Does The Universe Have a Purpose?

[G.T.]

You cannot establish purpose or intent without establishing the motive of a creator...which is what is implied by the mere terms "purpose," and "intent."

Looking at an outcome does not give you the goal, only a guess about the goal. Thats just basic.

Thats a logical leap, its bridging the gap with bias and not concrete logic.

Motive? Don't know that there needs to be one other that it is the nature of intelligence to create. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

All you have to do is look back on your own experiences in creating your music. We are happiest when we create; when we use our talents. That's our nature. Isn't that enough motive?

Now youre conflating nature with purpose.

One is the juxtaposition of something's properties, the other is its intent.

Youre saying "things work this way, therefore theyre SUPPOSED to work this way." Its not an informative view, and its also taking the logical leap of inserting an active motive (purpose) with no rational justifier.

No. I am saying that the motive is innate. Just as it is in us. I am not conflating nature with purpose. Let's look at the definitions.

purpose: the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.

nature: the basic or inherent features of something, especially when seen as characteristic of it.​

The reason the universe was created was to produce intelligence. Therefore, it was the purpose God created the universe.

The motivation for God to create the universe is that it is the nature of intelligence to create. It is innate to intelligence. I other words, it is an inherent feature of intelligence.

No conflation whatsoever.

How is it possible to not understand that just because something is a product of something else, that that was not the "reason it was done or created."

You did the conflation again.

This is elementary. Youtube a video about the watchmaker. Someone already poonted you in that direction, youre committing an age old fallacy.

Every indication that we have tells us that we live in a universe where given enough time and the right conditions that intelligence will eventually arise. It does so according to the laws of nature because intelligence is written into the laws of nature. So everything that happened did so for the purpose of creating intelligence. The reason it did so was that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. And that is how you get laws of nature which predestine intelligence to emerge. 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.

Thats a number of claims, too many, that dont follow from one another. You are way too simplistic in your fallacious way of concluding things, which is why you possess the character flaw of thinking that you know everything about everything.

Your first 2 words tell you that you dont have proof of anything youre saying, just evidence that you use to make willy nilly extrapolations from.

No, "every indication" doesnt say what you said it does. Just the ones you decide to take a look at through the lens of a very biased observor.

"I dont know for sure" is something you suffer from being unable to achieve, in vocabulary.

 

[G.T.]

This is such a basic concept, its really ridiculous to have to explain it.

Maybe some basic examples.

A toilet creates noise. Is the PURPOSE of the toilet to create noise?

Thats what it creates!

Everything that exists, or was created, was not purposeful. Was not necessarily the intent.

Thats easy to figure out, and a claim that intelligence is some purpose of nature is the same thing as saying the toilet making noise was its intended purpose.

Yeah, it creates it.....is that its purpose though? Unknown, unless we are appealing to unproven conscious creator of the universe.

Or studying what was created and using our own experiences as a proxy to inform us.

Studying isnt done by conflating hypothesis with theory.

Good thing I haven't done that.

Uh huh. Ill wait for the syllogism that logically proves that the purpose of the universe is to create intelligence ~ and then giggle when your premises are merely more unproven claims.

You are the epitome of the watchmaker fallacy.

 

[ding]

Motive? Don't know that there needs to be one other that it is the nature of intelligence to create. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

All you have to do is look back on your own experiences in creating your music. We are happiest when we create; when we use our talents. That's our nature. Isn't that enough motive?

Now youre conflating nature with purpose.

One is the juxtaposition of something's properties, the other is its intent.

Youre saying "things work this way, therefore theyre SUPPOSED to work this way." Its not an informative view, and its also taking the logical leap of inserting an active motive (purpose) with no rational justifier.

No. I am saying that the motive is innate. Just as it is in us. I am not conflating nature with purpose. Let's look at the definitions.

purpose: the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.

nature: the basic or inherent features of something, especially when seen as characteristic of it.​

The reason the universe was created was to produce intelligence. Therefore, it was the purpose God created the universe.

The motivation for God to create the universe is that it is the nature of intelligence to create. It is innate to intelligence. I other words, it is an inherent feature of intelligence.

No conflation whatsoever.

How is it possible to not understand that just because something is a product of something else, that that was not the "reason it was done or created."

You did the conflation again.

