Does The Universe Have a Purpose?

[ding]

They were if intelligence is the intention of the laws of nature.

That's putting the cart before the horse, though, ding.
The entire ecosystem of our planet is also mind bogglingly intricate. My Japanese maple is not intelligent, though, and probably never will be.

Yes, it is complexity upon complexity. It is complex adaptive systems within complex adaptive systems which seem to defy the law of entropy.

But there is no disputing that as the arrow of life increased the complexity of life increased. That is the nature of a highly complex adaptive system. The real question is why is that the nature of highly complex adaptive systems and the answer to that appears to me to be intelligence is trying to emerge. Did you know that even plants can have what is described as intelligence?

I don't know the "reason" for that. To me, it just seems that things grow and evolve because they do. If they grow and evolve in a way that allows them to survive, they do it some more.

So then you believe intelligence is just an accident and there is no real purpose to the universe or existence?

Are things like music, mathematics, poetry and science just curious artifacts? Things that some people are born with natural talents for?

All those things are awesome, ding. But no, I am not at all sure there is a real "purpose" to the universe or existence. It IS. Is that not enough? Why must there be some reason for it?

Well.. that is surprising because you can figure out our purpose by what we do. Are you saying you have no purpose or that you don't know what your purpose is?

I'm pretty sure even science would tell you that there is a purpose to life. The answer can probably be found in the two components to natural selection.

I don't think it is a matter if there must or must not be a purpose for the universe. To me it is a matter of seeking the truth. Because that's what I set out to do when I started investigating all of this.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Which is wrong and contrived to conveniently fit your narrative. The only "fluke" would be that physical laws were selected, in the first moments of the universe, to be as they are. But even then, there is no reason to think a different set of laws would not have selected for fusiform marine animal shapes, or introspective self awareness in creatures.

Ummm... no. No intelligence capable of building a technological civilization is going to evolve in the sea. In fact, being on land is probably one of the first requirements for life to check the box on for developing intelligence.

It's almost like you haven't ever given this any thought before.

Not a word you just said contradicts a word i said. Ding, make your point.

Your "land life" requirement is completely arbitrary amd madeup, by the way. You have a bad tendency of confusing what you want to be true with fact.

Yupp, more of the same dingness.

View attachment 230638

He often errs in assuming as true the deductible results of exactly the ideas which he is tasked with arguing as true.

Ding, episode 1,297,590:

Ding: "God is true, as shown by everything having purpose"

Incredulous, rational person: "But Ding, your second assertion would only follow if you had already proven the first assertion, which is your burden to argue"

Ding: "What are your credentials, anyway?"

I think it's formally called Presuppositional Apologetics.

Pfft...why do religious people get a special label? They get no special treatment from me. In science, we would call them liars and charlatans. But hey, let's protect their feelings, since they defer to a "major religion", and those people could band together and kill us....

 

[ding]

Have you ever made a turkey dinner?

Unfortunately, yes. Thank God you're going bring it down to earth.

What was the reason you made it?

My mother was in Aruba. There were a few important people who required turkey. The one with ovaries gets the job.

So there was a reason?

Did the turkey dinner serve it's purpose?

Sure.

So would you say from the human perspective that when we create things we create them for a reason to serve a purpose?

If the answer is yes, my next question is why do you think that is a human attribute and not an attribute of the act of creating?

 

[ding]

The really funny thing here is that rather than engaging the content, you guys are making this about me.

That ought to raise suspicion.

 

[G.T.]

Ummm... no. No intelligence capable of building a technological civilization is going to evolve in the sea. In fact, being on land is probably one of the first requirements for life to check the box on for developing intelligence.

It's almost like you haven't ever given this any thought before.

Not a word you just said contradicts a word i said. Ding, make your point.

Your "land life" requirement is completely arbitrary amd madeup, by the way. You have a bad tendency of confusing what you want to be true with fact.

Yupp, more of the same dingness.

View attachment 230638

He often errs in assuming as true the deductible results of exactly the ideas which he is tasked with arguing as true.

