Henotheism and Atheism

[ding]

Looking at it from an human evolutionary perspective we could say prehistoric man's only purpose was to survive and procreate. Since we are primates we can assume we evolved as social creatures. The culmination of that social evolution is what has made us what we are. We are no longer simply a product of the natural environment and we are more a product of our societies than anything else.

Throughout history every society has overwhelmingly held the belief that man is more than just matter and that there is a higher power than man. From the atheist's vantage point these beliefs AND BEHAVIORS exist because of evolutionary forces. But the reality is that even that argument confirms that these beliefs AND BEHAVIORS offer a functional advantage over materialism. According to natural selection there are two main components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation. So even natural selection confirms that these beliefs AND BEHAVIORS lead to success. Otherwise, according to natural selection, these beliefs AND BEHAVIORS would have been abandoned long ago. As mankind has gained more and more knowledge of his natural surroundings his desire for spirituality has not diminished. In fact, the more materialistic mankind became the less satisfied mankind became. It's all very logical.

Man has always used gods to explain what they didn't comprehend. As we have understood more and more of our environment we have discarded those gods. The belief in some everlasting spirit is nothing but a manifestation of our fear of death and that we will somehow continue to live on after death.

And I'll grant you that religion did have a societal effect as all measures of control do. When the ruling class can get the masses to think that if they behaved than there would be some reward beyond the misery of their existence then you get an obedient populace and that makes the success of a society more likely not to mention that it enriches the powers that be, including the religious orders which gave those institutions even more power.

So we boil it all down to the biggest of our unanswered questions.

How did we get here and what happens after we die.

We don't really know what caused the inception of the universe and we certainly don't understand anything but a fraction of our universe. And we may never understand it. We as sentient creature that fear death like to think that our consciousness (spirit) that makes us the individuals we are won't simply vanish when we die.

Looking at it from an human evolutionary perspective we could say prehistoric man's only purpose was to survive and procreate. Since we are primates we can assume we evolved as social creatures. The culmination of that social evolution is what has made us what we are. We are no longer simply a product of the natural environment and we are more a product of our societies than anything else.

Throughout history every society has overwhelmingly held the belief that man is more than just matter and that there is a higher power than man. From the atheist's vantage point these beliefs AND BEHAVIORS exist because of evolutionary forces. But the reality is that even that argument confirms that these beliefs AND BEHAVIORS offer a functional advantage over materialism. According to natural selection there are two main components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation. So even natural selection confirms that these beliefs AND BEHAVIORS lead to success. Otherwise, according to natural selection, these beliefs AND BEHAVIORS would have been abandoned long ago. As mankind has gained more and more knowledge of his natural surroundings his desire for spirituality has not diminished. In fact, the more materialistic mankind became the less satisfied mankind became. It's all very logical.

Man has always used gods to explain what they didn't comprehend. As we have understood more and more of our environment we have discarded those gods. The belief in some everlasting spirit is nothing but a manifestation of our fear of death and that we will somehow continue to live on after death.

And I'll grant you that religion did have a societal effect as all measures of control do. When the ruling class can get the masses to think that if they behaved than there would be some reward beyond the misery of their existence then you get an obedient populace and that makes the success of a society more likely not to mention that it enriches the powers that be, including the religious orders which gave those institutions even more power.

So we boil it all down to the biggest of our unanswered questions.

How did we get here and what happens after we die.

We don't really know what caused the inception of the universe and we certainly don't understand anything but a fraction of our universe. And we may never understand it. We as sentient creature that fear death like to think that our consciousness (spirit) that makes us the individuals we are won't simply vanish when we die. So we will continue to speculate the existence of creators and afterlives until we can actually understand them. And since I believe we may be incapable of understanding them due to the physical limitations of our brains then we will always speculate about the mystical as a cause for the physical world we do not understand

And yet natural selection confirms that belief in God is functionally superior to materialism.

No it doesn't.

Of course natural selection confirms that spirituality offers a functional advantage to materialism. If it didn't everyone would be atheist.

If that were true then food, air and water would be less important than spirituality. The material is far more important because without there would be no man made concept of the spirit

No, that wouldn't be true. Spirituality is not absence of the material. Spirituality is not worshiping the material. Materialism is the absence of spirituality. In that regard, spirituality offers functional advantages that materialism cannot provide.

Throughout history every society has overwhelmingly held the belief that man is more than just matter and that there is a higher power than man. From the atheist's vantage point these beliefs AND BEHAVIORS exist because of evolutionary forces. But the reality is that even that argument confirms that these beliefs AND BEHAVIORS offer a functional advantage over materialism. According to natural selection there are two main components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation. So even natural selection confirms that these beliefs AND BEHAVIORS lead to success. Otherwise, according to natural selection, these beliefs AND BEHAVIORS would have been abandoned long ago. As mankind has gained more and more knowledge of his natural surroundings his desire for spirituality has not diminished. In fact, the more materialistic mankind became the less satisfied mankind became. It's all very logical.

So once again I see that I need to reorder my Dingtionary

No. You just need to stop being subjective and having a preference for an outcome.

I have no preference. You on the other hand exclude all possibilities but one.

Neither of those statements are true. I started my journey by looking at the only two options which exist; God created existence (aka space and time) or existence created itself. So, no. I did not exclude all possibilities but one.

I believe you are subjective because the positions you take are illogical and incongruent. You believe truth is relative yet you make absolute statements. You believe events randomly occur but say you believe in cause and effect. You believe morals instead of humans are subjective. You believe purpose is defined by the misuse of what something was intended to be used for. You believe that intelligence is an accidental outcome instead of the natural evolution of space and time. And you believe that logical truths, scientific truths and mathematical truths were invented rather than discovered.

When you say the sole purpose of the universe is the creating of intelligent life you are excluding the possibility that the universe has no purpose and just is.

The fact of the matter is we do not know what happened in the picosecond before the universe came to be so we do not know the cause. You assume there are only 2 options.

Did I say sole purpose?

I'm pretty sure I said the reason why the universe was created was for us to share in God's existence. The universe being an intelligence creating machine - metaphorically speaking - is a manifestation of that intent.

The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.

Well we are back to where we started as there is no evidence that a creator exists.

Creation is the evidence for God. It's not an accident that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence. I don't think you have ever thought this through or made a serious attempt at evaluating the evidence.

 

[ding]

you are excluding the possibility that the universe has no purpose and just is.

Actually I didn't. Like I said before... I started my journey by looking at the only two options which exist; God created existence (aka space and time) or existence created itself. So, no. I did not exclude the possibility that the universe has no purpose and just is. In fact what I have said before is this...

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional.

So I started my evaluation from two possible mutually exclusive positions; 1. the universe was created by God intentionally and has a purpose. And 2. the universe was not created by God and has no purpose.

So you are wrong again.

When you start with a preconceived and arbitrary set of just 2 possibilities you cannot come to any conclusions that are not preconceived or arbitrary.

They aren't arbitrary. There are the only two options which exist. All other options will simplify to one of these two mutually exclusive options. The fact that you can't name another possible option which does not simplify to one of these two mutually exclusive options proves that your statement that I started with an arbitrary set of just 2 possibilities is WRONG. You can always prove me wrong by naming another possibility which does not simplify to one of the only two options which exist.

Are these two options preconceived? Well I did start with everything I could think of and they all simplified into one of these two mutually exclusive options. So it was only preconceived like all evaluations are preconceived when one is trying to list all of the options. It was not preconceived in the manner you are suggesting which is to mean biased. If I were biased I would only consider one of these two options like YOU have done.

 

[Blues Man]

If the universe has a purpose then I must have a purpose. If the universe has no purpose then I must have no purpose.

The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. If a constant presence of mind intentionally created the universe, then it was created for a purpose. If the universe was not created by a constant presence of mind then it would have not been intentionally created and it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do.

Do you agree?

So you think that your purpose is defined by something outside yourself?

You are operating on a big if and instead of regarding that if as a hypothetical you are operating as if that if then hypothetical condition is proven fact.

Purpose is not defined by the creator of anything. It is defined by the user.

The inventor of a wrench can try to tell me that the purpose of the wrench is to apply torque to a particular size nut. But if I use that wrench to strike a person in self defense I have defined the purpose of the wrench in that instant to be a weapon.

So purpose is subjective and defined by the person using a tool not the person who created the tool.

And I see nothing contradictory in believing the universe was not created for a purpose. The universe simply is what it is.

Purpose is defined by what something was made for. We were made to know and to create.

A hammer was made to hammer. A lawn mower was made to cut grass. The universe was made to create intelligence.

No purpose is defined by the intent of user.
I can use a knife to cut food, chop wood or stab a person. I decide the purpose of that knife.
If I use a lawn mower to kill a person than I defined that lawn mowers purpose in that instance.


And we do not how how the universe came to be so for a human being being so insignificant to claim he knows the purpose of the universe is outrageously arrogant and not to mention conceited.

As I said we humans have a penchant for grandiose thinking and we think so much of ourselves that we like to think we are the very image of a god and that the universe was made just for us.

I hate to burst your bubble but we are an insignificant life form in one galaxy among a couple trillion galaxies.

The purpose of a lawn mower is to cut grass no matter how many people you kill with it.

The purpose of a knife is to cut.

There is nothing special about humans. Being the pinnacle of creation means we are the most complex thing the universe has produced. The universe is an intelligence creating machine. Intelligence is written into the laws of nature and the fabric of existence.

I disagree.

If I use a wrench to pound a nail into a piece of wood I have defined the purpose of that wrench in that instant as a tool to pound a nail it doesn't matter to the wrench what its inventor designed it for and it certainly doesn't matter to me, the user of the tool. It is the intent of the person using a tool that defines its purpose and that purpose can change.

The universe isn't a machine.

With logic like that you could argue the purpose of a vagina is to hold cement.

So now we equate inanimate objects with actual body parts of living beings? With logic like that I could say that a gun kills people of its own volition.

It's your logic. You said you define purpose on how you use something. So if you used a vagina to fill it with cement you would be defining the purpose of a vagina to hold cement.

But I agree with you that it's illogical to define purpose that way.

I do not use the vaginas of women.

