Does The Universe Have a Purpose?

[ding]

Intentionality is where the fallacy is occurring.

All effects have causes, that we've observed.

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

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

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

Pick any one of them...

the tag argument

the kalam cosmological argument...



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

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

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

 

[ding]

It was discussed earlier. But I am happy enough to explain relevance for any of it.

We know from our study of nature that we live in a deterministic universe where every cause has an effect and every effect had a cause. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. Therefore, since we live in a logical universe where every cause has an effect this means that everything happens for a reason. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. therefore since everything happens for a reason, everything has a purpose.

Nah. Cause and effect I get. Tying in purpose still doesn't make sense.
Maybe you need to give me some more concrete examples.

Have you ever made a turkey dinner?

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

What was the reason you made it?

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

So there was a reason?

Did the turkey dinner serve it's purpose?

 

[harmonica]

o---ok
god is a smart one
except of course the human creation is a disaster

It's all part of the conflict and confusion process. The law of compensation is always at work.

....the greatest murder/rape/destruction/robbery/hate/etc [ WW2 ] and this is a ''good'' creation??
...wars since man became man
murders
etc
?
I know--I know---man has free will
--but god created man

But is it really a disaster? Or are you just focusing on the negatives?

I'm very confused--

a person of your knowledge/intelligence/etc-----posting on the lowly/RACIST [ hahaha ] /idiotic USMB?????!!!!!!!????
..you know about creation and the Universe--the most fascinating/important subjects of all time
..here ---on USMB !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There's nothing special about me.

you KNOW the answer to the OP---no one else knows /can know it
humans DO not have the knowledge to know anything about ''creation''/etc

 

[ding]

It's all part of the conflict and confusion process. The law of compensation is always at work.

....the greatest murder/rape/destruction/robbery/hate/etc [ WW2 ] and this is a ''good'' creation??
...wars since man became man
murders
etc
?
I know--I know---man has free will
--but god created man

But is it really a disaster? Or are you just focusing on the negatives?

I'm very confused--

a person of your knowledge/intelligence/etc-----posting on the lowly/RACIST [ hahaha ] /idiotic USMB?????!!!!!!!????
..you know about creation and the Universe--the most fascinating/important subjects of all time
..here ---on USMB !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There's nothing special about me.

you KNOW the answer to the OP---no one else knows /can know it
humans DO not have the knowledge to know anything about ''creation''/etc

We have what was created and we have our own experiences creating that can be used as a proxy.

We really are without excuse.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So then you believe intelligence is just an accident

That is not the equivalent of what she said. Selection is not random. The commonality of fusiform shapes seen among marine animals is not an accident. Neither are the degrees of intelligence seen among animals, or apes in particular. These traits were selected by physical laws operating on physical systems.

 

[ding]

So then you believe intelligence is just an accident

That is not the equivalent of what she said. Selection is not random. The commonality of fusiform shapes seen among marine animals is not an accident. Neither are the degrees of intelligence seen among animals, or apes in particular. These traits were selected by physical laws operating on physical systems.

Look either it was destined to happen or it was a fluke. That's how I see it. Given the fact that the nervous system of every mammal species grew larger as it evolved, I'd say it was only a matter of time for matter to reach it's true potential.

 

[ding]

Consciousness is its own distinct stage of evolution.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Look either it was destined to happen or it was a fluke. That's how I see it.

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

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Consciousness is its own distinct stage of evolution.

But still comes in degrees. Just like neck length, or tail length, or aggression. And even introspective self awaremss does not demand that the mythical idea of free will (defined as being agents of our own thoughts and actions) exist.

 

[OldLady]

Nah. Cause and effect I get. Tying in purpose still doesn't make sense.
Maybe you need to give me some more concrete examples.

Have you ever made a turkey dinner?

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

What was the reason you made it?

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

My Honeymoon was in Aruba.

<3 I wanna go back.


Its small, though....so Im not sure Id be able to live there. Plus outdoor basketball in Aruba is totally out of the question in any serious sense, because of the wind. Dammit!

My mom liked it a lot, too. She said the wind kept it comfortable. I suppose it would be very hard to play basketball though.

 

[ding]

Look either it was destined to happen or it was a fluke. That's how I see it.

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

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

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

 

[ding]

Consciousness is its own distinct stage of evolution.

But still comes in degrees. Just like neck length, or tail length, or aggression. And even introspective self awaremss does not demand that the mythical idea of free will (defined as being agents of our own thoughts and actions) exist.

Sure. The distinction I am making is beings that know and create.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Look either it was destined to happen or it was a fluke. That's how I see it.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[G.T.]

Look either it was destined to happen or it was a fluke. That's how I see it.

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

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

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

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

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

Yupp, more of the same dingness.

 

[OldLady]

Intentionality is where the fallacy is occurring.

All effects have causes, that we've observed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ding]

Look either it was destined to happen or it was a fluke. That's how I see it.

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

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

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

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

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

Ummm... no it's not. It's the whole physics thing of being underwater that makes it untenable. Sort of like the physics of trying to commercially bring back mined products from Mars. It's never going to happen and be commercial.

My point is that before intelligence could emerge there were certain requirements that had to be met. You think these are chance happenings. I say they are products of the laws of nature and were inevitable. It is the inevitability and my experiences as creator which informs my beliefs.

 

[OldLady]

Intentionality is where the fallacy is occurring.

All effects have causes, that we've observed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not only that, but natural selection is not even linear in each genetic mutation.

There are such things at "negative" mutations, meaning, less conducive to survival. Over time, lawwwts of time, non beneficial mutations are reproduced out. Also, more are forming. That's because something is not reproducing all that much if it's dying. The process is random and the results have been duplicated.

Want to know something even crazier?

Our "intelligence" can have negative effects on our mutations, because we "usurped" the process and now folks are reproducing en masse whether they have ideal traits for survival or not, because we are now protected from natural processes (being hunted) by other means. (tools)

Yes, and our stupid wars kill off our young and healthy. Let's not even mention the intelligently designed nuclear bomb.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Look either it was destined to happen or it was a fluke. That's how I see it.

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

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

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

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

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

Yupp, more of the same dingness.

View attachment 230638

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

Ding, episode 1,297,590:

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

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

Ding: "What are your credentials, anyway?"

 

[OldLady]

Nah. Cause and effect I get. Tying in purpose still doesn't make sense.
Maybe you need to give me some more concrete examples.

Have you ever made a turkey dinner?

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

What was the reason you made it?

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

So there was a reason?

Did the turkey dinner serve it's purpose?

Sure.

 

[G.T.]

Look either it was destined to happen or it was a fluke. That's how I see it.

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

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

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

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

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

Yupp, more of the same dingness.

View attachment 230638

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

Ding, episode 1,297,590:

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

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

Ding: "What are your credentials, anyway?"

I think it's formally called Presuppositional Apologetics.