How does this quote by C.S. Lewis' make sense?

[Try]

Could someone elucidate this quote for me? I'm having difficulty understanding his explanation on why the universe must have meaning.


If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

I'm also interested to hear your thoughts about this quote.

Thank you for your time.

[Charles Darnay]

In order to disprove something's existence, you must first recognize its existence. Sort of a Kantian paradox, existence is the mind's capability, and yet it is the mind that tries to question this very existence. Lewis here equates universe with its spiritual meaning more than just physical

[Try]

Sorry, I still do not understand. Could you expand on that a little more?

[Charles Darnay]

According to this theory, if something exists in the mind, if you can conceive it mentally, it exists and therefore has meaning.

Take an apple - when I say apple, even if you are not looking at/holding an apple - you can picture it in your mind. you can wrap your head around the idea of an apple - it exists.

Now let's say you want to prove to someone that an apple does not exist. In order to even approach the argument "an apple does not exist" you must first conjure up the image of an apple. Since you have conjured up that image you have just proved its existence and therefore cannot prove its non-existence - does this make sense?

This argument is used a lot to approach the less tangible subjects of the universe and, in particular, God.

It is argued (and I don't want to turn this into a religious thing, even though that is where C.S Lewis goes with his thinking), but it is argued that those who try to disprove God (atheists) cannot do so, because in order to disprove God, they must have an idea of God, and by that very idea,

Try it out for yourself - try to prove that an apple doesn't exist without bringing up the idea of an apple. You can't do it. It's like trying to describe what "green" is without using "green."

[Try]

Wait. What theory are we talking about here - the Kantian paradox?

Also is something missing from the end of your second to last paragraph? "and by that very idea,"

And let's see if I'm understanding this correctly. Since I can conjure up a universe without meaning, therefore it must exist, right?

Since I can conceive mentally a beluga being in my room right next to me at this exact moment, it exists and has meaning? I'm not talking about just conjuring up a beluga, but a beluga in my room right next to me.

I cannot grasp this logic.

If I wanted to show that apples do not exist, couldn't I just envision a universe where apples do not exist and never have and never will exist? These two ideas would contradict each other though. Is this the paradoxical part?

[Charles Darnay]

Sorry, typo on my part. By that very idea, he must exist.

We are talking both about the Lewis quote and Kantian paradox, because they are the same thing.

As for your beluga in the room - I am afraid I overstepped the boundaries of the mind according to Kant, and left out an important part.

There is a philosophy known as "idealism" that would support your beluga in the room, because according to idealism, reality exists in the mind, and so if your mind creates it, it is real. So if you can see in your mind, a beluga in the room, he is there....enjoy.

Now, Kant did away with this logic by claiming that (and I'm paraphrasing)

"The mind is constrained by the physical world of math and science." So existence is based on our mind, yes, but under the constrains of what is physically natural. So, no, your beluga would be classified here as supernatural.

Now what about this Lewis quote? Kant put forward the argument that we cannot conceive of "God" or the "universe" because they exist outside of the scope of the physical world. But the paradox that Lewis draws attention to is, by realizing that we cannot conceive of something, we have given it meaning.

So your beluga may not exist, but it has meaning because we heave entered into this discussion. We have spiritually created a beluga in your room.

I know this seems a bit chopped up, and perhaps I was wrong to bring Kant into the mess - because he is a problem unto himself.

One way to look at it, taking all of this, might be to separate existence from meaning, wherein "existence" means physically present (you can see, hear, feel, taste, smell, or sense it), and meaning means "spiritual existence" (in which you can conceive of it).

[cafolini]

Could someone elucidate this quote for me? I'm having difficulty understanding his explanation on why the universe must have meaning.



I'm also interested to hear your thoughts about this quote.

Thank you for your time.

It has meaning. But none in occurrence. It's the VERSE of the UNI in existence. But he's mixing indirect thinking in the statement to attemp a proof of the hocus-pocus.
Now, mine should be a lot more difficult to grasp. Lots of grandeur and finnality to be abandoned before that.

[expressionism]

Basically, the fact that we think of meaning is already evidence that there must be meaning. Lewis says we have a sense for meaning, a sense that couldn't exist if there was no meaning. But we also have free will. That means, we can make an error if we misunderstand our free will to mean we are free when it comes to meaning, that we can simply pick and choose. That betrays a deeper sense in us, that we suffer or get corrupt if we go for picking and choosing instead of believing the truth. A kind of built-in judgment. Jesus said the truth will set us free and His word is the only judge.

[Hawkman]

I'm afraid comrade Darnays argument is a little flawed. By using the example of the apple he has nullified the point he he is trying to make. Apples patently do exist although someone who has never seen one may not believe in them. However, it is possible to present this individual with concrete evidence, ie an apple, and thus prove that they exisit.

It would have made more sense to have posed the question: "If a unicorn is a magical, mythical beast, and consequently does not exisit in fact, is a thought of a unicorn a real thought?" Now you can show someone a picture of a unicorn and providing they are aware of the concept, they will immediately recognise the picture of being of a unicorn. It doesn't make the unicorn real, only that someone has imagined one, and drawn a picture of it. It doesn't mean the unicorn exisits, only that the picture of the unicorn does.

The only way to prove the existance of a thing is to provide tangible evidence of it. It is impossible to disprove the existance of a thing as the only evidence one can provide is it's absence. All this proves is that it is not physically present or that no one has found one yet. Meaning is, in and of itself, an abstract concept and entirely relative. Belief in a concept is essentially a matter of faith, which is where Lewis is coming from.

[MarkBastable]

I think that Lewis's analogy with darkness is flawed, because he's citing it as a standalone concept, whereas in the case of 'meaning' he's citing it as applied to a known existent thing - 'the universe'.

'Meaning' exists as a concept whether or not it applies to the universe. Words have meaning. Football matches have meaning. See Spot Run has meaning. That doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that the universe must have meaning because we can imagine it might have.

If that were the case then we'd have to say that wardrobes must contain magical worlds because we can imagine they might do.

[expressionism]

What does it mean to you that if we have no meaning in our life, it is empty and futile? I am speaking of a sense of fulfillment in life, something we all strive for. The noble thought, the sense of truth and beauty where you can breathe and say yes, this makes sense, this is how it should be. I suppose it must be about the narrow gate and the wide gate ... it's something you need to experience for yourself if you have to give doubt such a value..

[Charles Darnay]

I'm afraid comrade Darnays argument is a little flawed. By using the example of the apple he has nullified the point he he is trying to make. Apples patently do exist although someone who has never seen one may not believe in them. However, it is possible to present this individual with concrete evidence, ie an apple, and thus prove that they exisit.

It would have made more sense to have posed the question: "If a unicorn is a magical, mythical beast, and consequently does not exisit in fact, is a thought of a unicorn a real thought?" Now you can show someone a picture of a unicorn and providing they are aware of the concept, they will immediately recognise the picture of being of a unicorn. It doesn't make the unicorn real, only that someone has imagined one, and drawn a picture of it. It doesn't mean the unicorn exisits, only that the picture of the unicorn does.

The only way to prove the existance of a thing is to provide tangible evidence of it. It is impossible to disprove the existance of a thing as the only evidence one can provide is it's absence. All this proves is that it is not physically present or that no one has found one yet. Meaning is, in and of itself, an abstract concept and entirely relative. Belief in a concept is essentially a matter of faith, which is where Lewis is coming from.

Flawed? I think not! Oversimplified maybe, but not flawed. I was trying to argue that even with a tangible object (apple) you need to recognize its existence before being able to disprove it, as you yourself state: "The only way to prove the existance of a thing is to provide tangible evidence of it." And so it is with the universe, which, for the purpose of the OP, is as tangible as an apple, but a bit more difficult to grasp. By trying to disprove the universe, like an apple or unicorn, you must recognize its tangibility, and thus its meaning.

[cafolini]

Flawed? I think not! Oversimplified maybe, but not flawed. I was trying to argue that even with a tangible object (apple) you need to recognize its existence before being able to disprove it, as you yourself state: "The only way to prove the existance of a thing is to provide tangible evidence of it." And so it is with the universe, which, for the purpose of the OP, is as tangible as an apple, but a bit more difficult to grasp. By trying to disprove the universe, like an apple or unicorn, you must recognize its tangibility, and thus its meaning.

There occurs no universe, except in the pseudo-imaginary two-dimensions of existence; purely pseudo-imaginary and intangible in physics; a mere leap of useless finality. Men are incapable of measuring such a whole. And if there occurs no whole, there occurs but a meaningless UNI, what I call The Verse of the UNI. It only exists by insane postulation. It's in a museum of unnatural history in occurrence. It's meaningless to the senses.
The indirect thinking of C. S. Lewis cannot apply to the subject in question. While light or darkness is a matter of intensity measurement, the so-called universe can't be measured, not even imagined. Even the apple can't be declared a universe, since in that case we would have to be able to measure experimentally its minutest detail of infinitesimals and even smaller. Such postulations are a vestige of philosophy, or what I call obsolete systems of confusion and leaping insanities.

[JuniperWoolf]

What does it mean to you that if we have no meaning in our life, it is empty and futile? I am speaking of a sense of fulfillment in life, something we all strive for.

But believing in something because it makes you feel good doesn't make it true, it stands in the way of arriving at the truth.

[je55mcoy]

what are traditions?

web design new york (http://www.dzineit.net):lurk5:

[cafolini]

But believing in something because it makes you feel good doesn't make it true, it stands in the way of arriving at the truth.

Believing or disbelieving anything whatsoever doesnt necessarily make it true. Correct. And the passion of convictions does not necessarily make them true. As Nietzsche would say, "a note for asses."
People try to redeem belief or disbelief coupons to feel good, even when aware that they are in the way of knowledge. Con artists of belief and disbelief profit from that hipocresy.
This situation is unsolved by any method whatsoever, except letting it be and providing room for evolution, because there are those who are unaware of their own confusion. And those who become aware can't go anywhere but to evolve and become more knowledgeable. Thus comfortable museums of history must be provided for nuts of all kinds. :banana:

[BienvenuJDC]

But believing in something because it makes you feel good doesn't make it true, it stands in the way of arriving at the truth.

Disbelieving something because it makes you feel uneasy doesn't make it false either, it stands in the way of understanding the truth.

[JuniperWoolf]

Disbelieving something because it makes you feel uneasy doesn't make it false either, it stands in the way of understanding the truth.