A vagina is not a tool it was not invented by anyone. I don't think I should have to explain this to anyone of reasonable intelligence.

I did not say you would use a vagina to hold cement. I said if you did according to YOUR logic you would have defined the purpose of a vagina to be a container for cement. You said you define purpose by how you use something not by what that something was made for. Right? Those were YOUR words, right?

So tell me who invented the vagina?

Is the vagina a tool? Can someone other than the woman use her vagina ?

This line of thought is beyond ludicrous.

I never equated a body part with TOOL.

The wielder of the tool defines the purpose of that tool by his INTENT.

I can use a bucket to mix cement even though the inventor of the bucket said the purpose of the bucket was to carry water.
I can use a wrench to kill a person even though the inventor states the purpose of the wrench is to apply torque to a nut.
I can use a rock which has no inventor as a tool for any number of purposes that I define by my intent.

No one invented the vagina just like no one invented logic. But it doesn't matter because I am employing YOUR logic that purpose is defined by how something is used and not what it was intended for.

A vagina is not a tool. Some men use a woman's vagina without her permission. But it doesn't matter because I am employing YOUR logic that purpose is defined by how something is used and not what it was intended for.

I agree that YOUR line of thought/logic - that purpose is defined by how something is used and not what it was intended for - is ludicrous.

I never said you equated a body part with TOOL. I am employing YOUR logic to show you how ludicrous it is to define purpose by how something is used and not what it was intended for.

The wielder of the tool does NOT define the purpose of that tool by his INTENT. You are trying to define the rule through exception which is illogical.

Yes, you can use a bucket to mix cement. A bucket is a container. The purpose of a bucket is to contain. You arguing that the bucket was only designed to contain water shows you are biased and unable to be objective because you have a preference for an outcome. Which in this case is defining the rule by exception.

Yes, you can use a wrench to kill a person even though the inventor states the purpose of the wrench is to apply torque to a nut. That still doesn't mean the purpose of a wrench is to kill people. You are trying to define the rule through exception which is illogical.

Yes, you can use a rock which has no inventor as a tool for any number of purposes that you define by your intent. Which has no bearing on the conversation that the purpose of the universe is to produce intelligence.

Man invented logic as a system of rules for correct inference.

The wielder of the tool defines the purpose with his intent and that has nothing to do with the inventor's purpose for inventing that tool.

Purpose is defined by the intent of the user.

The inventor's intent may have been to produce a tool to perform a certain function but that does not eliminate all the other ways that same tool can be used and only the person using the tool decide it's purpose by imposing his own intent.

In fact I'll argue that it is the human ability to use tools in ways other than the intent of the inventor that is one of the reasons we have been so successful as a species.

So in order for the universe to have a purpose as you claim then there had to be a creator with the intent to create a universe that produces intelligent life forms. As we have yet to find any evidence of said creator.

Again... logic is an artifact of intelligence. Logic, like truth, is objective. Logic and truth cannot be anything man wants them to be. Logic and truth exist independent of man. Man did not invent logic or truth. Man discovered logic and truth just like Einstein discovered e=mc^2.

The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. Defining purpose solely on use is trying to define the exception as the rule. You can absolutely use a wrench to drive a nail and for that very limited point in time that would be its purpose but the rule is that that is not the purpose of a wrench. Only someone who is subjective would try to define that as the purpose of a wrench.

Yes, I believe the reason God created existence was intentional and was done so we could share in His existence. I believe the purpose of the universe was to create beings that know and create to share in God's existence. The evidence for this are the physical, biological and moral laws of nature. So the evidence for God's existence is what God created. But to do that you would need to start with a realistic perception of God and then evaluate the only evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself.

It's not an accident that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence.

Seeing a relationship between mass and energy has nothing to do with mathematics or logic.

Mathematics was invented to describe phenomena in the physical world like the path of a thrown object or the acceleration of a falling object. No one "discovered" gravity.

But Newton invented the math to describe the motion of objects.

He did not discover motion and he invented calculus as a way to calculate approximate solutions using derivatives.

 

[Blues Man]

Looking at it from an human evolutionary perspective we could say prehistoric man's only purpose was to survive and procreate. Since we are primates we can assume we evolved as social creatures. The culmination of that social evolution is what has made us what we are. We are no longer simply a product of the natural environment and we are more a product of our societies than anything else.

Throughout history every society has overwhelmingly held the belief that man is more than just matter and that there is a higher power than man. From the atheist's vantage point these beliefs AND BEHAVIORS exist because of evolutionary forces. But the reality is that even that argument confirms that these beliefs AND BEHAVIORS offer a functional advantage over materialism. According to natural selection there are two main components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation. So even natural selection confirms that these beliefs AND BEHAVIORS lead to success. Otherwise, according to natural selection, these beliefs AND BEHAVIORS would have been abandoned long ago. As mankind has gained more and more knowledge of his natural surroundings his desire for spirituality has not diminished. In fact, the more materialistic mankind became the less satisfied mankind became. It's all very logical.

Man has always used gods to explain what they didn't comprehend. As we have understood more and more of our environment we have discarded those gods. The belief in some everlasting spirit is nothing but a manifestation of our fear of death and that we will somehow continue to live on after death.

And I'll grant you that religion did have a societal effect as all measures of control do. When the ruling class can get the masses to think that if they behaved than there would be some reward beyond the misery of their existence then you get an obedient populace and that makes the success of a society more likely not to mention that it enriches the powers that be, including the religious orders which gave those institutions even more power.

So we boil it all down to the biggest of our unanswered questions.

How did we get here and what happens after we die.

We don't really know what caused the inception of the universe and we certainly don't understand anything but a fraction of our universe. And we may never understand it. We as sentient creature that fear death like to think that our consciousness (spirit) that makes us the individuals we are won't simply vanish when we die.

Looking at it from an human evolutionary perspective we could say prehistoric man's only purpose was to survive and procreate. Since we are primates we can assume we evolved as social creatures. The culmination of that social evolution is what has made us what we are. We are no longer simply a product of the natural environment and we are more a product of our societies than anything else.

Throughout history every society has overwhelmingly held the belief that man is more than just matter and that there is a higher power than man. From the atheist's vantage point these beliefs AND BEHAVIORS exist because of evolutionary forces. But the reality is that even that argument confirms that these beliefs AND BEHAVIORS offer a functional advantage over materialism. According to natural selection there are two main components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation. So even natural selection confirms that these beliefs AND BEHAVIORS lead to success. Otherwise, according to natural selection, these beliefs AND BEHAVIORS would have been abandoned long ago. As mankind has gained more and more knowledge of his natural surroundings his desire for spirituality has not diminished. In fact, the more materialistic mankind became the less satisfied mankind became. It's all very logical.

Man has always used gods to explain what they didn't comprehend. As we have understood more and more of our environment we have discarded those gods. The belief in some everlasting spirit is nothing but a manifestation of our fear of death and that we will somehow continue to live on after death.

And I'll grant you that religion did have a societal effect as all measures of control do. When the ruling class can get the masses to think that if they behaved than there would be some reward beyond the misery of their existence then you get an obedient populace and that makes the success of a society more likely not to mention that it enriches the powers that be, including the religious orders which gave those institutions even more power.

So we boil it all down to the biggest of our unanswered questions.

How did we get here and what happens after we die.

We don't really know what caused the inception of the universe and we certainly don't understand anything but a fraction of our universe. And we may never understand it. We as sentient creature that fear death like to think that our consciousness (spirit) that makes us the individuals we are won't simply vanish when we die. So we will continue to speculate the existence of creators and afterlives until we can actually understand them. And since I believe we may be incapable of understanding them due to the physical limitations of our brains then we will always speculate about the mystical as a cause for the physical world we do not understand

And yet natural selection confirms that belief in God is functionally superior to materialism.

No it doesn't.

Of course natural selection confirms that spirituality offers a functional advantage to materialism. If it didn't everyone would be atheist.

If that were true then food, air and water would be less important than spirituality. The material is far more important because without there would be no man made concept of the spirit

No, that wouldn't be true. Spirituality is not absence of the material. Spirituality is not worshiping the material. Materialism is the absence of spirituality. In that regard, spirituality offers functional advantages that materialism cannot provide.

Throughout history every society has overwhelmingly held the belief that man is more than just matter and that there is a higher power than man. From the atheist's vantage point these beliefs AND BEHAVIORS exist because of evolutionary forces. But the reality is that even that argument confirms that these beliefs AND BEHAVIORS offer a functional advantage over materialism. According to natural selection there are two main components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation. So even natural selection confirms that these beliefs AND BEHAVIORS lead to success. Otherwise, according to natural selection, these beliefs AND BEHAVIORS would have been abandoned long ago. As mankind has gained more and more knowledge of his natural surroundings his desire for spirituality has not diminished. In fact, the more materialistic mankind became the less satisfied mankind became. It's all very logical.

So once again I see that I need to reorder my Dingtionary

No. You just need to stop being subjective and having a preference for an outcome.

I have no preference. You on the other hand exclude all possibilities but one.

Neither of those statements are true. I started my journey by looking at the only two options which exist; God created existence (aka space and time) or existence created itself. So, no. I did not exclude all possibilities but one.

I believe you are subjective because the positions you take are illogical and incongruent. You believe truth is relative yet you make absolute statements. You believe events randomly occur but say you believe in cause and effect. You believe morals instead of humans are subjective. You believe purpose is defined by the misuse of what something was intended to be used for. You believe that intelligence is an accidental outcome instead of the natural evolution of space and time. And you believe that logical truths, scientific truths and mathematical truths were invented rather than discovered.

When you say the sole purpose of the universe is the creating of intelligent life you are excluding the possibility that the universe has no purpose and just is.

The fact of the matter is we do not know what happened in the picosecond before the universe came to be so we do not know the cause. You assume there are only 2 options.

Did I say sole purpose?

I'm pretty sure I said the reason why the universe was created was for us to share in God's existence. The universe being an intelligence creating machine - metaphorically speaking - is a manifestation of that intent.

The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.

Well we are back to where we started as there is no evidence that a creator exists.

Creation is the evidence for God. It's not an accident that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence. I don't think you have ever thought this through or made a serious attempt at evaluating the evidence.

I disagree.