This is elementary. Youtube a video about the watchmaker. Someone already poonted you in that direction, youre committing an age old fallacy.

Every indication that we have tells us that we live in a universe where given enough time and the right conditions that intelligence will eventually arise. It does so according to the laws of nature because intelligence is written into the laws of nature. So everything that happened did so for the purpose of creating intelligence. The reason it did so was that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. And that is how you get laws of nature which predestine intelligence to emerge. 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.

Thats a number of claims, too many, that dont follow from one another. You are way too simplistic in your fallacious way of cobcluding things, which is why you possess the character flaw of thinking that you know everything about everything.

Your first 2 words tell you that you dont have proof of anything youre saying, just evidence that you use to make willy nilly extrapolations from.

No, "every indication" doesnt say what you said it does. Just the ones you decide to take a look at through the lens of a very biased observor.

"I dont know for sure" is something you suffer from being unable to achieve, in vocabulary.

The bias is all yours.

I have made a positive case for my beliefs. You have not. You have elected to practice critical theory instead.

Einstein didn't say Newton was wrong. Einstein showed what was correct. I don't believe you understand the difference.

 

[ding]

This is such a basic concept, its really ridiculous to have to explain it.

Maybe some basic examples.

A toilet creates noise. Is the PURPOSE of the toilet to create noise?

Thats what it creates!

Everything that exists, or was created, was not purposeful. Was not necessarily the intent.

Thats easy to figure out, and a claim that intelligence is some purpose of nature is the same thing as saying the toilet making noise was its intended purpose.

Yeah, it creates it.....is that its purpose though? Unknown, unless we are appealing to unproven conscious creator of the universe.

Or studying what was created and using our own experiences as a proxy to inform us.

Studying isnt done by conflating hypothesis with theory.

Good thing I haven't done that.

Uh huh. Ill wait for the syllogism that logically proves that the purpose of the universe is to create intelligence ~ and then giggle when your premises are merely more unproven claims.

You are the epitome of the watchmaker fallacy.

Go right ahead. No one can dispute the universe is an intelligence creating machine.

 

[ding]

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.

The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. 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 life?

It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption 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.”


George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.

 

[ding]

You can't know what something is by how it starts out. You can only know what it is by how it ends up.

The human brain is the most complex structure in the universe. Let’s

 

[G.T.]

Now youre conflating nature with purpose.

One is the juxtaposition of something's properties, the other is its intent.

Youre saying "things work this way, therefore theyre SUPPOSED to work this way." Its not an informative view, and its also taking the logical leap of inserting an active motive (purpose) with no rational justifier.

No. I am saying that the motive is innate. Just as it is in us. I am not conflating nature with purpose. Let's look at the definitions.

purpose: the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.

nature: the basic or inherent features of something, especially when seen as characteristic of it.​

The reason the universe was created was to produce intelligence. Therefore, it was the purpose God created the universe.

The motivation for God to create the universe is that it is the nature of intelligence to create. It is innate to intelligence. I other words, it is an inherent feature of intelligence.

No conflation whatsoever.

How is it possible to not understand that just because something is a product of something else, that that was not the "reason it was done or created."

You did the conflation again.

This is elementary. Youtube a video about the watchmaker. Someone already poonted you in that direction, youre committing an age old fallacy.

Every indication that we have tells us that we live in a universe where given enough time and the right conditions that intelligence will eventually arise. It does so according to the laws of nature because intelligence is written into the laws of nature. So everything that happened did so for the purpose of creating intelligence. The reason it did so was that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. And that is how you get laws of nature which predestine intelligence to emerge. 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.

Thats a number of claims, too many, that dont follow from one another. You are way too simplistic in your fallacious way of cobcluding things, which is why you possess the character flaw of thinking that you know everything about everything.

Your first 2 words tell you that you dont have proof of anything youre saying, just evidence that you use to make willy nilly extrapolations from.

No, "every indication" doesnt say what you said it does. Just the ones you decide to take a look at through the lens of a very biased observor.

"I dont know for sure" is something you suffer from being unable to achieve, in vocabulary.

The bias is all yours.

I have made a positive case for my beliefs. You have not. You have elected to practice critical theory instead.

Einstein didn't say Newton was wrong. Einstein showed what was correct. I don't believe you understand the difference.

Correct. You've stated beliefs. Made a positive case for them, though?

