>So many words and yet you still have not developed any reason to think your claim is true in any possible world.

I don't have to. Your claim that natural objective purpose contradicts naturalism is still false, that's all I wanted to show.

You know what's not possible in actuality? People walking on water or rising from the dead after a couple of days. At least not according to our current understanding of actuality. But then I'm still not as dumb, or obstinate, or hopelessly grasping for straws or dishonest to claim that theism precludes the resurrection, or require proof of it happening or have it explained to me how it happened before acknowledging that theism doesn't preclude the resurrection or supernatural miracle claims. It's part of what makes theism theism, and it's pretty much in the definition, just as nature doing stuff is in the definition of naturalism. As long as it's natural it does not preclude nature doing stuff. duh... Can't think of a better example of an argument from ignorance fallacy.

The rest is just drivel again and not worth responding to. Have a good one.

>while not self-contradictory on its face, you yourself have not developed any reason to think this is true in any possible world.

Some more grasping at straws and more evidence that you're being far more generous if it comes to how you hold on tight to your own views to such an extent that it makes you unable to adopt the views of others, be it even just as a hypothetical.

>It's certainly not a given and neither is your statement.

Doesn't have to be a given it just has to be hypothetically possible and if it hasn't been falsified or if it is unfalsifiable or contradictory it's logically possible. Anything else again is purely distraction.

>since there is no reason given here to think it's actually possible in a given world and compatible with reality.

It doesn't have to be actually possible. I think your God in actuality is (at least very close to if not completely) impossible but theism still allows for objective meaning based on their statement that a personal God exists and gives people objective meaning. Logical possibility is all that matters for this to hold truth value. (which I already explained when I said "In the first statement it does not matter whether God truly exists, or why God exists, or why he has given us objective meaning, or how God has given us objective meaning." but which you ignored.

and as such:

>You seem to take it that it's a foregone conclusion and compatible with reality, while I've expressed there seems to be good reasons to think that's not clear.

No, this is a strawman fallacy and this is not about what we think is compatible with reality or not. This is about whether naturalism can include objective meaning or not, not about whether you (or I for that matter) accept objective meaning under naturalism. Your beliefs on the possibility of such an objective meaning being able to exist under naturalism in any way are irrelevant, again.

I could potentially reject objective meaning under naturalism in the same manner that I reject your God belief and the supernatural but this does not change that naturalism is not antithetical toward objective meaning (as long as it's natural) just as it doesn't change that theism isn't antithetical toward (God given) objective meaning.

"Harry Potter fought a dragon using magic and won"

Is Harry Potter real? Probably not we know he's fictional and therefore doesn't exist beyond the imaginary. Can he then in actuality have fought a dragon and won? Probably not as again he's imaginary. Is there any logical contradiction in the statement that Harry Potter fought a dragon and won? No! Then the Harry Potter Universe allows for wizards to fight dragons and win. Doesn't matter if the Harry Potter Universe exists or can in actuality exist, or if Harry Potter exists, or if dragons are real, or if magic is real, or how whether you can or if you are willing to explain how magic works or how it can defeat a dragon. As long as you can't falsify that statement the Harry Potter Universe allows for it, just as naturalism allows for objective purpose (as long as it's natural and unfalsified).

You already admitted that there's no logical contradiction so even if it was complete fictional hogwash and impossible in any world apart from the imaginary world inside our heads (which it could be) that still wouldn't save you (as long as you can't falsify it). Again, the logical consistency is not something you can get around.

But you keep straw-manning and desperately keep trying to force me into a position I do not necessarily hold, as you know very well that if I would take that position some of your arguments would be valid. That's not my argument however and metaphysical possibility holds no relevance here.

​

>since your last statement is completely incompatible with naturalism, as naturalism doesn't allow for the actual independent existence of non-physical abstract objects like numbers.

lol. If anything illustrates the whole point of the matter it's this. I'm not locked into naturalism so I can look at other people's views and see whether they are contradictory. Locked into your self-imposed theistic prison you can do nothing but accept (even as hypothetical) only the views which align with theism.

