When does proving one's truth claims come to an end?

[metacrock]

Didn't you used to have a blog called the speed of life?

[MaxVel]

Good to see you around, Meta.

Like you, I can't see why anyone would insist on holding to a self-refuting position.

"Only science can give us real knowledge! Anything else is mere speculation. Metaphysics is bunk."

<<OK, can you show me the science that proves that statement to be true?>>

"Science is the only way we can get empirical, verifiable, objective knowledge!"

<< So is there a research paper or experiment that shows that? You do realise that you are currently doing philosophy and metaphysics, not science?">>

"Muh science..."

[Tassman]

The problem with the principle is that it demands an explanation of the phenomenon at hand, and not a reduction of said phenomenon to something else.

Of course that's explanatory at a certain descriptive level but it cannot explain everything that we are.

The fact that we are an assemblage of organic algorithms shaped by natural selection over millions of years of evolution indeed has the potential to explain everything that we are. That is unless you subjectively believe that we are a lot more to us than that - but this is in the realm of wishful thinking not verifiable reality. And, apart from academic speculation, there is no means of testing speculation such as this.

No. You're confusing different meanings of the word "subjective' like Shuny does.

science IS grounded on tacit background knowledge, not explicit instrumental technical know-how.

The foundations are PRE-scientific, pre-explicit, pre-linguisitic.

The foundations of science are grounded in the evolved curiosity of an intelligent species such as us as to how the world around us functions. This is basically all science is, i.e. investigating the workings of the natural world. It originated as a survival mechanism.

MN is a metaphysical worldview, and as such must be arrived at via metaphysical means. There are no empirical methods to test and verify a metaphysical worldview.

Is there a sufficient reason for existence itself? This is not a scientific/empirical question.

for ANY evolved creature?

[Starlight]

Sorry this statement is misreading. There is no factual scientific proof of the nature of ethics. To say it is "established evolutionary theory" does not men that it is factual or proven it only means it's part of the body of work in rhetorical discussion. That is also one discipline subsuming another's domain. scientists are not qualified to talk about ethics.

I'm reading a book at the moment by Jonathan Haidt about his scientific research on people's ideas about morality through psychological experiments on people. It's quite interesting.

Scientific research certainly seems to be able to shed a lot of light on what different people do and don't think is moral and to help us understand the concepts and logic they use, and explore what exceptions to their rules they will and won't allow and why.

Scientific research appears to have a lot of light to shed on this subject. Philosophers in 2000 years seem to have made less total progress elucidating the concepts involved in morality, than scientists have since 1950.

science itself, as a process or a method, depends on metaphysical beliefs.

In my experience armchair philosophers do have a tendency to overstate this. You could boil down the methodology of many scientists in my own experience to "I will try some stuff and see if it works or gives me an idea of what to try next". So they will try 100 things in a lab, find none of them work, go back to the whiteboard and source more ideas from colleagues, and try 100 more ideas and finally find something that seems to sort of work. The paper then gets written up as "this seems to be a sorta decent way of doing the thing", and everyone pretends that was the first thing they tried and the 200 failures are ignored.

Trial and error isn't a methodology that has many sweeping metaphysical underpinnings. It's assumed, I guess, that the cognitive ability of the person doing the science isn't zero and that they have some sort of at least vaguely functional memory. I could see an argument to be made that it is assumed reality will behave the same way if the same experiment is run a second time, but I can also see an argument to be made that that is a discovery that science makes rather than an assumption it makes.

[seer]

I'm reading a book at the moment by Jonathan Haidt about his scientific research on people's ideas about morality through psychological experiments on people. It's quite interesting.

Scientific research certainly seems to be able to shed a lot of light on what different people do and don't think is moral and to help us understand the concepts and logic they use, and explore what exceptions to their rules they will and won't allow and why.

Scientific research appears to have a lot of light to shed on this subject. Philosophers in 2000 years seem to have made less total progress elucidating the concepts involved in morality, than scientists have since 1950.

I like Haidt, watched a lot of his videos on line - so anti-woke... And I'm not sure what science has added to moral questions.

[Stoic]

I like Haidt, watched a lot of his videos on line - so anti-woke... And I'm not sure what science has added to moral questions.

If you believe that morality is written on our hearts, then it would seem useful to figure out what's written on our hearts.

And of course if you think that what's moral is determined by what we think is moral, then it's worthwhile figuring out what we think is moral.

[seer]

If you believe that morality is written on our hearts, then it would seem useful to figure out what's written on our hearts.