We do not know what happened in the picoseconds before the universe came to be. And we can only state what happened in the picoseconds after the universe came into being. it is not logical to assume that an absence of knowledge of those brief moments infers the existence of a god.

 

[Blues Man]

you are excluding the possibility that the universe has no purpose and just is.

Actually I didn't. Like I said before... I started my journey by looking at the only two options which exist; God created existence (aka space and time) or existence created itself. So, no. I did not exclude the possibility that the universe has no purpose and just is. In fact what I have said before is this...

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional.

So I started my evaluation from two possible mutually exclusive positions; 1. the universe was created by God intentionally and has a purpose. And 2. the universe was not created by God and has no purpose.

So you are wrong again.

When you start with a preconceived and arbitrary set of just 2 possibilities you cannot come to any conclusions that are not preconceived or arbitrary.

They aren't arbitrary. There are the only two options which exist. All other options will simplify to one of these two mutually exclusive options. The fact that you can't name another possible option which does not simplify to one of these two mutually exclusive options proves that your statement that I started with an arbitrary set of just 2 possibilities is WRONG. You can always prove me wrong by naming another possibility which does not simplify to one of the only two options which exist.

Are these two options preconceived? Well I did start with everything I could think of and they all simplified into one of these two mutually exclusive options. So it was only preconceived like all evaluations are preconceived when one is trying to list all of the options. It was not preconceived in the manner you are suggesting which is to mean biased. If I were biased I would only consider one of these two options like YOU have done.

The fact that we cannot conceive of more than 2 options is proof that we are limited in our thinking and are most likely physically incapable of understanding the processes of the inception of the universe. We are beings that can only perceive 3 dimensions but we live in a space that has at least 4 dimensions. For all we know, the only way to grasp the inception of the universe is to be able to perceive that 4th dimension.

If we were 2 dimensional beings living in a 3 dimensional space we would think that anything entering our 2 dimensional world from the third dimension would simply appear as if from nowhere and we would only ever be able to perceive a 2 dimensional cross section of that thing.

My dog will never comprehend prime numbers and she evolved out of the same stuff humans did. It is therefore not only reasonable to assume but also probable that the human brain has its own limitations.

The invention of a god to explain what we do not comprehend is a human characteristic and we've done that very thing throughout our existence

 

[ding]

If the universe has a purpose then I must have a purpose. If the universe has no purpose then I must have no purpose.

The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. If a constant presence of mind intentionally created the universe, then it was created for a purpose. If the universe was not created by a constant presence of mind then it would have not been intentionally created and it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do.

Do you agree?

So you think that your purpose is defined by something outside yourself?

You are operating on a big if and instead of regarding that if as a hypothetical you are operating as if that if then hypothetical condition is proven fact.

Purpose is not defined by the creator of anything. It is defined by the user.

The inventor of a wrench can try to tell me that the purpose of the wrench is to apply torque to a particular size nut. But if I use that wrench to strike a person in self defense I have defined the purpose of the wrench in that instant to be a weapon.

So purpose is subjective and defined by the person using a tool not the person who created the tool.

And I see nothing contradictory in believing the universe was not created for a purpose. The universe simply is what it is.

Purpose is defined by what something was made for. We were made to know and to create.

A hammer was made to hammer. A lawn mower was made to cut grass. The universe was made to create intelligence.

No purpose is defined by the intent of user.
I can use a knife to cut food, chop wood or stab a person. I decide the purpose of that knife.
If I use a lawn mower to kill a person than I defined that lawn mowers purpose in that instance.


And we do not how how the universe came to be so for a human being being so insignificant to claim he knows the purpose of the universe is outrageously arrogant and not to mention conceited.

As I said we humans have a penchant for grandiose thinking and we think so much of ourselves that we like to think we are the very image of a god and that the universe was made just for us.

I hate to burst your bubble but we are an insignificant life form in one galaxy among a couple trillion galaxies.

The purpose of a lawn mower is to cut grass no matter how many people you kill with it.

The purpose of a knife is to cut.

There is nothing special about humans. Being the pinnacle of creation means we are the most complex thing the universe has produced. The universe is an intelligence creating machine. Intelligence is written into the laws of nature and the fabric of existence.

I disagree.

If I use a wrench to pound a nail into a piece of wood I have defined the purpose of that wrench in that instant as a tool to pound a nail it doesn't matter to the wrench what its inventor designed it for and it certainly doesn't matter to me, the user of the tool. It is the intent of the person using a tool that defines its purpose and that purpose can change.

The universe isn't a machine.

With logic like that you could argue the purpose of a vagina is to hold cement.

So now we equate inanimate objects with actual body parts of living beings? With logic like that I could say that a gun kills people of its own volition.

It's your logic. You said you define purpose on how you use something. So if you used a vagina to fill it with cement you would be defining the purpose of a vagina to hold cement.

But I agree with you that it's illogical to define purpose that way.

I do not use the vaginas of women.

A vagina is not a tool it was not invented by anyone. I don't think I should have to explain this to anyone of reasonable intelligence.

I did not say you would use a vagina to hold cement. I said if you did according to YOUR logic you would have defined the purpose of a vagina to be a container for cement. You said you define purpose by how you use something not by what that something was made for. Right? Those were YOUR words, right?

So tell me who invented the vagina?

Is the vagina a tool? Can someone other than the woman use her vagina ?

This line of thought is beyond ludicrous.

I never equated a body part with TOOL.

The wielder of the tool defines the purpose of that tool by his INTENT.

I can use a bucket to mix cement even though the inventor of the bucket said the purpose of the bucket was to carry water.
I can use a wrench to kill a person even though the inventor states the purpose of the wrench is to apply torque to a nut.
I can use a rock which has no inventor as a tool for any number of purposes that I define by my intent.

No one invented the vagina just like no one invented logic. But it doesn't matter because I am employing YOUR logic that purpose is defined by how something is used and not what it was intended for.

A vagina is not a tool. Some men use a woman's vagina without her permission. But it doesn't matter because I am employing YOUR logic that purpose is defined by how something is used and not what it was intended for.

I agree that YOUR line of thought/logic - that purpose is defined by how something is used and not what it was intended for - is ludicrous.

I never said you equated a body part with TOOL. I am employing YOUR logic to show you how ludicrous it is to define purpose by how something is used and not what it was intended for.

The wielder of the tool does NOT define the purpose of that tool by his INTENT. You are trying to define the rule through exception which is illogical.

Yes, you can use a bucket to mix cement. A bucket is a container. The purpose of a bucket is to contain. You arguing that the bucket was only designed to contain water shows you are biased and unable to be objective because you have a preference for an outcome. Which in this case is defining the rule by exception.

Yes, you can use a wrench to kill a person even though the inventor states the purpose of the wrench is to apply torque to a nut. That still doesn't mean the purpose of a wrench is to kill people. You are trying to define the rule through exception which is illogical.

Yes, you can use a rock which has no inventor as a tool for any number of purposes that you define by your intent. Which has no bearing on the conversation that the purpose of the universe is to produce intelligence.

Man invented logic as a system of rules for correct inference.

The wielder of the tool defines the purpose with his intent and that has nothing to do with the inventor's purpose for inventing that tool.

Purpose is defined by the intent of the user.

The inventor's intent may have been to produce a tool to perform a certain function but that does not eliminate all the other ways that same tool can be used and only the person using the tool decide it's purpose by imposing his own intent.

In fact I'll argue that it is the human ability to use tools in ways other than the intent of the inventor that is one of the reasons we have been so successful as a species.

So in order for the universe to have a purpose as you claim then there had to be a creator with the intent to create a universe that produces intelligent life forms. As we have yet to find any evidence of said creator.

Again... logic is an artifact of intelligence. Logic, like truth, is objective. Logic and truth cannot be anything man wants them to be. Logic and truth exist independent of man. Man did not invent logic or truth. Man discovered logic and truth just like Einstein discovered e=mc^2.

The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. Defining purpose solely on use is trying to define the exception as the rule. You can absolutely use a wrench to drive a nail and for that very limited point in time that would be its purpose but the rule is that that is not the purpose of a wrench. Only someone who is subjective would try to define that as the purpose of a wrench.

Yes, I believe the reason God created existence was intentional and was done so we could share in His existence. I believe the purpose of the universe was to create beings that know and create to share in God's existence. The evidence for this are the physical, biological and moral laws of nature. So the evidence for God's existence is what God created. But to do that you would need to start with a realistic perception of God and then evaluate the only evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself.

It's not an accident that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence.

Seeing a relationship between mass and energy has nothing to do with mathematics or logic.

Mathematics was invented to describe phenomena in the physical world like the path of a thrown object or the acceleration of a falling object. No one "discovered" gravity.

But Newton invented the math to describe the motion of objects.

He did not discover motion and he invented calculus as a way to calculate approximate solutions using derivatives.

Discovering the phenomenon and representing that discovery mathematically absolutely does have something to do with logic and mathematics. Einstein discovered a discrepancy between Newton and Maxwell's discoveries using logic. He resolved that discrepancy using logic and represented that discovery numerically through mathematics.

Mathematical truths - like logical truths and reality - exist independent of man. All theorems are discovered using logic and proven to be true. Mathematics are a tool used by man to represent physical phenomenon. Mathematical truths are discovered.

Newton discovered the phenomenon and used math as a tool to represent the phenomenon numerically. Newton did not invent the laws of physics. Newton discovered the laws of physics. The Laws of physics - like logical truths and mathematical truths and reality itself exists independent of man.

 

[ding]

Looking at it from an human evolutionary perspective we could say prehistoric man's only purpose was to survive and procreate. Since we are primates we can assume we evolved as social creatures. The culmination of that social evolution is what has made us what we are. We are no longer simply a product of the natural environment and we are more a product of our societies than anything else.

Throughout history every society has overwhelmingly held the belief that man is more than just matter and that there is a higher power than man. From the atheist's vantage point these beliefs AND BEHAVIORS exist because of evolutionary forces. But the reality is that even that argument confirms that these beliefs AND BEHAVIORS offer a functional advantage over materialism. According to natural selection there are two main components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation. So even natural selection confirms that these beliefs AND BEHAVIORS lead to success. Otherwise, according to natural selection, these beliefs AND BEHAVIORS would have been abandoned long ago. As mankind has gained more and more knowledge of his natural surroundings his desire for spirituality has not diminished. In fact, the more materialistic mankind became the less satisfied mankind became. It's all very logical.