I'd love to be able to believe in an afterlife, it doesn't make me feel uneasy at all. You know what makes me feel uneasy? Ceasing to exist upon my death. Still, even though the very idea is terrifying, it's still the most likely scenario.

[YesNo]

I'd love to be able to believe in an afterlife, it doesn't make me feel uneasy at all. You know what makes me feel uneasy? Ceasing to exist upon my death. Still, even though the very idea is terrifying, it's still the most likely scenario.

A few years ago, I would have thought that also, but then I read Raymond Moody's Life After Life about "near-death experiences". He's the one who coined the term. More recently, he also described "shared-death experiences".

Now I know from previous posts that you don't recognize these things as evidence, but from my perspective there is no need to "believe in" this evidence anymore than there is need to believe in the evidence for the big bang. So from my perspective, the most likely scenario is that you can't die no matter what transformation occurs to the matter-energy stuff of your body. If you think about it, that is "terrifying" as well.

Regarding the original post, there are two ideas which are joined together:


If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning:


just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

The second idea makes sense to me, but I don't understand the first one. What is Lewis referring to when he says the "whole universe"? Is it the matter-energy space-time universe that science claims to study or is it something more? If he is referring to the stuff from the big bang, I don't know whether it has any "meaning" unless one can somehow take a stand outside of it.

[stuntpickle]

Could someone elucidate this quote for me? I'm having difficulty understanding his explanation on why the universe must have meaning.



I'm also interested to hear your thoughts about this quote.

Thank you for your time.

I think what Lewis is saying is far less esoteric than many here seem to think. He is proposing that the statement "the universe has no meaning" is an irrational statement, since when one uses the word "universe," one does so presuming one will be understood. Of course, the half-clever second-rater will reply with something like the following: "asdfkjh has no meaning;" but this is an entirely different variety of statement, which demonstrates that no one understands what "asdfkjh" refers to (moreover, "asdfkjh" probably even qualifies as a nonce word and, thus, has some meaning), whereas "universe" is understood to refer to an object or collection of objects/things. You can of course try to refine what precisely Lewis is referring to when he uses the word "universe," but this itself implies that you have understood, in part, what he meant. Consider YesNo's response in which he/she wonders whether Lewis means "matter-energy space-time universe that science claims to study"--which immediately demonstrates that we are all in the same ballpark of meaning.

Imagine that someone said "words don't have meaning." Is the receiver of the statement supposed to understand it? After all, the obvious intention of the speaker is to impeach the very vehicle he uses. So the the recipient is justified in responding "that is nonsense" or "no thanks, I just ate" or "strawberry."

The usage of the word "universe" implies some meaning; otherwise one would not use it. When one speaks or writes one does so with the assumption that one will be understood.

Lewis's example of darkness tries to elaborate by showing how in a world where no eyes existed there wouldn't be a debate about whether or not "darkness" had meaning, simply because no one would be able to formulate the question. The very fact that there IS a debate about whether the universe has meaning settles the argument.

[mal4mac]

Now let's say you want to prove to someone that an apple does not exist. In order to even approach the argument "an apple does not exist" you must first conjure up the image of an apple. Since you have conjured up that image you have just proved its existence and therefore cannot prove its non-existence - does this make sense?

This argument is used a lot to approach the less tangible subjects of the universe and, in particular, God.

It is argued (and I don't want to turn this into a religious thing, even though that is where C.S Lewis goes with his thinking), but it is argued that those who try to disprove God (atheists) cannot do so, because in order to disprove God, they must have an idea of God, and by that very idea,

Try it out for yourself - try to prove that an apple doesn't exist without bringing up the idea of an apple. You can't do it. It's like trying to describe what "green" is without using "green."

This is a standard argument dating back to St Anselm, at least. It's also, a very bad argument!

Imagine that apple, imagine biting into it *but* imagine it tastes of chicken. Got it! OK. By Lewis' argument the chicken-apple now exists! God has as much existence as the chicken-apple.

Why does Lewis require the Universe to have some meaning that we tap into? Man is a meaning creating creature he doesn't need God to ladle it out. You could make the meaning of your life anything that gives you joy - from engaging in arguments on Lit. forum, to trying to create the chicken apple...

[mal4mac]

I'd love to be able to believe in an afterlife, it doesn't make me feel uneasy at all. You know what makes me feel uneasy? Ceasing to exist upon my death. Still, even though the very idea is terrifying, it's still the most likely scenario.

Why? Are you terrified of sleep? How can you be terrified of anything that places you in a state where you cannot feel pain, or be terrified, ever again. The ancients are very good on this - Plato, Seneca especially - and also Schopenhauer. Read these masters and you may not feel so uneasy - I don't.

[stuntpickle]

This is a standard argument dating back to St Anselm, at least. It's also, a very bad argument!

Imagine that apple, imagine biting into it *but* imagine it tastes of chicken. Got it! OK. By Lewis' argument the chicken-apple now exists! God has as much existence as the chicken-apple.

Why does Lewis require the Universe to have some meaning that we tap into? Man is a meaning creating creature he doesn't need God to ladle it out. You could make the meaning of your life anything that gives you joy - from engaging in arguments on Lit. forum, to trying to create the chicken apple...

Mal,

You just have no clue what you're talking about. Sorry.

First, despite what some other posters have said, Lewis is not explicitly discussing the existence of anything in this passage. He is simply pointing out a contradiction in the statement "the universe has no meaning."

Second, you wonderfully demonstrate not only that you misunderstand the ontological argument for God, but that you don't even know what it says. The argument does not say "I can imagine God; therefore, he exists." There's a major logical detour through "possible worlds" and "maximally great beings." I find it a little funny that you seem to suggest that an argument by Anselm is somehow antique and beneath discussing, when your "refutation" comes from a fairly bad argument made in the 11th Century. Regardless of how convincing you believe your refutation to be, you must understand that both Descartes and Leibniz dealt with the ontological argument in the 17th Century, long after chicken-apples and perfect islands were proposed. Remember Descartes, the father of modern philosophy? In case you forgot, I will remind you that the ontological argument was a major part of his work--despite your refutation. Even now serious studies are being made of the argument, which leads me to...

Third, you have no clue how philosophy works. The major disagreements in modern philosophy are largely the same as the disagreements of antique philosophy. Refutations of arguments rarely consign the argument to philosophy's dust bin. Instead, the arguments are generally refined and restated. Moreover, refutations are seldom of the "this is stupid" variety; they are mostly particular complaints about very specific flaws. An entire worldview being exploded as spectacularly as logical positivism is a rare occurrence, and STILL logical positivism could make a come back, but it won't be because of Dawkins and Harris because, first, they'd have to know what logical positivism is.

If your interest in the ontological argument extends beyond popular atheistic rhetoric, you might want to check out the modal argument made by Plantinga (who, by the way, was awarded a Guggenheim) or the various attempts to use computational analyses to refine the argument. I will, however, warn you that the aforementioned work is likely to be over your head--not because you're stupid, but because it's fairly advanced stuff. Whatever you decide, you should probably stop scoffing at well regarded philosophical arguments simply because you don't agree with them. I mean, come on, even Bertrand Russel thought the ontological argument was sound.

[Charles Darnay]

Mal,

You just have no clue what you're talking about. Sorry.

First, despite what some other posters have said, Lewis is not explicitly discussing the existence of anything in this passage. He is simply pointing out a contradiction in the statement "the universe has no meaning."

Second, you wonderfully demonstrate not only that you misunderstand the ontological argument for God, but that you don't even know what it says. The argument does not say "I can imagine God; therefore, he exists." There's a major logical detour through "possible worlds" and "maximally great beings." I find it a little funny that you seem to suggest that an argument by Anselm is somehow antique and beneath discussing, when your "refutation" comes from a fairly bad argument made in the 11th Century. Regardless of how convincing you believe your refutation to be, you must understand that both Descartes and Leibniz dealt with the ontological argument in the 17th Century, long after chicken-apples and perfect islands were proposed. Remember Descartes, the father of modern philosophy? In case you forgot, I will remind you that the ontological argument was a major part of his work--despite your refutation. Even now serious studies are being made of the argument, which leads me to...

Third, you have no clue how philosophy works. The major disagreements in modern philosophy are largely the same as the disagreements of antique philosophy. Refutations of arguments rarely consign the argument to philosophy's dust bin. Instead, the arguments are generally refined and restated. Moreover, refutations are seldom of the "this is stupid" variety; they are mostly particular complaints about very specific flaws. An entire worldview being exploded as spectacularly as logical positivism is a rare occurrence, and STILL logical positivism could make a come back, but it won't be because of Dawkins and Harris because, first, they'd have to know what logical positivism is.

If your interest in the ontological argument extends beyond popular atheistic rhetoric, you might want to check out the modal argument made by Plantinga (who, by the way, was awarded a Guggenheim) or the various attempts to use computational analyses to refine the argument. I will, however, warn you that the aforementioned work is likely to be over your head--not because you're stupid, but because it's fairly advanced stuff. Whatever you decide, you should probably stop scoffing at well regarded philosophical arguments simply because you don't agree with them. I mean, come on, even Bertrand Russel thought the ontological argument was sound.

I think there indeed a question of existence in his implication of meaning.....not existence as a physical body of space but existence in the spiritual sense.

Other than that, I agree with your post.

[stuntpickle]

I think there indeed a question of existence in his implication of meaning.....not existence as a physical body of space but existence in the spiritual sense.

Other than that, I agree with your post.

Charles,

I am, in no way, hostile to idealistic philosophies, and it is perhaps true that Lewis is, in the broader context, suggesting that meaning and existence coincide, but no such claim can be divined from the quoted passage alone. When someone asks about a particular passage, I find it problematic to refer outside that passage and, in your case, to entirely different works by different authors. Thus, my use of the word "explicitly" when I said Lewis was not discussing the existence of anything.

[stuntpickle]

I think there indeed a question of existence in his implication of meaning.....not existence as a physical body of space but existence in the spiritual sense.

Other than that, I agree with your post.

I guess I'm saying that from the Lewis passage an argument such as the following could be constructed:

1. To evoke an object or objects with language implies meaning.
2. The statement "the universe has no meaning" evokes "the universe"
3. Therefore, "the universe" has meaning.
4. Therefore, the statement "the universe has no meaning" is self-refuting.

