I am interested enough to have replied for the first time in two years. What your response doesn't tell me is why it is meaningful. — angslan

I answered that, it questions the relationship between time and existence, that's why it's meaningful. If you say that it is not meaningful, and I say that it is meaningful, it just means that we have different interests. Perhaps you don't care about this relationship, or possess an unshakable prejudice concerning this relationship which renders questioning it as meaningless.

I don't feel like you've answered it, for a variety of reasons. First, what it is the makes the relationship between time and existence something worthy of a question? I don't mean this in an abstract, all knowledge is good worthiness - I'm up for that. But there's evidently some underlying backstory regarding these concepts and formulations of them that gives rise to this question. It didn't come out of nowhere.

Second, what's "the source of existence"? It, too, has a backstory, a rationale for being in this particular question.

Third, why use the phrase "God" for the source of existence? This is a word, or name, loaded with a host of different meanings (that not everyone agrees on all of the time). Why not use "the source of existence", instead? There is some further backstory here that places this word into the question as meaningful. I can't even tell if your description of the question matches Devans99's original understanding.

Either that, or we have just jumbled some words together in a random word generator and gone for it.

So I don't buy this "either you're interested and it is meaningful or you are not interested." The meaningful nature of this question stems from the presuppositions or previous work that it arose from - especially because it concerns such a specifically contested concept such as God. My question is really to what extent the backstory is grounded or to what extent it is circular, and based upon similarly 'floaty' questions.

As for this:

Perhaps you don't care about this relationship, or possess an unshakable prejudice concerning this relationship which renders questioning it as meaningless. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think you might have misidentified who might have an unshakeable "prejudice" here.

But there's evidently some underlying backstory regarding these concepts and formulations of them that gives rise to this question. It didn't come out of nowhere. — angslan

Right, and isn't that "backstory" what makes the question meaningful? Aren't you inspired to uncover that backstory and determine its meaning?

Second, what's "the source of existence"? It, too, has a backstory, a rationale for being in this particular question. — angslan

So again, isn't this backstory what meaning is? To uncover the backstory and understand it is to know the meaning. By saying that you recognize that there is a backstory, you are acknowledging that it is meaningful to you, has having "a backstory". If you then deny that it is meaningful, you are only deceiving yourself.

Third, why use the phrase "God" for the source of existence? This is a word, or name, loaded with a host of different meanings (that not everyone agrees on all of the time). Why not use "the source of existence", instead? There is some further backstory here that places this word into the question as meaningful. — angslan

That's simply the way that we use words. There's a word "God", which is used to signify something. Tradition has it that this is the word used in those situations. Of course words always have multiple meanings, some more than others, that indicates that they are meaning-full. There is not only one backstory, there are many backstories. You recognize "a backstory", but when you seek to uncover "the backstory" you will find a multitude of them.

I can't even tell if your description of the question matches Devans99's original understanding. — angslan

That's the thing with meaning and backstories, isn't it? What it means to Devans is not the same as what it means to me, which is not the same as what it means to you, etc.. Have you ever studied poetry? The poet will use ambiguity as a tool. It enables the poetry to appeal to a wide audience. Despite the fact that you and I may interpret the poem differently, we may each find something relevant to our own self within it, and therefore find meaning within it. The ambiguity renders the poem without a specific meaning, but since the poem appeals to very many people, as meaningful in many different ways, it is full of meaning.

So I don't buy this "either you're interested and it is meaningful or you are not interested." The meaningful nature of this question stems from the presuppositions or previous work that it arose from - especially because it concerns such a specifically contested concept such as God. My question is really to what extent the backstory is grounded or to what extent it is circular, and based upon similarly 'floaty' questions. — angslan

No, the meaning stems from the work that the author did to put the piece together. If the piece stirs certain backstories within your mind, or even the idea of "a backstory", making you interested, then the author has been somewhat successful. However, the word "God" is full of meaning, as I described, so the backstories which it stirs within my mind are not the same as the backstories within your mind. That this variation and difference in backstories comprises a "specifically contested concept" indicates that we cannot even question whether "the backstory" is grounded, circular, or whatever, because there is no such thing as "the backstory". So you might offer your opinion on this matter, but your opinion is what is largely meaningless, because it only relates to the one backstory relative to your opinion of "a backstory", not to all the other backstories.

