Does The Universe Have a Purpose?

[ding]

So there was a reason?

Did the turkey dinner serve it's purpose?

Sure.

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

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

That's so easy to answer. ding.


1. all created things were not on-purpose.

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

Therefore what?

Your thoughts are incoherent.

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

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

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

You reject science when it suits your purposes.

 

[OldLady]

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

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

Pick any one of them...

the tag argument

the kalam cosmological argument...



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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not pissed off about religion at all. Indiana seems to be. G.T. is just mad at you, per usual.
It's been interesting but I have to go.
Maybe we can talk some more, but don't ever confuse me with someone who disrespects those who believe in God.

 

[ding]

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

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

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

Signed,

Ding

But this event had a single event horizon. You believe it was all accidental like. I believe it was predestined.

 

[G.T.]

Sure.

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

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

That's so easy to answer. ding.


1. all created things were not on-purpose.

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

Therefore what?

Your thoughts are incoherent.

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

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

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

You reject science when it suits your purposes.

That's a false assertion that you'll chirp cricketts when asked to prove.

Youre so boring, dude. I dont even want you to prove your assertion. Id like if you just stick with that belief.

 

[ding]

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

Pick any one of them...

the tag argument

the kalam cosmological argument...



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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not pissed off about religion at all. Indiana seems to be. G.T. is just mad at you, per usual.
It's been interesting but I have to go.
Maybe we can talk some more, but don't ever confuse me with someone who disrespects those who believe in God.

Well that was an honest take.

 

[G.T.]

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

Pick any one of them...

the tag argument

the kalam cosmological argument...



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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not pissed off about religion at all. Indiana seems to be. G.T. is just mad at you, per usual.
It's been interesting but I have to go.
Maybe we can talk some more, but don't ever confuse me with someone who disrespects those who believe in God.

I think language over the internet is a low bar. I wish you knew me from my podcast, its pretty fuggin hard to make me angry. Im merely forceful when I type because I dont like to suffer the phony hoity toit stuff with faceless internet personas that act like douches as a matter of choice.

 

[ding]

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

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

That's so easy to answer. ding.


1. all created things were not on-purpose.

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

Therefore what?

Your thoughts are incoherent.

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

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

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

You reject science when it suits your purposes.

That's a false assertion that you'll chirp cricketts when asked to prove.

Youre so boring, dude. I dont even want you to prove your assertion. Id like if you just stick with that belief.

Space and time had a beginning. You've rejected it before.

 

[ding]

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not pissed off about religion at all. Indiana seems to be. G.T. is just mad at you, per usual.
It's been interesting but I have to go.
Maybe we can talk some more, but don't ever confuse me with someone who disrespects those who believe in God.

I think language over the internet is a low bar. I wish you knew me from my podcast, its pretty fuggin hard to make me angry. Im merely forceful when I type because I dont like to suffer the phony hoity toit stuff with faceless internet personas that act like douches as a matter of choice.

Funny how you see yourself in the best possible light and others that you don't like in the worst possible light. She totally pegged you. You probably don't believe I am being low bar right now.

 

[G.T.]

That's so easy to answer. ding.


1. all created things were not on-purpose.

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

Therefore what?

Your thoughts are incoherent.

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

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

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

You reject science when it suits your purposes.

That's a false assertion that you'll chirp cricketts when asked to prove.

Youre so boring, dude. I dont even want you to prove your assertion. Id like if you just stick with that belief.

Space and time had a beginning. You've rejected it before.

If I was forced to guess, it would be the opposite of anything you say I said. I wonder how Vegas would cash that out

 

[ding]

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

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

That's so easy to answer. ding.


1. all created things were not on-purpose.

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

Therefore what?

Your thoughts are incoherent.

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

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

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

You reject science when it suits your purposes.

That's a false assertion that you'll chirp cricketts when asked to prove.

Youre so boring, dude. I dont even want you to prove your assertion. Id like if you just stick with that belief.

Human life begins at conception. You've rejected this in the past too.

Seems it wasn't that difficult to prove after all.

 

[ding]

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

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

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

You reject science when it suits your purposes.

That's a false assertion that you'll chirp cricketts when asked to prove.

Youre so boring, dude. I dont even want you to prove your assertion. Id like if you just stick with that belief.

Space and time had a beginning. You've rejected it before.

If I was forced to guess, it would be the opposite of anything you say I said. I wonder how Vegas would cash that out

GT that's who you are.

 

[G.T.]

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

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

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

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

I'm not pissed off about religion at all. Indiana seems to be. G.T. is just mad at you, per usual.
It's been interesting but I have to go.
Maybe we can talk some more, but don't ever confuse me with someone who disrespects those who believe in God.

I think language over the internet is a low bar. I wish you knew me from my podcast, its pretty fuggin hard to make me angry. Im merely forceful when I type because I dont like to suffer the phony hoity toit stuff with faceless internet personas that act like douches as a matter of choice.

Funny how you see yourself in the best possible light and others that you don't like in the worst possible light. She totally pegged you. You probably don't believe I am being low bar right now.

Whats funny.... is you pretending to know my demeanor/feelings when its not even possible to do so over the internet...you merely speculate.

