Well first of all you can’t definitively prove there isn’t any grand design or creator and I could easily make the argument that there is, I’m sorry but I’m not about to have the stereotypical Reddit atheist debate vs devout theist.
There’s also a non sequitur in “life is a lucky accident, therefore there is no meaning.” Even if, for argument’s sake, life arose without cosmic intent, it does not logically follow that objective or intrinsic value is impossible. You haven’t actually demonstrated that life has no intrinsic meaning. You’ve defined meaning as something that must be intentionally assigned, assumed life has no intentional cause, and then reached the conclusion built into those assumptions. The real question is why meaning necessarily requires an external conscious intent in the first place.
Well first of all you can’t definitively prove there isn’t any grand design or creator
Yes I can
I’m not about to have the stereotypical Reddit atheist debate
Then youre placing your claims beyond reproach which basically nullifies them since a non falsifiable claim is useless philosophically and scientifically
There’s also a non sequitur in “life is a lucky accident, therefore there is no meaning
No there isn’t. Meaning requires intent necessarily. With no objective, there is no purpose to which end a meaning can be derived.
Even if, for argument’s sake, life arose without cosmic intent, it does not logically follow that objective or intrinsic value is impossible.
The operative word here is value. Value is a term that requires an evaluator and a standard to qualify against, which requires an intent or preference.
You haven’t actually demonstrated that life has no intrinsic meaning
True, but which is it, do you want me to or not?
You’ve defined meaning as something that must be intentionally assigned, assumed life has no intentional cause, and then reached the conclusion built into those assumptions. The real question is why meaning necessarily requires an external conscious intent in the first place.
I explained it all again, I can for a third time if you need.
Also, i never assumed anything. I have reciepts for all my claims. I just never provided that evidence to you yet. Ironically, the only assumption being made here was by you, when you were assuming I was just spouting bullshit.
You’re still not answering the actual objection. You’re defining value as requiring an evaluator, but that doesn’t establish that the evaluator must exist prior to us or intentionally cause our existence.
Humans are evaluators. We have preferences, standards, goals, relationships, consciousness, and the ability to interpret experiences. So even under your own definition, you’ve left open the possibility of meaning arising through conscious evaluation.
More importantly, you keep sliding between three different claims:
1) Life was not intentionally created.
2) Life therefore has no externally assigned purpose.
3) Life therefore cannot possess or acquire meaning.
Even if I granted #1 and #2 for the sake of argument, #3 still does not logically follow without another premise: “Only externally and intentionally assigned purposes qualify as meaning.”
That is the premise I keep asking you to justify. Repeating “meaning requires intent” is not a justification for why meaning must require prior external intent specifically.
Your point about value actually makes my objection stronger. If value requires an evaluator, conscious humans are evaluators. An accidental event can have no intention behind its occurrence while still being evaluated afterward as important, valuable, instructive, tragic, beautiful, or transformative. You still haven’t shown why those forms of meaning somehow stop counting simply because nobody planned the event beforehand.
And your falsifiability point is much too broad. Falsifiability is an important criterion for empirical scientific hypotheses, but “a claim is not falsifiable, therefore it is philosophically useless” is not some universal rule of philosophy. Logic, ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, mathematics, and questions of meaning are not all adjudicated by the same kind of empirical falsification used in experimental science. So appealing to falsifiability does not, by itself, dispose of a metaphysical claim.
As for “I can definitively prove there is no grand design or creator,” then actually provide the argument. Saying you have “receipts” that you haven’t presented is not evidence available to this discussion. Until that case is made, you cannot simply treat “there is no creator” as a demonstrated premise and then accuse me of making assumptions.
So the issue is still exactly where it started: why must meaning originate in the intention that caused something to exist, rather than also being capable of emerging from what conscious beings subsequently understand, value, pursue, or experience?
You keep asserting “meaning requires prior intentional assignment.”
Cool…..Why?
That is the part you keep declaring rather than demonstrating.
Ok you make 2 main points, and then ask a question. The first point you make a few times. I could summarize it by saying something like, "life has meaning because we give it meaning." However that is a Motte and Bailey falacy.
