the thing is, none of this in any way speaks to whether or not there is a god, and if anything leads me further into believing in it under the exact framework that you are describing.

to use your star example, there are parts which we would describe as 'hot' and parts which we would describe as 'freezing'. more importantly, however, these descriptions are descriptions of the state of a subject based on the primary building blocks of the universe, these being things and the processes by which things interact. most importantly, these states that are applied to the stars are intrinsic to the universe under which we live and, as such, may be applied to other applicable things under the universe, despite an inability to describe the entire universe as particularly hot or cold.

to extend this thought, suppose that there is a concept denoting 'purpose' with a specific understandable definition as a property which may be attributed to a particular subject. 'purpose', then, if it can be displayed by a subject of the universe, is itself a property of the universe. 'a purpose' ('the purpose', 'a specific purpose') may not be and does not need to be a fact of the universe (just as it cannot be, on the whole, labeled hot or cold) but this does not stop purpose itself from being a concept (i would say entity, being that time is a dimension.) extant in the universe, generated directly by the universe itself.

source: merriam-webster online

if i may be so bold to frame those words more generally, i might say that a more accurate description would be as a general or generic but specified path which leads by assumption, and hopefully to a particular objective.

which, as it turns out, maps very closely to my conception of the time arrow. the 'particular objective' being as simple as 'forward from here' and potentially as complex as total determinism (not likely), and the generic or general path should be obvious to everyone, even if you have to look backward for it (and only get a really small, confusing, and blurry slice to see).

opinions:
the determinism we experience is universal intention. the understanding we experience is universal reflection. we are, absolutely, a part and reflection of the universe, and there is nothing in us or that we can do or concieve that is not absolutely intrinsic to the universe.

again i would like to point out that the 'intention' or 'purpose' of the universe does not need to be defined by anything other than the processes of the universe itself (e.g. the time arrow and simple existence). but i do not know how something that is not a part of the universe could manifest so obviously in the universe. even antiatoms are here, universal counterpart or not.

it is by no means necessary that 'we' were generated for the cause or purpose of reflection (take that as humans, those humans who do and have and will exist, this planet, whatever). however, we were generated and we do reflect. this was the path of the time arrow from the beginning (at the very least, after the fact.)

for that matter, it is by no means necessary that anything be generated to reflect. however, we were, and it was the path of the time arrow from the very beginning, even if that could only be said reasonably after the fact. (of course it could only be 'said' at all after the fact..)

however, at this point, while its important not to be anthropocentric, it seems ill advised to ignore the subjective experience that is so obviously a defining part of our experience in this universe which fosters and gives stage for experience and perspective. this is not a point to be taken lightly, tho again not one to be given too strongly to the humans. these things are part of the universe, we just have access, or maybe only the more prominant ability to say something about it

btw the universe walking up stairs was a really funny mental image. 5 points.

I think your argument basically stems from this:

while there are things in the universe that can reflect on themselves, one cannot say that the whole universe does.
remember, the universe is a collection of everthing inside it.

just like a human body is a collection of the things inside it.
a cell inside our body may have the ability to replicate by itself
the human body as a whole cannot replicate by itself

therefore, we can say that, if something inside a system has a property, that does not mean that the system itself has that property.

reflection: self examination, primarily through comparison of subjective experience. the culmination past subjective experience for the sake of either of thought or consideration

i would consider it a linear relationship, as the effort of the statement was to diminish the distinction between a particular body and the universe as an entity, granting that what is extistent in the universe is necessarily generated of the universe (and, by extention, the universe itself). this thought stems primarily from the ultimate sameness of all things, along with a general (though not specific) inability to distinguish the edges of objects.

so, anyone can reflect on or think about the universe, and anyone who could be called anyone is a part of the universe. therefore, a particular unit of the universe can reflect on or think about the universe itself and, simultaneously, all things of the universe are essentially the same and, ultimately, only one (or maybe zero). in the post immediately previous to this one i make a further (but much more concise) attempt to explain this thought,

honestly tho, i would tend to think this a truism

but i am not saying that a human is the universe. i am saying that a human is of the universe. its impossible to deny that a human is made of materials and governed by laws of the universe. therefore, it is (at the very least) reasonable to say the the universe may foster intelligence. further, unless humans are somehow greater than the sum of their parts, the attributes we attribute to ourselves are inextricably from the universe.