Right, and isn't that "backstory" what makes the question meaningful? Aren't you inspired to uncover that backstory and determine its meaning? — Metaphysician Undercover

The backstory is what makes it meaningful - that's what I've been saying and I agree on that. But not every question has a backstory, and my complaint is whether we are thinking up the question first and assuming it has a meaningful backstory, or whether we develop these questions because of the backstory we have already uncovered. My ghost question might have a meaningful backstory - might.

This is why you and Devan99 potentially having completely different understandings of the question is problematic to me. You speak of poetry and finding relevance for ourselves, and this is exactly my complaint - that this question might be so vacuous that the only meaning is what is projected onto it. This is quite different from being based on a meaningful backstory.

I feel as if your defence of this question being meaningful is to make the whole thing nebulous, personal, poetic and subjective.

I am surprised you accused me of potentially "possessing an unshakeable prejudice" when it seems that bringing our own perspectives to the question is all that it consists of - my response, as far as I can tell, is just as reasonable as yours, because your metric for reasonableness doesn't even require that two people understand if they are considering the same question at heart.

You need to define what do you mean by god, start or creation is not a must from my point of view

This is why you and Devan99 potentially having completely different understandings of the question is problematic to me. You speak of poetry and finding relevance for ourselves, and this is exactly my complaint - that this question might be so vacuous that the only meaning is what is projected onto it. This is quite different from being based on a meaningful backstory. — angslan

Why is that "vacuous"? If we are the type of being which can project meaning onto something, create meaning out of nothing, doesn't this say something meaningful about us? We have the capacity to create something out of nothing.

I feel as if your defence of this question being meaningful is to make the whole thing nebulous, personal, poetic and subjective. — angslan

And why is that a problem? Is it your belief that the object is more real than the subject? If so, that is just your belief, and it is in itself subjective. So I think that to have any real approach to this issue, we must begin with the subject, and the subjective beliefs.

We cannot just assume that there is some "objective belief", because that is simply a subjective belief itself, and one which is inherently contradictory. Beliefs are property of the subject, and so are inherently subjective. So your approach, to assume that there is something objective to be said about this, and allude to this assumed objectivity, is simply contradictory. it is quite clear that we must start with the subject, and we have no basis for the assumption of anything objective in this matter. if there is something objective, it must be demonstrated. objectified by logic, justified, not just presumed.

I am surprised you accused me of potentially "possessing an unshakeable prejudice" when it seems that bringing our own perspectives to the question is all that it consists of - my response, as far as I can tell, is just as reasonable as yours, because your metric for reasonableness doesn't even require that two people understand if they are considering the same question at heart. — angslan

Actually, your response is not as reasonable as mine, because you accuse me of trying to make the issue subjective, as if this were the wrong approach, the wrong thing to do. So despite saying here, that your response is just as reasonable as mine, you harbour a hidden prejudice, believing that your response is more reasonable, by assuming some hidden objectivity, when no such objectivity exists. So your response has a degree of deception to it, you claim it is just as reasonable as mine, but you do not believe that. You think that there is some objectivity to this matter which I am missing, and therefore my response is not as reasonable as yours, because this hidden objectivity makes you really believe that yours is more reasonable.

I don't refer to any such objectivity, but I know that my approach is more reasonable than yours, because I recognize the complete subjectivity of the matter, and refer directly to this, without harbouring an unjustified presumption of objectivity.

You've made this question a Rorschach test - this is great if you want to learn about yourself. If that is what you want out a question of this sort, then you're going quite successfully - but it also sort of doesn't matter what the question was.