Not to me. Maybe someone thats irrational. Sure.

 

[G.T.]

This is such a basic concept, its really ridiculous to have to explain it.

Maybe some basic examples.

A toilet creates noise. Is the PURPOSE of the toilet to create noise?

Thats what it creates!

Everything that exists, or was created, was not purposeful. Was not necessarily the intent.

Thats easy to figure out, and a claim that intelligence is some purpose of nature is the same thing as saying the toilet making noise was its intended purpose.

Yeah, it creates it.....is that its purpose though? Unknown, unless we are appealing to unproven conscious creator of the universe.

Or studying what was created and using our own experiences as a proxy to inform us.

Studying isnt done by conflating hypothesis with theory.

Good thing I haven't done that.

Uh huh. Ill wait for the syllogism that logically proves that the purpose of the universe is to create intelligence ~ and then giggle when your premises are merely more unproven claims.

You are the epitome of the watchmaker fallacy.

Go right ahead. No one can dispute the universe is an intelligence creating machine.

Straw man/non sequitur.

The argument is not that "intelligence" doesnt exist.

Its that something purposefully created it.

Thats the leap at issue, is this too hard to follow?

 

[G.T.]

You can't know what something is by how it starts out. You can only know what it is by how it ends up.

The human brain is the most complex structure in the universe. Let’s

Knowing what something is does nothing to inform the purpose of its creation, nor does it even make the positive case that is HAS a purpose.

Very......basic.

 

[Toro]

The Purpose of the Universe is to make me happy.

So get to it everyone!

 

[G.T.]

 

[ding]

You can't know what something is by how it starts out. You can only know what it is by how it ends up.

The human brain is the most complex structure in the universe. Let’s

Knowing what something is does nothing to inform the purpose of its creation, nor does it even make the positive case that is HAS a purpose.

Very......basic.

No. I am saying that the motive is innate. Just as it is in us. I am not conflating nature with purpose. Let's look at the definitions.

purpose: the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.

nature: the basic or inherent features of something, especially when seen as characteristic of it.​

The reason the universe was created was to produce intelligence. Therefore, it was the purpose God created the universe.

The motivation for God to create the universe is that it is the nature of intelligence to create. It is innate to intelligence. I other words, it is an inherent feature of intelligence.

No conflation whatsoever.

How is it possible to not understand that just because something is a product of something else, that that was not the "reason it was done or created."

You did the conflation again.

This is elementary. Youtube a video about the watchmaker. Someone already poonted you in that direction, youre committing an age old fallacy.

Every indication that we have tells us that we live in a universe where given enough time and the right conditions that intelligence will eventually arise. It does so according to the laws of nature because intelligence is written into the laws of nature. So everything that happened did so for the purpose of creating intelligence. The reason it did so was that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. And that is how you get laws of nature which predestine intelligence to emerge. 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.

Thats a number of claims, too many, that dont follow from one another. You are way too simplistic in your fallacious way of cobcluding things, which is why you possess the character flaw of thinking that you know everything about everything.

Your first 2 words tell you that you dont have proof of anything youre saying, just evidence that you use to make willy nilly extrapolations from.

No, "every indication" doesnt say what you said it does. Just the ones you decide to take a look at through the lens of a very biased observor.

"I dont know for sure" is something you suffer from being unable to achieve, in vocabulary.

The bias is all yours.

I have made a positive case for my beliefs. You have not. You have elected to practice critical theory instead.

Einstein didn't say Newton was wrong. Einstein showed what was correct. I don't believe you understand the difference.

Correct. You've stated beliefs. Made a positive case for them, though?

Not to me. Maybe someone thats irrational. Sure.

1. we know space and time had a beginning
2. we know that space and time were created from nothing.
3. we know that the creation of space and time followed the laws of quantum mechanics and conservation.
4. we know that the SLoT precludes an infinite acting universe without reaching thermal equilibrium.
5. we know the laws of nature existed before the creation of space and time.
6. we know that intelligence arose according to the laws of nature.
7. we know that consciousness/intelligence is the most complex thing the universe has created.
8. we know that we live in a logical universe.
9. we know that the universe is governed by laws.
10. we know that every effect had a cause.
11. we know that everything happened for a reason.
12. we know that means everything has a purpose.
13. we know from our own experiences that we create things for a reason to serve a purpose.
14. we know that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.
15. I believe 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.”
16. And that the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence.
17. And that the reason it was created was because it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

 

[ding]

The question has never been can you argue against what I believe.