it is a reasonable assumption to say that it does not extend to anything at all except humans. however, as you said

because of this, my stance is that a human is not universally different from a rock. we have ability of expression of concepts that are inherent to the universe because of our bodily configuration and nothing more. we are not special. we didnt, by our existence, generate new things in the universe. we merely manipulate and reflect on that which was already there using nothing at all more than that which was already there.

and the intelligence outside the universe thing defining the possibility of god is...well, i dont know what tosay. no there is probably not intelligence outside the universe, and if there were, i would have absolutely nothing to say about it. does that mean there does not exist something which could be called 'god'? i dont think so. however, i will concede to you without hesitation that the general conception of 'God' is cartoonish at best, and outright detrimental at worst.

people have this nasty habit of taking concepts (like god and government) and turning them into a guy who lives down the street.

and as a good friend of mine once said

if there's no such thing as god, then what are we talking about?

humans are not made of the universe, the universe is partially made from humans; although we are an extremely small part of it.

also, attributes to the starter motor of a car cannot be applied to the whole car.
the starter motor uses magnets. but the whole car is not magnetic.

we can only say that we represent a small portion of the universe; a collection of things that is a subset of "the universe"

you're right though, on an elemental level. we aren't special.

so, i will cowardly but openly renig on many statements and say that "intelligence" as you consider it is not what the universe has. that does not mean that i do not consider the universe intelligent, just that i hold a definition for objective intelligence, namely persistence and consistency, as well as a special place in my heart for the subjective experience.

they are, as far as i can tell, the backbone of a persistent environment. subjectivity is the birth of concept. objectivity is the grounds where concepts actually materialize as things (ideas are nouns too. time is a dimension) and we sit in that awkward basket of reality that makes some vague attempt to balance the two *and* make it to work on time in the morning.

but, at this point i have meandered into the realm of subjective experience. an area i give a good deal of merit to, as it is far more respectable than a third-party Truth factory, whether its labcoat or minutely exposed collar is white.

anyway, we know some things and we think some things and whatever. none of it really makes that much difference, and every bit of it may come to be known as 'uninformed' or 'misinterpreted' in 50 years. or maybe not. i wont see the final decision anyway. (there is going to be one of those, right?)

in any case, it is unreasonable to go around to other subjective bodies and expect them to harbor your same assumptions, even if that is the assumption that assumptions should not be held. its a fine thing to think given proper context, but pure reason is an impossible deathtrap. likewise, religious institutions (institutions in general) push agendas on individuals for the advancement of whatever institution's agenda. this is wrong. deplorable even

the problem, as i see it, is that it (like most concepts that get institutions built after them) is just not something for the masses.

i tried to post a few times before this (stupid internet), and each time it came out quite a bit different. but a very important sentiment that i would like to get across is that objectivity is not viewed objectively. as such, people tend to end up with different names and terminology to categorize it (reality, existence) in the mode of their own understanding. or the understanding of whoever is dominant or was so in upbringing. however, nobody knows.

as much as i have enjoyed this conversation, i have enjoyed it under the pretense of learning your point of view far more than changing mine. mine has certainly been refined along the way, but i am aware that my opinion makes literally nil difference. it just simply could not matter less what i (or anyone else) thinks about god. other points of view in relation to mine are just interesting to me, and you guys were here anyway, and i assume you just wouldnt answer me if i was bothering somebody.

anyway, i do think that the typical explanation of what 'god' is leaves quite a bit to be desired. 'creator of the universe' (while potentially a true statement depending how well the universe can handle an infinite loop) is quite limiting and just doesnt very well encompass our environment

instead, to my understanding, god is the relationship of a subjective experience to the fact and consequences of objectivity. god is the objectivity itself and the physical laws and environmental constraints by which objectivity propogates the subjective experience. 'he' isnt a 'thing' for measuring or explaining, 'it' is a 'concept' by which understanding is made possible. and that satisfies me. and, to be honest, it even kind of makes me smile.

but, then, ive never really fit anywhere on this argument. i think disagreeing with everyone is probably the safest bet.

and my assumptions are not 'un-educated'. i am, actually, fairly well educated and am no stranger to these topics of conversation. i understand that language is a very binding aspect of our experience, and it is difficult to see sometimes how fundamental it is in shaping understanding, but accepting a foreign definition of something like 'the universe' or 'god' as accurate and totally complete because its written in a book or because some dude told me thats the way it was would probably make me puke on myself.

