What is the purpose of the universe?

[ding]

I see. So when you create something that creation is not the realization of your intention? In other words, do you go about doing things with purpose of do you just randomly do stuff?

Both

Tell what you did randomly today and what you have done with purpose?

So everything has a purpose. I see now. Pretty good. Very deep.

Every star in the sky and every planet, moon meteor and comit all have a purpose? What is it?

Does everything have a purpose? Well... everything exists for a reason and most things serve a function. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. Stars for instance exist because the natural laws which came into existence when space and time were created predestined that stars would exist. Stars serve a function in the evolution of matter too. When a star dies it creates elements other than helium and hydrogen which is how all the elements were created. Planets exist for the same reason, planets exist because laws of nature predestined planets to exist. We know from science that everything is connected one way or another. Everything is the way it is because the laws of nature predestined it to be this way. It isn't an accident that we have galaxies or solar systems or black holes or quasars. The reason all of these things exist is because the laws of nature made them so. Their purpose is the continuing evolution of matter. And since the matter and energy which you are made of came from these stars and planets and meteors, their purpose was to create you.

So getting back to my questions. You are in agreement with me that when you create something it is usually the realization of your intentions, you do it in steps and that the more complex your creation the more steps it took for you to create it. Do you agree that I can take something you created and use it as evidence to try to figure out why you created it?

Ok, yes, so continue.

Does evidence equal proof?

 

[sealybobo]

Both

Tell what you did randomly today and what you have done with purpose?

So everything has a purpose. I see now. Pretty good. Very deep.

Every star in the sky and every planet, moon meteor and comit all have a purpose? What is it?

Does everything have a purpose? Well... everything exists for a reason and most things serve a function. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. Stars for instance exist because the natural laws which came into existence when space and time were created predestined that stars would exist. Stars serve a function in the evolution of matter too. When a star dies it creates elements other than helium and hydrogen which is how all the elements were created. Planets exist for the same reason, planets exist because laws of nature predestined planets to exist. We know from science that everything is connected one way or another. Everything is the way it is because the laws of nature predestined it to be this way. It isn't an accident that we have galaxies or solar systems or black holes or quasars. The reason all of these things exist is because the laws of nature made them so. Their purpose is the continuing evolution of matter. And since the matter and energy which you are made of came from these stars and planets and meteors, their purpose was to create you.

So getting back to my questions. You are in agreement with me that when you create something it is usually the realization of your intentions, you do it in steps and that the more complex your creation the more steps it took for you to create it. Do you agree that I can take something you created and use it as evidence to try to figure out why you created it?

Ok, yes, so continue.

Does evidence equal proof?

No. Some of the most intelligent minds have discussed if there is any evidence that a God exists. And there are a host of arguments I could throw at you in rebuttal but it comes down to this.

Ok so there might be a creator. As a scientist that's an interesting hypothesis. It's not even a theory. Certainly not a scientific theory. So if that's true then there are flaws to your arguments.

But is it possible you are right? Sure. So what? If I don't believe do I burn in hell? Is your religion the one true religion?

The other day I thought about how inferior humans are to tardigrade in so many ways. Then I just heard Iceland sharks may live as long as 500 years. And a tiger could tear us up. We aren't so special not even on this planet.

 

[ding]

Tell what you did randomly today and what you have done with purpose?

So everything has a purpose. I see now. Pretty good. Very deep.

Every star in the sky and every planet, moon meteor and comit all have a purpose? What is it?

Does everything have a purpose? Well... everything exists for a reason and most things serve a function. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. Stars for instance exist because the natural laws which came into existence when space and time were created predestined that stars would exist. Stars serve a function in the evolution of matter too. When a star dies it creates elements other than helium and hydrogen which is how all the elements were created. Planets exist for the same reason, planets exist because laws of nature predestined planets to exist. We know from science that everything is connected one way or another. Everything is the way it is because the laws of nature predestined it to be this way. It isn't an accident that we have galaxies or solar systems or black holes or quasars. The reason all of these things exist is because the laws of nature made them so. Their purpose is the continuing evolution of matter. And since the matter and energy which you are made of came from these stars and planets and meteors, their purpose was to create you.

So getting back to my questions. You are in agreement with me that when you create something it is usually the realization of your intentions, you do it in steps and that the more complex your creation the more steps it took for you to create it. Do you agree that I can take something you created and use it as evidence to try to figure out why you created it?