I was merely asking what chain of reasoning led to this question being significantly considered in the first place.

So I'll repeat my answer to what you were asking. The question of the op concerns the relationship between time and existence. I believe that this is something significant. You seem to be turned off by some "backstory". I interpret this as a dislike for the significance which I apprehend as pertaining to the question, inclining you to dismiss the subject as insignificant. If you had proper respect for the interest I have in the question, you would have simply agreed with me, that it is something which I have interest in, but you have no interest in, instead of trying to argue that the subject is meaningless. If you do have interest in it, as you have said, then you would only contradict yourself to argue that it is meaningless.

You seem to be turned off by some "backstory". — Metaphysician Undercover

I am not turned off by some backstory - I am asking what the backstory is. So far, I've had no answer.

I interpret this as a dislike for the significance which I apprehend as pertaining to the question — Metaphysician Undercover

You're all about interpreting! It is not that I dislike the significance which you apprehend as pertaining to the question, I am asking what makes it significant. But if your MO is to supply your own significance and interpretation, then I guess that explains why if I say or ask something, your response does not necessarily directly relate.

If you had proper respect for the interest I have in the question, you would have simply agreed with me, that it is something which I have interest in, but you have no interest in, instead of trying to argue that the subject is meaningless. If you do have interest in it, as you have said, then you would only contradict yourself to argue that it is meaningless. — Metaphysician Undercover

What on earth? You act as if you are the only person to whom this question is addressed and the authority on what it means and how it is significant. I am not "arguing with you". I asked what I consider to be a relevant question regarding the significance of this question and I suggest that this is linked to the foundations of the question. Apparently exploring this is being disrespectful and arguing, as though being in philosophical discussion and disagreement is something reserved for other forums.

So let me get this straight. You do not see the significance of the question concerning the relationship between existence and time, and so you are asking me to explain to you the significance.

As I said, if the issue seems insignificant to you this indicates that you are not interested. I do not believe that anything I could post here on this forum could pique your interest because I believe that interest in this subject is a matter of one's disposition. Some people are interested in art, some music some science, others math, some metaphysics, etc..

If, on the other hand, you do have some interest in the question, as you mentioned at one time, then I think you already see some significance, and you misrepresent yourself in your insistence that you see no significance to the question.

I asked what I consider to be a relevant question regarding the significance of this question and I suggest that this is linked to the foundations of the question. Apparently exploring this is being disrespectful and arguing, as though being in philosophical discussion and disagreement is something reserved for other forums. — angslan

Oh, it seems like you have forgotten the disrespect in your approach to the question. You didn't simply ask a relevant question, you made a comparison, making fun of the question. Let me refresh your memory.

I think that this is one of those "the question is wrong" type of questions. There are just so many premises and conceptualisations of power, potential, time, intention and other things to be even able to frame this question.

This reminds me of the question: "What is the difference between a duck?"

How do we get to questions such as these?

...

I guess my point is - the question in the joke is nonsense, and the answer is nonsense.

...

So I guess where I'm going is - why do we think that this is a meaningful question? — angslan

So I answered you, that the question is meaningful because it questions the relationship between existence and time. If you do not see that issue as important, then so be it. But what is not important to you might be important to someone else, and it's not nice to make fun of, or belittle someone else's interests. That's mean, as you might hurt a person's feelings.

So let me get this straight. You do not see the significance of the question concerning the relationship between existence and time, and so you are asking me to explain to you the significance. — Metaphysician Undercover"

If you go back a few posts, you'll see me break down my questioning of the significance - I gave quite a few specific questions, which never got answered except for, "I think it's significant", which, I will admit, didn't seem like a very compelling answer. I was also looking, if you recall, to see if there was some general answer, rather than for your specific perspective (initially I didn't address you at all, if you recall). There is a difference between "Metaphysican Undercover finds this question significant because..." and "If someone poses this question, there is general agreement that it refers to a certain framework..."

