Tom Caylor wrote: > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> On 2/18/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>> On Feb 16, 8:18 am, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> If you built a model society and set its citizens instincts, goals, >>>> laws-from-heaven (but really from you) and so on, would that suffice to >>>> provide "meaning"? >>>> >>> It would not provide ultimate meaning for two reasons... >> >> My answer would have been that the beings would have no way of knowing the >> difference between the provided meaning and "ultimate" meaning, and would >> live their lives just as we live our lives, some of them atheists and others >> theists. In other words, the idea of ultimate meaning can have no objective >> or subjective consequences: you can honestly, deeply believe in it and this >> belief can change the way you live your life, but it would do so even if it >> had no basis in reality. A child might behave well in order to receive >> presents from Santa Claus, but this has no bearing whatsoever on the >> question of whether Santa Claus exists. >> >> 1) Logical reason, but still important and inescapable: If the source >>> of meaning was from within the "system", i.e. the observable/ >>> controllable universe, then we can always ask the why question when we >>> find the source. This is not acceptable as part of a scientifically >>> observable causal universe, as it contradicts it. A closed system >>> which is supposedly totally explainable will always have at least one >>> fixed point that is unexplainable. This is the old positivism >>> problem. This is actually part of the problem with a straw-man >>> caricature god, in our image, i.e. any thing that we (as part of the >>> universe) can think up. >> >> You can always draw a circle around the system + externals and call it a >> new, larger system: the universe, the multiverse, the plenitude, God + the >> Plenitude, or whatever. Long before it was a problem for positivism it was a >> problem for theism: Who made God? Who gives God meaning? Who tells God >> whether his ethical principles are right or wrong? >> > > These are positivist questions. This is your basic error in this > whole post (and previous ones). These questions are assuming that > positivism is the right way of viewing everything, even ultimate > meaning (at least when meaning is said to be based on God, but not > when meaning is said to be based on ourselves). > > Tom
Then is it your error to assume that it must be based on God and not on ourselves? If there is a purpose and it's not my purpose, what meaning can it provide to my actions? Brent Meeker --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