Man has always used gods to explain what they didn't comprehend. As we have understood more and more of our environment we have discarded those gods. The belief in some everlasting spirit is nothing but a manifestation of our fear of death and that we will somehow continue to live on after death.

And I'll grant you that religion did have a societal effect as all measures of control do. When the ruling class can get the masses to think that if they behaved than there would be some reward beyond the misery of their existence then you get an obedient populace and that makes the success of a society more likely not to mention that it enriches the powers that be, including the religious orders which gave those institutions even more power.

So we boil it all down to the biggest of our unanswered questions.

How did we get here and what happens after we die.

We don't really know what caused the inception of the universe and we certainly don't understand anything but a fraction of our universe. And we may never understand it. We as sentient creature that fear death like to think that our consciousness (spirit) that makes us the individuals we are won't simply vanish when we die.

Looking at it from an human evolutionary perspective we could say prehistoric man's only purpose was to survive and procreate. Since we are primates we can assume we evolved as social creatures. The culmination of that social evolution is what has made us what we are. We are no longer simply a product of the natural environment and we are more a product of our societies than anything else.

Throughout history every society has overwhelmingly held the belief that man is more than just matter and that there is a higher power than man. From the atheist's vantage point these beliefs AND BEHAVIORS exist because of evolutionary forces. But the reality is that even that argument confirms that these beliefs AND BEHAVIORS offer a functional advantage over materialism. According to natural selection there are two main components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation. So even natural selection confirms that these beliefs AND BEHAVIORS lead to success. Otherwise, according to natural selection, these beliefs AND BEHAVIORS would have been abandoned long ago. As mankind has gained more and more knowledge of his natural surroundings his desire for spirituality has not diminished. In fact, the more materialistic mankind became the less satisfied mankind became. It's all very logical.

Man has always used gods to explain what they didn't comprehend. As we have understood more and more of our environment we have discarded those gods. The belief in some everlasting spirit is nothing but a manifestation of our fear of death and that we will somehow continue to live on after death.

And I'll grant you that religion did have a societal effect as all measures of control do. When the ruling class can get the masses to think that if they behaved than there would be some reward beyond the misery of their existence then you get an obedient populace and that makes the success of a society more likely not to mention that it enriches the powers that be, including the religious orders which gave those institutions even more power.

So we boil it all down to the biggest of our unanswered questions.

How did we get here and what happens after we die.

We don't really know what caused the inception of the universe and we certainly don't understand anything but a fraction of our universe. And we may never understand it. We as sentient creature that fear death like to think that our consciousness (spirit) that makes us the individuals we are won't simply vanish when we die. So we will continue to speculate the existence of creators and afterlives until we can actually understand them. And since I believe we may be incapable of understanding them due to the physical limitations of our brains then we will always speculate about the mystical as a cause for the physical world we do not understand

And yet natural selection confirms that belief in God is functionally superior to materialism.

No it doesn't.

Of course natural selection confirms that spirituality offers a functional advantage to materialism. If it didn't everyone would be atheist.

If that were true then food, air and water would be less important than spirituality. The material is far more important because without there would be no man made concept of the spirit

No, that wouldn't be true. Spirituality is not absence of the material. Spirituality is not worshiping the material. Materialism is the absence of spirituality. In that regard, spirituality offers functional advantages that materialism cannot provide.

Throughout history every society has overwhelmingly held the belief that man is more than just matter and that there is a higher power than man. From the atheist's vantage point these beliefs AND BEHAVIORS exist because of evolutionary forces. But the reality is that even that argument confirms that these beliefs AND BEHAVIORS offer a functional advantage over materialism. According to natural selection there are two main components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation. So even natural selection confirms that these beliefs AND BEHAVIORS lead to success. Otherwise, according to natural selection, these beliefs AND BEHAVIORS would have been abandoned long ago. As mankind has gained more and more knowledge of his natural surroundings his desire for spirituality has not diminished. In fact, the more materialistic mankind became the less satisfied mankind became. It's all very logical.

So once again I see that I need to reorder my Dingtionary

No. You just need to stop being subjective and having a preference for an outcome.

I have no preference. You on the other hand exclude all possibilities but one.

Neither of those statements are true. I started my journey by looking at the only two options which exist; God created existence (aka space and time) or existence created itself. So, no. I did not exclude all possibilities but one.

I believe you are subjective because the positions you take are illogical and incongruent. You believe truth is relative yet you make absolute statements. You believe events randomly occur but say you believe in cause and effect. You believe morals instead of humans are subjective. You believe purpose is defined by the misuse of what something was intended to be used for. You believe that intelligence is an accidental outcome instead of the natural evolution of space and time. And you believe that logical truths, scientific truths and mathematical truths were invented rather than discovered.

When you say the sole purpose of the universe is the creating of intelligent life you are excluding the possibility that the universe has no purpose and just is.

The fact of the matter is we do not know what happened in the picosecond before the universe came to be so we do not know the cause. You assume there are only 2 options.

Did I say sole purpose?

I'm pretty sure I said the reason why the universe was created was for us to share in God's existence. The universe being an intelligence creating machine - metaphorically speaking - is a manifestation of that intent.

The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.

Well we are back to where we started as there is no evidence that a creator exists.

Creation is the evidence for God. It's not an accident that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence. I don't think you have ever thought this through or made a serious attempt at evaluating the evidence.

I disagree.

We do not know what happened in the picoseconds before the universe came to be. And we can only state what happened in the picoseconds after the universe came into being. it is not logical to assume that an absence of knowledge of those brief moments infers the existence of a god.

Cosmic background radiation, red shift, FLoT, SLoT, inflation theory, an expanding universe and Friedman's solutions to Einstein's field equations all say the universe was created from nothing and then began to expand and cool. If you want to argue against science be my guest.

 

[ding]

you are excluding the possibility that the universe has no purpose and just is.

Actually I didn't. Like I said before... I started my journey by looking at the only two options which exist; God created existence (aka space and time) or existence created itself. So, no. I did not exclude the possibility that the universe has no purpose and just is. In fact what I have said before is this...

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional.

So I started my evaluation from two possible mutually exclusive positions; 1. the universe was created by God intentionally and has a purpose. And 2. the universe was not created by God and has no purpose.

So you are wrong again.

When you start with a preconceived and arbitrary set of just 2 possibilities you cannot come to any conclusions that are not preconceived or arbitrary.

They aren't arbitrary. There are the only two options which exist. All other options will simplify to one of these two mutually exclusive options. The fact that you can't name another possible option which does not simplify to one of these two mutually exclusive options proves that your statement that I started with an arbitrary set of just 2 possibilities is WRONG. You can always prove me wrong by naming another possibility which does not simplify to one of the only two options which exist.

Are these two options preconceived? Well I did start with everything I could think of and they all simplified into one of these two mutually exclusive options. So it was only preconceived like all evaluations are preconceived when one is trying to list all of the options. It was not preconceived in the manner you are suggesting which is to mean biased. If I were biased I would only consider one of these two options like YOU have done.

The fact that we cannot conceive of more than 2 options is proof that we are limited in our thinking and are most likely physically incapable of understanding the processes of the inception of the universe. We are beings that can only perceive 3 dimensions but we live in a space that has at least 4 dimensions. For all we know, the only way to grasp the inception of the universe is to be able to perceive that 4th dimension.

If we were 2 dimensional beings living in a 3 dimensional space we would think that anything entering our 2 dimensional world from the third dimension would simply appear as if from nowhere and we would only ever be able to perceive a 2 dimensional cross section of that thing.

My dog will never comprehend prime numbers and she evolved out of the same stuff humans did. It is therefore not only reasonable to assume but also probable that the human brain has its own limitations.

The invention of a god to explain what we do not comprehend is a human characteristic and we've done that very thing throughout our existence

Actually it is proof that there are only two options. But if you want to argue you can't know anything because you don't know everything be my guest.

 

[Meriweather]

Spirituality is just another concept than mas has invented.

What can a person who holds no interest, no experience--nor has even done any in depth study on God, the supernatural, or spirituality--teach, instruct, or advise others on such matters? It would be like someone who has no interest in art telling the rest of us it has no value, just some worthless thing man invented.

Religion, spirituality, God are not concepts that man invented. They are realities that man has observed, and named. The word "physics" was not used until the 15th century. Surely you are not going to claim that physics is something man invented, and definitely not until after you have spent time on some in depth study. Think about this: Saying that physics is nothing but an invention by mankind highlights ignorance. The same is true of God. Someone who has no interest in God exhibits the same trait as someone who has no interest in Physics, and this is simply to dismiss it out of mind.

 

[ding]

you are excluding the possibility that the universe has no purpose and just is.

Actually I didn't. Like I said before... I started my journey by looking at the only two options which exist; God created existence (aka space and time) or existence created itself. So, no. I did not exclude the possibility that the universe has no purpose and just is. In fact what I have said before is this...

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional.

So I started my evaluation from two possible mutually exclusive positions; 1. the universe was created by God intentionally and has a purpose. And 2. the universe was not created by God and has no purpose.

So you are wrong again.

When you start with a preconceived and arbitrary set of just 2 possibilities you cannot come to any conclusions that are not preconceived or arbitrary.

They aren't arbitrary. There are the only two options which exist. All other options will simplify to one of these two mutually exclusive options. The fact that you can't name another possible option which does not simplify to one of these two mutually exclusive options proves that your statement that I started with an arbitrary set of just 2 possibilities is WRONG. You can always prove me wrong by naming another possibility which does not simplify to one of the only two options which exist.

Are these two options preconceived? Well I did start with everything I could think of and they all simplified into one of these two mutually exclusive options. So it was only preconceived like all evaluations are preconceived when one is trying to list all of the options. It was not preconceived in the manner you are suggesting which is to mean biased. If I were biased I would only consider one of these two options like YOU have done.