While youre glad and will proceed with proclaiming to know those things, like you proclaim to know other things not possible to know, and said proclaimation puts me, humorously, in a bad light.....while calling it humorous (funny) that I paint those I dislike in a bad light.


Thats a LOT of hypocritical...ironic. ...gymnastics.

Fuck!

 

[G.T.]

That's so easy to answer. ding.


1. all created things were not on-purpose.

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

Therefore what?

Your thoughts are incoherent.

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

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

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

You reject science when it suits your purposes.

That's a false assertion that you'll chirp cricketts when asked to prove.

Youre so boring, dude. I dont even want you to prove your assertion. Id like if you just stick with that belief.

Human life begins at conception. You've rejected this in the past too.

Seems it wasn't that difficult to prove after all.

I feel like youd have a terrible fuckin time quoting me on that. Take all the moments you need. Im sure when you learn you misunderstood....youll recant.

 

[G.T.]

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

You reject science when it suits your purposes.

That's a false assertion that you'll chirp cricketts when asked to prove.

Youre so boring, dude. I dont even want you to prove your assertion. Id like if you just stick with that belief.

Space and time had a beginning. You've rejected it before.

If I was forced to guess, it would be the opposite of anything you say I said. I wonder how Vegas would cash that out

GT that's who you are.

You are obsessed with telling people how you think they are....so much so that its painfully obvious that you are classically projecting.

Ive never seen a single disagreement youve had in a debate here where youve remained cordial, and where the other didnt find you to be a hapless twat by the end.


You can scapegoat that crap onto me all you want. I dont give a hoot, its just furthering/affirming the initial impression over and over again.

 

[ding]

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

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

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

I'm not pissed off about religion at all. Indiana seems to be. G.T. is just mad at you, per usual.
It's been interesting but I have to go.
Maybe we can talk some more, but don't ever confuse me with someone who disrespects those who believe in God.

I think language over the internet is a low bar. I wish you knew me from my podcast, its pretty fuggin hard to make me angry. Im merely forceful when I type because I dont like to suffer the phony hoity toit stuff with faceless internet personas that act like douches as a matter of choice.

Funny how you see yourself in the best possible light and others that you don't like in the worst possible light. She totally pegged you. You probably don't believe I am being low bar right now.

Whats funny.... is you pretending to know my demeanor/feelings when its not even possible to do so over the internet...you merely speculate.

While youre glad and will proceed with proclaiming to know those things, like you proclaim to know other things not possible to know, and said proclaimation puts me, humorously, in a bad light.....while calling it humorous (funny) that I paint those I dislike in a bad light.


Thats a LOT of hypocritical...ironic. ...gymnastics.

Fuck!

I'm really surprised lightning didn't strike you. Your behaviors are well established.

 

[ding]

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

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

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

You reject science when it suits your purposes.

That's a false assertion that you'll chirp cricketts when asked to prove.

Youre so boring, dude. I dont even want you to prove your assertion. Id like if you just stick with that belief.

Human life begins at conception. You've rejected this in the past too.

Seems it wasn't that difficult to prove after all.

I feel like youd have a terrible fuckin time quoting me on that. Take all the moments you need. Im sure when you learn you misunderstood....youll recant.

Maybe. Maybe not.

 

[ding]

You reject science when it suits your purposes.

That's a false assertion that you'll chirp cricketts when asked to prove.

Youre so boring, dude. I dont even want you to prove your assertion. Id like if you just stick with that belief.

Space and time had a beginning. You've rejected it before.

If I was forced to guess, it would be the opposite of anything you say I said. I wonder how Vegas would cash that out

GT that's who you are.

You are obsessed with telling people how you think they are....so much so that its painfully obvious that you are classically projecting.

Ive never seen a single disagreement youve had in a debate here where youve remained cordial, and where the other didnt find you to be a hapless twat by the end.


You can scapegoat that crap onto me all you want. I dont give a hoot, its just furthering/affirming the initial impression over and over again.

Dude, that's all you do. You are extremely punitive.

 

[Likkmee]

I'll let Joni explain this. listen careful.....turn off the TV

 

[G.T.]

That's a false assertion that you'll chirp cricketts when asked to prove.

Youre so boring, dude. I dont even want you to prove your assertion. Id like if you just stick with that belief.

Space and time had a beginning. You've rejected it before.

If I was forced to guess, it would be the opposite of anything you say I said. I wonder how Vegas would cash that out

GT that's who you are.

You are obsessed with telling people how you think they are....so much so that its painfully obvious that you are classically projecting.

Ive never seen a single disagreement youve had in a debate here where youve remained cordial, and where the other didnt find you to be a hapless twat by the end.


You can scapegoat that crap onto me all you want. I dont give a hoot, its just furthering/affirming the initial impression over and over again.

Dude, that's all you do. You are extremely punitive.

"Punitive?"

I reciprocate your childish cartoon-like judgey bullcrap back in your face, and you take issue with that mirror.

"Punitive."

Not 2 seconds from you calling everyone who disagress with you "Militant."

Get a grip, you are about as genuine as a frog is a Prince.

 

[Likkmee]