The purpose of life

[Stevil]

Here's another analogy that is essentially the same thing, How could you explain color to a blind man?  How could you tell some one that there is meaning, if there is no such thing?

"How could you explain color to a blind man?"
Describing the frequency or wavelength size would be scientifically accurate.

"How could you tell some one that there is meaning, if there is no such thing?"
I wouldn't as I prefer not to lie.

How does this relate at all to the point you are trying to make? What is your point please, I am growing tired of your endless riddles

[defendor]

In a universe of no gods, can you conjure a god if it doesn't exist?

No you can't, but I'm going off the idea He does exist

Doesn't atheism preach that there is no meaning?
Short answer: No
Longer answer: Why do you think that atheism "preaches" anything at all?  Atheism is not a religion.  It's merely the position of asserting with greater or lesser certainty that a god or gods do no exist.  Please provide an example of "atheism preach[ing] that there is no meaning."  Certain atheists may also assert that there is no ultimate objective meaning, but that is not a tenet of atheism per se.

Ya I after I posted that I felt that wasn't the proper word ha, I'll change it, 'Doesn't atheism assert that there is no meaning?'

How could you tell some one that there is meaning, if there is no such thing?

Why does the assertion that there is no such thing as a truly objective meaning necessitate that there is no meaning whatsoever?  You seem inordinately fond of straw man arguments, if you don't mind my saying so.

I don't mind at all, I just don't understand that if there is no objective meaning how can you find meaning at all if it doesn't exist? Where's the proof that there is meaning. For If you say it's personal then you are making the assumption that each individual has intrinsic meaning to attach personal meanings to things

[Sophus]

Study psychology. Our brains are hardwired to derive meaning out of life.

That sure explains how, but the question I have been constantly bringing up is the question why? Why are our brains hardwired to find meaning?  I mean it seems that if everything according to science (2nd and 3rd law of thermodynamics) that everything is prone (unless by an outside force) to disorder and the lowest state of energy.  So how and why, by chance and products of chaos, has the evolutionary chain developed such ethereal and metaphysical realities such as "meaning" or "value"?

Because if you're incapable of finding a reason to live you won't survive and carrying on your genes. Applying the 2nd law of thermodynamics to thoughts and memes doesn't make any sense. Thermodynamics deals with physical energy. I don't see what you're getting at.

[defendor]

"How could you explain color to a blind man?"
Describing the frequency or wavelength size would be scientifically accurate.

Do you see the actual wavelengths (crests and troughs as it moves through the air) when you see color?  No you see its effect on the atmosphere, and this anomaly you could not describe to someone through science, but only to show them.

"How could you tell some one that there is meaning, if there is no such thing?"
I wouldn't as I prefer not to lie.

How does this relate at all to the point you are trying to make? What is your point please, I am growing tired of your endless riddles

This is the point I was trying to make, how can you tell someone to go find their own meaning, when there is no such thing as meaning in the first place.  By saying people can individually find meaning in meaningless things (pleasure, food, people, etc.) isn't that lying if there is no meaning?  also you mention lying as if you are basing your statement on objective truth, for if there were no such thing as objective truth, then there is no such thing as lying

[defendor]

Because if you're incapable of finding a reason to live you won't survive and carrying on your genes. Applying the 2nd law of thermodynamics to thoughts and memes doesn't make any sense. Thermodynamics deals with physical energy. I don't see what you're getting at.

Where in the scientific world, has a formula ever explained purpose.  You are "finding a reason to live" that is 1. unnatural to tangible logic 2. assuming your life has meaning, if there is no meaning

The thing I was mentioning about the laws of science was to invoke the magnitude of improbability that we could even have a conversation about meaning, if chaos was our creator.

[LegendarySandwich]

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: Defendor, you're just spouting off theological psychobabble about meaning and subjectivity.

There is (probably) no objective meaning to anything in the universe.
Life is (probably) a product of random chance.
Our brains have evolved to see meaning in things for better survival.

The "meaning" we see is a result of chemical reactions in our brain. There's nothing metaphysical about it. It's simply matter.

[Whitney]

Study psychology. Our brains are hardwired to derive meaning out of life.

That sure explains how, but the question I have been constantly bringing up is the question why? Why are our brains hardwired to find meaning?  I mean it seems that if everything according to science (2nd and 3rd law of thermodynamics) that everything is prone (unless by an outside force) to disorder and the lowest state of energy.  So how and why, by chance and products of chaos, has the evolutionary chain developed such ethereal and metaphysical realities such as "meaning" or "value"?

The problem is that you are misapplying the laws of thermodynamics

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-mis ... tml#thermo

"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.

[defendor]

Let us think, and try help the desperately stuck in the gospel of JC of Nazareth:

God cannot save all sinners**, and because of that he will have to make new heavens and a new Earth!

** Apparently, he could if he wanted, but for some private pride, he prefers, at a later stage - PLAN B, C or D, who knows! -  to INCINERATE the entire Cosmos and then restart the process, by creating everything afresh; new heavens and a new Earth!!