The fact that we cannot conceive of more than 2 options is proof that we are limited in our thinking and are most likely physically incapable of understanding the processes of the inception of the universe. We are beings that can only perceive 3 dimensions but we live in a space that has at least 4 dimensions. For all we know, the only way to grasp the inception of the universe is to be able to perceive that 4th dimension.

If we were 2 dimensional beings living in a 3 dimensional space we would think that anything entering our 2 dimensional world from the third dimension would simply appear as if from nowhere and we would only ever be able to perceive a 2 dimensional cross section of that thing.

My dog will never comprehend prime numbers and she evolved out of the same stuff humans did. It is therefore not only reasonable to assume but also probable that the human brain has its own limitations.

The invention of a god to explain what we do not comprehend is a human characteristic and we've done that very thing throughout our existence

There no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

 

[Blues Man]

If the universe has a purpose then I must have a purpose. If the universe has no purpose then I must have no purpose.

The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. If a constant presence of mind intentionally created the universe, then it was created for a purpose. If the universe was not created by a constant presence of mind then it would have not been intentionally created and it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do.

Do you agree?

So you think that your purpose is defined by something outside yourself?

You are operating on a big if and instead of regarding that if as a hypothetical you are operating as if that if then hypothetical condition is proven fact.

Purpose is not defined by the creator of anything. It is defined by the user.

The inventor of a wrench can try to tell me that the purpose of the wrench is to apply torque to a particular size nut. But if I use that wrench to strike a person in self defense I have defined the purpose of the wrench in that instant to be a weapon.

So purpose is subjective and defined by the person using a tool not the person who created the tool.

And I see nothing contradictory in believing the universe was not created for a purpose. The universe simply is what it is.

Purpose is defined by what something was made for. We were made to know and to create.

A hammer was made to hammer. A lawn mower was made to cut grass. The universe was made to create intelligence.

No purpose is defined by the intent of user.
I can use a knife to cut food, chop wood or stab a person. I decide the purpose of that knife.
If I use a lawn mower to kill a person than I defined that lawn mowers purpose in that instance.


And we do not how how the universe came to be so for a human being being so insignificant to claim he knows the purpose of the universe is outrageously arrogant and not to mention conceited.

As I said we humans have a penchant for grandiose thinking and we think so much of ourselves that we like to think we are the very image of a god and that the universe was made just for us.

I hate to burst your bubble but we are an insignificant life form in one galaxy among a couple trillion galaxies.

The purpose of a lawn mower is to cut grass no matter how many people you kill with it.

The purpose of a knife is to cut.

There is nothing special about humans. Being the pinnacle of creation means we are the most complex thing the universe has produced. The universe is an intelligence creating machine. Intelligence is written into the laws of nature and the fabric of existence.

I disagree.

If I use a wrench to pound a nail into a piece of wood I have defined the purpose of that wrench in that instant as a tool to pound a nail it doesn't matter to the wrench what its inventor designed it for and it certainly doesn't matter to me, the user of the tool. It is the intent of the person using a tool that defines its purpose and that purpose can change.

The universe isn't a machine.

With logic like that you could argue the purpose of a vagina is to hold cement.

So now we equate inanimate objects with actual body parts of living beings? With logic like that I could say that a gun kills people of its own volition.

It's your logic. You said you define purpose on how you use something. So if you used a vagina to fill it with cement you would be defining the purpose of a vagina to hold cement.

But I agree with you that it's illogical to define purpose that way.

I do not use the vaginas of women.

A vagina is not a tool it was not invented by anyone. I don't think I should have to explain this to anyone of reasonable intelligence.

I did not say you would use a vagina to hold cement. I said if you did according to YOUR logic you would have defined the purpose of a vagina to be a container for cement. You said you define purpose by how you use something not by what that something was made for. Right? Those were YOUR words, right?

So tell me who invented the vagina?

Is the vagina a tool? Can someone other than the woman use her vagina ?

This line of thought is beyond ludicrous.

I never equated a body part with TOOL.

The wielder of the tool defines the purpose of that tool by his INTENT.

I can use a bucket to mix cement even though the inventor of the bucket said the purpose of the bucket was to carry water.
I can use a wrench to kill a person even though the inventor states the purpose of the wrench is to apply torque to a nut.
I can use a rock which has no inventor as a tool for any number of purposes that I define by my intent.

No one invented the vagina just like no one invented logic. But it doesn't matter because I am employing YOUR logic that purpose is defined by how something is used and not what it was intended for.

A vagina is not a tool. Some men use a woman's vagina without her permission. But it doesn't matter because I am employing YOUR logic that purpose is defined by how something is used and not what it was intended for.

I agree that YOUR line of thought/logic - that purpose is defined by how something is used and not what it was intended for - is ludicrous.

I never said you equated a body part with TOOL. I am employing YOUR logic to show you how ludicrous it is to define purpose by how something is used and not what it was intended for.

The wielder of the tool does NOT define the purpose of that tool by his INTENT. You are trying to define the rule through exception which is illogical.

Yes, you can use a bucket to mix cement. A bucket is a container. The purpose of a bucket is to contain. You arguing that the bucket was only designed to contain water shows you are biased and unable to be objective because you have a preference for an outcome. Which in this case is defining the rule by exception.

Yes, you can use a wrench to kill a person even though the inventor states the purpose of the wrench is to apply torque to a nut. That still doesn't mean the purpose of a wrench is to kill people. You are trying to define the rule through exception which is illogical.

Yes, you can use a rock which has no inventor as a tool for any number of purposes that you define by your intent. Which has no bearing on the conversation that the purpose of the universe is to produce intelligence.

Man invented logic as a system of rules for correct inference.

The wielder of the tool defines the purpose with his intent and that has nothing to do with the inventor's purpose for inventing that tool.

Purpose is defined by the intent of the user.

The inventor's intent may have been to produce a tool to perform a certain function but that does not eliminate all the other ways that same tool can be used and only the person using the tool decide it's purpose by imposing his own intent.

In fact I'll argue that it is the human ability to use tools in ways other than the intent of the inventor that is one of the reasons we have been so successful as a species.

So in order for the universe to have a purpose as you claim then there had to be a creator with the intent to create a universe that produces intelligent life forms. As we have yet to find any evidence of said creator.

Again... logic is an artifact of intelligence. Logic, like truth, is objective. Logic and truth cannot be anything man wants them to be. Logic and truth exist independent of man. Man did not invent logic or truth. Man discovered logic and truth just like Einstein discovered e=mc^2.

The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. Defining purpose solely on use is trying to define the exception as the rule. You can absolutely use a wrench to drive a nail and for that very limited point in time that would be its purpose but the rule is that that is not the purpose of a wrench. Only someone who is subjective would try to define that as the purpose of a wrench.

Yes, I believe the reason God created existence was intentional and was done so we could share in His existence. I believe the purpose of the universe was to create beings that know and create to share in God's existence. The evidence for this are the physical, biological and moral laws of nature. So the evidence for God's existence is what God created. But to do that you would need to start with a realistic perception of God and then evaluate the only evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself.

It's not an accident that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence.

Seeing a relationship between mass and energy has nothing to do with mathematics or logic.

Mathematics was invented to describe phenomena in the physical world like the path of a thrown object or the acceleration of a falling object. No one "discovered" gravity.

But Newton invented the math to describe the motion of objects.

He did not discover motion and he invented calculus as a way to calculate approximate solutions using derivatives.

Discovering the phenomenon and representing that discovery mathematically absolutely does have something to do with logic and mathematics. Einstein discovered a discrepancy between Newton and Maxwell's discoveries using logic. He resolved that discrepancy using logic and represented that discovery numerically through mathematics.

Mathematical truths - like logical truths and reality - exist independent of man. All theorems are discovered using logic and proven to be true. Mathematics are a tool used by man to represent physical phenomenon. Mathematical truths are discovered.

Newton discovered the phenomenon and used math as a tool to represent the phenomenon numerically. Newton did not invent the laws of physics. Newton discovered the laws of physics. The Laws of physics - like logical truths and mathematical truths and reality itself exists independent of man.

Mathematics was invented to describe the physical world. Mathematics did not exist before there were humans so it could not be discovered. The things mathematics was invented to describe existed before humans.

You are confusing mathematics with the things it describes

 

[Blues Man]

Spirituality is just another concept than mas has invented.

What can a person who holds no interest, no experience--nor has even done any in depth study on God, the supernatural, or spirituality--teach, instruct, or advise others on such matters? It would be like someone who has no interest in art telling the rest of us it has no value, just some worthless thing man invented.

Religion, spirituality, God are not concepts that man invented. They are realities that man has observed, and named. The word "physics" was not used until the 15th century. Surely you are not going to claim that physics is something man invented, and definitely not until after you have spent time on some in depth study. Think about this: Saying that physics is nothing but an invention by mankind highlights ignorance. The same is true of God. Someone who has no interest in God exhibits the same trait as someone who has no interest in Physics, and this is simply to dismiss it out of mind.

it is not necessary that one believe in a god in order to believe that spirituality is an invention of the human mind.

Math, physics, etc were invented by man to describe what he saw in the world.

Do not equate the method of description with the thing it is describing.

And even a person with no interest in physics can see the things physics describes. This is especially true for Newtonian Physics because we have evolved in a place where gravity and motion were always present and we cannot but be familiar with those things.

 

[ding]

If the universe has a purpose then I must have a purpose. If the universe has no purpose then I must have no purpose.

The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. If a constant presence of mind intentionally created the universe, then it was created for a purpose. If the universe was not created by a constant presence of mind then it would have not been intentionally created and it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do.

Do you agree?

So you think that your purpose is defined by something outside yourself?

You are operating on a big if and instead of regarding that if as a hypothetical you are operating as if that if then hypothetical condition is proven fact.

Purpose is not defined by the creator of anything. It is defined by the user.

The inventor of a wrench can try to tell me that the purpose of the wrench is to apply torque to a particular size nut. But if I use that wrench to strike a person in self defense I have defined the purpose of the wrench in that instant to be a weapon.

So purpose is subjective and defined by the person using a tool not the person who created the tool.

And I see nothing contradictory in believing the universe was not created for a purpose. The universe simply is what it is.

Purpose is defined by what something was made for. We were made to know and to create.

A hammer was made to hammer. A lawn mower was made to cut grass. The universe was made to create intelligence.