The question has always been whether or not you can provide an argument for what you believe the answer is.

And the answer to that question is no.

 

[G.T.]

You can't know what something is by how it starts out. You can only know what it is by how it ends up.

The human brain is the most complex structure in the universe. Let’s

Knowing what something is does nothing to inform the purpose of its creation, nor does it even make the positive case that is HAS a purpose.

Very......basic.

How is it possible to not understand that just because something is a product of something else, that that was not the "reason it was done or created."

You did the conflation again.

This is elementary. Youtube a video about the watchmaker. Someone already poonted you in that direction, youre committing an age old fallacy.

Every indication that we have tells us that we live in a universe where given enough time and the right conditions that intelligence will eventually arise. It does so according to the laws of nature because intelligence is written into the laws of nature. So everything that happened did so for the purpose of creating intelligence. The reason it did so was that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. And that is how you get laws of nature which predestine intelligence to emerge. 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.

Thats a number of claims, too many, that dont follow from one another. You are way too simplistic in your fallacious way of cobcluding things, which is why you possess the character flaw of thinking that you know everything about everything.

Your first 2 words tell you that you dont have proof of anything youre saying, just evidence that you use to make willy nilly extrapolations from.

No, "every indication" doesnt say what you said it does. Just the ones you decide to take a look at through the lens of a very biased observor.

"I dont know for sure" is something you suffer from being unable to achieve, in vocabulary.

The bias is all yours.

I have made a positive case for my beliefs. You have not. You have elected to practice critical theory instead.

Einstein didn't say Newton was wrong. Einstein showed what was correct. I don't believe you understand the difference.

Correct. You've stated beliefs. Made a positive case for them, though?

Not to me. Maybe someone thats irrational. Sure.

1. we know space and time had a beginning
2. we know that space and time were created from nothing.
3. we know that the creation of space and time followed the laws of quantum mechanics and conservation.
4. we know that the SLoT precludes an infinite acting universe without reaching thermal equilibrium.
5. we know the laws of nature existed before the creation of space and time.
6. we know that intelligence arose according to the laws of nature.
7. we know that consciousness/intelligence is the most complex thing the universe has created.
8. we know that we live in a logical universe.
9. we know that the universe is governed by laws.
10. we know that every effect had a cause.
11. we know that everything happened for a reason.
12. we know that means everything has a purpose.
13. we know from our own experiences that we create things for a reason to serve a purpose.
14. we know that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.
15. I believe 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.”
16. And that the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence.
17. And that the reason it was created was because it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

For the purpose of brevity, which you sorely lack, Im not even going to and dont even have to show the number of false claims you just made, but instead, show you where shit clearly hit the fan.

"I believe" is not how you appeal to an objectively sound premise.

Its basically a qualifier, "i believe" means "im about to bring subjectivity into the fold and carry the argument forward as though this didnt happen.


Let alone are all of your "we knows" facts, let alone do they not each follow from each other as a matter of necessity.

Jesus fuckin christ youre tediously stupid

 

[ding]

You can't know what something is by how it starts out. You can only know what it is by how it ends up.

The human brain is the most complex structure in the universe. Let’s

Knowing what something is does nothing to inform the purpose of its creation, nor does it even make the positive case that is HAS a purpose.

Very......basic.

Every indication that we have tells us that we live in a universe where given enough time and the right conditions that intelligence will eventually arise. It does so according to the laws of nature because intelligence is written into the laws of nature. So everything that happened did so for the purpose of creating intelligence. The reason it did so was that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. And that is how you get laws of nature which predestine intelligence to emerge. 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.

Thats a number of claims, too many, that dont follow from one another. You are way too simplistic in your fallacious way of cobcluding things, which is why you possess the character flaw of thinking that you know everything about everything.

Your first 2 words tell you that you dont have proof of anything youre saying, just evidence that you use to make willy nilly extrapolations from.

No, "every indication" doesnt say what you said it does. Just the ones you decide to take a look at through the lens of a very biased observor.

"I dont know for sure" is something you suffer from being unable to achieve, in vocabulary.

The bias is all yours.