Oh, it seems like you have forgotten the disrespect in your approach to the question. You didn't simply ask a relevant question, you made a comparison, making fun of the question. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't know that I was "making fun of the question" as much as I was having fun. But I have asked you relevant questions, and, each time, your response isn't to try an engage me in how to answer the question, but to proclaim that you are interested, and that your interest is sufficient explanation of the question's meaningfulness. You would think by now that some further explanation of time, god, existence, the relationship between them, the history that led to this question, whether Devan99 and you and others are working from common conceptions and so forth would have arisen. But instead you have become rather defensive and said, "Well, angslan, if you don't get it you must not be interested" and interpreted this to mean that I am disrespectful not the question (which you have claimed in your last post) but to your interest in it (which you have claimed in the posts prior), as well as that I am prejudiced against finding meaning in it, or that I recognise meaning in it and stubbornly refuse to acknowledge it, and of being 'unreasonable'. Perhaps if you really feel that I have been disrespectful to your interest in the question, you might consider whether you have been disrespectful to me by assigning me all sorts of motivations. It is a pretty bizarre response to accuse me of disinterest and disrespect of you rather than aiming for some further clarification. Look at all the energy we've expended! I think I remember why I stopped posting here.

But I have asked you relevant questions, and, each time, your response isn't to try an engage me in how to answer the question, but to proclaim that you are interested, and that your interest is sufficient explanation of the question's meaningfulness. — angslan

Right, that was my point. Now do you not agree with me? If I am interested, then the question is meaningful, and therefore significant. What makes the question meaningful or significant is the person's interest in it.

Look at all the energy we've expended! I think I remember why I stopped posting here. — angslan

Oh come on, weren't those the good old days? I think we've had some rather extensive energy wasting episodes in the past. Look, I'm much more brief, curt and to the point now.

Now do you not agree with me? If I am interested, then the question is meaningful, and therefore significant. — Metaphysician Undercover

This whole time I've been trying to understand why it is meaningful. Is it interesting to you simply because it is interesting to you? Or is there something more... And is there likely some meaning that many people share, or are you just intent arguing that, "Well, angslan asked Devan99 and people in general how this question came about, and the answer is that it is meaningful to Metaphysican Undercover." I mean, that would be something pretty interesting if Devan99 wrote it out because it was meaningful just to you...

Because my initial criticism was about how grounded this question was in something non-abstract, but the answer appears to be, well, it is meaningful to Metaphysician Undercover for some vague reason...

This whole time I've been trying to understand why it is meaningful. Is it interesting to you simply because it is interesting to you? Or is there something more... — angslan

It's hard to say why I find it interesting. I think it's like any field of study, something about it just draws my mind toward it. Suppose you're interested in doing math, or statistics and probabilities, psychology, or biology, or there's something else that interests you, like a hobby. Don't you find it difficult to say why you got interested in doing this particular thing, and not something else? For me, I would have to think back to the situation when I first got introduced to the question at hand, examine the factors involved. But that's a difficult question, very subjective, and I don't think you're interested in that. Furthermore the more relevant question would be why am I still interested in it after all these years. And that would probably be because the question remains unanswered.

Or is there something more... And is there likely some meaning that many people share, or are you just intent arguing that, "Well, angslan asked Devan99 and people in general how this question came about, and the answer is that it is meaningful to Metaphysican Undercover." I mean, that would be something pretty interesting if Devan99 wrote it out because it was meaningful just to you... — angslan

OK, now this is a different question, you are asking if it's the case that the same thing which is interesting to me, is interesting to other people. I think that it's quite obvious that it is, as other people such as Devan99 have asked the same question which also interests me. Perhaps that's part of the reason why it interests me, because it interests others. You know, people kind of follow each other, and we are taught by parents, and trained in school to direct our minds in certain ways which are similar, so we tend to have similar interests.