>but at least the theist is developing an argument.

So did I, I gave and alluded to several even. You ignoring it because it's not convenient to your existing beliefs or because it doesn't go in the direction you want it to go doesn't make it not an argument.

>The problem is that you're conflating the boat discussion with the objective purpose discussion- they are distinct.

lol sure if this acrobatic jugglery you performed here wasn't merely mental you'd be all wrapped up in a knot right now.

>Except that you are insistent on attacking the veracity of theism

No, YOU are attacking the veracity of your own theism if you're using arguments against naturalistic propositions which would be just as relevant if it comes to your own God belief. It could be so easy to just stop and think for a second before you utter your critiques and see if it doesn't also apply to something you already believe in (or even more so apply lol). But then luckily for you those arguments are pretty bad and don't falsify anything but it still makes way for a strong case of cognitive dissonance.

As you've repeatedly shown yourself to be unable to show honesty to yourself, your own views as well as showing honesty to others further debate seems futile. I unfortunately don't possess enough faith to believe you're not purposefully being obtuse at this point. Good luck to you and hopefully you'll make it out of your prison some day.

>Why do you keep saying you've "shown" something?

Because that's what I did. The fact that you fail to understand such a simple argument just shows how hard you cling to your religious views how this causes you to refuse or make you unable to adopt a different point of view, even as a hypothetical, as well as how closed minded you show yourself to be.

Someone stating, a personal creator God exists and has given us an objective purpose.

Is there anything contradictory in that statement which could cause it not to be true? If not (and I personally think there's not) then it's possibly true. If it's possibly true then theism allows for objective meaning.

Someone stating: The main activity of lions is hunting so it seems like their objective purpose is to hunt, and maybe nature has imbued them with this purpose to balance itself or the ecosystem.

Anything contradictory there? Nope, so it could be true. Very similar statements. In the first statement it does not matter whether God truly exists, or why God exists, or why he has given us objective meaning, or how God has given us objective meaning. As long as it's not contradictory it could be true. Same for the other statement. It does not matter why purpose would exist in nature or why it has the property of balancing itself or why this person is born with an urge to become an artist or how nature gives the birds and the bees a purpose. It does not even matter if such an objective purpose truly exists (at least for as long as it's not falsified and shown to be contradicting with some novel discovery). All of that is irrelevant. If it's not logically contradictory it could be true. If it can be true then naturalism does not reject objective purpose, and a naturalist can include it if they think they have a good reason to (and I already pointed to naturalistic or close to naturalistic philosophies which do).

Whether you have a reason to believe it is also irrelevant. Your ignorance or refusal or inability to imagine how it could work is not a good counter-argument either, just as "you haven't shown me how God could give people objective meaning" would fail as an argument for theism being antithetical toward objective meaning. All which matters is if it possibly could be true, and anything else is just distraction.

The argument is as simple as the theist's argument for God giving us purpose or, no, it's even simpler as my argument doesn't require an extra added supernatural entity we have no evidence of. But yet you fail to understand, which means you're either extremely obtuse or not very honest with yourself.

>that's not an argument much less a demonstration of anything.

It is, it shows naturalism indeed does not contradict a believe in objective purpose. If it doesn't contradict logic it could be true.

>certainly doesn't make an obvious connection to objectivity of purpose/meaning.

That's irrelevant. I don't care if you believe it or not or think there's an obvious connection. Your idea that it's somehow impossible is false and that's all I wanted to show.

>this is a far cry from showing something to be true.

I don't care if it's true. I'm not here to show that it's true, again. Your claim was there's no foundation, even though there's objective physical stuff to point to while all you have to bring to the table is philosophical speculations like Kalam which has been debunked a million times apparently. Regardless of whether purpose exists in nature or not there is an objective physical foundation for the idea, where you have only speculative hot air to offer.

>Surely you're not using monism as a justification to conflate logical possibility and metaphysical possibility...