Ok, yes, so continue.

Does evidence equal proof?

No. Some of the most intelligent minds have discussed if there is any evidence that a God exists. And there are a host of arguments I could throw at you in rebuttal but it comes down to this.

Ok so there might be a creator. As a scientist that's an interesting hypothesis. It's not even a theory. Certainly not a scientific theory. So if that's true then there are flaws to your arguments.

But is it possible you are right? Sure. So what? If I don't believe do I burn in hell? Is your religion the one true religion?

The other day I thought about how inferior humans are to tardigrade in so many ways. Then I just heard Iceland sharks may live as long as 500 years. And a tiger could tear us up. We aren't so special not even on this planet.

You are skipping steps. I have not gotten within 100 miles of discussing God yet. Right now I am discussing the concepts of evidence and proof independent of God.

So my question started off as can I use something you create as evidence to learn something about you. The obvious answer is yes, but it is limited to certain things. Moving on I am asking you if evidence equals proof. Forget about God for a moment - if you can - and address the phenomenon of evidence and proof absent a supreme being. Well... do you believe that evidence necessarily equals proof?

 

[danielpalos]

What if, getting stuck in Nexus 6 with Zardoz, is our Purgatory for being incorrigible?

 

[ding]

What if, getting stuck in Nexus 6 with Zardoz, is our Purgatory for being incorrigible?

What if we are a sim game on a computer? Was there a creator?

 

[there4eyeM]

Stating that everything has a 'reason' sounds sensible. It may even be sensible. Stating it does not make it so, however. The very most a human can say is that he/she looks at things that way. It is equally valid to think that the manner in which we look at the universe is strongly influenced by socialization, perceptual bias and/or pure personal preference.
Again, the semantic possibility to pose a question does not commit 'reality' to provide a coherent answer, and certainly not a positive response.

 

[Mudda]

No

I see. So when you create something that creation is not the realization of your intention? In other words, do you go about doing things with purpose of do you just randomly do stuff?

Both

Tell what you did randomly today and what you have done with purpose?

So everything has a purpose. I see now. Pretty good. Very deep.

Every star in the sky and every planet, moon meteor and comit all have a purpose? What is it?

Does everything have a purpose? Well... everything exists for a reason and most things serve a function. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. Stars for instance exist because the natural laws which came into existence when space and time were created predestined that stars would exist. Stars serve a function in the evolution of matter too. When a star dies it creates elements other than helium and hydrogen which is how all the elements were created. Planets exist for the same reason, planets exist because laws of nature predestined planets to exist. We know from science that everything is connected one way or another. Everything is the way it is because the laws of nature predestined it to be this way. It isn't an accident that we have galaxies or solar systems or black holes or quasars. The reason all of these things exist is because the laws of nature made them so. Their purpose is the continuing evolution of matter. And since the matter and energy which you are made of came from these stars and planets and meteors, their purpose was to create you.

So getting back to my questions. You are in agreement with me that when you create something it is usually the realization of your intentions, you do it in steps and that the more complex your creation the more steps it took for you to create it. Do you agree that I can take something you created and use it as evidence to try to figure out why you created it?

Have you found anyone to agree with you yet? Is that evidence that you have nothing?

 

[sealybobo]

I see. So when you create something that creation is not the realization of your intention? In other words, do you go about doing things with purpose of do you just randomly do stuff?

Both

Tell what you did randomly today and what you have done with purpose?

So everything has a purpose. I see now. Pretty good. Very deep.

Every star in the sky and every planet, moon meteor and comit all have a purpose? What is it?

Does everything have a purpose? Well... everything exists for a reason and most things serve a function. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. Stars for instance exist because the natural laws which came into existence when space and time were created predestined that stars would exist. Stars serve a function in the evolution of matter too. When a star dies it creates elements other than helium and hydrogen which is how all the elements were created. Planets exist for the same reason, planets exist because laws of nature predestined planets to exist. We know from science that everything is connected one way or another. Everything is the way it is because the laws of nature predestined it to be this way. It isn't an accident that we have galaxies or solar systems or black holes or quasars. The reason all of these things exist is because the laws of nature made them so. Their purpose is the continuing evolution of matter. And since the matter and energy which you are made of came from these stars and planets and meteors, their purpose was to create you.

