We Give The Universe Meaning, Like Nothing Else

The difference between the whole of the population's death with time existing in the universe, and there being no time/universe, is the same. You might say, "ah - to us that is", but, infact there are no others. And if there are other conscious beings, then I talk of them also.That is, there is no difference between the universe existing and not existing, if there is no recording/conscious awareness of time/universe.Space time existed before us, but the recording of the passage of time didn't.Because of this, the universe has less meaning without sentient awareness. Consider the following;The finding underlined below also gives credence to the relationship and importance of the connection between the universe and any conscious entity. It is a grandiose yet true statement, that means that there might aswell not be a happening universe without conscious entities within it, acknowledging it. it's because the course of the universe is meaningful to us, but to nothing else. Essentially, this puts us in the centre of it.The universe of itself, has no meaning unless there is a conscious entity to give it meaning, such as a human.The universe doesn't care if we don't exist, but without such entities, nobody cares that the universe exists." There is no difference between the universe existing and not existing, if there is no recording/conscious awareness of time/universe. "It might seem irrelevant that this is so. But it isn't because in times past, atheists have tried to show that there is no credence in Theists saying that humans are special. Or they have tried to show that we are not special. Yet this proves that logically, we are special. We literally give the universe meaning. We are the ones who contemplate it.In this sense, we very much are the centre of the universe, in a manner of speaking. Yes, we are so tiny, but not meaningless. Size has no baring on the matter.This isn't an argument for Theism as such, but I disagree with the notion that we are not special. This argument hints at, and favours Theism, but doesn't prove Theism. It's routed in fact so it's irrefutable.

Hi to everyone. This response it to everyone who's participated, aswell. The former is a claim, I don't see why this is so.If we don't give it meaning, then we'd have to not be part of it, or our subjective meaning has to record as insignificant.A subjective meaning of an individual, is as real and as valid as anything else in the universe. it is, another produce of the universe, and as valid.As for meaning being subjective, that's exactly why there would be no meaning without humans - because we are the ones who give it meaning. We are the ones who acknowledge that it exists, and perceive it, we are conscious of it. Without us, the difference would be the same if there was a universe or no universe. (That this only matters to us, doesn't change anything)--think about it--Since we could be seen as the "conscious universe", then "meaning" being subjective to humans, doesn't actually matter to my argument. If anything, it confirms that there would be no meaning without us.Now I realize that a none-believer thinks that there is no objective meaning to the universe. Because this is true, then any meaning there is is of great importance. This means that subjective human meaning is a hugely significant and valid component of the universe.(Many atheists argued that there was meaning in their lives, when confronted with the nihilist argument. Must that now change because mike has turned up with an argument. That would make me think that they are full of itThe universe speaks, when you speak. You are the universe come alive, to behold itself in all it's glory. You are special, and the good thing is, that whether the universe is theist or atheist, that won't change. You're one unique baba!Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Strawman.My argument isn't the argument you made an analogy for. Logically, you can't have not universe and not NOT universeThat would = universe. There is no logic I can see that would render this example as non-applicable pertaining to bivalence. IOW, you can't duck the law of the excluded middle.That means that because we have evidence of X and not X is possible,(blackholes for example), then my statement is fine.My argument says that without a consciousness, there is no difference to record or observe between either instance. If anything, it's an obvious inference from two known facts. I'm using the word how I've always used it, during both arguments that are favourable to you, and not. The pragmatics are what matter. IOW, we know what I mean.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Thanks, I'm glad someone actually finds worth in my post. These comments are rare.You can take over critter sweeping if you want. I'm quite busy.

A man decorates a room for a child. The child arrives. And you ask why the room doesn't care?It is very unlikely that there are conscious beings like us, unless they took the same evolutionary path that we did. What are the chances of that?The argumentum ad ignorantium Kuresu mentioned, doesn't mean that he proved anything, because not being able to know if a cheetah thinks as we do, doesn't mean it does or that I should prove it doesn't.The evidence suggests that we think as we do, and nothing else..We are the only one being KNOWN to contemplate the universe, unless you are suggesting that animals have telescopes and they just haven't shown them to us.