That's possible even if any of the gods do actually exist. It would explain the multitude of different religious beliefs wouldn't it.

Given that, whenever I do a long post that traces the path of discussion so far to make clear my reasoning, RLK has a charming habit of just blockquoting it and leaving a "You are stupid" or "You are boring" rejoinder I hesitate to bother but f-it...

Yes pretty much, though it's only now that RLK has expanded enough on his point that we can see exactly what he is doing with regard to having an implied "real" or "ultimate" in front of "meaning"/"significance".

Technically, the cat analogy was not meant to directly illustrate the equivocation, but to make clear that RLKs argument that "there is no such thing as short term mattering"

and

.

Given that RLKs prior post had claimed that...

... I didn't want to simply assert that it seemed obviously wrong, and used analogy to show why I felt it wasn't possible that RLK was making the argument it seemed he was making.

I don't think any of this was unclear, and have explicitly stated my question several times in the form of "Why does my life have no significance NOW, just because it will have no significance LATER? "

Oh, it's true. Can I prove it? Of course not. But I don't understand why you feel the inability to prove such an outrageous claim, should supersede the fact that there isn't a single shred of evidence in favor of it. But yeah... We all have to concede that the ability of consciousness to survive death is unproven either way. Not sure why you find this a compelling reason to think that it does though.

This is where we (the theist and atheist) invariably run head first into a wall. The problem is that like morality, theists seem to insist on some objective meaning. I deny this. I've said this before... The universe does not owe you any explanations or form of meaning. Meaning is subjective. It's what YOU make of it. One person spends the bulk of his life being a devoted father to 3 children. Another, has no children and spends his traveling the world, climbing mountains, and seeking adventure. Another still, becomes a priest and devotes his life to spreading the good word. Who's life has more meaning? It's not for us to say.

But your point is that when these people die, none of it matters (if consciousness doesn't live on). My point is that it wouldn't matter even if it does. I try very hard to understand your point(s). Do you try to understand mine? Have I explained correctly why it doesn't matter either way (assuming there is no objective meaning)?

I do not understand this. Are you saying that if consciousness is eternal then the 1-100 earth orbits around the sun in which we are present matters more than if our consciousness stopped during the 35th or 71st orbit? Sorry if I'm being dumb, but I honestly don't understand why. Can you provide an example of what meaning today's actions will hold as the earth enters its 2,769,321,119th orbit after your death?

Happy Thanksgiving all.

There have been a lot of responses and I am cooking today so I will ask your indulgence not to wade through them point by point. Instead let me start this line of reasoning that may bring some clarity.

Some of you have said that your life has "significance" or "meaning". Where does that exist? Where is that significance?

I am not one of the ones who have said my life has significance, but I would like to pursue with you an line of reasoning I explored with Lemonzest.


How does the existence of god give your life meaning, or significance? Or is it only the possibility of meaning or significance?

What you appear to be saying is that you value it because you value it. How is this any different from an atheist accepting a different value system , because they find value in it?

Your value system has no intrinsic meaning or significance( that I can see) that makes it more "better" than any other value system.

Where does that significance exist?

I explained the significance under eternal consciousness a couple of posts back. I did not need to invoke God to do that, btw.

I have already made an argument that distinguishes between them. In the finite consciousness case you reach a state that is path independent. Thus the path has no significance. In the infinite consciousness case the state you are in has the possibility to be always path dependent. Thus the path may have significance.

If better means more utility, this may be incorrect. But this is getting ahead of ourselves. First we have to agree that we can state the differences in a mutally agreeable fashion before we could make any meaningful comparison.

I tried a different wording again with neeel.

Does this resonate with anyone?

If one considers one's life history a path in spacetime, then in the mortal consciousness scenario one reaches a state which is path independent. Thus the path does not matter.

In the immortal consciousness scenario there is the possibility that we never reach a state that is path independent. Thus the path possibly does matter.

It doesnt exist anywhere. But Im sure thats not a useful answer for you. Thoughts about something being significant does not imply significance. Significance and meaning are human, made up , concepts. ( again, Im sure that you will feel that this is not useful to the discussion)



There are a lot of assumptions here. You are assuming that theres a "You" that exists now, that will possibly cease to exist after death.What is it that will cease to exist? Its not the atoms, they go on to be parts of something else. I guess you assume that "You" are consciousness? I dont believe that consciousness inhabits a body, or that its an entity, or a "You"

You have still also to show how you get from "god exists" to knowing what specific activities and behaviours to undertake in order to ensure your eternal existence


I like your path dependent/independant idea though.

I am deeply confused. Isn't this what I have been saying? It does not exist.



