Mind Boggling

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line is this: you seemed to suggest that you would call the universe "rational", while non-theists would call it "irrational". If by "rational" you mean, it was created by an intelligent being... then, sure. You're right.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is what he has been saying.

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is, for non-theists, WE CREATE OUR OWN MEANINGS.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is what others have not been saying. You are about the only one to admit it (that I can recall, other than David S.).

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, theists do to, just under the illusion that their meanings came from a higher power.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the question in a nut shell. Whether it is an illusion or a reality from a higher power? Obviously, there is no proof either way. Just belief or no belief.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The thing is, for non-theists, WE CREATE OUR OWN MEANINGS.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That is what others have not been saying. You are about the only one to admit it (that I can recall, other than David S.).


[/ QUOTE ]

Come on RJT (hungover? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]) thats what loads of us (well at least me) are saying. Its just that NotReady sometimes makes it sound like he believes its impossible for us to create our own meaning.

Its still not clear he isn't saying this, as he may still be claiming that without god we are being inconsistent when we claim to create meaning.

chez

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The thing is, for non-theists, WE CREATE OUR OWN MEANINGS.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is what others have not been saying. You are about the only one to admit it (that I can recall, other than David S.).

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a crock. The whole thread about NotReady's comments on Nietzsche centered on this theme. We repeatedly made the case that Nietzsche was not a nihilist but believed men can create value and meaning for their lives. NotReady's position was repeatedly stated that this is impossible without God, and the ONLY possible path was nihilism. This continuous revisionist editing of NotReady's positions (and our responses) is flat out wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line is this: you seemed to suggest that you would call the universe "rational", while non-theists would call it "irrational". If by "rational" you mean, it was created by an intelligent being... then, sure. You're right.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is what he has been saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must have missed it amongst all the nonsense. So, a chair is rational, since a person created it. Interesting. OK. If that's what he means. I don't use the term that way.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line is this: you seemed to suggest that you would call the universe "rational", while non-theists would call it "irrational". If by "rational" you mean, it was created by an intelligent being... then, sure. You're right.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is what he has been saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must have missed it amongst all the nonsense. So, a chair is rational, since a person created it. Interesting. OK. If that's what he means. I don't use the term that way.

[/ QUOTE ]
By rational he means there's a reason for it. If a person creates a chair then there's a reason why the chair exists (it has a purpose). Otherwise it's there by pure chance and does not have a purpose.

It the chair is not there for a purpose then the chair legs are not there for a purpose etc etc. if we are not here for a purpose then in the end nothing matters.



chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

By rational he means there's a reason for it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. Something is rational if produced by rationality. However long the chain of production if the initial producer is rational I mean everything in the chain is rational, and the same for irrationality. If chance (irrationality, nonrationality) is the highest cause then everything produced by chance is irrational, same for if God is the highest cause, then everthing is rational. So instead of typing out this explanation every time I want to refer to the idea I use the shorthand of "rational" or "irrational". At first I thought this was obvious but when I caught so much grief for it I tried citing philosophers who do the same thing and mean the same thing, you know, appealing to the experts.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line is this: you seemed to suggest that you would call the universe "rational", while non-theists would call it "irrational". If by "rational" you mean, it was created by an intelligent being... then, sure. You're right.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is what he has been saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must have missed it amongst all the nonsense. So, a chair is rational, since a person created it. Interesting. OK. If that's what he means. I don't use the term that way.

[/ QUOTE ]
By rational he means there's a reason for it. If a person creates a chair then there's a reason why the chair exists (it has a purpose). Otherwise it's there by pure chance and does not have a purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine... but, to me, it's an odd use of the word "rational". How about "purposeful" or "designed" or "created"... or just a short sentence saying "created by an intelligent designer for a purpose".

[ QUOTE ]
ra·tion·al
adj.

1. Having or exercising the ability to reason.
2. Of sound mind; sane.
3. Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior. See Synonyms at logical.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose he's taking the 3rd definition, and using the term "based" to mean it was a "product" of reason. But, still, that's a stretch, as the #3 definition, in my mind, is using the term "based" to mean "consistent with". The synonym here, then, would be "reasonable": "consistent with reason". A chair is not "reasonable" is it? Or, maybe it is. LOL. Here's a list of synonyms for "rational":

[ QUOTE ]
ra·tion·al
adj.

Synonyms: all there, analytical, balanced, calm, cerebral, circumspect, cognitive, collected, cool, deductive, deliberate, discerning, discriminating, enlightened, far-sighted, impartial, intellectual, intelligent, judicious, knowing, level-headed, logical, lucid, normal, objective, perspicacious, philosophic, prudent, ratiocinative, reasonable, reasoning, reflective, sagacious, sane, sensible, sober, sound, stable, synthetic, thinking, thoughtful, together, well-advised, wise

[/ QUOTE ]

So, anyway... now that I know what he means by "rational" that's fine. But, I'd hope that in the future he'd use a term that better represents what he means. He means "designed" or "created for a purpose".

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

By rational he means there's a reason for it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. Something is rational if produced by rationality.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what is normally meant by "rational". See my response above.

To say that a chair is "rational"... is definitely odd to me. I think "designed" or "created for a purpose" would be a lot less ambiguous and help you get your thoughts across to us more clearly.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line is this: you seemed to suggest that you would call the universe "rational", while non-theists would call it "irrational". If by "rational" you mean, it was created by an intelligent being... then, sure. You're right.

[/ QUOTE ]

By rational he means there's a reason for it. If a person creates a chair then there's a reason why the chair exists (it has a purpose). Otherwise it's there by pure chance and does not have a purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine... but, to me, it's an odd use of the word "rational". How about "purposeful" or "designed" or "created"... or just a short sentence saying "created by an intelligent designer for a purpose".

[/ QUOTE ]

So, now that I know what he means (my apologies if everyone else already knew, and I missed where he defined what he meant by "rational")... Then I'd like to now agree with his statement:

[ QUOTE ]
I don't claim the universe is irrational. The non-theist does.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll re-word: "I don't claim the universe is not created by an intelligent designer for a purpose. The non-theist does." Well, yeah. That's pretty much true by your definition of "rational".

But right after that, you say:

[ QUOTE ]
I attempt to show that on this presupposition everything is irrational, including logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll re-word: "I attempt to show that on this presupposition, nothing is created by an intelligent designer for a purpose, including logic."

Hmmm... maybe you need to re-refine your definition of "rational", then? Else, the chair would be irrational... even though a human created it? So, a human is not an intelligent designer? What exactly are you saying? Only GOD can be an intelligent designer? So, then, by "rational", you mean: "created by GOD for a purpose"? Then what is it exactly we are discussing?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I think "designed" or "created for a purpose" would be a lot less ambiguous and help you get your thoughts across to us more clearly.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's slowly beginning to dawn on me. I've read about the "irrational" universe for 30 years, it didn't occur to me it would be controversial. It's been an axiom in philosophy for 150 years.