My point about Lewis not discussing the existence of anything, when clearly he is discussing the existence of darkness is that I don't think his intention with the passage was to formulate an argument that ends with the conclusion "Therefore the universe exists"--even though the existence of the universe is assumed.

The passage does not lead irrevocably to the existence of the universe, or at least in a way that can be demonstrated logically.

Of course, I might be wrong.

P.S. Wittgenstein would never accept #1.

[Darcy88]

"Regardless of how convincing you believe your refutation to be, you must understand that both Descartes and Leibniz dealt with the ontological argument in the 17th Century, long after chicken-apples and perfect islands were proposed. Remember Descartes, the father of modern philosophy? In case you forgot, I will remind you that the ontological argument was a major part of his work--despite your refutation."

Yeah, do you remember Hume? How about Kant? Both offered pretty solid objections, if not legitimate refutations, of said argument.

[stuntpickle]

"Regardless of how convincing you believe your refutation to be, you must understand that both Descartes and Leibniz dealt with the ontological argument in the 17th Century, long after chicken-apples and perfect islands were proposed. Remember Descartes, the father of modern philosophy? In case you forgot, I will remind you that the ontological argument was a major part of his work--despite your refutation."

Yeah, do you remember Hume? How about Kant? Both offered pretty solid objections, if not legitimate refutations, of said argument.

How totally surprising that a New Atheist has completely missed the point!

Some guy mistakes a vague idealism for the ontological argument for God, completely misrepresents said argument and then ridicules it for being old while citing a thousand-year old "refutation." I correct said guy, and shortly thereafter another guy shows up to remind me that Hume and Kant objected to the argument. This sort of thing happens, I guess, because the adolescents constituting the New Atheist movement all vow to misinterpret any mention of God, the Bible or the work of C.S. Lewis as a challenge to debate the proposition "God exists" on the spot.

I guess now I'm supposed to remind you that Hume's variety of philosophical empiricism was exploded in the first half of the 20th Century or that the vast majority of philosophers think there are major contradictions in Kant's work. BUT ALL THIS IS BESIDE THE POINT! One reads neither Hume nor Descartes for the purpose of divining this or that ultimate argument; instead, one reads the work of the aforementioned philosophers in the hopes that one will learn how to think and, consequently, will avoid showing up on some internet forum and completely misinterpreting all that has been said.

Actually, I suspect you haven't even read Hume or Descartes and, instead, spend your time scouring wikipedia, youtube and infidels.org looking for "slam dunk" refutations of the cosmological arguments for God. If you had actually read Hume or Descartes, you probably wouldn't have confused my correction of some guy's wild misinterpretations as a literal advancement of the ontological argument. I mean, seriously, no one was even talking about the ontological argument for God until some guy started rambling incoherently about "chicken-apples."

[YesNo]

1. To evoke an object or objects with language implies meaning.

...

P.S. Wittgenstein would never accept #1.
OK, I'll bite. Why would Wittgenstein never accept #1?

I've read Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, but I made as much sense out of it as I did the current issue of Poetry--which was not a lot.

Both were either over my head or below my feet.

Here is the original quote from Lewis:


If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

The word "universe" has various meanings. I don't think that is the issue here, but if that is what Lewis is arguing, then what Lewis said was trivial. The second idea in the quote makes me think that you may be right. Lewis is just arguing that the word itself has meaning. Is that all there is to it?

[stuntpickle]

OK, I'll bite. Why would Wittgenstein never accept #1?

I've read Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, but I made as much sense out of it as I did the current issue of Poetry--which was not a lot.

Both were either over my head or below my feet.

Here is the original quote from Lewis:


If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

The word "universe" has various meanings. I don't think that is the issue here, but if that is what Lewis is arguing, then what Lewis said was trivial. The second idea in the quote makes me think that you may be right. Lewis is just arguing that the word itself has meaning. Is that all there is to it?

My admittedly limited understanding of Wittgenstein is that later in his career he considered language merely a sort of linguistic game rather than the true currency of meaning.

You say that Lewis's discussion of meaningful language is a trivial point; I would, however, disagree. I would, in fact, suggest that it is THE major point of modern philosophy--or at least related to it. The relationship between language and consciousness is one of the primary foci of modern philosophy. Some would say that language is, in fact, the primary fabric of consciousness, that consciousness is, itself, constituted in language, that language forms a "matrix," if you will, through which we all experience a muddled actuality. Is our notion of a universe entirely distinct from the word "universe?" Is our notion entirely distinct from an external actuality? Does an external actuality exist? Does Descartes's thinking "I" exist outside an elaborate system of language? Is the appropriate philosophical starting place the interior of the human mind or an external system of physiological structures? Does answering the aforementioned questions in a particular way completely invalidate the questions, themselves? Does this--the universe and all the things it contains--mean something? Are we the arbiters of this meaning or merely the receivers of it? Is there even a "we?"

Personally, I'm with Descartes. I have no doubts about my existence, and the interior of the self seems the obvious place to start since it is the lens through which all other things are known. Of course, the materialists and the naturalists are determined to prove otherwise--even if it means pretending that consciousness naturally emerges as an effect of physical complexity, that the soul is constituted in the brain, that consciousness can, itself, be constructed out of Lincoln Logs.

The New Atheists are just an unimportant side show.

[YesNo]

I suspect language is one of the ways that the human species expresses consciousness which permeates but is also beyond the stuff that popped out of the big bang. Another way to describe "God", I guess.

I agree that atheism, new or old, is a side show when it comes to understanding what is going on.

[cafolini]

I suspect language is one of the ways that the human species expresses consciousness which permeates but is also beyond the stuff that popped out of the big bang. Another way to describe "God", I guess.

I agree that atheism, new or old, is a side show when it comes to understanding what is going on.

But so is theism and the most insane stooge of history is the agnostic peacemaker, because he makes a deal out of a stupid and futil dispute.:leaving:

[stuntpickle]

But so is theism and the most insane stooge of history is the agnostic peacemaker, because he makes a deal out of a stupid and futil dispute.:leaving:

I don't know, Caf, but it seems like you may have missed the point.

You know, more than once I have had an atheist tell me the Bible is a ridiculous collection of fairy tales, but that the Bhagavad Gita is a beautiful book of wisdom. I don't think they are generally capable of understanding how ridiculous that sort of statement is. I suppose works like the Tao te Ching and Bhagavad Gita are more obvious in their approach, or perhaps multicultural sensitivity requires people to make such statements these days. The Bible isn’t even a book, per se, but rather a compendium of an entire culture(s). Saying the Bible is stupid isn’t anything at all like saying the Odyssey is stupid; it’s more like saying that Illiad, Odyssey, the major Greek tragedies and the writings of Plato and Aristotle are stupid.

Often I think a lot of atheists are just ignorant of what “theists” are really up to. Consider, for instance, the book of Genesis. Forget what you’ve heard about it detailing the mechanisms of creation and reread it as a metaphor for the emergence of consciousness. It sounds fairly modern to suggest that humans alone know they are going to die or that they are alone in their ability to discern moral decisions or that their consciousness is, in and of itself, uncomfortable. The “naked” in Genesis isn’t talking about bared genitals. Whoever wrote Genesis, whether Moses or the so called “J” writer, was a freaking genius. This person makes Kafka look second rate, and I love Kafka. There’s also a sustained artistry that spans centuries. Take the whole nudity issue and then consider how much of the Bible is about being “clothed,” from Joseph’s coat to being “clothed in the spirit.” That writers from Dante to Joyce were thoroughly bewitched by this monstrously beautiful work of literature, history, philosophy and religion is no accident. And this says nothing of overtly religious artists like Donne and Mozart.

And what have atheists provided us? They just keep reminding us how all that stuff is ridiculous.

[cafolini]

I don't know, Caf, but it seems like you may have missed the point.

You know, more than once I have had an atheist tell me the Bible is a ridiculous collection of fairy tales, but that the Bhagavad Gita is a beautiful book of wisdom. I don't think they are generally capable of understanding how ridiculous that sort of statement is. I suppose works like the Tao te Ching and Bhagavad Gita are more obvious in their approach, or perhaps multicultural sensitivity requires people to make such statements these days. The Bible isn’t even a book, per se, but rather a compendium of an entire culture(s). Saying the Bible is stupid isn’t anything at all like saying the Odyssey is stupid; it’s more like saying that Illiad, Odyssey, the major Greek tragedies and the writings of Plato and Aristotle are stupid.

Often I think a lot of atheists are just ignorant of what “theists” are really up to. Consider, for instance, the book of Genesis. Forget what you’ve heard about it detailing the mechanisms of creation and reread it as a metaphor for the emergence of consciousness. It sounds fairly modern to suggest that humans alone know they are going to die or that they are alone in their ability to discern moral decisions or that their consciousness is, in and of itself, uncomfortable. The “naked” in Genesis isn’t talking about bared genitals. Whoever wrote Genesis, whether Moses or the so called “J” writer, was a freaking genius. This person makes Kafka look second rate, and I love Kafka. There’s also a sustained artistry that spans centuries. Take the whole nudity issue and then consider how much of the Bible is about being “clothed,” from Joseph’s coat to being “clothed in the spirit.” That writers from Dante to Joyce were thoroughly bewitched by this monstrously beautiful work of literature, history, philosophy and religion is no accident. And this says nothing of overtly religious artists like Donne and Mozart.

And what have atheists provided us? They just keep reminding us how all that stuff is ridiculous.

That point I always miss. You are correct.

[Darcy88]

I don't know, Caf, but it seems like you may have missed the point.

You know, more than once I have had an atheist tell me the Bible is a ridiculous collection of fairy tales, but that the Bhagavad Gita is a beautiful book of wisdom. I don't think they are generally capable of understanding how ridiculous that sort of statement is. I suppose works like the Tao te Ching and Bhagavad Gita are more obvious in their approach, or perhaps multicultural sensitivity requires people to make such statements these days. The Bible isn’t even a book, per se, but rather a compendium of an entire culture(s). Saying the Bible is stupid isn’t anything at all like saying the Odyssey is stupid; it’s more like saying that Illiad, Odyssey, the major Greek tragedies and the writings of Plato and Aristotle are stupid.