Your claim was that it was (metaphysically) impossible for the prime minister to be a prime number. But yet the Pythagoreans as well as the Neo-Platonists, Kabbalists and other philosophies or mystical strands derived from or related to monism prove you wrong. They could be correct and the basic foundation of reality and everything which exists could be numbers.

(also, the way you used "metaphysical possibility" is just meaningless word-babble in the context of this discussion. If anything you've just shown that you don't understand metaphysics or what it means for something to be metaphysically possible)

>I don't think that objective purpose on naturalism is logically impossible

Well, good, because it is logically possible. And it means that naturalism does not preclude objective meaning.

>I'm saying there's no good reason given to think it's actual.

It does not matter to me if it's actual. You claimed naturalism precludes objective meaning. It does not.

>Whether the result of our actions are the same or not is trivial to me.

That just makes your whole boat hypothetical meaningless then, because the only ones who are not going for the life jacket are the depressed nihilists who see no meaning or the delusional theists who think some supernatural force is going to save them. Everyone else will be going for the life jacket and the result will be the same, regardless of the existence of or their belief in objective meaning or not.

But I agree. Pascal's boat did sound like trivial drivel, at least the way you put it.

>This isn't the thread for your beef with God.

That was just me pointing out that you're using an argument from ignorance fallacy, reaching conclusions based merely on preference, and keep ignoring your cognitive dissonance while you keep using bad arguments which hold as much weight against the existence of your God as they do against objective purpose in nature. In other words you want to have your cake and eat it too. There's nothing there which indicates I have a beef with your God.

>it wouldn't change the argument that naturalism doesn't itself provide a good foundation for objective purpose.

As I've shown it would provide a better foundation as we have good evidence for nature existing, but yet you opt for (as far as we know) made up stuff.

>In fact, I just finished pointing out how you are conflating logical possibility and metaphysical possibility.

You did not, as monism is a thing. If something is logically possible it's logically possible, again. This is not something you can argue around.

>If meaning/purpose is objective (i.e. human-independent), then this brings up all sorts of questions related to the source- who or what assigns meaning to us?

It makes no difference to the result is what I said. None of what you said makes any difference to the result of our actions, in this world.

>Not to mention it would give us reason to think naturalism is false, since it seems to be incompatible on a worldview where we are just biological accidents of natural forces.

Not really because nature would still be the most likely candidate.

>it doesn't seem there's any rhyme or reason why they exist.

Just like your God again but yet you believe in him. In the end what you have here is an argument from ignorance fallacy.

>Does it match reality?

A supernatural God for which we have absolutely no evidence (and for which by the way you also show yourself reluctant to give a good argument for) would be a much worse predictor of purpose existing in the universe compared to (if there is something like an objective purpose) the idea of it being baked into nature, through genes or determinism or you know, objective stuff in reality we have good evidence for.

Nature gives us stuff, like it gave me brown eyes. Is there any evidence of the supernatural ever giving anyone anything or that it matches reality?

>Naturalism leaves no space for objective meaning

It does, we just established that and your attempts at refuting it have failed so far.

I'm pretty agnostic on whether there is such a thing as objective purpose so I also don't feel very strongly about showing that it exists. In the end it's kind of irrelevant because whether meaning is objective or subjective as long as people find a good purpose which isn't based on (theistic or not) harmful delusion the result is going to be the same, as many others here already have pointed out.

Your cognitive dissonance on how you think that the absence of intent is a good argument for not believing there could be purpose in nature on the one hand, while at the same time believing in a God who was never intentionally created is also not for me to solve. That's your problem (lest you just want to keep arguing from preference rather than from anything substantial). I'm not obliged to take a stance on anything.

But then you can look at the paper I posted in this thread or the Stoics (Marcus Aurelius Meditations chapter 5 iirc) or the Daoists (Wu Wei) etc. if you're looking for good arguments of objective purpose existing in nature, or on how to live with one's own inner Nature/Purpose/Will (and I find their arguments still a lot more convincing than your supernatural woo. If this was pascal's wager that's where I would put my bet.) But in the end your claim that naturalism requires the view that objective purpose doesn't exist is still false, and that's all I wanted to show.

