Your belief that you cannot discover something that has always been there is stupid ass logic and literally means that nothing can be discovered.You cannot discover something that has always been there is some stupid ass logic, bro.Your very statement that spatial shapes exist independent of man belies your belief that man did not discover them. Mathematical theorems are mathematical truths. They are true everywhere and are universal. Same as logic and truth.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.but man invented numbers and all the ways we know to manipulate them.A^2 + B^2 = C^2 is a mathematical truth that was discovered. Man did not invent A^2 + B^2 = C^2.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.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.Man invented logic as a system of rules for correct inference.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.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?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.With logic like that you could argue the purpose of a vagina is to hold cement.The purpose of a lawn mower is to cut grass no matter how many people you kill with it.No purpose is defined by the intent of user.Purpose is defined by what something was made for. We were made to know and to create.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.If the universe has a purpose then I must have a purpose. If the universe has no purpose then I must have no purpose.
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.
A hammer was made to hammer. A lawn mower was made to cut grass. The universe was made to create intelligence.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
Geometric shapes are everywhere and are universal. We didn't invent geometric shapes. We discovered geometric shapes.
Just one more thing we will not agree on.
Man did not "discover" the spatial relationships of objects in the natural world. Those objects and their relative spatial characteristics were always there as humans were evolving there was no discovery.
Man invented geometry as a way to quantify those spatial relationships. You once again confuse the language invented to describe something as the thing itself.
You cannot discover something that has always been there.
If I use your logic I can say I discovered the Atlantic ocean because i was born next to it. Or i discovered trees because I grew up in a forest. Or maybe I discovered gravity because I fell down when i was a kid. One cannot discover what all people already are familiar with.
Math and geometry are the languages we invented to describe what we see in the world and their relationships to us and each other they are not the relationships themselves.
Analytical mathematical equations only approximately describe the real world, and even then only describe a limited subset of all the phenomena around us.
So if every person that ever lived knows what a tree is who "discovered " trees?
If every person that ever lived knows that a dropped or thrown object eventually falls to the ground who "discovered gravity"
People have been familiar with all these things as long as there have been people.
Newton invented calculus to describe the motion of objects. He didn't discover the motion of objects.