Often I think a lot of atheists are just ignorant of what “theists” are really up to. Consider, for instance, the book of Genesis. Forget what you’ve heard about it detailing the mechanisms of creation and reread it as a metaphor for the emergence of consciousness. It sounds fairly modern to suggest that humans alone know they are going to die or that they are alone in their ability to discern moral decisions or that their consciousness is, in and of itself, uncomfortable. The “naked” in Genesis isn’t talking about bared genitals. Whoever wrote Genesis, whether Moses or the so called “J” writer, was a freaking genius. This person makes Kafka look second rate, and I love Kafka. There’s also a sustained artistry that spans centuries. Take the whole nudity issue and then consider how much of the Bible is about being “clothed,” from Joseph’s coat to being “clothed in the spirit.” That writers from Dante to Joyce were thoroughly bewitched by this monstrously beautiful work of literature, history, philosophy and religion is no accident. And this says nothing of overtly religious artists like Donne and Mozart.

And what have atheists provided us? They just keep reminding us how all that stuff is ridiculous.

For every intolerant atheist there is a fundamentalist believer who would contend that the Bible is true literally, word for word. And I, as an atheist, do not think the Bible is at all ridiculous. It might just be my favourite book. I'm right now in the middle of a cover-to-cover reading of it and am greatly enjoying it. Also I find this distinction between new and old atheism somewhat pointless. Nietzsche's atheism was as virulent as any you might witness today. I think the term "new atheist" is intended to refer to Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, ect, and not to all present-day atheists.

You should check out Chris Hedges' book I don't Believe in Atheists , or perhaps one of Karen Armstrong's many titles, if you want to get a look at a softer, more respectful variety of atheism, the kind I myself ascribe to.

And what do I consider the greatest teaching of the Bible?

"Blessed are the meek, For they shall inherit the earth."

That.

[stuntpickle]

For every intolerant atheist there is a fundamentalist believer who would contend that the Bible is true literally, word for word. And I, as an atheist, do not think the Bible is at all ridiculous. It might just be my favourite book. I'm right now in the middle of a cover-to-cover reading of it and am greatly enjoying it. Also I find this distinction between new and old atheism somewhat pointless. Nietzsche's atheism was as virulent as any you might witness today. I think the term "new atheist" is intended to refer to Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, ect, and not to all present-day atheists.

You should check out Chris Hedges' book I don't Believe in Atheists , or perhaps one of Karen Armstrong's many titles, if you want to get a look at a softer, more respectful variety of atheism, the kind I myself ascribe to.

And what do I consider the greatest teaching of the Bible?

"Blessed are the meek, For they shall inherit the earth."

That.

"New Atheism" refers to the very modern phenomenon of proselytizing atheism, ridiculing atheism, incompetent atheism. Nietzsche never stood up and started shouting fallacies and nonsequiturs so ridiculous that everyone wondered whether he had even read the Bible. You know who doesn't share your love of the Bible? Sam Harris. He called it the "least useful book possible." Of course, he's also the dullard who wrote a book about how science could determine morality that was so chock-full of naturalistic fallacies and elementary blunders that everyone just sort of stood around shrugging their shoulders. The difference between New Atheism and old atheism is that, now, no one can discuss religion or religious texts (even in the appropriate fora) without some adolescent atheist poking his head in, misconstruing the entire conversation, misstating some irrelevant argument, flipping everyone the bird and departing.

This newest iteration of atheism is unique.

Your attempt at a moral equivalence claim by mentioning the beliefs of fundamentalists is precisely the sort of thing I'm talking about. Fundamentalist Christians are only bothersome insofar as they use religion as a political platform; or said another way: they're simply not religious enough. Their own Holy Book prescribes withdrawing from the material world and the institutions of man. I can't imagine Jesus supporting the Iraq war. Etc.

There's very little difference between the religious fundamentalists and most New Atheists. You see, originally the early Christian church considered the Old Testament to be largely allegorical. It was not until the advent of science that protestants started to propose this strictly literal reworking in which scripture was describing a material world and natural processes. At the same time extreme naturalists started trying to replace metaphysics with some ghastly scientism. What we really have now are two similar groups trying to meet each other half way. Of course, they don't look similar now, but they will in the future looking back, as is always the case. They're both doing the same thing: trying to interpret everything through one narrow lens. They're both really just political movements, neither of which care all that much about God.

[Try]

I think what Lewis is saying is far less esoteric than many here seem to think. He is proposing that the statement "the universe has no meaning" is an irrational statement, since when one uses the word "universe," one does so presuming one will be understood. Of course, the half-clever second-rater will reply with something like the following: "asdfkjh has no meaning;" but this is an entirely different variety of statement, which demonstrates that no one understands what "asdfkjh" refers to (moreover, "asdfkjh" probably even qualifies as a nonce word and, thus, has some meaning), whereas "universe" is understood to refer to an object or collection of objects/things. You can of course try to refine what precisely Lewis is referring to when he uses the word "universe," but this itself implies that you have understood, in part, what he meant. Consider YesNo's response in which he/she wonders whether Lewis means "matter-energy space-time universe that science claims to study"--which immediately demonstrates that we are all in the same ballpark of meaning.

Imagine that someone said "words don't have meaning." Is the receiver of the statement supposed to understand it? After all, the obvious intention of the speaker is to impeach the very vehicle he uses. So the the recipient is justified in responding "that is nonsense" or "no thanks, I just ate" or "strawberry."

The usage of the word "universe" implies some meaning; otherwise one would not use it. When one speaks or writes one does so with the assumption that one will be understood.

Lewis's example of darkness tries to elaborate by showing how in a world where no eyes existed there wouldn't be a debate about whether or not "darkness" had meaning, simply because no one would be able to formulate the question. The very fact that there IS a debate about whether the universe has meaning settles the argument.

Thanks for all of your insightful replies. I finally understand the quote, which is much appreciated. Although the quote doesn't seem too stupefying as I was expecting.

You've also changed my perspective on religion. I've been somewhat of an atheist most of my life, but I want to start believing. I'm just struggling to have faith right now. I'm on a religious journey right now, I guess you could say.

Thank you so much. I need to stop being so ignorant towards religion.

[JuniperWoolf]

From my perspective there is no need to "believe in" this evidence anymore than there is need to believe in the evidence for the big bang.

I don't believe in the evidence for the big bang. The math is way beyond my comprehension, so I can't tell if it's valid, and since I can't take anyone's word on it I've got to either get better at math and physics or continue to be curious about it. The thought of humans at out current stage of development figuring out how the universe originated seems pretty unlikely though. We haven't even found a self-sustaining energy resource yet.

If something is unexplained, than I think that it's better for us to recognize it as unexplaned. Fooling ourselves into believing an explination, or choosing to say "well, it's just unexplainable" strikes me as counter-productive. You might as well just say "not knowing makes me feel uncomfortable, so let's just stop looking."


Why? Are you terrified of sleep? .

It's not sleep. That's a comparison that's used to assuage fear, in reality sleep = life, and death = death.


How can you be terrified of anything that places you in a state where you cannot feel pain, or be terrified, ever again. The ancients are very good on this - Plato, Seneca especially - and also Schopenhauer. Read these masters and you may not feel so uneasy - I don't.

I've read them. But anyway, wouldn't you rather feel pain than nothing?

[stuntpickle]

Thanks for all of your insightful replies. I finally understand the quote, which is much appreciated. Although the quote doesn't seem too stupefying as I was expecting.

You've also changed my perspective on religion. I've been somewhat of an atheist most of my life, but I want to start believing. I'm just struggling to have faith right now. I'm on a religious journey right now, I guess you could say.

Thank you so much. I need to stop being so ignorant towards religion.

I was an atheist until age 30. The only prayer I can recall having ever made is to better understand. Good luck on your journey.

[YesNo]

I don't believe in the evidence for the big bang. The math is way beyond my comprehension, so I can't tell if it's valid, and since I can't take anyone's word on it I've got to either get better at math and physics or continue to be curious about it. The thought of humans at out current stage of development figuring out how the universe originated seems pretty unlikely though. We haven't even found a self-sustaining energy resource yet.

If something is unexplained, than I think that it's better for us to recognize it as unexplaned. Fooling ourselves into believing an explination, or choosing to say "well, it's just unexplainable" strikes me as counter-productive. You might as well just say "not knowing makes me feel uncomfortable, so let's just stop looking."

I don't follow what you said about the "unexplained", but thanks for the response.

I wish I could directly verify the evidence for the big bang, but I can't, so I have to take someone's word for it. They may be wrong, but I suspect the errors are more in the details than the general idea which is all I'm really interested in.

[JuniperWoolf]

I don't follow what you said about the "unexplained", but thanks for the response.

It's just that that's what "believing in" something is. Accepting an explination when you can't directly verify it.

[YesNo]

It's just that that's what "believing in" something is. Accepting an explination when you can't directly verify it.
I see. That makes sense. I guess, then, I choose to believe in the evidence for the big bang since I can't verify it directly.

[BienvenuJDC]

I see. That makes sense. I guess, then, I choose to believe in the evidence for the big bang since I can't verify it directly.

What is the evidence for the big bang?

[YesNo]

What is the evidence for the big bang?
Off the top of my head, the original evidence comes from measuring the expansion rate of the universe. With that estimate one could calculate back to when the expansion started. The discovery of the "cosmic background radiation" later provided more direct evidence that there was an initial beginning.

[BienvenuJDC]

Off the top of my head, the original evidence comes from measuring the expansion rate of the universe. With that estimate one could calculate back to when the expansion started. The discovery of the "cosmic background radiation" later provided more direct evidence that there was an initial beginning.

Seems to be the most unstable evidence that I've ever heard of. The evidence merely points to a expanding universe. That is like trying to determine New York City as being the point of origin of a ship sailing in the Pacific based solely on it's current speed and direction without ever consulting the captain's log, navigational charts, or even the type of ship. It sounds like completely reckless logic.

[JuniperWoolf]

Seems to be the most unstable evidence that I've ever heard of.

To be fair, it's not more unstable than "the universe was created by some guy seven thousand years ago."

[Serena03]

The universe only appears more meaningful because our sophisticated emotions and mentality have allowed us to embrace it under numerous perceptions. If one day it should ever become 'dark,' we feel we have no motivation, no purpose, no reason, basically nihilistic.

From a human standpoint we try to feed our emotions with both painful and pleasurable intakes based on our capabilities to give it a healthy balance of 'meaning.' We cannot help being curious, desirable, anxious and even arrogant, they are natural attributes we cannot fight. The basic strive for survival is no longer just about survival and reproduction. It's our 'curse' for being social animals. Whereas from the standpoint of other animals, sophisticated 'meaning' becomes more or less necessary.