I have made a positive case for my beliefs. You have not. You have elected to practice critical theory instead.

Einstein didn't say Newton was wrong. Einstein showed what was correct. I don't believe you understand the difference.

Correct. You've stated beliefs. Made a positive case for them, though?

Not to me. Maybe someone thats irrational. Sure.

1. we know space and time had a beginning
2. we know that space and time were created from nothing.
3. we know that the creation of space and time followed the laws of quantum mechanics and conservation.
4. we know that the SLoT precludes an infinite acting universe without reaching thermal equilibrium.
5. we know the laws of nature existed before the creation of space and time.
6. we know that intelligence arose according to the laws of nature.
7. we know that consciousness/intelligence is the most complex thing the universe has created.
8. we know that we live in a logical universe.
9. we know that the universe is governed by laws.
10. we know that every effect had a cause.
11. we know that everything happened for a reason.
12. we know that means everything has a purpose.
13. we know from our own experiences that we create things for a reason to serve a purpose.
14. we know that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.
15. I believe 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.”
16. And that the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence.
17. And that the reason it was created was because it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

For the purpose of brevity, which you sorely lack, Im not even going to and dont even have to show the number of false claims you just made, but instead, show you where shit clearly hit the fan.

"I believe" is not how you appeal to an objectively sound premise.

Its basically a qualifier, "i believe" means "im about to bring subjectivity into the fold and carry the argument forward as though this didnt happen.


Let alone are all of your "we knows" facts, let alone do they not each follow from each other as a matter of necessity.

Jesus fuckin christ youre tediously stupid

I used I believe because I knew you couldn't handle the alternative.

That's my case though.

I wish you actually had one.

 

[G.T.]

The question has never been can you argue against what I believe.

The question has always been whether or not you can provide an argument for what you believe the answer is.

And the answer to that question is no.

I dont care what your views are regarding my "beliefs."
Things I know, Im comfortable with.

Things I dont know, Im comfortable to admit.

Errors in simple reasoning are easy to poi t out when theyre made.

You stating the universe has a purpose, without speaking to its creator let alone proving there is one, is a leap of logical. Not a formally proven fact. It was easy to demonstrate, and so I did. Using a toilet as an analogy was an easy way to relate to dingggg, lol

 

[ding]

The question has never been can you argue against what I believe.

The question has always been whether or not you can provide an argument for what you believe the answer is.

And the answer to that question is no.

I dont care what your views are regarding my "beliefs."
Things I know, Im comfortable with.

Things I dont know, Im comfortable to admit.

Errors in simple reasoning are easy to poi t out when theyre made.

You stating the universe has a purpose, without speaking to its creator let alone proving there is one, is a leap of logical. Not a formally proven fact. It was easy to demonstrate, and so I did. Using a toilet as an analogy was an easy way to relate to dingggg, lol

What beliefs? As near as I can tell your only beliefs are ding shouldn't have any.

 

[G.T.]

You can't know what something is by how it starts out. You can only know what it is by how it ends up.

The human brain is the most complex structure in the universe. Let’s

Knowing what something is does nothing to inform the purpose of its creation, nor does it even make the positive case that is HAS a purpose.

Very......basic.

Thats a number of claims, too many, that dont follow from one another. You are way too simplistic in your fallacious way of cobcluding things, which is why you possess the character flaw of thinking that you know everything about everything.

Your first 2 words tell you that you dont have proof of anything youre saying, just evidence that you use to make willy nilly extrapolations from.

No, "every indication" doesnt say what you said it does. Just the ones you decide to take a look at through the lens of a very biased observor.

"I dont know for sure" is something you suffer from being unable to achieve, in vocabulary.

The bias is all yours.

I have made a positive case for my beliefs. You have not. You have elected to practice critical theory instead.

Einstein didn't say Newton was wrong. Einstein showed what was correct. I don't believe you understand the difference.

Correct. You've stated beliefs. Made a positive case for them, though?

Not to me. Maybe someone thats irrational. Sure.