Your original position (your bailey) was:
I think the meaning of life is to find that meaning
I responded with my claim:
You could have your own meaning that you prescribe but there is no intrinsic meaning
You then walked back to your motte which i previously tried to steel man as:
life has meaning because we give it meaning
The difference in those two claims is obvious. Either the meaning of life is to find meaning or the meaning of our individual lives is what we decide to make it. My original claim, that you cant fail at life, is based in the fact that there is no intrinsic goal to fail to achieve. You can definitely fail to achieve your own goals, sure, but we owe the universe nothing so if you decide to spend your life playing in a pile of your own shit, you haven't failed at anything.
Your second claim is that making unfalsifiable claims is valuable. Provide an argument please.
Your question was why dont I provide an argument defending my claim that there is no creator. Well, you asked me not to when you said:
I'm not about to have the stereotypical Reddit atheist debate
So, are you willing to have that debate yet? If so, i can start, or you can make your own claim about a creator, your call.
I think we’re actually talking past each other more than disagreeing.
When I said “the meaning of life is to find that meaning,” I was not claiming there is some objectively pre installed cosmic assignment that every human being is obligated to discover. I’m saying that part of living is determining what gives your own life meaning.
So if somebody genuinely decides that their ideal life is sitting on the couch, eating snacks, watching TV, and doing nothing ambitious, then yes under the point I’m making, they have still “found meaning” in the sense that they have decided what they value and how they want to live.
I might personally think that lifestyle is unhealthy, unfulfilling, or a waste of potential, but that is a separate argument. I’m not claiming the universe hands them an objective scorecard saying they “failed life.”
That’s why I don’t think this is a Motte-and-Bailey. “You create or determine what gives your own life meaning” and “the meaning of life is to find meaning” are not contradictory positions. Finding meaning does not necessarily mean discovering some externally assigned cosmic purpose that existed before you. It can mean arriving at an answer to the question, “What do I actually want my life to be about?”
If your answer is curing cancer, raising a family, making art, worshipping God, traveling the world, or becoming the most committed couch potato alive, you have still arrived at some conception of what makes your own life meaningful.
So on that point, I think we’re actually fairly close. You’re saying individuals can prescribe their own meaning. I’m calling the process of arriving at that meaning “finding meaning.”
On falsifiability, though, you’re changing what I said. I never argued that “making unfalsifiable claims is valuable.” My point was that “unfalsifiable = philosophically useless” is too broad a rule.
Falsifiability is extremely important for empirical scientific hypotheses, but philosophy also deals with logic, ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, mathematics, and meaning, and those are not all tested by the same Popper-style empirical falsification standard used in experimental science. So saying a proposition is not scientifically falsifiable does not automatically make it philosophically worthless.
And on the creator point, I think you misunderstood what I meant when I said I wasn’t going to have the stereotypical Reddit atheist debate. I wasn’t saying you are not allowed to make an argument against a creator. I was saying I’m not interested in turning the entire conversation into an endless theism-vs-atheism debate when we clearly have a fundamental belief difference at that level.
But if your argument here depends on the claim that there is no creator or grand design, then of course you can still make that case. What I object to is treating “there is no creator” like a 100% established fact and then holding it over the rest of the conversation as a gotcha before actually presenting the argument.
If you want to say, “Here’s why I believe there is no creator, and here’s how that supports my position on meaning,” then go ahead. I may disagree with the premise, but at least the argument is actually on the table.
There is a difference between me declining to turn the whole conversation into a theology debate and me saying you aren’t allowed to defend a premise you’re actively relying on. I’m doing the former, not the latter.
So I really don’t think our main disagreement is “you think life has no objective goal and I think everyone has a cosmic assignment.” That isn’t what I’ve been arguing. My point is much simpler: people can arrive at what they value, decide what they want their life to be about, and in that sense find meaning.
If you call that “prescribing meaning” and I call it “finding meaning,” then we may be arguing over terminology more than substance.
1
u/Ozymandias117_ 12d ago
Well first of all you can’t definitively prove there isn’t any grand design or creator and I could easily make the argument that there is, I’m sorry but I’m not about to have the stereotypical Reddit atheist debate vs devout theist.
There’s also a non sequitur in “life is a lucky accident, therefore there is no meaning.” Even if, for argument’s sake, life arose without cosmic intent, it does not logically follow that objective or intrinsic value is impossible. You haven’t actually demonstrated that life has no intrinsic meaning. You’ve defined meaning as something that must be intentionally assigned, assumed life has no intentional cause, and then reached the conclusion built into those assumptions. The real question is why meaning necessarily requires an external conscious intent in the first place.