The utilization of the natural or supernatural probably does not get us any closer to one definitive 'truth,' these have just been tools or mediums to help give our personal canvas more enriched color, a new sophisticated method for social cohesion which is needed for survival. There probably isn't an absolute 'truth' or meaning in the universe since there is not really any objectivity in our perception. Life itself is all part of the laws of probabilities as well the everyday occurrences within it. All we can do is cope with it and complacently sustain on a fundamental level of belief since a verification of absolute truth may be unable to grasp.

In Lewis's description, he may have been referring to God as the light and meaning in his universe and would have probably been in shambles to discover any truth behind the possible non-existence of something he held sacred. But this isn't just about God, it applies to anything we hold dear, and it's all at the expense of our confounded emotions. The ability of belief, regarding numerous concepts, may be what keeps us all fundamentally connected, and how we choose to utilize these beliefs can be our only ultimate way of meaning.

[BienvenuJDC]

To be fair, it's not more unstable than "the universe was created by some guy seven thousand years ago."

To be fair, it's not "some guy"...

[YesNo]

Seems to be the most unstable evidence that I've ever heard of. The evidence merely points to a expanding universe. That is like trying to determine New York City as being the point of origin of a ship sailing in the Pacific based solely on it's current speed and direction without ever consulting the captain's log, navigational charts, or even the type of ship. It sounds like completely reckless logic.

I think you are right in questioning why the current expansion of the universe implies that this expansion could be uniformly traced back to some origin. Maybe something stopped the expansion for a while or increased its speed or slowed it down in the past. However, if the universe did anything like that there would need to be a force to account for the change in velocity. Outside of the gravitational pull of the mass in the universe I don't know what that force would be.

Your original question was on my mind when I walked to the library yesterday. There I found that more evidence could be obtained from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe ( http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ ) The data from the probe placed the age of the universe at 13.73 billion years plus or minus 1%.

I admit I don't know how to verify any of this evidence. I read it. I trust the source and so I "believe" it, as JuniperWoolf points out. You do the same thing with the Gospels. You read about Jesus' death and resurrection. You trust the sources and you believe it.

There is one thing to note about the big bang. It was a complete beginning of the universe out of nothing. As such, it completely undermines atheism. It is amusing to watch atheists stumble when faced with this evidence. All of a sudden scientific evidence becomes more questionable than it normally would have been for them.

[stuntpickle]

The universe only appears more meaningful because our sophisticated emotions and mentality have allowed us to embrace it under numerous perceptions. If one day it should ever become 'dark,' we feel we have no motivation, no purpose, no reason, basically nihilistic.

From a human standpoint we try to feed our emotions with both painful and pleasurable intakes based on our capabilities to give it a healthy balance of 'meaning.' We cannot help being curious, desirable, anxious and even arrogant, they are natural attributes we cannot fight. The basic strive for survival is no longer just about survival and reproduction. It's our 'curse' for being social animals. Whereas from the standpoint of other animals, sophisticated 'meaning' becomes more or less necessary.

The utilization of the natural or supernatural probably does not get us any closer to one definitive 'truth,' these have just been tools or mediums to help give our personal canvas more enriched color, a new sophisticated method for social cohesion which is needed for survival. There probably isn't an absolute 'truth' or meaning in the universe since there is not really any objectivity in our perception. Life itself is all part of the laws of probabilities as well the everyday occurrences within it. All we can do is cope with it and complacently sustain on a fundamental level of belief since a verification of absolute truth may be unable to grasp.

In Lewis's description, he may have been referring to God as the light and meaning in his universe and would have probably been in shambles to discover any truth behind the possible non-existence of something he held sacred. But this isn't just about God, it applies to anything we hold dear, and it's all at the expense of our confounded emotions. The ability of belief, regarding numerous concepts, may be what keeps us all fundamentally connected, and how we choose to utilize these beliefs can be our only ultimate way of meaning.

This sort of irrationality is precisely what Lewis is talking about. Aside from the fact that you seem thoroughly unacquainted with logic or even the basic organization of rational thought (flat assertion after flat assertion does not an argument make), your only point seems to be that meaning is illusory. The problem, of course, is that you undercut not only Lewis's meaning, but also your own. If all human understanding of meaning is an illusion, it not only invalidates my understanding of God, my understanding of the universe, my understanding of meaning, but also your scientistic (not "scientific") notions about meaning's falseness. If you undermine the fundamental human capacity to discern meaning and truth, you consequently undermine your capacity to discern the meaning and truth of the very proposition you are advancing. What you are saying is self-refuting. You testify against your proposition by attempting to explain it to us.


Seems to be the most unstable evidence that I've ever heard of. The evidence merely points to a expanding universe. That is like trying to determine New York City as being the point of origin of a ship sailing in the Pacific based solely on it's current speed and direction without ever consulting the captain's log, navigational charts, or even the type of ship. It sounds like completely reckless logic.

Bienvenu,

Perhaps you do not understand that the Big Bang is the best piece of corroborating evidence a theist could ever hope for. Not too long ago scientists thought the universe was eternal, and then--whammo!--they discovered background radiation. Thus, an expanding universe. Thus, the Big Bang. This development in astronomy and physics is ideally problematic for atheists. Now, Aristotle's prime mover makes more sense than ever. To get an idea of just how perfectly the Big Bang fits with Judeo-Christian theology, consider the following passage from Nahmanides, a rabbinical scholar from the 13th Century:

"...At the briefest instant following creation all the matter of the universe was concentrated in a very small place, no larger than a grain of mustard. The matter at this time was very thin, so intangible, that it did not have real substance. It did have, however, a potential to gain substance and form and to become tangible matter. From the initial concentration of this intangible substance in its minute location, the substance expanded, expanding the universe as it did so. As the expansion progressed, a change in the substance occurred. This initially thin noncorporeal substance took on the tangible aspects of matter as we know it. From this initial act of creation, from this etherieally thin pseudosubstance, everything that has existed, or will ever exist, was, is, and will be formed."

[cafolini]

Bienvenu,

Perhaps you do not understand that the Big Bang is the best piece of corroborating evidence a theist could ever hope for. Not too long ago scientists thought the universe was eternal, and then--whammo!--they discovered background radiation. Thus, an expanding universe. Thus, the Big Bang. This development in astronomy and physics is ideally problematic for atheists. Now, Aristotle's prime mover makes more sense than ever. To get an idea of just how perfectly the Big Bang fits with Judeo-Christian theology, consider the following passage from Nahmanides, a rabbinical scholar from the 13th Century:

"...At the briefest instant following creation all the matter of the universe was concentrated in a very small place, no larger than a grain of mustard. The matter at this time was very thin, so intangible, that it did not have real substance. It did have, however, a potential to gain substance and form and to become tangible matter. From the initial concentration of this intangible substance in its minute location, the substance expanded, expanding the universe as it did so. As the expansion progressed, a change in the substance occurred. This initially thin noncorporeal substance took on the tangible aspects of matter as we know it. From this initial act of creation, from this etherieally thin pseudosubstance, everything that has existed, or will ever exist, was, is, and will be formed."

No doubt that the historical account of that nonsense is true. Actually, the decadent and still decaying Catholic Church hired Hawkings in the 70's to try to enter into some of the picture again, after we overcame it in the 1940's with the outcome of wwii after deposing Benito and Adolf, and leaving Francisco to die on his own. Such is the nature of religion. Thank goodness it's now in a museum and there is nothing they can do to get a piece of the pie where the action is.

[stuntpickle]

No doubt that the historical account of that nonsense is true. Actually, the decadent and still decaying Catholic Church hired Hawkings in the 70's to try to enter into some of the picture again, after we overcame it in the 1940's with the outcome of wwii after deposing Benito and Adolf, and leaving Francisco to die on his own. Such is the nature of religion. Thank goodness it's now in a museum and there is nothing they can do to get a piece of the pie where the sction is.

Thank you Caf for that pile of irrelevant balderdash. Perhaps when you figure out how to engage in a rational conversation you will rejoin this one.

[Serena03]

This sort of irrationality is precisely what Lewis is talking about. Aside from the fact that you seem thoroughly unacquainted with logic or even the basic organization of rational thought (flat assertion after flat assertion does not an argument make), your only point seems to be that meaning is illusory. The problem, of course, is that you undercut not only Lewis's meaning, but also your own. If all human understanding of meaning is an illusion, it not only invalidates my understanding of God, my understanding of the universe, my understanding of meaning, but also your scientistic (not "scientific") notions about meaning's falseness. If you undermine the fundamental human capacity to discern meaning and truth, you consequently undermine your capacity to discern the meaning and truth of the very proposition you are advancing. What you are saying is self-refuting. You testify against your proposition by attempting to explain it to us.

There is nothing scientific or 'scientistic' about personal meaning, except from basic neurological standpoint, it really is a generation of our emotions. All it means is that there's no objectivity to the way we do discern meaning and truth; it appears 'illusory' because our interpretation for various concepts are so subjective and the possibility of absolute truth becomes even more obscured. I am not undermining my own personal existence and discerment just because I see the universe differently than yours, how does this undermine your discernment and understanding becuase various beliefs and perspectives exist?

[cafolini]

Thank you Caf for that pile of irrelevant balderdash. Perhaps when you figure out how to engage in a rational conversation you will rejoin this one.

You are welcome. Make sure you store it for when you need it.

[JuniperWoolf]

To be fair, it's not "some guy"...

Ohhhh, your god's female? My mistake.

[Darcy88]

I think you are right in questioning why the current expansion of the universe implies that this expansion could be uniformly traced back to some origin. Maybe something stopped the expansion for a while or increased its speed or slowed it down in the past. However, if the universe did anything like that there would need to be a force to account for the change in velocity. Outside of the gravitational pull of the mass in the universe I don't know what that force would be.

Your original question was on my mind when I walked to the library yesterday. There I found that more evidence could be obtained from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe ( http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ ) The data from the probe placed the age of the universe at 13.73 billion years plus or minus 1%.

I admit I don't know how to verify any of this evidence. I read it. I trust the source and so I "believe" it, as JuniperWoolf points out. You do the same thing with the Gospels. You read about Jesus' death and resurrection. You trust the sources and you believe it.

There is one thing to note about the big bang. It was a complete beginning of the universe out of nothing. As such, it completely undermines atheism. It is amusing to watch atheists stumble when faced with this evidence. All of a sudden scientific evidence becomes more questionable than it normally would have been for them.