1. we know space and time had a beginning
2. we know that space and time were created from nothing.
3. we know that the creation of space and time followed the laws of quantum mechanics and conservation.
4. we know that the SLoT precludes an infinite acting universe without reaching thermal equilibrium.
5. we know the laws of nature existed before the creation of space and time.
6. we know that intelligence arose according to the laws of nature.
7. we know that consciousness/intelligence is the most complex thing the universe has created.
8. we know that we live in a logical universe.
9. we know that the universe is governed by laws.
10. we know that every effect had a cause.
11. we know that everything happened for a reason.
12. we know that means everything has a purpose.
13. we know from our own experiences that we create things for a reason to serve a purpose.
14. we know that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.
15. I believe 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.”
16. And that the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence.
17. And that the reason it was created was because it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

For the purpose of brevity, which you sorely lack, Im not even going to and dont even have to show the number of false claims you just made, but instead, show you where shit clearly hit the fan.

"I believe" is not how you appeal to an objectively sound premise.

Its basically a qualifier, "i believe" means "im about to bring subjectivity into the fold and carry the argument forward as though this didnt happen.


Let alone are all of your "we knows" facts, let alone do they not each follow from each other as a matter of necessity.

Jesus fuckin christ youre tediously stupid

I used I believe because I knew you couldn't handle the alternative.

That's my case though.

I wish you actually had one.

I dont claim to know things that I dont and then assert them as fact. Just because you are comfortable with that, doesnt mean that others should be equally fast and loose with what they'd determine is an absolute truth.

 

[ding]

You can't know what something is by how it starts out. You can only know what it is by how it ends up.

The human brain is the most complex structure in the universe. Let’s

Knowing what something is does nothing to inform the purpose of its creation, nor does it even make the positive case that is HAS a purpose.

Very......basic.

The bias is all yours.

I have made a positive case for my beliefs. You have not. You have elected to practice critical theory instead.

Einstein didn't say Newton was wrong. Einstein showed what was correct. I don't believe you understand the difference.

Correct. You've stated beliefs. Made a positive case for them, though?

Not to me. Maybe someone thats irrational. Sure.

1. we know space and time had a beginning
2. we know that space and time were created from nothing.
3. we know that the creation of space and time followed the laws of quantum mechanics and conservation.
4. we know that the SLoT precludes an infinite acting universe without reaching thermal equilibrium.
5. we know the laws of nature existed before the creation of space and time.
6. we know that intelligence arose according to the laws of nature.
7. we know that consciousness/intelligence is the most complex thing the universe has created.
8. we know that we live in a logical universe.
9. we know that the universe is governed by laws.
10. we know that every effect had a cause.
11. we know that everything happened for a reason.
12. we know that means everything has a purpose.
13. we know from our own experiences that we create things for a reason to serve a purpose.
14. we know that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.
15. I believe 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.”
16. And that the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence.
17. And that the reason it was created was because it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

For the purpose of brevity, which you sorely lack, Im not even going to and dont even have to show the number of false claims you just made, but instead, show you where shit clearly hit the fan.

"I believe" is not how you appeal to an objectively sound premise.

Its basically a qualifier, "i believe" means "im about to bring subjectivity into the fold and carry the argument forward as though this didnt happen.


Let alone are all of your "we knows" facts, let alone do they not each follow from each other as a matter of necessity.

Jesus fuckin christ youre tediously stupid

I used I believe because I knew you couldn't handle the alternative.

That's my case though.

I wish you actually had one.

I dont claim to know things that I dont and then assert them as fact. Just because you are comfortable with that, doesnt mean that others should be equally fast and loose with what they'd determine is an absolute truth.

Not knowing something must make you eminently qualified to criticize those that do.

 

[G.T.]

The question has never been can you argue against what I believe.

The question has always been whether or not you can provide an argument for what you believe the answer is.

And the answer to that question is no.

I dont care what your views are regarding my "beliefs."
Things I know, Im comfortable with.

Things I dont know, Im comfortable to admit.

Errors in simple reasoning are easy to poi t out when theyre made.

You stating the universe has a purpose, without speaking to its creator let alone proving there is one, is a leap of logical. Not a formally proven fact. It was easy to demonstrate, and so I did. Using a toilet as an analogy was an easy way to relate to dingggg, lol

What beliefs? As near as I can tell your only beliefs are ding shouldn't have any.

I have beliefs, ding-dong.

I also know certain things. The two I dont hold as being the same, like you do.

Knowledge, in my definition, has to be justified as well as absolutely true.

I have knowledge of my own existence, for example, but I dont have the hubris to think that I could prove my existence to an external mind from my own.