My "Beef" With Atheists

Actually that wasn't an ad hominem. The ad hominem fallacy is when where a claim or an argument is rejected on the basis of an irrelevant fact about the person making the claim or argument.The Dumbass comment was the authors opinion of you, and if your argument was rejected because you were perceived as a dumbass it would be an ad hominem.But that was not what happened. In fact the dumbass comment was part of a message outlining one of your claims as troublesome.Again to call you a dumbass for making stupid claims is not an ad hominem, but just voicing an opinion. Whether the clai was stupid or not is of course open to debate, but I think I have travelled far enough of topic by now.

Hmm I disagree on your perception of facts. The universe makes sense to me, and I know of no gods. Yes the universe can exist whether it makes sense to us or not. Why do I get the impression that you have a problem with this trivial fact?And in what way are we small and insignificant to the universe? Does the universe perceive meaning? Doesn't this require intelligence? Are you claiming that the universe is intelligent? That sounds about right, glad we are on the same page. What is it that doesn't make sense? You think it only makes sense if the universe has a purpose to exist? How strange, can you xplain this quaint notion? I am sad to hear you think this. I have a rather different opinion about the human race, but then again we can't agree on everything.

Meaning, and significance exists only in minds. Our lives a neither significant nor insignificant with regards to the universe, since the universe cannot conceive significance any more than a pebble can.So the universe doesn't care about, because, well, the universe isn't the sort of thing that cares about anything. The universe didn't care about the Big Bang, it doesn't care whether there will be a big crunch, since it cannot care any more than a grain of sand can.So no we are not insignificant to the universe, the universe is unable to perceive, so its a categorical error to try to anthropomorphize the universe by assuming significance has any meaning in that context.

I see your post is in reply to mine.Could I ask you to specify to what you specifically reply to in my post? It didn't mention love at all, and it sure didn't claim that there was no love in the universe.I would agree with the statement that the universe cannot fell love, since the universe is a collection of all there is, and even though parts of the universe can feel love, the universe as a whole cannot. Just like a country is made up of people, land and other stuff, but countries cannot love, even though individual people can.

I guess that is me you are refering to. I say that the Universe as a whole is not a sentient entity and thus it cannot feel anything. I said nothing about there being no love in the universe, or about love being scientific fact or fiction, or love-o-meters.If you contest that the universe as a whole is sentient,able to feel love,or measure significance, then argue the point.Whether love exists is interesting, but not in the context of this thread.This has all been a pointless and silly detour from the discussion spurred by the OP, so this will be my final comment on this.