Then why are not most cosmologists theists?

Edit: Further, why does Stephen Hawking, the world's leading cosmologist, come out and say that given what we know of the universe's origins, it is not necessary to posit the existence or the activity of a God? I know we've had this exact same conversation before, but I could not let that statement there pass unopposed.

[cafolini]

Then why are not most cosmologists theists?

Ha! He'll probably say that they are, Darcy, and bring up Swaggart, Baker and Roberts as evidence. Don't the latter deal with the cosmos?

[YesNo]

Then why are not most cosmologists theists?

Edit: Further, why does Stephen Hawking, the world's leading cosmologist, come out and say that given what we know of the universe's origins, it is not necessary to posit the existence or the activity of a God? I know we've had this exact same conversation before, but I could not let that statement there pass unopposed.
How does Hawking account for the origin of the universe without recourse to something outside of it where some choice was made?

[Darcy88]

How does Hawking account for the origin of the universe without recourse to something outside of it where some choice was made?

He says it came about as the result of physical laws.

[stuntpickle]

There is nothing scientific or 'scientistic' about personal meaning, except from basic neurological standpoint, it really is a generation of our emotions. All it means is that there's no objectivity to the way we do discern meaning and truth; it appears 'illusory' because our interpretation for various concepts are so subjective and the possibility of absolute truth becomes even more obscured. I am not undermining my own personal existence and discerment just because I see the universe differently than yours, how does this undermine your discernment and understanding becuase various beliefs and perspectives exist?

This is so ridiculous.


there's no objectivity to the way we do discern meaning and truth

Fairly typical bunkum here. Is the above statement true? Does it have meaning? Is it true just for you? If so, why are you telling me? In your reletavistic world, I can simply choose to believe otherwise.


it appears 'illusory' because our interpretation for various concepts are so subjective

Why is it that reletavists try to confound objective truth by attempting to make objectively true statements about "our" interpretations? If you ever hope to sound rational, as opposed to irrational, which is all you accomplish here, you need to understand that you can never make statements that confound truth and meaning. You can still believe it, if you want. You can just never tell anyone without looking ridiculous.

You can't make sweeping statements about the illusion of truth and expect anyone to believe the truth of your statement. You can't make statements about the illusion of meaning and expect anyone to understand your meaning. All this hokum is just logically unteneable the second you try to share it with someone.

See, in our world of subjective truth and meaning, your post stated that you were buried in ice cream and waiting for aliens to whisk you away to Alpha Centauri, which I believe to be true and meaningful.


How does Hawking account for the origin of the universe without recourse to something outside of it where some choice was made?

The atheists are now trying to suggest that (and I'm not kidding) "the universe caused itself."

[OrphanPip]

The atheists are now trying to suggest that (and I'm not kidding) that "the universe caused itself."

Well your incredulity aside, there is sound mathematical reasons to argue that the universe was created out of a quantum fluctuation, as this could account for the Big Bang in a universe with net 0 energy, which all the evidence points to. However, this is not the same as saying the universe created itself, as we can only move back so far and we can not yet, or maybe ever, assess why something like this would happen, or what could exist before then.

Why that is somehow less reasonable than magic as an explanation is besides me.

[BienvenuJDC]

Well your incredulity aside, there is sound mathematical reasons to argue that the universe was created out of a quantum fluctuation, as this could account for the Big Bang in a universe with net 0 energy, which all the evidence points to. However, this is not the same as saying the universe created itself, as we can only move back so far and we can not yet, or maybe ever, assess why something like this would happen, or what could exist before then.

Why that is somehow less reasonable than magic as an explanation is besides me.

Wow...I don't think that you can make that sound any more ridiculous. And a Supernatural Supreme Being is not the same thing as "magic". The Lord is a force something greater than we can understand.

I still wonder why whenever there is a thread started to discuss some religion text, the atheists feel the need to question the existence of God in it.

[stuntpickle]

Well your incredulity aside, there is sound mathematical reasons to argue that the universe was created out of a quantum fluctuation, as this could account for the Big Bang in a universe with net 0 energy, which all the evidence points to. However, this is not the same as saying the universe created itself, as we can only move back so far and we can not yet, or maybe ever, assess why something like this would happen, or what could exist before then.

Why that is somehow less reasonable than magic as an explanation is besides me.

A quantum fluctuation in what, where, when? I watched in disbelief as Quentin Smith, a real atheist philosopher, tried to use Zeno's Paradox, an ancient philosophical puzzle, to explain this. And you're simply WRONG: a number of atheist philosophers and scientists are saying exactly that "the universe caused itself."

No one is proposing magic, so keep your strawmen to yourself. And how is this absurdity unreasonable? It is by definition unreasonable.

If the universe did not literally begin to exist, then the generally ridiculous atheist rejoinder (it loses explanatory power) actually makes sense.

Of course, everyone is holding out hope that string theory/M theory can salvage Big Bang theory from demonstrating a beginning consistent with Judeo-Christian creation, but it tries to make the Aristotealean prime mover possible (the collision of branes) by the grandest proliferation of needless entities ever proposed anywhere, and for atheists so generally bewitched by Occam's razor, this would seem problematic--not to mention M theory is mostly a plagiarism of Leibniz's spiritual monad.

[OrphanPip]

A quantum fluctuation in what, where, when? I watched in disbelief as Quentin Smith, a real atheist philosopher, tried to use Zeno's Paradox, an ancient philosophical puzzle, to explain this. And you're simply WRONG: a number of atheist philosophers and scientists are saying exactly that "the universe caused itself."

No one is proposing magic, so keep your strawmen to yourself. And how is this absurdity unreasonable? It is by definition unreasonable.

If the universe did not literally begin to exist, then the generally ridiculous atheist rejoinder (it loses explanatory power) actually makes sense.

Of course, everyone is holding out hope that string theory/M theory can salvage Big Bang theory from demonstrating a beginning consistent with Judeo-Christian creation, but it tries to make the Aristotealean prime mover possible (the collision of branes) by the grandest proliferation of needless entities ever proposed anywhere, and for atheists so generally bewitched by Occam's razor, this would seem problematic--not to mention M theory is mostly a plagiarism of Leibniz's spiritual monad.

Neither string theory nor M theory is required to explain the BB, as they are involved with reconciling quantum mechanics with other forces, like gravity.

A quantum fluctuation where is an easy enough question to answer, if there is nothing and a quantum fluctuation occurs so that for a brief period some energy, balanced by negative energy of an equal amount, comes into existence briefly, then a universe will be created.

http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html

This summarises it succinctly.

I don't even know what theoretical physics has to do with atheism anyway, these ideas don't deal with religion, they just deal with astrology and physics.

[stuntpickle]

{edit}


Neither string theory nor M theory is required to explain the BB, as they are involved with reconciling quantum mechanics with other forces, like gravity.

A quantum fluctuation where is an easy enough question to answer, if there is nothing and a quantum fluctuation occurs so that for a brief period some energy, balanced by negative energy of an equal amount, comes into existence briefly, then a universe will be created.

http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html

This summarises it succinctly.

I don't even know what theoretical physics has to do with atheism anyway, these ideas don't deal with religion, they just deal with astrology and physics.

I didn't ask you to explain a quantum fluctuation; I asked you in what, where and when this quantum fluctuation occured. Nice try at avoidance. And you need not pretend to explain the purposes of M theory to me. Thanks.


A quantum fluctuation where is an easy enough question to answer, if there is nothing and a quantum fluctuation occurs so that for a brief period some energy, balanced by negative energy of an equal amount, comes into existence briefly, then a universe will be created.

http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html

This summarises it succinctly.

I don't even know what theoretical physics has to do with atheism anyway, these ideas don't deal with religion, they just deal with astrology and physics.

Are you proposing a fluctuation in nothing, nowhere, never?

[Darcy88]

The atheists are now trying to suggest that (and I'm not kidding) "the universe caused itself."

Not mere atheists, but scientists, physicists, cosmologists, learned experts who have devoted their lives to the study of such matters.

[OrphanPip]

I didn't ask you to explain a quantum fluctuation; I asked you in what, where and when this quantum fluctuation occured. Nice try at avoidance. And you need not pretend to explain the purposes of M theory to me. Thanks.

Who is trying to avoid anything? I question your reading comprehension because I clearly said that if a quantum fluctuation were to occur before there was a universe it would have the potential of producing a big bang, and thus creating a universe. The matter of how quantum fluctuations operate is pertinent because it is required to explain why this would not violate the principles of conservation of energy, and why it is possible that the entire universe is in a sense composed of nothing.

You brought up M theory in respect to the Big Bang, I merely pointed out why M theory is not necessary to explain the Big Bang. If we want to talk about avoidance, we might mention your bringing up the subject of aspects of physics which actually bare no direct relation to the subject of the Big Bang.

Why can't you respond to any post without being a jackass about everything, geez.

[Serena03]

This is so ridiculous.



Fairly typical bunkum here. Is the above statement true? Does it have meaning? Is it true just for you? If so, why are you telling me? In your reletavistic world, I can simply choose to believe otherwise.



Why is it that reletavists try to confound objective truth by attempting to make objectively true statements about "our" interpretations? If you ever hope to sound rational, as opposed to irrational, which is all you accomplish here, you need to understand that you can never make statements that confound truth and meaning. You can still believe it, if you want. You can just never tell anyone without looking ridiculous.

You can't make sweeping statements about the illusion of truth and expect anyone to believe the truth of your statement. You can't make statements about the illusion of meaning and expect anyone to understand your meaning. All this hokum is just logically unteneable the second you try to share it with someone.

See, in our world of subjective truth and meaning, your post stated that you were buried in ice cream and waiting for aliens to whisk you away to Alpha Centauri, which I believe to be true and meaningful.

The fact that you are taking my words as any sort of assertion as truth or meaning shows how badly you missed the point. It's people like you though who aren't worth the time talking to anyway when you twist words around as an intervention to your beliefs or an obligation to agree. Besides, I can't believe I'm beginning to discuss logic and rationality within religious premises. Good day and may your universe be enriched with the light, truth and meaning it surely needs.

[stuntpickle]

Who is trying to avoid anything? I question your reading comprehension because I clearly said that if a quantum fluctuation were to occur before there was a universe it would have the potential of producing a big bang, and thus creating a universe. The matter of how quantum fluctuations operate is pertinent because it is required to explain why this would not violate the principles of conservation of energy, and why it is possible that the entire universe is in a sense composed of nothing.