Ding, episode 1,297,590:

Ding: "God is true, as shown by everything having purpose"

Incredulous, rational person: "But Ding, your second assertion would only follow if you had already proven the first assertion, which is your burden to argue"

Ding: "What are your credentials, anyway?"

I think it's formally called Presuppositional Apologetics.

Pfft...why do religious people get a special label? They get no special treatment from me. In science, we would call them liars and charlatans. But hey, let's protect their feelings, since they defer to a "major religion", and those people could band together and kill us....

I don't take issue with anyone having a hypothesis about origins, I only take issue when they imply that it's rationally proven, fall apart under cross examination and then devolve from there.

Religion itself is bothersome because so much of it is laughable, but a god or gods or an alien or comouter symbiote (etc etc etc)....? All alright to ponder with an open mind I think.

 

[ding]

Religion itself is bothersome because so much of it is laughable, but a god or gods or an alien or comouter symbiote (etc etc etc)....? All alright to ponder with an open mind I think.

Religion creates wonderful charities and organizations.

 

[OldLady]

Intentionality is where the fallacy is occurring.

All effects have causes, that we've observed.

All effects were not INTENTIONALLY caused(or, a "goal").. and that is where the leap is being made.

Everything you've said is the way I was thinking, too, but after 4,000 years or so of philosophers justifying the existence of a Creator, there's got to be some logical arguments for it. Doesn't there? I'm just giving ding a chance to explain why. Maybe the turkey dinner will explain it.

Philosophers have put holes in every syllogism thats attempted to prove a deity, rationally.

Pick any one of them...

the tag argument

the kalam cosmological argument...



They all have errors, and these errors are why God requires faith. Its not rationally n'or empirically proven to exist to any peer reviewed/testable satisfaction, which is why faith is in the mix at all.

So it would make more sense for Ding to just say "I believe in a Creator and God" and be done with all that trying to make it logical in some way.
I would definitely respect that. Crummy logic though, that I can argue without going to hell, I think.

I don't see it that way but I can totally see how my opinions would threaten you guys and need to be minimized. I've seen pack behavior before. It is quite fascinating.

Ding, the fact that I tend to agree with GT and Indiana does NOT mean that I want to gang up on you. Honestly. I was curious and I'm not disrespecting your beliefs. But faith is different from logical arguments. I'm not saying you're wrong either, because I don't know if there is a Universal Mind of some kind, or a God who spoke to Moses, or what. I just didn't see the logic of your argument. Don't be hurt.

 

[G.T.]

The really funny thing here is that rather than engaging the content, you guys are making this about me.

That ought to raise suspicion.

This is just more scape-goating. Your content was lacking, you assume x,y,z about the folks doing the scrutiny, and then its the blahblah baby boy bullshit like this.

Youre just a hack. Its like a 1 in 5 in an Italian family, the knowitall dufus. Its aight man.


Marx and stuff.

 

[G.T.]

Religion itself is bothersome because so much of it is laughable, but a god or gods or an alien or comouter symbiote (etc etc etc)....? All alright to ponder with an open mind I think.

Religion creates wonderful charities and organizations.

Thats good for them. Im glad they do.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not a word you just said contradicts a word i said. Ding, make your point.

Your "land life" requirement is completely arbitrary amd madeup, by the way. You have a bad tendency of confusing what you want to be true with fact.

Yupp, more of the same dingness.

View attachment 230638

He often errs in assuming as true the deductible results of exactly the ideas which he is tasked with arguing as true.

Ding, episode 1,297,590:

Ding: "God is true, as shown by everything having purpose"

Incredulous, rational person: "But Ding, your second assertion would only follow if you had already proven the first assertion, which is your burden to argue"

Ding: "What are your credentials, anyway?"

I think it's formally called Presuppositional Apologetics.

Pfft...why do religious people get a special label? They get no special treatment from me. In science, we would call them liars and charlatans. But hey, let's protect their feelings, since they defer to a "major religion", and those people could band together and kill us....

I don't take issue with anyone having a hypothesis about origins, I only take issue when they imply that it's rationally proven, fall apart under cross examination and then devolve from there.