But also, all human beings are very similar in their biological constitution and I think that this is the more substantial reason why we have similar interests. That we have a similar biology is what allows us to follow others, think in a similar way, and have similar interests. This is all very interesting to me, and notice that I use the word "similar", and not "same". I don't say that all human beings are "the same", or have "the same biology", I say that they are similar. I find this mixture of sameness and difference which we call "similar" to be very interesting. In biology we might think that all human beings are essentially the same, but then we find in reality a vast array of different interests, different thinking patterns, ideas and ideologies, just like people look different. So the biological constitution of the human being is a very interesting mix of sameness and difference. It allows us to be taught, educated, and follow the ideas of others, in this sameness, but at the same time, it allows us to develop our own ideas, and go in all sorts of different directions, following many different interests.

All of that, is very much related to the central issue which I am trying to bring to your attention, of the relationship between existence and time. As we proceed through time, as existing beings, we are very much constrained by the past, restricted by the sameness of the past which is imposed upon us by the physical presence of the past. However, at the same time, (which is always now, at the present), we are free to develop and follow our own peculiar ideas and interests.

So here's an example for you to consider. Let's assume that everything which is constrained or limited by the past is called "existence in time". This is temporal existence. What has happened in the past will necessitate certain things to follow, through causation, and this is called existing in time. We can attribute "sameness" to this feature, things must continue to be the same, by inertia and whatever laws of physics, produced by observations of sameness, are applicable. But the human being has a capacity to develop one's own peculiar ideas and interests, and follow these in all sorts of different directions. That's what we attribute to free will, and this allows for the "difference" which we observe. This part of the human being cannot be explained by "existence in time" as defined above. So we ought to consider that a part of the human being is "outside of time".

I am interested in what this "outside of time" actually means. This interest directs me toward all these different backstories and different ways in which people have tried to describe what "outside of time" actually means.

Because my initial criticism was about how grounded this question was in something non-abstract, but the answer appears to be, well, it is meaningful to Metaphysician Undercover for some vague reason... — angslan

I don't know what you would be asking for in "something non-abstract". Whatever I give you would come from my mind, and whatever is in a mind is abstract.

He is both. He is eternal as he existed before earth was created and he is timeless as he will exist after the earth has been destroyed.

I feel like we got closer - but not quite there. I don't think that someone finding something interesting makes it meaningful in a philosophical sense; the reason interest has come up is because you've linked the two together and I was trying to follow the chain to explain my position. However, you've certainly centred whether this question is meaningful around whether it is interesting which does nothing to counter my position that this question is completely un-grounded.

Whatever you give me will be from your mind - I don't see why that means some ideas cannot be more or less abstract than others.

I'm interested in this idea that "existence in time" is deterministic. But I wasn't really trying to get your specific thoughts in particular, I was trying to understand how this line of questioning flourishes and whether there is some more rigorous basis for it, and I'm not going to get that from your personal interpretation. In fact, that it consists of personal interpretations based upon interest was sort of my point when I proposed that this question is a type of nonsense. That is not to say that the individual questions that people bring to this discussion wouldn't be well thought-out, mind.

I guess my point is - the question in the joke is nonsense, and the answer is nonsense. It would take quite some theorising to put together a group of concepts to suggest that there is a meaningful answer, and the answer is going to be wholly determined by the premises that you bring to it. We can certainly ask if God is timeless or eternal, but first we have to have determine what God is, what timelessness and eternity are, and so forth. And by the time we've done this we are so far away from wherever we started that the entire question and answer are just abstract, fictional constructs that don't tell us anything except how creative we can be.

It reminds me of the 'orange juice seat'. There is a linguistics discussion in which it is questioned whether the phrase 'orange juice seat' can be meaningful. Given context, it can: if there are three seats at which apple juice has been served and one at which orange juice has been served, we can identify this seat with the phrase 'orange juice seat'. So it can be meaningful, and so ca, probably, any phrase be meaningful. But the entire context that makes them meaningful has to be supplied and doesn't tell us anything much about the world or how it works. — angslan

I'm not sure how much of what I'm about to say relates to your point, but your post triggered much of my response. Hopefully there will be some overlap.