So getting back to my questions. You are in agreement with me that when you create something it is usually the realization of your intentions, you do it in steps and that the more complex your creation the more steps it took for you to create it. Do you agree that I can take something you created and use it as evidence to try to figure out why you created it?

Have you found anyone to agree with you yet? Is that evidence that you have nothing?

The Pope has over a million followers. Islam has a lot of followers. How many believe doesn't even matter because most people are stupid sheep. And even some of the most intelligent people in the world believe. Why? Wishful thinking and cognitive dissonance.

I get it that there might be a god/creator. It all seems amazing for this all to have happened by chance. But until we find this creator, we will remain skeptical. And I'm not so much skeptical of the generic creator as I am the one who cares and visits. That I'm completely sure is bullshit.

 

[ding]

Both

Tell what you did randomly today and what you have done with purpose?

So everything has a purpose. I see now. Pretty good. Very deep.

Every star in the sky and every planet, moon meteor and comit all have a purpose? What is it?

Does everything have a purpose? Well... everything exists for a reason and most things serve a function. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. Stars for instance exist because the natural laws which came into existence when space and time were created predestined that stars would exist. Stars serve a function in the evolution of matter too. When a star dies it creates elements other than helium and hydrogen which is how all the elements were created. Planets exist for the same reason, planets exist because laws of nature predestined planets to exist. We know from science that everything is connected one way or another. Everything is the way it is because the laws of nature predestined it to be this way. It isn't an accident that we have galaxies or solar systems or black holes or quasars. The reason all of these things exist is because the laws of nature made them so. Their purpose is the continuing evolution of matter. And since the matter and energy which you are made of came from these stars and planets and meteors, their purpose was to create you.

So getting back to my questions. You are in agreement with me that when you create something it is usually the realization of your intentions, you do it in steps and that the more complex your creation the more steps it took for you to create it. Do you agree that I can take something you created and use it as evidence to try to figure out why you created it?

Have you found anyone to agree with you yet? Is that evidence that you have nothing?

The Pope has over a million followers. Islam has a lot of followers. How many believe doesn't even matter because most people are stupid sheep. And even some of the most intelligent people in the world believe. Why? Wishful thinking and cognitive dissonance.

I get it that there might be a god/creator. It all seems amazing for this all to have happened by chance. But until we find this creator, we will remain skeptical. And I'm not so much skeptical of the generic creator as I am the one who cares and visits. That I'm completely sure is bullshit.

What does any of this have to do with my question? Putting God aside... in general... do you believe that evidence necessarily equals proof?

 

[ding]

Stating that everything has a 'reason' sounds sensible. It may even be sensible. Stating it does not make it so, however. The very most a human can say is that he/she looks at things that way. It is equally valid to think that the manner in which we look at the universe is strongly influenced by socialization, perceptual bias and/or pure personal preference.
Again, the semantic possibility to pose a question does not commit 'reality' to provide a coherent answer, and certainly not a positive response.

You cannot know what something is until it reaches or becomes its final end product. Only then can you understand the role that everything played to produce it. Only then can you know that the purpose of all of those steps was to create the final end product. In this case it is beings that know and create whose energy was created when space and time came into existence. Along the way that energy and matter changed forms until it became beings that know and create, thus the universe can know itself. Can you name anything in the universe which is more complex than beings that know and create? We live in a universe that has never had an uncaused event. For every effect there has been a cause. Therefore, everything is connected. We can see this connection throughout nature. It is plain to see. It sounds sensible and is sensible because it is true.

 

[there4eyeM]

An end result may simply be that. "Purpose" may be projection.

 

[ding]

An end result may simply be that. "Purpose" may be projection.

That works both ways, right?

 

[Mudda]

Stating that everything has a 'reason' sounds sensible. It may even be sensible. Stating it does not make it so, however. The very most a human can say is that he/she looks at things that way. It is equally valid to think that the manner in which we look at the universe is strongly influenced by socialization, perceptual bias and/or pure personal preference.
Again, the semantic possibility to pose a question does not commit 'reality' to provide a coherent answer, and certainly not a positive response.