No purpose is defined by the intent of user.
I can use a knife to cut food, chop wood or stab a person. I decide the purpose of that knife.
If I use a lawn mower to kill a person than I defined that lawn mowers purpose in that instance.


And we do not how how the universe came to be so for a human being being so insignificant to claim he knows the purpose of the universe is outrageously arrogant and not to mention conceited.

As I said we humans have a penchant for grandiose thinking and we think so much of ourselves that we like to think we are the very image of a god and that the universe was made just for us.

I hate to burst your bubble but we are an insignificant life form in one galaxy among a couple trillion galaxies.

The purpose of a lawn mower is to cut grass no matter how many people you kill with it.

The purpose of a knife is to cut.

There is nothing special about humans. Being the pinnacle of creation means we are the most complex thing the universe has produced. The universe is an intelligence creating machine. Intelligence is written into the laws of nature and the fabric of existence.

I disagree.

If I use a wrench to pound a nail into a piece of wood I have defined the purpose of that wrench in that instant as a tool to pound a nail it doesn't matter to the wrench what its inventor designed it for and it certainly doesn't matter to me, the user of the tool. It is the intent of the person using a tool that defines its purpose and that purpose can change.

The universe isn't a machine.

With logic like that you could argue the purpose of a vagina is to hold cement.

So now we equate inanimate objects with actual body parts of living beings? With logic like that I could say that a gun kills people of its own volition.

It's your logic. You said you define purpose on how you use something. So if you used a vagina to fill it with cement you would be defining the purpose of a vagina to hold cement.

But I agree with you that it's illogical to define purpose that way.

I do not use the vaginas of women.

A vagina is not a tool it was not invented by anyone. I don't think I should have to explain this to anyone of reasonable intelligence.

I did not say you would use a vagina to hold cement. I said if you did according to YOUR logic you would have defined the purpose of a vagina to be a container for cement. You said you define purpose by how you use something not by what that something was made for. Right? Those were YOUR words, right?

So tell me who invented the vagina?

Is the vagina a tool? Can someone other than the woman use her vagina ?

This line of thought is beyond ludicrous.

I never equated a body part with TOOL.

The wielder of the tool defines the purpose of that tool by his INTENT.

I can use a bucket to mix cement even though the inventor of the bucket said the purpose of the bucket was to carry water.
I can use a wrench to kill a person even though the inventor states the purpose of the wrench is to apply torque to a nut.
I can use a rock which has no inventor as a tool for any number of purposes that I define by my intent.

No one invented the vagina just like no one invented logic. But it doesn't matter because I am employing YOUR logic that purpose is defined by how something is used and not what it was intended for.

A vagina is not a tool. Some men use a woman's vagina without her permission. But it doesn't matter because I am employing YOUR logic that purpose is defined by how something is used and not what it was intended for.

I agree that YOUR line of thought/logic - that purpose is defined by how something is used and not what it was intended for - is ludicrous.

I never said you equated a body part with TOOL. I am employing YOUR logic to show you how ludicrous it is to define purpose by how something is used and not what it was intended for.

The wielder of the tool does NOT define the purpose of that tool by his INTENT. You are trying to define the rule through exception which is illogical.

Yes, you can use a bucket to mix cement. A bucket is a container. The purpose of a bucket is to contain. You arguing that the bucket was only designed to contain water shows you are biased and unable to be objective because you have a preference for an outcome. Which in this case is defining the rule by exception.

Yes, you can use a wrench to kill a person even though the inventor states the purpose of the wrench is to apply torque to a nut. That still doesn't mean the purpose of a wrench is to kill people. You are trying to define the rule through exception which is illogical.

Yes, you can use a rock which has no inventor as a tool for any number of purposes that you define by your intent. Which has no bearing on the conversation that the purpose of the universe is to produce intelligence.

Man invented logic as a system of rules for correct inference.

The wielder of the tool defines the purpose with his intent and that has nothing to do with the inventor's purpose for inventing that tool.

Purpose is defined by the intent of the user.

The inventor's intent may have been to produce a tool to perform a certain function but that does not eliminate all the other ways that same tool can be used and only the person using the tool decide it's purpose by imposing his own intent.

In fact I'll argue that it is the human ability to use tools in ways other than the intent of the inventor that is one of the reasons we have been so successful as a species.

So in order for the universe to have a purpose as you claim then there had to be a creator with the intent to create a universe that produces intelligent life forms. As we have yet to find any evidence of said creator.

Again... logic is an artifact of intelligence. Logic, like truth, is objective. Logic and truth cannot be anything man wants them to be. Logic and truth exist independent of man. Man did not invent logic or truth. Man discovered logic and truth just like Einstein discovered e=mc^2.

The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. Defining purpose solely on use is trying to define the exception as the rule. You can absolutely use a wrench to drive a nail and for that very limited point in time that would be its purpose but the rule is that that is not the purpose of a wrench. Only someone who is subjective would try to define that as the purpose of a wrench.

Yes, I believe the reason God created existence was intentional and was done so we could share in His existence. I believe the purpose of the universe was to create beings that know and create to share in God's existence. The evidence for this are the physical, biological and moral laws of nature. So the evidence for God's existence is what God created. But to do that you would need to start with a realistic perception of God and then evaluate the only evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself.

It's not an accident that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence.

Seeing a relationship between mass and energy has nothing to do with mathematics or logic.

Mathematics was invented to describe phenomena in the physical world like the path of a thrown object or the acceleration of a falling object. No one "discovered" gravity.

But Newton invented the math to describe the motion of objects.

He did not discover motion and he invented calculus as a way to calculate approximate solutions using derivatives.

Discovering the phenomenon and representing that discovery mathematically absolutely does have something to do with logic and mathematics. Einstein discovered a discrepancy between Newton and Maxwell's discoveries using logic. He resolved that discrepancy using logic and represented that discovery numerically through mathematics.

Mathematical truths - like logical truths and reality - exist independent of man. All theorems are discovered using logic and proven to be true. Mathematics are a tool used by man to represent physical phenomenon. Mathematical truths are discovered.

Newton discovered the phenomenon and used math as a tool to represent the phenomenon numerically. Newton did not invent the laws of physics. Newton discovered the laws of physics. The Laws of physics - like logical truths and mathematical truths and reality itself exists independent of man.

Mathematics was invented to describe the physical world. Mathematics did not exist before there were humans so it could not be discovered. The things mathematics was invented to describe existed before humans.

You are confusing mathematics with the things it describes

A^2 + B^2 = C^2 is a mathematical truth that was discovered. Man did not invent A^2 + B^2 = C^2.

Like I said before.... Mathematical truths - like logical truths and reality - exist independent of man. All theorems are discovered using logic and proven to be true. Mathematics are a tool used by man to represent physical phenomenon. Mathematical truths are discovered.

 

[Meriweather]

Math, physics, etc were invented by man to describe what he saw in the world.

If you understand this, it should not be hard to understand that mankind also saw and named God, religion, spirit, etc.

 

[Blues Man]

you are excluding the possibility that the universe has no purpose and just is.

Actually I didn't. Like I said before... I started my journey by looking at the only two options which exist; God created existence (aka space and time) or existence created itself. So, no. I did not exclude the possibility that the universe has no purpose and just is. In fact what I have said before is this...

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional.

So I started my evaluation from two possible mutually exclusive positions; 1. the universe was created by God intentionally and has a purpose. And 2. the universe was not created by God and has no purpose.

So you are wrong again.

When you start with a preconceived and arbitrary set of just 2 possibilities you cannot come to any conclusions that are not preconceived or arbitrary.

They aren't arbitrary. There are the only two options which exist. All other options will simplify to one of these two mutually exclusive options. The fact that you can't name another possible option which does not simplify to one of these two mutually exclusive options proves that your statement that I started with an arbitrary set of just 2 possibilities is WRONG. You can always prove me wrong by naming another possibility which does not simplify to one of the only two options which exist.

Are these two options preconceived? Well I did start with everything I could think of and they all simplified into one of these two mutually exclusive options. So it was only preconceived like all evaluations are preconceived when one is trying to list all of the options. It was not preconceived in the manner you are suggesting which is to mean biased. If I were biased I would only consider one of these two options like YOU have done.

The fact that we cannot conceive of more than 2 options is proof that we are limited in our thinking and are most likely physically incapable of understanding the processes of the inception of the universe. We are beings that can only perceive 3 dimensions but we live in a space that has at least 4 dimensions. For all we know, the only way to grasp the inception of the universe is to be able to perceive that 4th dimension.

If we were 2 dimensional beings living in a 3 dimensional space we would think that anything entering our 2 dimensional world from the third dimension would simply appear as if from nowhere and we would only ever be able to perceive a 2 dimensional cross section of that thing.

My dog will never comprehend prime numbers and she evolved out of the same stuff humans did. It is therefore not only reasonable to assume but also probable that the human brain has its own limitations.

The invention of a god to explain what we do not comprehend is a human characteristic and we've done that very thing throughout our existence

There no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

These are your opinions. We have no idea what god is or isn't.

This universal code you claim that somehow exists outside of human beings is nothing but the culmination of our ability to imagine a behavior and its possible outcomes while never actually engaging in that behavior. Since all human brains evolved the same way then all human brains are capable of such thoughts.

In doing this we determined what would be the most acceptable outcome and we then taught these things to future generations. these ideas did not exist outside of the human experience nor did they predate the existence of humans.

Once again you are viewing the end result of the evolutionary process and saying that people have always been as they are today. This simply is not true.

 

[Blues Man]

If the universe has a purpose then I must have a purpose. If the universe has no purpose then I must have no purpose.

The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. If a constant presence of mind intentionally created the universe, then it was created for a purpose. If the universe was not created by a constant presence of mind then it would have not been intentionally created and it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do.

Do you agree?

So you think that your purpose is defined by something outside yourself?

You are operating on a big if and instead of regarding that if as a hypothetical you are operating as if that if then hypothetical condition is proven fact.

Purpose is not defined by the creator of anything. It is defined by the user.

The inventor of a wrench can try to tell me that the purpose of the wrench is to apply torque to a particular size nut. But if I use that wrench to strike a person in self defense I have defined the purpose of the wrench in that instant to be a weapon.