You brought up M theory in respect to the Big Bang, I merely pointed out why M theory is not necessary to explain the Big Bang. If we want to talk about avoidance, we might mention your bringing up the subject of aspects of physics which actually bare no direct relation to the subject of the Big Bang.

Why can't you respond to any post without being a jackass about everything, geez.

A fluctation in nothing, nowhere, never is no less "magic" than an Aristotelean prime mover. I brought up M Theory because despite how string theory originated, M Theory now proposes mechanisms for creation directly related to the Big Bang, which constitutes an attempt to save Big Bang theory from creation ex nihilo, and which is necessarily relevant to a discussion about the Big Bang.

{edit}

[OrphanPip]

A fluctation in nothing, nowhere, never is no less "magic" than an Aristotelean prime mover. I brought up M Theory because despite how string theory originated, M Theory now proposes mechanisms for creation directly related to the Big Bang, which constitutes an attempt to save Big Bang theory from creation ex nihilo, and which is necessarily relevant to a discussion about the Big Bang.

No, there is a fundamental difference. Because quantum fluctuations are observable phenomena that we are aware of, so we can theoretically model how they could produce a universe in a theoretical "vacuum of energy." I think there is a substantial difference between proposing how something we know exists, could occur at a point we know probably exists (prior to the current universe coming into existence) and how it could produce the features of the universe we see now based on how it operates according to known physics. This is different from a theorized supernatural cause that is outside what we know of material existence. The difference is that if a proposed vacuum of energy is something that did exist, but we can't of course be certain of that, and that quantum fluctuations are things that could occur without our current universe existing, then if those conditions are met this explains how our universe came to exist. These are reasonably hypotheses, no one is saying this is how it must of happen, but it is by far a better explanation than something we know nothing of having done it through force of will or what have you.

Edit: What produced the state of nothing, and what produces quantum fluctuations would be another matter. But that is not how physics operates, not everything is necessarily going to be explainable with the evidence we will be able to access.

{edit}

[stuntpickle]

The fact that you are taking my words as any sort of assertion as truth or meaning shows how badly you missed the point. It's people like you though who aren't worth the time talking to anyway when you twist words around as an intervention to your beliefs or an obligation to agree. Besides, I can't believe I'm beginning to discuss logic and rationality within religious premises. Good day and may your universe be enriched with the light, truth and meaning it surely needs.

Describing the nature of objective truth is, by its very nature, "assertion as [sic] truth or meaning."


how badly you missed the point..

This is called irony. Your "point" wouldn't pass muster in an introductory logic course. This isn't my opinion, but the objective truth. Descartes's subjectivism was merely methodological and sought ultimately to prove objective truth. If he had onyl gotten as far as "truth is an illusion" or "meaning is subjective" he wouldn't have ever written anything down.

It's hilarious that you think it's odd "to discuss logic and rationality within religious premises" when the vast majority of logical and rational discussions in the history of philosophy have been conducted within the scope of religious doctrine. And by the way, you don't even need religious premises for our discussion. All I am doing is pointing out how your assertions are self-contradictions; no religion necessary. And by the way, if you weren't looking for a rational discussion based on religious premises, then why are you trolling in a religious texts forum??????? The btter question is: why am I trying to have a logical discussion with someone incapable of logic?


No, there is a fundamental difference. Because quantum fluctuations are observable phenomena that we are aware of, so we can theoretically model how they could produce a universe in a theoretical "vacuum of energy." I think there is a substantial difference between proposing how something we know exists, could occur at a point we know probably exists (prior to the current universe coming into existence) and how it could produce the features of the universe we see now based on how it operates according to known physics. This is different from a theorized supernatural cause that is outside what we know of material existence. The difference is that if a proposed vacuum of energy is something that did exist, but we can't of course be certain of that, and that quantum fluctuations are things that could occur without our current universe existing, then if those conditions are met this explains how our universe came to exist. These are reasonably hypotheses, no one is saying this is how it must of happen, but it is by far a better explanation than something we know nothing of having done it through force of will or what have you.

Edit: What produced the state of nothing, and what produces quantum fluctuations would be another matter. But that is not how physics operates, not everything is necessarily going to be explainable with the evidence we will be able to access.



Maybe, I'm no stranger to infractions, that is up to the infinite wisdom of the moderating staff.

First, "a vacuum of energy" is not sysnonymous with "nothing," which is how you, yourself, described it. If time exists, we're not talking about the beginning. If space exists, we're not talking about the beginning. If any material "thing" can be said to exist we are not discussing the beginning.

So in what, where and when did the fluctuation occur? As far as anyone knows, "nothing" isn't big on fluctuating.

[OrphanPip]

First, "a vacuum of energy" is not sysnonymous with "nothing," which is how you, yourself, described it. If time exists, we're not talking about the beginning. If space exists, we're not talking about the beginning. If any material "thing" can be said to exist we are not discussing the beginning.

So in what, where and when did the fluctuation occur? As far as anyone knows, "nothing" isn't big on fluctuating.

That depends on whether space and time are dependent on the presence of matter and energy. A vacuum of energy may as well be timeless and spaceless, because it would have to be devoid of matter. How does nothing experience time and space if it is nothing?

I'm not sure we need an ultimate explanation of existence to explain how the current universe, as a material space exists. The BB is a beginning, and it is explainable through current physics, even if it is not necessarily the ultimate beginning.

If we're asking how did existence come to be, I think it's a different question from how the current universe came to be.

[stuntpickle]

That depends on whether space and time are dependent on the presence of matter and energy. A vacuum of energy may as well be timeless and spaceless, because it would have to be devoid of matter. How does nothing experience time and space if it is nothing?

I'm not sure we need an ultimate explanation of existence to explain how the current universe, as a material space exists. The BB is a beginning, and it is explainable through current physics, even if it is not necessarily the ultimate beginning.

If we're asking how did existence come to be, I think it's a different question from how the current universe came to be.

The current orthodoxy regarding the BIg Bang is that it encompasses the beggining of time and space. Any discussion starting after these components exist, cannot be said to address the actual beginning of the universe. It is also the consensus that there are structural impediments to ever actually figuring out scientifically what occurs beyond the singularity. Science only works given the inductive assumption of the uniformity of natural laws, which can never hold beyond the singularity.

[Serena03]

Describing the nature of objective truth is, by its very nature, "assertion as [sic] truth or meaning."



This is called irony. Your "point" wouldn't pass muster in an introductory logic course. This isn't my opinion, but the objective truth. Descartes's subjectivism was merely methodological and sought ultimately to prove objective truth. If he had onyl gotten as far as "truth is an illusion" or "meaning is subjective" he wouldn't have ever written anything down.

It's hilarious that you think it's odd "to discuss logic and rationality within religious premises" when the vast majority of logical and rational discussions in the history of philosophy have been conducted within the scope of religious doctrine. And by the way, you don't even need religious premises for our discussion. All I am doing is pointing out how your assertions are self-contradictions; no religion necessary. And by the way, if you weren't looking for a rational discussion based on religious premises, then why are you trolling in a religious texts forum??????? The btter question is: why am I trying to have a logical discussion with someone incapable of logic?
.
Now you're starting to catch my drift about the delusional; evidently you have THE objective description for objective truth? Good luck with finding universality in that. When you finally pull your head out of your objectively arrogant a$$ then we can begin to restore logic.

[stuntpickle]

That depends on whether space and time are dependent on the presence of matter and energy. A vacuum of energy may as well be timeless and spaceless, because it would have to be devoid of matter. How does nothing experience time and space if it is nothing?

I'm not sure we need an ultimate explanation of existence to explain how the current universe, as a material space exists. The BB is a beginning, and it is explainable through current physics, even if it is not necessarily the ultimate beginning.

If we're asking how did existence come to be, I think it's a different question from how the current universe came to be.

Oh, and by the way, if your vacuum of energy contains a mix of matter/antimatter or particles/antiparticles it cannot be said to be a true vaccum and would be similar to what we find in space right now. A net total of zero is not precisely a vacuum. And I've also heard more than one scientist (Neil Degrasse Tyson, for instance) say that matter/antimatter isn't even really a theory but more a place holder to make all the math work in existing theories.

[JuniperWoolf]

Any discussion starting after these components exist, cannot be said to address the actual beginning of the universe.

I'm curious, what's your logical answer for "how did the universe originate?" And please, feel free to say "my god did it," because as everyone knows, that theory is completely air tight.

[stuntpickle]

Now you're starting to catch my drift about the delusional; evidently you have THE objective description for objective truth? Good luck with finding universality in that. When you finally pull your head out of your objectively arrogant a$$ then we can begin to restore logic.

The difference, Serena, is that one of us has actually taken coursework in logic. In any logic course, you will learn that presmises that cast doubt on themselves are not good.

Look, you're completely missing the point. Logic is a mode of discourse that occurs only once any number of things have been taken for granted. Among these are that statements have meaning and true statements are possible. If you assert that meaning is entirely subjective or that truth is illusory, you impeach the very mechanisms of the discussion.


I'm curious, what's your logical answer for "how did the universe originate?" And please, feel free to say "my god did it," because as everyone knows, that theory is completely air tight.

Yeah because everyone knows that hack Aristotle was just some fundamentalist Christian trying to crash the atheist party.

[JuniperWoolf]

Yeah because everyone knows that hack Aristotle was just some fundamentalist Christian trying to crash the atheist party.

So your "logic" is that Aristotle thought it was true, so it is? Aristotle, like most people of his time, also thought that the earth was flat and that all matter was composed of earth, wind, water and fire. Do you agree with him there, too?


The difference, Serena, is that one of us has actually taken coursework in logic. In any logic course, you will learn that presmises that cast doubt on themselves are not good.

I really wish that you would shut up about your background in "logic." All you're really accomplishing is making yourself look like a douche, and preventing anyone from even considering agreeing with you out of spite.

[stuntpickle]

So your "logic" is that Aristotle thought it was true, so it is? Aristotle, like most people of his time, also thought that the earth was flat and that all matter was composed of earth, wind, water and fire. Do you agree with him there, too?



I really wish that you would shut up about your background in "logic." All you're really accomplishing is making yourself look like a douche.

See, this is what modern atheists do: they demosntrate their fundamental incpacity for rational discussion and end by calling a theist a name.