And of course if you think that what's moral is determined by what we think is moral, then it's worthwhile figuring out what we think is moral.

I'm not sure how science tells us what is moral or not. It can say we have certain proclivities, but which of those are moral or not is not a scientific question.

[shunyadragon]

You never claimed 'decisive truths' in terms of science, and then you immediately claim that Methodological Naturalism is "objective, decisive, etc,..." You immediately contradict yourself. Which is it?

Never claimed 'decisive truths' in terms of science. In science it is decisive evolving knowledge by scientific methods. In fat I do not believe there are 'decisive truths' from the human perspective. The problem is you claiming 'decisive truths' from the subjective philosophical/theological perspective.

You have failed to back up your claim of 'decisive truths.

Your thinking about morality is deeply muddled. Just because there is disagreement about a subject matter is a very bad reason to conclude that there is no fact of the matter. And there IS universal agreement about core moral principles in virtually all human societies. The difference of opinion enters in factual beliefs, NOT moral beliefs.

As far as needlessly causing suffering, there is virtual universal consensus among all human societies that such action is wrong.

Actually it is not necessarily wrong in all religions and cultures. Though in the belief of many Christians 'suffering is necessary as a result of the Fall and Original Sin.

Once again, we're not talking about religion, remember? Try to read what I actually write.

I read what you actually wrote this whole thread, and the problem is you not citing me fully.

I did not specifically say we are talking about specifically 'religion' I said there are no 'decisive truths' at all, but there is decisive knowledge in science. Secifically no 'decisive truths' in the subjective beliefs and knowledge of subjective philosophy/theology.

Begging the question again without any evidence or argument to back it up. If math and logic are nothing more than "human constructs", then they must be constrained by nothing other than human convention, but this doesn't seem to be the case.

Yes, math and logic are cnstrained and limited by human conventions. Example science, math nor logic cannot falsify, nor prove that our physical existence is finte or infinite, nor temporal or eternal.

Hmmm.... Also, if they are nothing more than human constructs, then science must be as well, since science is quantificational and logic-based through and through.

Actually yes science is constrained by the limits Methodological Naturalism, humans not knowing 'decisive truths,' and fact that science is decsively consistent predictable knowledge based on objective verifiable evidence. Science is consistently and decisively descriptive and not definitive based on objective verifiable evidence, and nothing beyond this.

No, as I said, there is wide consensus as to core moral beliefs. the divergence emerges in the area of non-moral factual beliefs.

False too variable to be decisive and consistent to be a decisve truths. We may observe and compare the morals and ethics in sciences like of sociology and paleontology, but absolutely no way to definitively define morals and ethics as definitive truths beyond simply bing descriptiveof the nature and history of morals and ethics. There is no decisive truths' here.

I'm not talking about suffering itself. I'm talking about the fact that it is wrong to unnecessarily cause suffering in another.

I am not talking about suffering itself, but than again this issue needs to be addressed It is simply objectively observed and defined as a part of life on earth in particular human life, not necessary nor unnecessary, beyond that there are many many subjective views on the nature of suffering among the different diverse and conflicting philosophies and religious beliefs

Some cultures consider suffering as necessary and not bad, like in many (variable) sects of Buddhism and Hinduism as in Shiva the destroyer is not a bad God.. Suffering is necessary for the sdvancement of the soul in reincarnation. Many Christians consider suffering necessary, because of the Fall and Original Sin. Others consider suffering simply a part of the nature of our human existence and high life on earth

But you claimed above that MN IS decisive, and by implication the ONLY form of decisive knowledge possible. I have never argued that MN is not decisive knowledge, only that it is the ONLY possible form of such knowledge. Please state clearly what your position is.

decisive knowledge, NOI decisive truth,'

1. Only empirically verifiable statements can be decisively true.

First, NOT 'decisive truths.' MEthodological Naturalism provides 'decisive predictable and consistent evolving knowledge concerning the nature ofour physical existence.

2. 1. is a philosophical, i.e. epistemological statement.

ONLY if it is based on the falsification of theories and hypothesis is it decisive knowledge.

3. Because 1. is a philosophical statement, it is not strictly an empirically verifiable statement.

A little confusing, needs to be rewriten

4. Because 1. is not an empirically verifiable statement, it cannot be 'decisively' true.

Only decive knowledge if supported by consistent predicable 'objective verifiable evidence.'

So either statements such as 1. are false or philosophical statements such as 1. can be decisively true.