After studying philosophy of language for some time there has been this bit of skepticism in the back of my mind about many things. It seems that since we use language to describe reality, all of our constructs, the one you posted, and the one I'm about to post, come with a certain set of presuppositions that only have meaning within a social linguistic construct. So we construct a reality, or what we believe to be reality in this linguistic context, and what we construct is only an approximation of reality. Moreover, even the word reality will be argued about, and even if we do agree about the meaning of the word reality, it only has sense within that particular language-game. In fact, I'm not even sure I can make sense in the way that I want, because making sense and not making sense are confined linguistically. It's as though my thoughts about reality are constricted by language, as though there is a part of me that can't relate - it's a kind of mysticism (no it is mysticism -what cannot be said), but even this brings a kind of baggage that I may not want. What's really weird about all of this, is that when I say, "my thoughts," this only has meaning within our confined linguistic space, i.e., the way I'm using the word thought, only has meaning or sense linguistically, and I'm trying to go beyond what can be said.

All of this reminds me of the early Wittgenstein, and his ideas of sense, senseless, and nonsense. What gives sense to what we say necessarily occurs in language, senseless is something on the border region between sense and nonsense; and nonsense for Wittgenstein was going beyond what can be said, it was the mystical. So there is this constant tension between what can be said and what cannot be said. It's as though I want to talk about what cannot be talked about, and in some way this may relate to the mystical side of Wittgenstein's conclusion in the Tractatus. This is really weird, because I think we all experience this, it's as though our private experiences in some sense will always remain private, because there is no way to attach meaning to the private, it has to be done publicly. Once meaning happens publicly it necessarily destroys, in some sense, our private experiences. Why? Because meaning or sense is a public thing, again this tension.

So what' my conclusion? My conclusion is that in some weird sense it's difficult to conclude anything, because all of our talk leads us astray in some sense, it's too confining, it doesn't quite grasp reality, or what I would call ultimate reality. It's as though I'm trying to make sense where there is no sense, trying to go beyond language, whatever that means. Trying to climb up the ladder with language, but once I'm the ladder, I must throw the ladder away. But you may ask, "Where does this leave me?" -- I'm not sure, maybe it leads absolutely nowhere. So in a sense I agree with Angslan, even though Angslan may not see any relationship between what he said, and what I'm saying. Unless you've had these thoughts this may all appear as so much nonsense.

I feel like we got closer - but not quite there. I don't think that someone finding something interesting makes it meaningful in a philosophical sense; the reason interest has come up is because you've linked the two together and I was trying to follow the chain to explain my position. However, you've certainly centred whether this question is meaningful around whether it is interesting which does nothing to counter my position that this question is completely un-grounded. — angslan

Now you seem to be trying to change what you are saying. Before you were talking about whether the question is significant or meaningful, now you are stating that it is "un-grounded".

What do you mean by this claim? Why must a question be grounded? I can see how a statement of claim ought to be grounded, or a proposition ought to be grounded, but how should a question be grounded? Isn't the grounding of the question the person asking's interest? If one is interested in something that person will inquire into it. That's what grounds the question, the person's interest. So we're right back to interest again, and you haven't really said anything new.

Before you were talking about whether the question is significant or meaningful, now you are stating that it is "un-grounded". — Metaphysician Undercover

I haven't changed my tune. I asked how we get to these types of questions and I enquired about the backstory of each of the concepts, which I suggested had so many possible formulations and abstractions that there is no clear starting point except general creativity, which, I suggested, was akin to writing fiction.

We only got on to this particular type of question treating meaning and significance in a certain way because you mentioned "interest", which was not where I started, and something I consistently challenged as relevant.

Seem to have lost interest.