Religion itself is bothersome because so much of it is laughable, but a god or gods or an alien or comouter symbiote (etc etc etc)....? All alright to ponder with an open mind I think.

Sure, same with unicorns making ice cream in the 6th dimension, or astrology, or voodoo. But it's important to be clear that all of these fantasy ideas go on the same shelf. Tell a religious person that, and watch the reaction...so there is more to it than simply "forcing others to believe". We have to coexist.

 

[G.T.]

Unfortunately, yes. Thank God you're going bring it down to earth.

What was the reason you made it?

My mother was in Aruba. There were a few important people who required turkey. The one with ovaries gets the job.

So there was a reason?

Did the turkey dinner serve it's purpose?

Sure.

So would you say from the human perspective that when we create things we create them for a reason to serve a purpose?

If the answer is yes, my next question is why do you think that is a human attribute and not an attribute of the act of creating?

That's so easy to answer. ding.


1. all created things were not on-purpose.

2. humans create some things purposefully, and some things accidentally.

Therefore what?

Your thoughts are incoherent.

 

[ding]

Intentionality is where the fallacy is occurring.

All effects have causes, that we've observed.

All effects were not INTENTIONALLY caused(or, a "goal").. and that is where the leap is being made.

Everything you've said is the way I was thinking, too, but after 4,000 years or so of philosophers justifying the existence of a Creator, there's got to be some logical arguments for it. Doesn't there? I'm just giving ding a chance to explain why. Maybe the turkey dinner will explain it.

Philosophers have put holes in every syllogism thats attempted to prove a deity, rationally.

Pick any one of them...

the tag argument

the kalam cosmological argument...



They all have errors, and these errors are why God requires faith. Its not rationally n'or empirically proven to exist to any peer reviewed/testable satisfaction, which is why faith is in the mix at all.

So it would make more sense for Ding to just say "I believe in a Creator and God" and be done with all that trying to make it logical in some way.
I would definitely respect that. Crummy logic though, that I can argue without going to hell, I think.

I don't see it that way but I can totally see how my opinions would threaten you guys and need to be minimized. I've seen pack behavior before. It is quite fascinating.

Ding, the fact that I tend to agree with GT and Indiana does NOT mean that I want to gang up on you. Honestly. I was curious and I'm not disrespecting your beliefs. But faith is different from logical arguments. I'm not saying you're wrong either, because I don't know if there is a Universal Mind of some kind, or a God who spoke to Moses, or what. I just didn't see the logic of your argument. Don't be hurt.

Look, these guys are pissed off about religion and you are too.

It will all work itself out in the end the way it is supposed to. That's the beauty of normalizing deviance. Predictable surprises will follow. Sort of like when people made fun of handicaps. It all evened out in the end, right?

 

[G.T.]

Yupp, more of the same dingness.

View attachment 230638

He often errs in assuming as true the deductible results of exactly the ideas which he is tasked with arguing as true.

Ding, episode 1,297,590:

Ding: "God is true, as shown by everything having purpose"

Incredulous, rational person: "But Ding, your second assertion would only follow if you had already proven the first assertion, which is your burden to argue"

Ding: "What are your credentials, anyway?"

I think it's formally called Presuppositional Apologetics.

Pfft...why do religious people get a special label? They get no special treatment from me. In science, we would call them liars and charlatans. But hey, let's protect their feelings, since they defer to a "major religion", and those people could band together and kill us....

I don't take issue with anyone having a hypothesis about origins, I only take issue when they imply that it's rationally proven, fall apart under cross examination and then devolve from there.

Religion itself is bothersome because so much of it is laughable, but a god or gods or an alien or comouter symbiote (etc etc etc)....? All alright to ponder with an open mind I think.

Sure, same with unicorns making ice cream in the 6th dimension, or astrology, or voodoo. But it's important to be clear that all of these fantasy ideas go on the same shelf. Tell a religious person that, and watch the reaction...so there is more to it than simply "forcing others to believe". We have to coexist.

Im with you on Religion.

I wouldnt make a positive claim about the origin of exitence itself, though.