True only if supported by 'objective verifiable evidence' that is consistent and predictable to justify falsifiying a theory or hypothesis.

As I've stated, there are defined decisive truths outside of science.

You have failed to provide consistent and predictable 'decisive truths' in any context.

Again . . . in science it is decisive predictable consistent knowledge based on Methodological Naturalism

Still waiting . . .

First demonstrate that you can

Been there and done that. So has Tassman many many times.

[Jim B.]

The “phenomenon at hand” (in this instance the Mayan sacrifice of children to their gods) is that they - and most theists - believe that their deity has ultimate authority regarding morality and ethics.

The "phenomenon at hand" is whatever happens to be under discussion. The context of my comment was the Principle of Parsimony.

The fact that we are an assemblage of organic algorithms shaped by natural selection over millions of years of evolution indeed has the potential to explain everything that we are. That is unless you subjectively believe that we are a lot more to us than that - but this is in the realm of wishful thinking not verifiable reality. And, apart from academic speculation, there is no means of testing speculation such as this.

In this case, you are the one engaging in armchair academic philosophical speculation. Your claim that genetic algorithms can "explain everything about us" is NOT an empirically verifiable statement. There are no clear criteria in which such a claim could be empirically established or falsified. In fact,such a claim doesn't even have a clear meaning. It's a pseudo-scientific, scientistic claim. My claim, on the other hand, is NOT academic speculation but drawn form everyday lived experience. It is the observation drawn form the various sciences that there are different mutually compatible descriptive levels of reality. This is not a subjective academic observation but a foundational principle of science. If any scientific level would have priority, it would be physics. Why would genetic algorithms be more descriptive of us than physics?

“Subjective knowledge”, in the broadest sense, means knowledge that is influenced by personal emotions or opinions. This as opposed to the objective knowledge of science, which is free from value commitments and personal bias.

The confusion I was referring to was between "subjective" understood epistemologically and understood ontologically. Your claim about genetic algorithms is 'subjective" epistemologically because it betrays your ideological bias without any empirical or philosophical evidence to support it.

Yes. The “tacit background knowledge” of science is the accumulated body of empirical facts and knowledge.

I beg to differ. Read Polanyi. The explicit is grounded in the implicit.

The foundations of science are grounded in the evolved curiosity of an intelligent species such as us as to how the world around us functions. This is basically all science is, i.e. investigating the workings of the natural world. It originated as a survival mechanism.

Your reductionism again. Can you entertain the possibility that things may be slightly more complicated than that? I'm not saying I know the answers but I'm instinctively wary of such formulaic responses...

Indeed, there are “no empirical methods to test and verify a metaphysical worldview” which is why Methodological Naturalism, i.e. the basis of the scientific method, is not dependent upon Metaphysical Naturalism – although it is compatible with it.

Agreed.

It’s not a warranted question at all. Why would you assume that there is a “sufficient reason for existence” for ANY evolved creature?

I can't see the original post. What's not a warranted question? Whether or not there's a sufficient reason for existence itself? Why wouldn't it be? To wonder about something is different from assuming the answer to the question. So you're saying that even to wonder about it is not warranted?

[Jim B.]

Never claimed 'decisive truths' in terms of science. In science it is decisive evolving knowledge by scientific methods. In fat I do not believe there are 'decisive truths' from the human perspective. The problem is you claiming 'decisive truths' from the subjective philosophical/theological perspective.

You have failed to back up your claim of 'decisive truths.

I don't even know how to debate you. This is so confused. First of all, 'decisive' would mean that it's been 'decided'. It's not controversial. It's settled. So you say first that there are no decisive truths in terms of science. Then you say that there IS decisive evolving knowledge in terms of scientific methods. This is clear obfuscation. No one said that scientific truths do NOT evolve and could NOT conceivably be overturned and/or re-contextualized. But you're not saying that the fact that the earth revolves around the sun or that water is H2O are NOT 'decisive' scientific truths? And from the human perspective? Clearly science IS a human enterprise just as maths are, but they arguably can facilitate the discovery of 'extra-human truths,' within limits...

Once more, phenomenal truths are not logically entailed by physical truths. Physical correlation does not establish identity.
You clearly cannot or do not want to comprehend this statement.So let's just move on.

Actually it is not necessarily wrong in all religions and cultures. Though in the belief of many Christians 'suffering is necessary as a result of the Fall and Original Sin.

That would mean that God would deem the suffering necessary then, wouldn't it?