It's all false: https://sites.nd.edu/arcadian-dialogues/files/2020/01/The-Convergence-of-Naturalism-and-Teleology-Grace-Schippers.pdf

Though there's a whole variety of different views on purpose under naturalism, or views which don't necessarily conflict with naturalism. But you're correct insofar as that the "illusory ones" stand out, as I'm not sure if anyone holds that view. Either objective purpose exists or it does not lol.

But maybe I'm not understanding what they mean with illusory.

>I mean, my argument doesn't rely on my theism.

Never claimed that it did, but your claim that meaning implies intention is simply false, as things can exist just fine without intent, which your religion agrees with.

>but give no reason to think why it can.

Simply because there's no reason to think that it would be impossible to exist under naturalism. If something is logically possible it's logically possible, it's as simple as that.

>Lions may be born to hunt, bees may be born to make honey, and people are often born with different talents and passions and different interests which may hint at an objective inborn purpose.

Is this possible? Ok, then meaning may be an intrinsic property of nature.

>I'm not discussing my God here

I am. I am using him as an example of something you believe in as a Christian, without someone or something intending him to have come into existence, which shows that you believe that something can exist without intent. As such you lack consistency when you claim that intent is necessary for purpose to exist.

Claiming that meaning or purpose can't exist without intent is as silly as me claiming that your God couldn't exist without intent. There's no logical contradiction to the claim that something can exist without intent.

I already answered this. It's a non sequitur as well as begging the question fallacy. Things can exist without intent.

Your God likewise is a "soup bowl of his own properties" and (at least according to theists) purportedly exists without anyone or anything outside of him intending him to so unless you want to add a special pleading fallacy to the list you will find it difficult to get around that one.

>since naturalists deny there is any intent inherent in nature.

That looks like a non-sequitur as well as begging the question. There does not have to be any intent for something to exist which is as much true for things in nature or properties of nature or properties of your God or even your God himself.

Meaning may be a property of nature in the same way that having brown eyes is a property of me.

>As a Christian myself, nothing that you describe is inherent to theism

Maybe not to theism but Christianity's eschatology speaks for itself.

>To the point, I don't believe that's an issue of philosophical coherency on theism.

It is in so far regardless of whether someone wants to read meaning or meaningfulness into it or not, generally speaking it is within our nature to desire survival (incarnate). Believing in things which are not evidently true (such as theism) may lead someone to act against this inner desire (suicide cults would be an extreme example). If you care about survival like you claim in your boat metaphor then all this should be coherent enough.

>If life is worth clinging to temporarily, why is life not worth clinging to eternally given this chance we have to search for it?

I could think of many good reasons why humanity would want to call it quits at some point. But then at the same time I also never claimed it wasn't worth clinging to and who knows maybe the survival of our species is worth it. But then we still have some 10 billion years until the Sun dies and perhaps 22 billion years until the universe ends and plenty of time left to think, discover, and act if there's something to act on. And if not, as someone who worships the God of Joy, we may as well enjoy it while it lasts.

Think of the real life implications of this also. We are on a boat (the Earth), which is sinking (natural disasters, climate change, nuclear threats). According to the eschatological views of many theists such threats should be welcomed as they predict the coming of their savior in the next few years (so no reason to worry about your grandchildren). Or even worse they may be inclined to add even more fuel to the fire.

The for the most part non-theistic scientists on the other hand are doing what they can to end this madness and to stop this ship from sinking.

OP has it the wrong way around.

Aside from what has already been said by the others here

>On Naturalism, I take it that our life has no objective (i.e. mind-independent) purpose or meaning outside of self-created, self-imposed, and illusory ones.

Naturalism doesn't make any such a claim. There could still be objective meaning in nature. Lions may be born to hunt, bees may be born to make honey, and people are often born with different talents and passions and different interests which may hint at an objective inborn purpose.