What do you say to this to help the gospel's victims?...

lets get back to the topic for this is the exact same conversation I am having on the purpose of life

That is not what the bible says, He can save all sinners, and has made the capability for all sinners to be saved.  The covenant of salvation is to foreshadow the goodness of God in its fullness that is yet to be revealed.  

If I am right, I have eternal life with God who sits on the most High.  If I am wrong, I have lost nothing, I live a good life and found purpose, and enter into the eternal state of nothingness with a clean conscience, not regretting the way I lived my life (ask Oscar Wilde).  If  you are right, you enter into the eternal state of nothingness, with time to reflect on whatever moral standard you chose to live your life.  But the question is, what if you are wrong?

[defendor]

The concept of assigning personal "value" to something is essential for evolution. e.g. sustenance, danger, procreation, useful tool...

Please define "meaning"

meaning- a true, unwaivering definition of; the purpose for

[Whitney]

In a universe of no gods, can you conjure a god if it doesn't exist?

No you can't, but I'm going off the idea He does exist

We live in a world where little green men don't fly down in silver saucers and abduct rednecks so that they can be anally probed for 'research'....yet many a movie has come up with that idea and many a gullible person has believed it is true.

[LegendarySandwich]

...According to one definition.

Whats another one?

The one Whitney gave.

THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE FUCKING SAYING.

then what are you saying?

That meaning is completely subjective; not truth.

No.

Please explain how that is wrong

Because it is. We're not claiming that our perceptions are the only objective thing that exists.

[Whitney]

The concept of assigning personal "value" to something is essential for evolution. e.g. sustenance, danger, procreation, useful tool...

Please define "meaning"

meaning- a true, unwaivering definition of; the purpose for

you can't just make up definitions like that and expect people to understand what you are saying

mean·ing  (mnng)
n.
1. Something that is conveyed or signified; sense or significance.
2. Something that one wishes to convey, especially by language: The writer's meaning was obscured by his convoluted prose.
3. An interpreted goal, intent, or end: "The central meaning of his pontificate is to restore papal authority" (Conor Cruise O'Brien).
4. Inner significance: "But who can comprehend the meaning of the voice of the city?" (O. Henry).

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/meaning

^obviously, nothing about the definition of 'meaning' requires that it be objective...in face all of the definitions are subjective in nature as they mention  "sense" "one", "interpreted" and "inner"  All words that relate to feelings, personal views, and the self.

[Whitney]

objective / subjective

    Distinction between propositions or judgments about the way things are and those about how people think or feel about them. The truth of objective claims is presumed to be entirely independent of the merely personal concerns reflected in subjective expressions, even though is difficult to draw the distinction precisely. Thus, for example: "Spinach is green" is objective, while "I like spinach" is subjective. "Seventy-three percent of people in Houston don't like spinach," however, seems to be an objective claim about certain subjects.

    The legitimacy of this distinction is open to serious question, since it is unclear whether (and how) any knowing subject can achieve genuine objectivity. Nevertheless, because objective truth is supposed to carry undeniable persuasive force, exaggerated claims of objectivity have often been used as tools of intellectual and social oppression.

So how does this definition change, change the entirety of the argument?

because an understanding of what the word subjective means and how it differs from objective shows that one can have a subjective idea of the meaning of life while an objective meaning doesn't exist.

[Tank]

Let us think, and try help the desperately stuck in the gospel of JC of Nazareth:

God cannot save all sinners**, and because of that he will have to make new heavens and a new Earth!

** Apparently, he could if he wanted, but for some private pride, he prefers, at a later stage - PLAN B, C or D, who knows! -  to INCINERATE the entire Cosmos and then restart the process, by creating everything afresh; new heavens and a new Earth!!

What do you say to this to help the gospel's victims?...

lets get back to the topic for this is the exact same conversation I am having on the purpose of life

That is not what the bible says, He can save all sinners, and has made the capability for all sinners to be saved.  The covenant of salvation is to foreshadow the goodness of God in its fullness that is yet to be revealed.  

If I am right, I have eternal life with God who sits on the most High.  If I am wrong, I have lost nothing, I live a good life and found purpose, and enter into the eternal state of nothingness with a clean conscience, not regretting the way I lived my life (ask Oscar Wilde).  If  you are right, you enter into the eternal state of nothingness, with time to reflect on whatever moral standard you chose to live your life.  But the question is, what if you are wrong?

I would like to draw your attention to point 1 below. Introducing Pascals wager out of nowhere.



You cheated, the discussion is over.

[defendor]

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: Defendor, you're just spouting off theological psychobabble about meaning and subjectivity.

There is (probably) no objective meaning to anything in the universe

.

assuming this is an objective truth

Life is (probably) a product of random chance.

more unlikely than probably

Our brains have evolved to see meaning in things for better survival.

That would be an objective truth, so if it is survival of the fittest, why do you pretend to play with morality? wheres the innate struggle for dominance?

The "meaning" we see is a result of chemical reactions in our brain. There's nothing metaphysical about it. It's simply matter.

if it is just matter and a matter of science, what is the scientific formula for purpose for anything?  Why do you exist? if its chance then why do you care about anything (cuz isn't it all worthless with no intrinsic value)?