I read what you actually wrote this whole thread, and the problem is you not citing me fully.

I did not specifically say we are talking about specifically 'religion' I said there are no 'decisive truths' at all, but there is decisive knowledge in science. Secifically no 'decisive truths' in the subjective beliefs and knowledge of subjective philosophy/theology.

Again, I never mentioned theology. Why do you keep bringing that up?

Yes, math and logic are cnstrained and limited by human conventions. Example science, math nor logic cannot falsify, nor prove that our physical existence is finte or infinite, nor temporal or eternal.

I have no idea what this means.

Actually yes science is constrained by the limits Methodological Naturalism, humans not knowing 'decisive truths,' and fact that science is decsively consistent predictable knowledge based on objective verifiable evidence. Science is consistently and decisively descriptive and not definitive based on objective verifiable evidence, and nothing beyond this.

I think you're confusing 'decisive' with 'ultimate' or 'definitive'. "Decisive" merely means it's been decided, i.e. "settled' or "non-controversial." It doesn't mean ultimate, definitive knowledge which is probably not available to human minds. The constraints and limits of Methodological Naturalism are the very thing that allows science the rigor to yield predictable verifiable evidence.

False too variable to be decisive and consistent to be a decisve truths. We may observe and compare the morals and ethics in sciences like of sociology and paleontology, but absolutely no way to definitively define morals and ethics as definitive truths beyond simply bing descriptiveof the nature and history of morals and ethics. There is no decisive truths' here.

Variable as I said as far as non-moral factual belief. If you control for that variance, then the universality of core moral beliefs ( gratitude, non-harm, truthfulness, fairness, etc) is quite high. You also have to differentiate between morality understood descriptively and normatively. If you look at it only through the descriptive lens, then there cannot possibly be any decisive moral truths there.

I am not talking about suffering itself, but than again this issue needs to be addressed It is simply objectively observed and defined as a part of life on earth in particular human life, not necessary nor unnecessary, beyond that there are many many subjective views on the nature of suffering among the different diverse and conflicting philosophies and religious beliefs

Again, you're looking at it only descriptively so all you can ever see are diverse sociological and historical facts. That is the only lens through which you've decided it can possibly be viewed. I am suggesting that you try on a different lens. The normative lens.

Some cultures consider suffering as necessary and not bad, like in many (variable) sects of Buddhism and Hinduism as in Shiva the destroyer is not a bad God.. Suffering is necessary for the sdvancement of the soul in reincarnation. Many Christians consider suffering necessary, because of the Fall and Original Sin. Others consider suffering simply a part of the nature of our human existence and high life on earth

Yes. Again, you're looking at it exclusively as a DESCRIPTIVE phenomenon. I'm saying that for an agent to CAUSE unnecessary suffering in a moral patient is wrong.

First, NOT 'decisive truths.' MEthodological Naturalism provides 'decisive predictable and consistent evolving knowledge concerning the nature ofour physical existence.

But not the only decisive knowledge full stop, because physical existence does not exhaust all of reality.

ONLY if it is based on the falsification of theories and hypothesis is it decisive knowledge.

That is Popper's criterion of demarcation for science as opposed to pseudo-science, not as a criterion for all of knowledge proper. Even Popper would not accept such a restrictive criterion.

Again . . . in science it is decisive predictable consistent knowledge based on Methodological Naturalism

Still waiting . . .

While you're waiting, you might work on your reading skills.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPqpmSWwuGk

Been there and done that. So has Tassman many many times.

In my experience, amidst all of your self- and mutual-congratulations, neither of you to date have ever fully grasped anything I have ever written on any of these threads.

[shunyadragon]

I don't even know how to debate you. This is so confused. First of all, 'decisive' would mean that it's been 'decided'. It's not controversial. It's settled. So you say first that there are no decisive truths in terms of science. Then you say that there IS decisive evolving knowledge in terms of scientific methods. This is clear obfuscation. No one said that scientific truths do NOT evolve and could NOT conceivably be overturned and/or re-contextualized. But you're not saying that the fact that the earth revolves around the sun or that water is H2O are NOT 'decisive' scientific truths? And from the human perspective? Clearly science IS a human enterprise just as maths are, but they arguably can facilitate the discovery of 'extra-human truths,' within limits...

Once more, phenomenal truths are not logically entailed by physical truths. Physical correlation does not establish identity.
You clearly cannot or do not want to comprehend this statement.So let's just move on.

May follow up in detail, but . . .