I simply dont know.

 

[G.T.]

Everything you've said is the way I was thinking, too, but after 4,000 years or so of philosophers justifying the existence of a Creator, there's got to be some logical arguments for it. Doesn't there? I'm just giving ding a chance to explain why. Maybe the turkey dinner will explain it.

Philosophers have put holes in every syllogism thats attempted to prove a deity, rationally.

Pick any one of them...

the tag argument

the kalam cosmological argument...



They all have errors, and these errors are why God requires faith. Its not rationally n'or empirically proven to exist to any peer reviewed/testable satisfaction, which is why faith is in the mix at all.

So it would make more sense for Ding to just say "I believe in a Creator and God" and be done with all that trying to make it logical in some way.
I would definitely respect that. Crummy logic though, that I can argue without going to hell, I think.

I don't see it that way but I can totally see how my opinions would threaten you guys and need to be minimized. I've seen pack behavior before. It is quite fascinating.

Ding, the fact that I tend to agree with GT and Indiana does NOT mean that I want to gang up on you. Honestly. I was curious and I'm not disrespecting your beliefs. But faith is different from logical arguments. I'm not saying you're wrong either, because I don't know if there is a Universal Mind of some kind, or a God who spoke to Moses, or what. I just didn't see the logic of your argument. Don't be hurt.

Look, these guys are pissed off about religion and you are too.

It will all work itself out in the end the way it is supposed to. That's the beauty of normalizing deviance. Predictable surprises will follow. Sort of like when people made fun of handicaps. It all evened out in the end, right?

Here come the slogans and cliches.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He often errs in assuming as true the deductible results of exactly the ideas which he is tasked with arguing as true.

Ding, episode 1,297,590:

Ding: "God is true, as shown by everything having purpose"

Incredulous, rational person: "But Ding, your second assertion would only follow if you had already proven the first assertion, which is your burden to argue"

Ding: "What are your credentials, anyway?"

I think it's formally called Presuppositional Apologetics.

Pfft...why do religious people get a special label? They get no special treatment from me. In science, we would call them liars and charlatans. But hey, let's protect their feelings, since they defer to a "major religion", and those people could band together and kill us....

I don't take issue with anyone having a hypothesis about origins, I only take issue when they imply that it's rationally proven, fall apart under cross examination and then devolve from there.

Religion itself is bothersome because so much of it is laughable, but a god or gods or an alien or comouter symbiote (etc etc etc)....? All alright to ponder with an open mind I think.

Sure, same with unicorns making ice cream in the 6th dimension, or astrology, or voodoo. But it's important to be clear that all of these fantasy ideas go on the same shelf. Tell a religious person that, and watch the reaction...so there is more to it than simply "forcing others to believe". We have to coexist.

Im with you on Religion.

I wouldnt make a positive claim about the origin of exitence itself, though.

I simply dont know.

Right, we don't know. And science has taught us WHY we don't know: our observable universe is finite, and we cannot observe things outside of it. So religion even fails at telling us WHY we don't know... while at the same time, claiming to know. Biggest con in history.

 

[ding]

What was the reason you made it?

My mother was in Aruba. There were a few important people who required turkey. The one with ovaries gets the job.

So there was a reason?

Did the turkey dinner serve it's purpose?

Sure.

So would you say from the human perspective that when we create things we create them for a reason to serve a purpose?

If the answer is yes, my next question is why do you think that is a human attribute and not an attribute of the act of creating?

That's so easy to answer. ding.


1. all created things were not on-purpose.

2. humans create some things purposefully, and some things accidentally.

Therefore what?

Your thoughts are incoherent.

But when they create things accidentally it was because they set out to create something different. So for all of those things that weren't created accidentally, they were created for a reason to serve a purpose.

So the question is was the universe created on purpose to create intelligence or is intelligence an accident. Given that life and intelligence are embedded in the laws of nature, I believe it is the former. After all it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. Order from chaos when the universe is programmed for disorder makes me suspicious.

 

[ding]

Philosophers have put holes in every syllogism thats attempted to prove a deity, rationally.