You cannot know what something is until it reaches or becomes its final end product. Only then can you understand the role that everything played to produce it. Only then can you know that the purpose of all of those steps was to create the final end product. In this case it is beings that know and create whose energy was created when space and time came into existence. Along the way that energy and matter changed forms until it became beings that know and create, thus the universe can know itself. Can you name anything in the universe which is more complex than beings that know and create? We live in a universe that has never had an uncaused event. For every effect there has been a cause. Therefore, everything is connected. We can see this connection throughout nature. It is plain to see. It sounds sensible and is sensible because it is true.

You state things that you say are true without offering up any real proof. Epic fail. Again.

 

[Czernobog]

It is arrogant to think that you know the purpose of the universe.

Plus, you have no proof. Again.

I have plenty of proof. Just none that a militant atheist like yourself will accept.

Calling non-believers who openly speak out against religion "Militant Atheists" is like calling firefighters "Aggressive Water Dispensers". But, that's okay. That's all the religious have. Whenever they are challenged, they have no answers, so they resort to name calling, and arrogantly insist the problem is you.

 

[Czernobog]

It is arrogant to think that you know the purpose of the universe.

Plus, you have no proof. Again.

“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.

Ok, so it's some guy's theory. Where's the proof?

It's not even a theory. Here we have a scientist who is violating the most basic principle of science - to pursue knowledge. When faced with questions he didn't know the answers to, instead of saying, "let's find the answer", he just injected "God", as if that was a suitable replacement for exploration, and experimentation.

 

[ding]

It is arrogant to think that you know the purpose of the universe.

Plus, you have no proof. Again.

I have plenty of proof. Just none that a militant atheist like yourself will accept.

Calling non-believers who openly speak out against religion "Militant Atheists" is like calling firefighters "Aggressive Water Dispensers". But, that's okay. That's all the religious have. Whenever they are challenged, they have no answers, so they resort to name calling, and arrogantly insist the problem is you.

Militant atheism is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion. Militant atheists have a desire to propagate the doctrine, and differ from moderate atheists because they hold religion to be harmful.

 

[ding]

It is arrogant to think that you know the purpose of the universe.

Plus, you have no proof. Again.

“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.

Ok, so it's some guy's theory. Where's the proof?

It's not even a theory. Here we have a scientist who is violating the most basic principle of science - to pursue knowledge. When faced with questions he didn't know the answers to, instead of saying, "let's find the answer", he just injected "God", as if that was a suitable replacement for exploration, and experimentation.

George Wald is an atheist, lol.

 

[Czernobog]

It is arrogant to think that you know the purpose of the universe.

Plus, you have no proof. Again.

I have plenty of proof. Just none that a militant atheist like yourself will accept.

Calling non-believers who openly speak out against religion "Militant Atheists" is like calling firefighters "Aggressive Water Dispensers". But, that's okay. That's all the religious have. Whenever they are challenged, they have no answers, so they resort to name calling, and arrogantly insist the problem is you.

Militant atheism is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion. Militant atheists have a desire to propagate the doctrine, and differ from moderate atheists because they hold religion to be harmful.

Sure, like Aggressive Water dispensing is hostile toward fires. Actually all atheists hold religion to be harmful, because it replaces reason with fantasy.

 

[ding]

It is arrogant to think that you know the purpose of the universe.

Plus, you have no proof. Again.

I have plenty of proof. Just none that a militant atheist like yourself will accept.

Calling non-believers who openly speak out against religion "Militant Atheists" is like calling firefighters "Aggressive Water Dispensers". But, that's okay. That's all the religious have. Whenever they are challenged, they have no answers, so they resort to name calling, and arrogantly insist the problem is you.

Militant atheism is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion. Militant atheists have a desire to propagate the doctrine, and differ from moderate atheists because they hold religion to be harmful.

Sure, like Aggressive Water dispensing is hostile toward fires. Actually all atheists hold religion to be harmful, because it replaces reason with fantasy.

No. They don't. Only militant ones like you. You have elevated your non-belief to a religion. That is why you are behaving like a religious fanatic who attacks a rival religion.

 

[there4eyeM]

So many people insist that words mean other than what they do have rendered discourse practically impossible. 'Fascism' is not left wing. 'Atheism' is not a religion. 'Reality' is subjective.
That said, of course words are only symbols and, ultimately, mean whatever we want. So, if the majority accepts the destruction of language, it will mean whatever whim wills.