and i am not a nihilist. someone who believes that there is a god would have a difficult time believing that there is no ultimate truth. i just dont think you or i have any clue what it might possibly look like. if it must be categorized (everything does have to be, of course. what the hell else are we going to do?) i am a preeventualist primarily, an existentialist after that, and when im in the grocery store i try to keep it to determinism so i can just get my things and be done with it.

i dont believe you on that last part either, but im not one to downplay an individual's ability to not think something. on the other hand, if you had a truly neutral standpoint, you might not even recognize the number red.

but serioiusly, it may be 'unconventional', but it is fairly well specified to those who know the syntax.

personal grievences aside, you are granting way too much credit to the way we percieve reality. im not saying existence is fantasy. im saying that we dont get it.

science provides 'hard proof' in the working mechanics of our universal construct. and not very accurately. but well enough that we typically dont notice the offset for quite some time. it leads to a knowledge of how things in reality typically work to some approximation, but understanding of reality deals with meaning and science does not. if you had said hard proof that leads to understanding of how reality works i probably wouldnt have gone on for so long.

im glad i made you smile.

i do not think any one group or method has a monopoly on understanding objective reality. i will say that more confidently. no one has a clue what true objectivity is outside of some vague conceptualization of it. everyone experiences this, i assume, and go on to assumethat each has it incorrect to an immesurable degree in an unknowable direction.

and to be honest with you, i dont find it all that important to be on anyone's side on this or many issues. that is what religions and sports clubs are for. this does not make me a nihilist, this makes me a disagreeable.

and i do very much believe what i am saying. for someone with pure objectivity so securely under his belt you miss the subjective mark an awful lot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

so the definition of the word treason is intrinsic in the word treason? and a rose by any other name would not smell as sweet? and it couldnt possibly mean something else? wordsdont define themselves. people define words, and then words define ideas, and then people have ideas about words. it is not such a simple interaction.

well yes it does. the easter bunny has to hold a basket, and so it needs more than concept. it needs a basket-holding hand. it needs to be able to lay eggs, or get and distribute eggs, and preferably be a good hider. there are qualifications to being a physical easter bunny while there are none for god, as god's definition involves being undefinable. 'ineffible'. thats my favorite part.

but that would negate favor, thus non-being is not in anything's favor, not that the word 'favor' has any typical place in this conversation. i would need to re-read and see howthat started..(i probably did that.)

i am not just making crazy shit up, or at least, i believe in what i am saying. but i know i am saying unconventional things. i view scientific measurement as approximation to be validated against personal experience, as objective reality is foreign to us, and therefore quite possibly misdirected from the start. i consider individual philosophy more valuable than a hopeless search for objective truth. its there. it definitely is. there is just nothing s aying we're looking from the right angle.

i disagree, though if you could prove it i would be interested. the workings of reality, perhaps. but the whole of reality is far too great for you or i, god or no god.

i do think a word can mean anything. within conversational or personal context certain words hold varied meanings, though there is certainly a fairly reliable trend line, but metaphor and idiom allow words to be shaped in odd ways. definitions should not be merely accepted, but should be honed by context. a definition describes the current reference of a word, not its original intent. and aside from that, over time words change in meaning and pronunciation. they are not so concrete to begin with

i was attempting to have science be dominant over universal workings/mechanics while philosophy can take care of meaning. you say no meaning, you have your philosophy. i disagree that there is no meaning to existence, tho would not consider it necessarily universally defined. rather, it is a personal thing. you say its none, fine by me. i say its some, fine by me too.

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, it has been quipped. this is right, and the virtue that should be upheld first in a secular society.

i understand this, but i disagree that science points to actual objective reality. as i have stated elsewhere, science assumes objective reality and then measures against it. truth is not a product of science. fact is, on the other hand, and i find those little more than interesting.

first, i contend that no one does live in complete objectivity, which is why discussing on the level of complete objectivity is ultimately a waste of time. also why science won't ever find god. its all about the mechanics, and gods got apretty steady hand. held the hbar low so you could have a glass of ice water and keep the whole thing intact.

and otherwise, i still contend that true objectivity universally impossible for individuals who deal with 'perspective'. 'objective' meaning that you discount your personal perspective in favor of another, i will grant you this. meaning an actual shift to universal perspective; i just disagree with that possibility.