Pick any one of them...

the tag argument

the kalam cosmological argument...



They all have errors, and these errors are why God requires faith. Its not rationally n'or empirically proven to exist to any peer reviewed/testable satisfaction, which is why faith is in the mix at all.

So it would make more sense for Ding to just say "I believe in a Creator and God" and be done with all that trying to make it logical in some way.
I would definitely respect that. Crummy logic though, that I can argue without going to hell, I think.

I don't see it that way but I can totally see how my opinions would threaten you guys and need to be minimized. I've seen pack behavior before. It is quite fascinating.

Ding, the fact that I tend to agree with GT and Indiana does NOT mean that I want to gang up on you. Honestly. I was curious and I'm not disrespecting your beliefs. But faith is different from logical arguments. I'm not saying you're wrong either, because I don't know if there is a Universal Mind of some kind, or a God who spoke to Moses, or what. I just didn't see the logic of your argument. Don't be hurt.

Look, these guys are pissed off about religion and you are too.

It will all work itself out in the end the way it is supposed to. That's the beauty of normalizing deviance. Predictable surprises will follow. Sort of like when people made fun of handicaps. It all evened out in the end, right?

Here come the slogans and cliches.

Normalization of deviance is a real thing. Ignore it at your own peril.

 

[G.T.]

I think it's formally called Presuppositional Apologetics.

Pfft...why do religious people get a special label? They get no special treatment from me. In science, we would call them liars and charlatans. But hey, let's protect their feelings, since they defer to a "major religion", and those people could band together and kill us....

I don't take issue with anyone having a hypothesis about origins, I only take issue when they imply that it's rationally proven, fall apart under cross examination and then devolve from there.

Religion itself is bothersome because so much of it is laughable, but a god or gods or an alien or comouter symbiote (etc etc etc)....? All alright to ponder with an open mind I think.

Sure, same with unicorns making ice cream in the 6th dimension, or astrology, or voodoo. But it's important to be clear that all of these fantasy ideas go on the same shelf. Tell a religious person that, and watch the reaction...so there is more to it than simply "forcing others to believe". We have to coexist.

Im with you on Religion.

I wouldnt make a positive claim about the origin of exitence itself, though.

I simply dont know.

Right, we don't know. And science has taught us WHY we don't know: our observable universe is finite, and we cannot observe things outside of it. So religion even fails at telling us WHY we don't know... while at the same time, claiming to know. Biggest con in history.

I think it will go away, eventually. Westernization seems to make people convert from literalists, to the bible is not Literal (because society evolves and drags their disturbed practices & ideas with it), to going to Church on Christmas.

Its still going to be a while until its relegated to simple cult-status. Its there for me, now.

 

[G.T.]

My mother was in Aruba. There were a few important people who required turkey. The one with ovaries gets the job.

So there was a reason?

Did the turkey dinner serve it's purpose?

Sure.

So would you say from the human perspective that when we create things we create them for a reason to serve a purpose?

If the answer is yes, my next question is why do you think that is a human attribute and not an attribute of the act of creating?

That's so easy to answer. ding.


1. all created things were not on-purpose.

2. humans create some things purposefully, and some things accidentally.

Therefore what?

Your thoughts are incoherent.

But when they create things accidentally it was because they set out to create something different. So for all of those things that weren't created accidentally, they were created for a reason to serve a purpose.

So the question is was the universe created on purpose to create intelligence or is intelligence an accident. Given that life and intelligence are embedded in the laws of nature, I believe it is the former. After all it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. Order from chaos when the universe is programmed for disorder makes me suspicious.

I'm not interested in your beliefs. I'm interested in what can be established, empirically.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So the question is was the universe created on purpose to create intelligence or is intelligence an accident.

No, that's your loaded question, which has a pre-prescribed answer, and which is contrived to suit your magical paradigm. Incredulous, rational people have no need of such a stupid, false dichotomy, or of such charlatan's tactics.

"Either it rains on a given day, or it does not. Therefore, 50% chance of rain, every day."

Signed,

Ding