Well, this is fine within the materialist framework. "You" do not exist. Again, I think this is what I have been saying.

But if we hypothesize that consciousness did not end at death, would you still make these statements. If your body died but you found your awareness still present, would you still say there was no "you".


True and I am willing to move forward if we got to agreement on the stuff in this paragraph. If we cannot get agreement, then there is no framework to move forward.

But it doesnt exist in either scenario, the eternal, or temporary, existence.




Like i said, if awareness/consciousness( are you saying that the 2 terms are interchangeable?) exists ( and Im not sure it does) then its not a "me". Hypothesise all you want about consciousness continuing after death, unless you have a way of showing its true, then its just that, a hypothesis, and is no reason to base a belief system on. Obviously if I find myself aware after death, then there will need to be a rather large revision of what I know. But thats irrelevant.

But this is fine. All of my statements were conditionals, ie. assuming this, assuming that, etc. I was describing the implications of possibilities. Your statement does not dispute any of my conditionals, which is different from what some other people are saying. Your are essentially saying that my description of the conditionals was correct. But you are assuming the correctness of one scenario (mortal consciousness) and will not abandon that unless it is proven to be false, even though it is not proven true. That is fine. Again, there is no point of discussion since the only way to prove that true or false is death, which is of course a one-way street. There is no point in discussing God either since under a mortal consciousness scenario God is probably not relevant.

I have no way of disputing your point of view. It is a belief and as presented here, a self-consistent worldview. I might question the wisdom of making this assumption, but that is a very different discussion.

If you can show me that consciousness is eternal, and that its a "me" or an entity of some kind, maybe we could progress?

Do you have anything to show me other than hypothesis and supposition? Because if not, you are right, there is no path from here.

Just to note, some people who realise that there is no self or "me", subscribe to the eternal consciousness idea. So the two arent mutually exclusive

The significance 'exists' in my mind. That is to say, I don't consider 'significance' to be an intrinsic property of an object, but a property in the mind of an observer - in this case, me.

The same goes for certain other properties, like 'sexiness'. To say 'that woman is sexy' does not mean that I think sexiness is a property of that woman - woman.sexiness, like woman.height or woman.weight - but is a property in the mind of me, the observer.

Therefore when someone says that I am wrong about the significance of my life I assume they are either a) actually reporting something about a property in his mind when observing my life or b) telling me I am misreporting my own state of mind.

A) may well be true, but is irrelevant and b) is false and can be ignored.

So far I think that Lemonzest is asserting a) and you are asserting b) but it's still very unclear.

As per bunny, you are simply asserting without justification that a temporary significance is illusory. I'll skip over the 'created to deal with mortality' bit as it is just trolling.

Regardless of those points, I don't see that an infinitely existing consciousness is infinitely more significant unless the observer in question finds it to be so. But even if I grant that premise, I don't see that it follows that a temporary significance is identical to zero significance. I could wake up in heaven (or whatever) and declare "my life was significant before but now it's wayyyyy more significant!" without contradiction imo.

I don't see why. It seems like the best bet is to live as though life ends at physical death, and if it turns out that it doesn't I'll break out the party hats and balloons.

I cannot show the bold. I never said I could. I have always acknowledged that "mortal consciousness" is a possibility.

Of course not. Neither do you, unless you can prove that my consciousness is mortal.

There are people who believe that the positions of the planets at my birth predict my future. That does not mean the idea is valid. As you yourself said, if you find yourself aware after your death you will have some real thinking to do. All you have said is that you refuse to do that thinking before that time comes.

You ninja edited your previous post ? It seems a lot different to what I responded to.

Yes, it probably appears that I am assuming the correctness of this scenario. I realise that I may be wrong. But there is no way of finding out. And even if I am assuming the correctness of this scenario, I am not extrapolating from that any meaning, or any specific behaviours or actions. Whereas, you believe in immortal consciousness, and are extrapolating from that specific behaviours and actions, with no reason, that I can see, to pick those specific behaviours over any others. This has been what I have been trying to get at. Your assumption of immortal consciousness tells you no more than my assumption of mortal consciousness.



where have I said that I refuse to do that thinking before that time comes?

But even so, if I now spend the rest of my life thinking about it, I will be no nearer an answer than if I had not given it another thought.

If there is no way of finding out whether consciousness is immortal or not, then what good is thinking about it going to do ( Except in thinking about ways to find out if its immortal or not I guess).

I will try and be succinct in what I think on this

Things that are created intentionally have purpose.

Things that happen out of time and chance have no purpose/meaning. The example I gave before about the RNG spitting out numbers but there is no significance to those numbers. The reason there is no significance is becuase it is all based on time and chance.