So purpose is subjective and defined by the person using a tool not the person who created the tool.

And I see nothing contradictory in believing the universe was not created for a purpose. The universe simply is what it is.

Purpose is defined by what something was made for. We were made to know and to create.

A hammer was made to hammer. A lawn mower was made to cut grass. The universe was made to create intelligence.

No purpose is defined by the intent of user.
I can use a knife to cut food, chop wood or stab a person. I decide the purpose of that knife.
If I use a lawn mower to kill a person than I defined that lawn mowers purpose in that instance.


And we do not how how the universe came to be so for a human being being so insignificant to claim he knows the purpose of the universe is outrageously arrogant and not to mention conceited.

As I said we humans have a penchant for grandiose thinking and we think so much of ourselves that we like to think we are the very image of a god and that the universe was made just for us.

I hate to burst your bubble but we are an insignificant life form in one galaxy among a couple trillion galaxies.

The purpose of a lawn mower is to cut grass no matter how many people you kill with it.

The purpose of a knife is to cut.

There is nothing special about humans. Being the pinnacle of creation means we are the most complex thing the universe has produced. The universe is an intelligence creating machine. Intelligence is written into the laws of nature and the fabric of existence.

I disagree.

If I use a wrench to pound a nail into a piece of wood I have defined the purpose of that wrench in that instant as a tool to pound a nail it doesn't matter to the wrench what its inventor designed it for and it certainly doesn't matter to me, the user of the tool. It is the intent of the person using a tool that defines its purpose and that purpose can change.

The universe isn't a machine.

With logic like that you could argue the purpose of a vagina is to hold cement.

So now we equate inanimate objects with actual body parts of living beings? With logic like that I could say that a gun kills people of its own volition.

It's your logic. You said you define purpose on how you use something. So if you used a vagina to fill it with cement you would be defining the purpose of a vagina to hold cement.

But I agree with you that it's illogical to define purpose that way.

I do not use the vaginas of women.

A vagina is not a tool it was not invented by anyone. I don't think I should have to explain this to anyone of reasonable intelligence.

I did not say you would use a vagina to hold cement. I said if you did according to YOUR logic you would have defined the purpose of a vagina to be a container for cement. You said you define purpose by how you use something not by what that something was made for. Right? Those were YOUR words, right?

So tell me who invented the vagina?

Is the vagina a tool? Can someone other than the woman use her vagina ?

This line of thought is beyond ludicrous.

I never equated a body part with TOOL.

The wielder of the tool defines the purpose of that tool by his INTENT.

I can use a bucket to mix cement even though the inventor of the bucket said the purpose of the bucket was to carry water.
I can use a wrench to kill a person even though the inventor states the purpose of the wrench is to apply torque to a nut.
I can use a rock which has no inventor as a tool for any number of purposes that I define by my intent.

No one invented the vagina just like no one invented logic. But it doesn't matter because I am employing YOUR logic that purpose is defined by how something is used and not what it was intended for.

A vagina is not a tool. Some men use a woman's vagina without her permission. But it doesn't matter because I am employing YOUR logic that purpose is defined by how something is used and not what it was intended for.

I agree that YOUR line of thought/logic - that purpose is defined by how something is used and not what it was intended for - is ludicrous.

I never said you equated a body part with TOOL. I am employing YOUR logic to show you how ludicrous it is to define purpose by how something is used and not what it was intended for.

The wielder of the tool does NOT define the purpose of that tool by his INTENT. You are trying to define the rule through exception which is illogical.

Yes, you can use a bucket to mix cement. A bucket is a container. The purpose of a bucket is to contain. You arguing that the bucket was only designed to contain water shows you are biased and unable to be objective because you have a preference for an outcome. Which in this case is defining the rule by exception.

Yes, you can use a wrench to kill a person even though the inventor states the purpose of the wrench is to apply torque to a nut. That still doesn't mean the purpose of a wrench is to kill people. You are trying to define the rule through exception which is illogical.

Yes, you can use a rock which has no inventor as a tool for any number of purposes that you define by your intent. Which has no bearing on the conversation that the purpose of the universe is to produce intelligence.

Man invented logic as a system of rules for correct inference.

The wielder of the tool defines the purpose with his intent and that has nothing to do with the inventor's purpose for inventing that tool.

Purpose is defined by the intent of the user.

The inventor's intent may have been to produce a tool to perform a certain function but that does not eliminate all the other ways that same tool can be used and only the person using the tool decide it's purpose by imposing his own intent.

In fact I'll argue that it is the human ability to use tools in ways other than the intent of the inventor that is one of the reasons we have been so successful as a species.

So in order for the universe to have a purpose as you claim then there had to be a creator with the intent to create a universe that produces intelligent life forms. As we have yet to find any evidence of said creator.

Again... logic is an artifact of intelligence. Logic, like truth, is objective. Logic and truth cannot be anything man wants them to be. Logic and truth exist independent of man. Man did not invent logic or truth. Man discovered logic and truth just like Einstein discovered e=mc^2.

The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. Defining purpose solely on use is trying to define the exception as the rule. You can absolutely use a wrench to drive a nail and for that very limited point in time that would be its purpose but the rule is that that is not the purpose of a wrench. Only someone who is subjective would try to define that as the purpose of a wrench.

Yes, I believe the reason God created existence was intentional and was done so we could share in His existence. I believe the purpose of the universe was to create beings that know and create to share in God's existence. The evidence for this are the physical, biological and moral laws of nature. So the evidence for God's existence is what God created. But to do that you would need to start with a realistic perception of God and then evaluate the only evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself.

It's not an accident that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence.

Seeing a relationship between mass and energy has nothing to do with mathematics or logic.

Mathematics was invented to describe phenomena in the physical world like the path of a thrown object or the acceleration of a falling object. No one "discovered" gravity.

But Newton invented the math to describe the motion of objects.

He did not discover motion and he invented calculus as a way to calculate approximate solutions using derivatives.

Discovering the phenomenon and representing that discovery mathematically absolutely does have something to do with logic and mathematics. Einstein discovered a discrepancy between Newton and Maxwell's discoveries using logic. He resolved that discrepancy using logic and represented that discovery numerically through mathematics.

Mathematical truths - like logical truths and reality - exist independent of man. All theorems are discovered using logic and proven to be true. Mathematics are a tool used by man to represent physical phenomenon. Mathematical truths are discovered.

Newton discovered the phenomenon and used math as a tool to represent the phenomenon numerically. Newton did not invent the laws of physics. Newton discovered the laws of physics. The Laws of physics - like logical truths and mathematical truths and reality itself exists independent of man.

Mathematics was invented to describe the physical world. Mathematics did not exist before there were humans so it could not be discovered. The things mathematics was invented to describe existed before humans.

You are confusing mathematics with the things it describes

A^2 + B^2 = C^2 is a mathematical truth that was discovered. Man did not invent A^2 + B^2 = C^2.

Like I said before.... Mathematical truths - like logical truths and reality - exist independent of man. All theorems are discovered using logic and proven to be true. Mathematics are a tool used by man to represent physical phenomenon. Mathematical truths are discovered.

but man invented numbers and all the ways we know to manipulate them.

And 2 dimensional geometry is nothing but a mind game. There are a limited number of possibilities of joining 3 lines together to form a triangle. And once again you are confusing the thing the math describes with the thing itself.

The Pythagorean Theorem is not a right triangle it is the mathematical equation that describes the relationship of the sides of a right triangle and that math is a human invention just like a 2 dimensional right triangle is a human intellectual construct

 

[Blues Man]

Math, physics, etc were invented by man to describe what he saw in the world.

If you understand this, it should not be hard to understand that mankind also saw and named God, religion, spirit, etc.

But no one has ever actually seen a god.

Everyone has seen something fall to earth

 

[ding]

you are excluding the possibility that the universe has no purpose and just is.

Actually I didn't. Like I said before... I started my journey by looking at the only two options which exist; God created existence (aka space and time) or existence created itself. So, no. I did not exclude the possibility that the universe has no purpose and just is. In fact what I have said before is this...

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional.

So I started my evaluation from two possible mutually exclusive positions; 1. the universe was created by God intentionally and has a purpose. And 2. the universe was not created by God and has no purpose.

So you are wrong again.

When you start with a preconceived and arbitrary set of just 2 possibilities you cannot come to any conclusions that are not preconceived or arbitrary.

They aren't arbitrary. There are the only two options which exist. All other options will simplify to one of these two mutually exclusive options. The fact that you can't name another possible option which does not simplify to one of these two mutually exclusive options proves that your statement that I started with an arbitrary set of just 2 possibilities is WRONG. You can always prove me wrong by naming another possibility which does not simplify to one of the only two options which exist.

Are these two options preconceived? Well I did start with everything I could think of and they all simplified into one of these two mutually exclusive options. So it was only preconceived like all evaluations are preconceived when one is trying to list all of the options. It was not preconceived in the manner you are suggesting which is to mean biased. If I were biased I would only consider one of these two options like YOU have done.

The fact that we cannot conceive of more than 2 options is proof that we are limited in our thinking and are most likely physically incapable of understanding the processes of the inception of the universe. We are beings that can only perceive 3 dimensions but we live in a space that has at least 4 dimensions. For all we know, the only way to grasp the inception of the universe is to be able to perceive that 4th dimension.

If we were 2 dimensional beings living in a 3 dimensional space we would think that anything entering our 2 dimensional world from the third dimension would simply appear as if from nowhere and we would only ever be able to perceive a 2 dimensional cross section of that thing.

My dog will never comprehend prime numbers and she evolved out of the same stuff humans did. It is therefore not only reasonable to assume but also probable that the human brain has its own limitations.

The invention of a god to explain what we do not comprehend is a human characteristic and we've done that very thing throughout our existence

There no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

These are your opinions. We have no idea what god is or isn't.

This universal code you claim that somehow exists outside of human beings is nothing but the culmination of our ability to imagine a behavior and its possible outcomes while never actually engaging in that behavior. Since all human brains evolved the same way then all human brains are capable of such thoughts.

In doing this we determined what would be the most acceptable outcome and we then taught these things to future generations. these ideas did not exist outside of the human experience nor did they predate the existence of humans.