Let me set you straight on your goofy ideas about Aristotle. First, it doesn't matter if he thought the world was flat; that's not an idea anyone cares about. Newton thought he could transmute lead into gold; that doesn't mean we gave up on calculus or Newtonian physics. YOU just don't know how philosophy works if you think antique philosophy is entirely useless. The disgreements in philosophy now are the same as the disagreements then. Aristotle has never gone entirely out of style. Roger Penrose, one of the foremost mathematicians alive, is a Platonist, which, in case you can't figure that out, means he is largely concerned with the ideas of Plato, who also thought the world was flat. Aristotle's prime mover argument is not only a foundational idea in western culture, but still in use today. The latest iteration is Craig's Kalam argument.

Perhaps when you can demostrate more than a tendency toward non sequiturs, we could actually discuss the issue, which, if I recall, is the writing of CS Lewis.

Edit: Too late; I already caught the snapshot of you calling me a name. Hmmmm, I wonder if you'll get an infraction.

[JuniperWoolf]

See, this is what modern atheists do: they demosntrate their fundamental incpacity for rational discussion and end by calling a theist a name.

Who said I was an atheist? You know stuntpickle, I don't appreciate it when you call me names.


First, it doesn't matter if he thought the world was flat; that's not an idea anyone cares about.

You know what? I don't care about Aristotle. You're trying to blow off my question, so I'll ask it again: hey stuntpickle, how did the universe originate?


The disgreements in philosophy now are the same as the disagreements then. Aristotle has never gone entirely out of style. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

I don't care. What do YOU, STUNTPICKE, what do YOU think? How did the universe originate, and why do you think so?


Perhaps when you can demostrate more than a tendency toward non sequiturs, we could actually discuss the issue, which, if I recall, is the writing of CS Lewis.

You've used the phrase "non sequitur" a few times now, and it makes me think that you don't understand the definition:

non se·qui·tur
noun
a statement containing an illogical conclusion.

The only conclusion that I've come to so far is that you sound like a douche, and I don't think that anyone would fail to see the logic in that.


Edit: Too late; I already caught the snapshot of you calling me a name. Hmmmm, I wonder if you'll get an infraction.

It's a small risk in this case, because I technically didn't "call you" anything. I said that you SOUND like a douche. The way that you are speaking to people on this forum is in a douchey manner. I could have said that you sound "arrogant," but that's not as funny and it also lacks style.

[stuntpickle]

Who said I was an atheist? You know stuntpickle, I don't appreciate it when you call me names.



You know what? I don't care about Aristotle. You're trying to blow off my question, so I'll ask it again: hey stuntpickle, how did the universe originate?



I don't care. What do YOU, STUNTPICKE, what do YOU think? How did the universe originate, and why do you think so?



You've used the phrase "non sequitur" a few times now, and it makes me think that you don't understand the definition:

non se·qui·tur
noun
a statement containing an illogical conclusion.

The only conclusion that I've come to so far is that you sound like a douche, and I don't think that anyone would fail to see the logic in that.

Perhaps you know what a dictionary says a non sequitur is, but I doubt you understand what it means, or you would be capable of determining how what you said qualifies. Essentially, a nonsequitur does not follow from what comes before it. When you conclude from my post that my "logic is that Aristotle thought it was true, so it is," you arrive at a nonsequitur.

Look, if you can't understand how my mention of Aristotle's prime mover and Craig's Kalam argument answer your question, then I can't help you.

[JuniperWoolf]

You could help me if you answer my question. You've bashed the other side's theories, so it's only fair if you give them yours to consider. Do you want me to ask it again?

[stuntpickle]

You could help me if you answer my question. You've bashed the other side's theories, so it's only fair if you give them yours to consider. Do you want me to ask it again?

Because you are so helpless as to be incapable of using Google, I will repeat the simplied version of Craig's Kalam argument.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

[JuniperWoolf]

Because you are so helpless as to be incapable of using Google, I will repeat the simplied version of Craig's Kalam argument.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

A cause? No kidding. Like, for example, the big bang? Or do you have another cause in mind? Which cause might that be, stuntpickle?

Jesus, it's like pulling teeth.

[stuntpickle]

A cause? No kidding. Like, for example, the big bang? Or do you have another cause in mind? Which cause might that be, stuntpickle?

Jesus, it's like pulling teeth.

The Big Bang describes the creation without positing a cause. YOU people are so overconfident it's funny. Are you in elementary school?

[JuniperWoolf]

The Big Bang describes the creation without positing a cause. YOU people are so overconfident it's funny. Are you in elementary school?

Who are "YOU people?"

Why can't you just talk without pussy-footing around, calling everyone who disagrees with you an idiot or rambling out a lecture of dry references to people who have been dead for thousands of years? Your aversion to giving a straight answer reeks of cowardice and uncertainty. Do you seriously think that you can crap all over everyone else's theories about something that we know dick-all about without anyone asking what your own thoughts are? Just admit it: you believe that the universe was created by a humanoid god, and that's AT LEAST as much of a random stab-in-the-dark idea as any that has ever been proposed. Your opinion isn't better than anyone else's on this topic (since we have practically no information on it) despite your extensive "logic" background.

And if you do believe that a god created the universe, then there is a score of other questions that you can't answer, the most obvious being: where did that god come from?

[stuntpickle]

Who are "you people?"

Why can't you just talk without pussy-footing around, calling everyone who disagrees with you an idiot or relying on dry references to people who have been dead for thousands of years? Do you seriously think that you can crap all over everyone else's theories about something that we know dick-all about without anyone asking what your own thoughts are? Just admit it: you believe that the universe was created by a humanoid god, and that's AT LEAST as much of a random stab-in-the-dark idea as any that has ever been proposed. Your opinion isn't better than anyone else's on this topic (since we have practically no information on it) despite your extensive "logic" background.

And if you do believe that a god created the universe, then there is a score of other questions that you can't answer, the most obvious being: where did that god come from?

See, you're just so wrong that you even lack the capacity to discern your wrongness. I've called no one an idiot; I asked you (seriously) if you were in elementary school, simply because you demostrate that level of understanding about the Big Bang. You just keep posting piles of garbage that I have to sift through and explain to you how they're piles of garbage.

First of all, the prime mover is, by definition the unmoved mover and therefore does not have to be explained in the same manner as the universe. Craig's first premise uses the accurate phrase "begins to exist," and God is generally considered to be extra-temporal. Your "who designed the designer" argument was only proposed recently by Richard Dawkins who was consequently ridiculed, by other atheists to boot, for having no clue what he was talking about.

The case for theism is cumulative: the simplified Kalam argument doesn't explicity argue for "God." Of course, there are many other arguments that do: the ontological argument, for instance. Here is Plantiga's modal version:

1.A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2.A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3.It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness.
4.Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
5.Therefore (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
6.Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.


But this is all beside the point because you've thoroughly demonstrated that you are incapable of understanding logic this advanced. You can't even tell when you're uttering non sequiturs or how the Big Bang is not positing a cause for the entire universe. But you don't really care; all you care about is talking trash and constantly switching the goal posts because you can't defend any of the lame assertions you make, so we are destined to spin our wheels for ever while you try to make a quick study of relevant wikipedia articles.

[JuniperWoolf]

See, you're just so wrong that you even lack the capacity to discern your wrongness. I've called no one an idiot; I asked you (seriously) if you were in elementary school, simply because you demostrate that level of understanding about the Big Bang. You just keep posting piles of garbage that I have to sift through and explain to you how they're piles of garbage.

And you don't agree that you sound like a complete condescending douche?


Your "who designed the designer" argument was only proposed recently by Richard Dawkins who was consequently ridiculed, by other atheists to boot, for having no clue what he was talking about.

Uh, no it wasn't. I asked my mom where god comes from when I was five. Most CHILDREN do. After all, if something exists then it must have a cause, right? So what's the cause of god? Did it "spontaneously create itself?" If so, then how is that any better than your estimation of the atheists' explination for the origin of the universe?


1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2.A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.

Excuse me and my inferior brain, but what the hell does this have to do with anything and how does it prove that the being of "maximal excellence" exists? This could be paraphrased as "a supreme being is one that is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent in every possible world." Alright. Let's follow that thread.


3. It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness.

I think you must have skipped some steps. How was this concusion reached? So far, I've heard a definition of what a god is, and then I've heard an assertion that it exists. Where's the "logic?"


4.Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

That's a restatement of #3, except with the uber convincing phrase "possibly it is necessarily true" tagged onto it.


5.Therefore (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

Another restatement of point #3.


6.Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

Yet another re-statement of point #3.

Are you serious? How was this supposed to convince anyone of anything?


But this is all beside the point because you've thoroughly demonstrated that you are incapable of understanding logic this advanced.

Haha, yeah. I'm having a real doozy of a time navigating this intricate labyrinth of intellect and supreme reason.


But you don't really care;

Well, at least in this entire conversation you were right about one thing.


all you care about is talking trash and constantly switching the goal posts...so we are destined to spin our wheels for ever while you try to make a quick study relevant of wikipedia articles.

Mixed metaphor alert.


...because you can't defend any of the lame assertions you make.

So far the only assertion that I've made is that you sound like a douche, and I think that I've sufficiently proven that. You don't know what I believe beyond that, and actually, what I believe isn't all that important - and neither, by the way, is what you believe, so stop pretending that it is. You don't have the answers to the secrets of the universe, so keep your religion to yourself and stop acting superior.

[Serena03]

The difference, Serena, is that one of us has actually taken coursework in logic. In any logic course, you will learn that presmises that cast doubt on themselves are not good.

Look, you're completely missing the point. Logic is a mode of discourse that occurs only once any number of things have been taken for granted. Among these are that statements have meaning and true statements are possible. If you assert that meaning is entirely subjective or that truth is illusory, you impeach the very mechanisms of the discussion.



Well if I am initially questioning the objective existence of absolute truth, obviously the traditional use of logic is being questioned as well, so the whole concept will naturally cancel itself out as a piece of truth. But you can still make seeming observations or conjectures which is still up for falsifying, a lot of philosophy begins this way. Maybe you can pass your brilliant coursework in logic, especially concerning God's cause for the universe, over to the mystified realms of science since you apparently have all the answers.

[Scheherazade]

~

This thread is now closed.

A quick glance at the last couple of posts will, I am sure, inform everyone why.

I would like remind everyone, once again, that disrespect towards others and their beliefs

-regardless of the points you are trying to make -

will not be tolerated on this Forum.
~