This is not meant to be a knock on atheism. Even if atheism is true and I become an atheist I will still conclude life is meaningless and without purpose.

Imagine our world but Theism/Christianity/the Bible doesn't exist. It is scientifically (somehow) proven that there is no God. It is scientifically proven 100% that the universe came to be purely out of time and channce.

In this world I think life has no meaning/purpose.
Any meaning I would ascribe to myself or others is temporal and irrelevant.

Really? Everything? what if I create something intentionally that has no purpose?

Lets say I create a lamp. I have a purpose for that lamp. Does that mean that the lamp has an intrinsic quality of "purposefulness"? What if I use the lamp as a hammer? What if I create it and then dont use it. Have I destroyed its purpose? Can the lamp gain meaning and value out of its life for being used as a lamp?

Also, you are assuming that I am creating something. Whereas I am not, I am rearranging molecules into a temporary structure.

Is there a significance to the list of numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6? Is there more significance to that list than to the list 25,1232,56,-12,112,99999 ?
if so, why?



I agree, I am not trying to argue that life is meaningful. I am arguing that you are accepting an arbitrary and self defined idea of value. I still dont see how theism gives you a purpose, other than you accepting that purpose as meaningful and valid, which you could do for any other purpose. Or accept none at all

.

I am not sure which post you mean. The two posts previous to this comment were unedited. The one before that was edited but I do not recall making any changes in substance. I suspect it was a typo caught late, but I do not recall.


But this is not an argument for assuming it correct. I could as easily assume that there is an immortal consciousness and say that since it cannot be proven wrong I am fine with assuming it correct.

What you are doing is rejecting any behavior or action under the scenario where it is wrong. Since my whole argument was towards those potential behaviors, discussion becomes impossible.

Actually I did not make this argument. It goes beyond the point of anything I have said in this thread. I believe it to be possible and therefore worthy of consideration. We have not gotten to the specific behaviors because that is impossible under the assumption that the entire case cannot be considered.


This is an error. Let me state it clearly. I do not assume anything more than the possibility of immortal consciousness. When I say "If consciousness is immortal" that phrase implies the converse as a possibility and I am reasoning around a hypothetical. If we are going to debate this, you have to allow me to reason around a hypothetical. That is a straightforward logical tool.






where have I said that I refuse to do that thinking before that time comes?

But even so, if I now spend the rest of my life thinking about it, I will be no nearer an answer than if I had not given it another thought.

There is no way for me to find out if my house is going to burn down. So what good is there in thinking about it? But I have thought about the hypothetical "Assuming my house does burn down" and have purchased homeowners insurance.

yes, and its the same with the value you are assigning theism. You have not shown how it is intrinsically of value.

I am quite happy with saying, I have no idea if consciousness is mortal or not. Thank you for uncovering a previously hidden belief that I hold.



I am happy to see where you go , if I allow you your hypothetical.

Ok, so If consciousness is immortal, then..........

Neeel,

I am trying my best here bro, but I really don't feel like we are communicating well.

Really? Everything? what if I create something intentionally that has no purpose?

I think the conclusion here is obvious. If you create something to show you can create something that has not purpose that object will in itself serve a purpose. It is self refuting.

Lets say I create a lamp. I have a purpose for that lamp. Does that mean that the lamp has an intrinsic quality of "purposefulness"? What if I use the lamp as a hammer? What if I create it and then dont use it. Have I destroyed its purpose? Can the lamp gain meaning and value out of its life for being used as a lamp?

Can a created thing be used for something other than its creator had intended? Yes.

What if I create it and then dont use it. Have I destroyed its purpose?

The lamp in this case has an unfullfilled purpose.

Lets say I create a lamp. I have a purpose for that lamp. Does that mean that the lamp has an intrinsic quality of "purposefulness"?

Yes, The creator had an intended purpose in mind for what the created object would be used for.

Can the lamp gain meaning and value out of its life for being used as a lamp?

Yes, that is what it was made for.

Also, you are assuming that I am creating something. Whereas I am not, I am rearranging molecules into a temporary structure.

Technically speaking you are correct that we don't have the ability to actually create anything.

Edit: I would rather not explain why I think Christianity provides meaning to life ITT. There are other threads where we delve into the nitty gritty of Christianity. Suffice to say for the purposes of this thread: IF God created we can assume he created us with a purpose in mind. Therefore we as created beings have intrinsic purpose/meaning even if we don't understand it.

Ok, well I guess we just disagree then.

Please explain

Basically, its all in your head. Purpose, meaning , etc, theres no such thing. Its just a concept, a construct, something that thoughts give importance to.

It doesnt exist in reality.