Once again you are viewing the end result of the evolutionary process and saying that people have always been as they are today. This simply is not true.

Correct, I don't know what God is or God isn't. I even said, The closest I can come is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

I believe to discover God one must start with some realistic perception of God. And that was the closest I could come to understanding God. People that argue there is no God are really arguing there is no God as that they can perceive. What they are really saying though is that they have no perception of God other than fairytales. Which is why everything they see is skewed to fairytales. So naturally they aren't looking for God. They only look at things to confirm their biases.

The universal code is logic and truth and exist independent of man. All humans are capable of seeing truth and logic if they are objective instead of subjective. The problem is that most people are not capable of being objective all of the time and about everything. Especially about themselves.

Humans are free to establish any standard they wish but they are not free to avoid the consequences of choosing a lower standard. Different standards have existed through out time and man has reaped what he has sown when he followed a lower standard.

Physiologically speaking, humans 10,000 years ago are pretty much the same as today but shorter. So I am not making the claim that people have always been as they are today. But for the past 10,000 years, man's intelligence probably has a similar distribution as we have today. Mind you I said intelligence and not knowledge. I do see repeating patterns of behavior and I do believe there are explanations for those patterns just as their are explanations for those behaviors. But what you have to know is that for almost any given thing there will usually be a distribution which always should be taken into account.

 

[Meriweather]

But no one has ever actually seen a god.

Have you ever experienced something that you have not seen? Happiness, for example, or love. Loneliness in a crowd. Those who are blind and deaf--or unaware--cannot see what falls to earth. Doesn't mean something didn't fall.

Is it your position that five (or fewer) senses are all there is?

 

[ding]

If the universe has a purpose then I must have a purpose. If the universe has no purpose then I must have no purpose.

The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. If a constant presence of mind intentionally created the universe, then it was created for a purpose. If the universe was not created by a constant presence of mind then it would have not been intentionally created and it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do.

Do you agree?

So you think that your purpose is defined by something outside yourself?

You are operating on a big if and instead of regarding that if as a hypothetical you are operating as if that if then hypothetical condition is proven fact.

Purpose is not defined by the creator of anything. It is defined by the user.

The inventor of a wrench can try to tell me that the purpose of the wrench is to apply torque to a particular size nut. But if I use that wrench to strike a person in self defense I have defined the purpose of the wrench in that instant to be a weapon.

So purpose is subjective and defined by the person using a tool not the person who created the tool.

And I see nothing contradictory in believing the universe was not created for a purpose. The universe simply is what it is.

Purpose is defined by what something was made for. We were made to know and to create.

A hammer was made to hammer. A lawn mower was made to cut grass. The universe was made to create intelligence.

No purpose is defined by the intent of user.
I can use a knife to cut food, chop wood or stab a person. I decide the purpose of that knife.
If I use a lawn mower to kill a person than I defined that lawn mowers purpose in that instance.


And we do not how how the universe came to be so for a human being being so insignificant to claim he knows the purpose of the universe is outrageously arrogant and not to mention conceited.

As I said we humans have a penchant for grandiose thinking and we think so much of ourselves that we like to think we are the very image of a god and that the universe was made just for us.

I hate to burst your bubble but we are an insignificant life form in one galaxy among a couple trillion galaxies.

The purpose of a lawn mower is to cut grass no matter how many people you kill with it.

The purpose of a knife is to cut.

There is nothing special about humans. Being the pinnacle of creation means we are the most complex thing the universe has produced. The universe is an intelligence creating machine. Intelligence is written into the laws of nature and the fabric of existence.

I disagree.

If I use a wrench to pound a nail into a piece of wood I have defined the purpose of that wrench in that instant as a tool to pound a nail it doesn't matter to the wrench what its inventor designed it for and it certainly doesn't matter to me, the user of the tool. It is the intent of the person using a tool that defines its purpose and that purpose can change.

The universe isn't a machine.

With logic like that you could argue the purpose of a vagina is to hold cement.

So now we equate inanimate objects with actual body parts of living beings? With logic like that I could say that a gun kills people of its own volition.

It's your logic. You said you define purpose on how you use something. So if you used a vagina to fill it with cement you would be defining the purpose of a vagina to hold cement.

But I agree with you that it's illogical to define purpose that way.

I do not use the vaginas of women.

A vagina is not a tool it was not invented by anyone. I don't think I should have to explain this to anyone of reasonable intelligence.

I did not say you would use a vagina to hold cement. I said if you did according to YOUR logic you would have defined the purpose of a vagina to be a container for cement. You said you define purpose by how you use something not by what that something was made for. Right? Those were YOUR words, right?

So tell me who invented the vagina?

Is the vagina a tool? Can someone other than the woman use her vagina ?

This line of thought is beyond ludicrous.

I never equated a body part with TOOL.

The wielder of the tool defines the purpose of that tool by his INTENT.

I can use a bucket to mix cement even though the inventor of the bucket said the purpose of the bucket was to carry water.
I can use a wrench to kill a person even though the inventor states the purpose of the wrench is to apply torque to a nut.
I can use a rock which has no inventor as a tool for any number of purposes that I define by my intent.

No one invented the vagina just like no one invented logic. But it doesn't matter because I am employing YOUR logic that purpose is defined by how something is used and not what it was intended for.

A vagina is not a tool. Some men use a woman's vagina without her permission. But it doesn't matter because I am employing YOUR logic that purpose is defined by how something is used and not what it was intended for.

I agree that YOUR line of thought/logic - that purpose is defined by how something is used and not what it was intended for - is ludicrous.

I never said you equated a body part with TOOL. I am employing YOUR logic to show you how ludicrous it is to define purpose by how something is used and not what it was intended for.

The wielder of the tool does NOT define the purpose of that tool by his INTENT. You are trying to define the rule through exception which is illogical.

Yes, you can use a bucket to mix cement. A bucket is a container. The purpose of a bucket is to contain. You arguing that the bucket was only designed to contain water shows you are biased and unable to be objective because you have a preference for an outcome. Which in this case is defining the rule by exception.

Yes, you can use a wrench to kill a person even though the inventor states the purpose of the wrench is to apply torque to a nut. That still doesn't mean the purpose of a wrench is to kill people. You are trying to define the rule through exception which is illogical.

Yes, you can use a rock which has no inventor as a tool for any number of purposes that you define by your intent. Which has no bearing on the conversation that the purpose of the universe is to produce intelligence.

Man invented logic as a system of rules for correct inference.

The wielder of the tool defines the purpose with his intent and that has nothing to do with the inventor's purpose for inventing that tool.

Purpose is defined by the intent of the user.

The inventor's intent may have been to produce a tool to perform a certain function but that does not eliminate all the other ways that same tool can be used and only the person using the tool decide it's purpose by imposing his own intent.

In fact I'll argue that it is the human ability to use tools in ways other than the intent of the inventor that is one of the reasons we have been so successful as a species.

So in order for the universe to have a purpose as you claim then there had to be a creator with the intent to create a universe that produces intelligent life forms. As we have yet to find any evidence of said creator.

Again... logic is an artifact of intelligence. Logic, like truth, is objective. Logic and truth cannot be anything man wants them to be. Logic and truth exist independent of man. Man did not invent logic or truth. Man discovered logic and truth just like Einstein discovered e=mc^2.

The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. Defining purpose solely on use is trying to define the exception as the rule. You can absolutely use a wrench to drive a nail and for that very limited point in time that would be its purpose but the rule is that that is not the purpose of a wrench. Only someone who is subjective would try to define that as the purpose of a wrench.

Yes, I believe the reason God created existence was intentional and was done so we could share in His existence. I believe the purpose of the universe was to create beings that know and create to share in God's existence. The evidence for this are the physical, biological and moral laws of nature. So the evidence for God's existence is what God created. But to do that you would need to start with a realistic perception of God and then evaluate the only evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself.

It's not an accident that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence.

Seeing a relationship between mass and energy has nothing to do with mathematics or logic.

Mathematics was invented to describe phenomena in the physical world like the path of a thrown object or the acceleration of a falling object. No one "discovered" gravity.

But Newton invented the math to describe the motion of objects.

He did not discover motion and he invented calculus as a way to calculate approximate solutions using derivatives.

Discovering the phenomenon and representing that discovery mathematically absolutely does have something to do with logic and mathematics. Einstein discovered a discrepancy between Newton and Maxwell's discoveries using logic. He resolved that discrepancy using logic and represented that discovery numerically through mathematics.

Mathematical truths - like logical truths and reality - exist independent of man. All theorems are discovered using logic and proven to be true. Mathematics are a tool used by man to represent physical phenomenon. Mathematical truths are discovered.

Newton discovered the phenomenon and used math as a tool to represent the phenomenon numerically. Newton did not invent the laws of physics. Newton discovered the laws of physics. The Laws of physics - like logical truths and mathematical truths and reality itself exists independent of man.

Mathematics was invented to describe the physical world. Mathematics did not exist before there were humans so it could not be discovered. The things mathematics was invented to describe existed before humans.

You are confusing mathematics with the things it describes

A^2 + B^2 = C^2 is a mathematical truth that was discovered. Man did not invent A^2 + B^2 = C^2.

Like I said before.... Mathematical truths - like logical truths and reality - exist independent of man. All theorems are discovered using logic and proven to be true. Mathematics are a tool used by man to represent physical phenomenon. Mathematical truths are discovered.

but man invented numbers and all the ways we know to manipulate them.

And 2 dimensional geometry is nothing but a mind game. There are a limited number of possibilities of joining 3 lines together to form a triangle. And once again you are confusing the thing the math describes with the thing itself.

The Pythagorean Theorem is not a right triangle it is the mathematical equation that describes the relationship of the sides of a right triangle and that math is a human invention just like a 2 dimensional right triangle is a human intellectual construct

Man named the numbers. Quantity of things was discovered. Counting was discovered. The manipulation of numbers is universal. Numerically representing physical phenomenon is universal. It's an artifact of intelligence. Mathematical theorems are mathematical truths. They are true everywhere and are universal.

Geometric shapes are everywhere and are universal. We didn't invent geometric shapes. We discovered geometric shapes.