Still waiting for you to provide 'decisive truths.' thate are settled, not contradictory between those who believe differently, and not controversial.

In all these pages you have failed to present anything that qualifies.

That would mean that God would deem the suffering necessary then, wouldn't it?

Yes in Christianity, with suffering having a purpose. The existence of suffering in the world is simply an observable fact. There is wide differences, controversy in different cultures and religions as to what suffering is and its meaning.

Again, I never mentioned theology. Why do you keep bringing that up? [/quote]

That's your problem, I include it in all that may consider it an issue that some claims theology claims of decisive truths. For you it would subjective philosophy that cannot define 'decisive truths.' I do not believe the sciences have 'decisive truths' either, and I blieve that I have defineed decisive knowledge adequately in terms of science. .

[Tassman]

The "phenomenon at hand" is whatever happens to be under discussion. The context of my comment was the Principle of Parsimony.

The actual context was that most theists believe that their deity has ultimate authority regarding morality and ethics. And, despite many different, complex interpretations of the divine strictures ultimately, they believe that such authority rests with their deity - which is the simplest possible, viable explanation. In short, the Principle of Parsimony.

In this case, you are the one engaging in armchair academic philosophical speculation. Your claim that genetic algorithms can "explain everything about us" is NOT an empirically verifiable statement.

T My claim, on the other hand, is NOT academic speculation but drawn form everyday lived experience. It is the observation drawn form the various sciences that there are different mutually compatible descriptive levels of reality. This is not a subjective academic observation but a foundational principle of science.

It is NOT science. What you are arguing is based upon subjective experience and opinions, which cannot be quantitatively or qualitatively examined via empirical testing that is the foundational principle of science

The confusion I was referring to was between "subjective" understood epistemologically and understood ontologically.

I beg to differ. The explicit is grounded in the implicit.

Your reductionism again. Can you entertain the possibility that things may be slightly more complicated than that? I'm not saying I know the answers but I'm instinctively wary of such formulaic responses...

You acknowledge you do not know that answers but nevertheless seem prepared to entertain the possibility that "things may be slightly more complicated" than they seem, based on no more than subjective wariness.

I can't see the original post. What's not a warranted question? Whether or not there's a sufficient reason for existence itself? Why wouldn't it be? To wonder about something is different from assuming the answer to the question. So you're saying that even to wonder about it is not warranted?

You can reason

[shunyadragon]

Good to see you around, Meta.

Like you, I can't see why anyone would insist on holding to a self-refuting position.

"Only science can give us real knowledge! Anything else is mere speculation. Metaphysics is bunk."

<<OK, can you show me the science that proves that statement to be true?>>

"Science is the only way we can get empirical, verifiable, objective knowledge!"

<< So is there a research paper or experiment that shows that? You do realise that you are currently doing philosophy and metaphysics, not science?">>

"Muh science..."

Science does not prove anything. Philosophy and logic cannot falsify theories and hypothesis concerning the nature of our physical existence.

[Jim B.]

May follow up in detail, but . . .

Still waiting for you to provide 'decisive truths.' thate are settled, not contradictory between those who believe differently, and not controversial.

In all these pages you have failed to present anything that qualifies.

I just wrote another long post that got lost. I'll try again...

I have presented decisive truths several times. You cannot or will not comprehend what I have written.

I am conscious. This is an indexical fact. That a subject is conscious is irrefutable. It is decided fact. It is settled and non-controversial. It is also NOT a scientific fact because it cannot be falsified. It cannot be falsified because if the subject were not conscious, she could not possibly falsify that fact!

And please let's not go around the same carousel of "this is just a 'subjective' fact" again. It is an OBJECTIVE fact that there are subjective points of view. It is NOT a subjective fact as in my preferring chocolate to vanilla ice cream.

Yes in Christianity, with suffering having a purpose. The existence of suffering in the world is simply an observable fact. There is wide differences, controversy in different cultures and religions as to what suffering is and its meaning.

Yes, suffering has a purpose in Christianity and differing purposes in different traditions. I am talking about the fact that intentionally inflicting needless suffering in another is wrong. Death also has a purpose, but that doesn't mean I'm justified in intentionally causing needless death in another.

Again, I never mentioned theology. Why do you keep bringing that up?

That's your problem, I include it in all that may consider it an issue that some claims theology claims of decisive truths. For you it would subjective philosophy that cannot define 'decisive truths.' I do not believe the sciences have 'decisive truths' either, and I blieve that I have defineed decisive knowledge adequately in terms of science. .

