comments Where in thier works do they claim inspiration from God. that should be your first clueEAM

Not at all, I was just making an observation, as it appears yopu have abandoned something you once believed. And much to amazement What does evolution have to do with the logical proposition that God exists and there is meaning in and about reality On the contrary, philosophical questions are driven by reality and logical propositions. the existence of God is easily established to imply and demonstrate meaning. His specific revelations simply drive the MEANING home.Why do you think I would be afraid of your methodology. My conclusions is that its the atheist when forced to the conclusions of your heuristic, covers thier eyes and ears and says, oh well we cant be confident about that proposition And lo and behold if you dont turn right around and demonstrate my point.Just like there is no such thing as reverse descrimination, there is no such thing as a NEGATIVE CLAIM, its just a claim and you are bound to demonstrate it is not true or CANNOT be true.The counter claim must hold itself to the same standard it applies to the one making the claim, that is to demonstrate that the evidence being presented cannot and is not true. If you insist that proof is needed in my instance, it would be required of yourself to demonstrate that the evidence pEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

Not at all, I just try and avoid answering stupid questions and assertions. To demonstrate that point. Ill ask you a question. Does the Bible have anything in it evidence wise that can be used to verify, that possibly the author was telling the truth. Any evidence at all. There you go again, half cocked. Your question was, is there any reason we should not believe Mogli and the such like are not inspired? I asked you a question about them. Ill ask it again. Do they claim inspiration from GodDoes the greek mythology and Norse myth tout the same continuity of theme and purpose, over a 1600 year period by numerous writers without contradiction. Theres you a good starting pointsecondly the Bibles discription of God conforms to that which stands to reason and logic, eternal, omniscienent, etc. It conforms to reality iteself.Not the nonsensical Gods posed by mythologyDawn BertotEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.