"Knowledge" is generally defined as "justified TRUE belief." Knowledge presupposes the accessibility of truth. "Truth' does not necessarily mean absolute eternal incontrovertible TRUTH. it just means what we have the best possible justification for believing, all things considered, with the possibility of future modification.

Do you believe that the post you wrote immediately above is 'true'?

Are you aware that that post you wrote is a philosophical claim that cannot possibly be empirically verified?

Do you believe that it is 'true' the the earth revolves around the sun?

As far as your simple dichotomy between 'subjective' philosophy and cold hard 'objective' science, once again, science is built on a foundation of metaphysical assumptions that cannot be established empirically. This is something that Einstein and other thoughtful scientists, as opposed to technicians and scientistic promoters, were well aware of.

[Jim B.]

The actual context was that most theists believe that their deity has ultimate authority regarding morality and ethics. And, despite many different, complex interpretations of the divine strictures ultimately, they believe that such authority rests with their deity - which is the simplest possible, viable explanation. In short, the Principle of Parsimony.

The "actual context" concerned my observation about your reductionist tendencies, not just in this area of morality but in all areas. I was making a more general observation. And then you said "The Principle of Parsimony should provide the simplest possible, viable explanation." I was broadening the topic to reductionism and the Principle in general. My point was that the Principle applies only to competing hypotheses, theories that exist at the same logical level. And yes, to address the original point, to ignore a sizable minority of theists is simplistic.

Not at all. The genetic algorithms in this instance are grounded in the concept of Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection and as such based in biology, which can be empirically verified.

That's not the part I'm contesting. I'm questioning the claim that it can explain or potentially explain "everything about human beings."
This is transparently breathless, pseudo-scientific, scientistic hokum! It doesn't even mean anything! I really want to believe that you are smarter than this! Scientism smuggles its extra-scientific claims in under the cover of 'empirical verifiability' in order to dupe the uncritical and naive.

It is NOT science. What you are arguing is “observation” based upon subjective experience and opinions, which cannot be quantitatively or qualitatively examined via empirical testing that is the foundational principle of science

The hierarchy of the sciences is NOT science? Various levels of description in the sciences are ordered according to the ascending scale of the entities under investigation: physics, chemistry, molecular biology, cellular biology, biology of organisms, etc. This is one of the foundational principles of the sciences. Thus it is not subject to empirical testing because it orders the sciences themselves. A foundational principle of the sciences is that there are various compatible levels of description for reality. If any one level could argubaly hold primacy, it would be physics.

Your claim that genetic algorithms can potentially explain 'everything' about human beings is NOT an empirical claim. There is no empirical test that could confirm or disconfirm it. How could the word "everything" possibly be defined in a non-circular way? It is an IDEOLOGICAL CLAIM on a par with Social Darwinism, another fashionable pseudo-science, and like it, will soon be forgotten.

Once again: “Subjective knowledge, in the broadest sense, means knowledge that is influenced by personal emotions or opinions. See above re "observations". This as opposed to the objective knowledge of science, which is free from value commitments and personal bias”.

Nope. You don't understand the distinction I've been drawing for the past several weeks and I doubt you ever will. As for "subjective claims" none are more insidious than the ones smuggled in under the "cloak of 'scientific' objectivity" as in your "genetic algorithm" claim.

The “implicit” requires objective verifiable evidence based upon scientific methodology before it can be considered “explicit”.

No. Explicit knowing requires implicit knowing. Any process of articulation relies upon that which is not articulated. We both know and can articulate to each the word 'red' because we've experienced it , but there is no way to articulate the meaning of the word to someone blind from birth. Meaning is built on a foundation of subsidiary awareness and capabilities, not explicit sets of rules.

You acknowledge you do not know that answers but nevertheless seem prepared to entertain the possibility that "things may be slightly more complicated" than they seem, based on no more than subjective wariness.

If I told you that the secret of the universe is popcorn, would you feel pretty confident that I was wrong? Does that confidence mean that YOU know what the secret is?

You can “wonder” about the purpose of existence all you want but you seem to be assuming without good reason that there IS a purpose. “Purpose” presupposes a reason for which something is done. And “reason” unjustifiably presupposes a cause, explanation, or justification.

I'm not talking about assuming anything. I'm talking about the wonder itself. Most atheists I've encountered think it's illegitimate or even silly to wonder about it. People by nature want to know why, to know the reason for things, to make as much sense out of the totality of experience as possible. Why should this possibility be foreclosed on?