PGA2.0

If you create something, did you exist before you created it?

(IFF) the "YHWH" was the first and only "thing" to exist, 

(THEN) everything that is created or shaped by the "YHWH" MUST BE MADE FROM PIECES OF THE "YHWH".

Blind indifferent chance happenstance, with no intent, reason, meaning, or logic...sound reasonable?

Do you believe that gods make it rain only in specific places at specific times?

Do you believe that gods make earthquakes and hurricanes and forest fires only in specific places at specific times?

Or do you rather believe that gods have better things to think about and or do, and that some weather and earthquakes and forest fires are "blind indifferent chance happenstance, with no intent, reason, meaning, or logic"?

I mean, if EVERYTHING was INTENTIONALLY directed by an omnipotent being, then that would be pretty "f'd-up", right?

I mean, if the "YHWH" could convert the evil oppressor, Saul of Tarsus into an instant saint by scaring the bujesus out of him with a holy messenger angel, doesn't it seem that the "YHWH" would have or could have done the same thing to at least hundreds if not thousands of others, like, you know Stalin or Pol Pot or Torquemada or Richard Dawkins?

You really need to get your head around the fact that what you believe are the words of men.

Another assertion that you cannot prove.

I believe it is easy to demonstrate that a human wrote and published and transported and sold and bought every single copy you've ever seen.

I'm just not sure why anyone would imagine that the "YHWH" is somehow more likely than Vishnu, or Marduk or Pangu.

What evidence do you have for Vishnu, Marduk or Pangu? What writing convey they exist and how does those writing connect to history and the world as to what is? 

From Ancient India - http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/

From Ancient Babylon - https://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/blc/blc11.htm

From Ancient China - https://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-folklore/pangu-and-chinese-creation-myth-00347

They contain three contradictory accounts. Which is true since logically they all can't be right? When I asked for your evidence I did not ask for a link and thirty thousand pages of reading. What is it you want me to gather from these links?

All of your questions and arguments and appeals to ignorance "you can't prove me wrong" lead to one conclusion.

YOU SEEM TO HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO BLOOMING IDEA WHAT "UNFALSIFIABLE" MEANS.

What is Falsifiability?

Falsifiability is the assertion that for any hypothesis to have credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory.

For example, someone might claim "the earth is younger than many scientists state, and in fact was created to appear as though it was older through deceptive fossils etc.” This is a claim that is unfalsifiable because it is a theory that can never be shown to be false. If you were to present such a person with fossils, geological data or arguments about the nature of compounds in the ozone, they could refute the argument by saying that your evidence was fabricated to appeared that way, and isn’t valid.

Importantly, falsifiability doesn’t mean that there are currently arguments against a theory, only that it is possible to imagine some kind of argument which would invalidate it. Falsifiability says nothing about an argument's inherent validity or correctness. It is only the minimum trait required of a claim that allows it to be engaged with in a scientific manner – a dividing line between what is considered science and what isn’t. Another important point is that falsifiability is not any claim that has yet to be proven true. After all, a conjecture that hasn’t been proven yet is just a hypothesis.

https://explorable.com/falsifiability

The bible was written by men ergo men make the claim, no gods involved.

The Bible makes the claim it is not from men but from God

The bible makes the claim, the bible was written by men, no gods involved.

Oh dear, your holy book was written by men, there I proved it.

Collaborative evidence would be the history 

Egyptian mention of 400yrs of Jewish slavery. FAIL

and archeology

Archaeological evidence that 4million people wandered around a small desert for 40yrs FAIL

Try again your argument defeats you. You are discussing evidence not your wishful thinking, even though that is the bedrock of your beliefs.

It might be that the moon snuck down one night and scooped up all the evidence so therefore you are right. Do you understand anything outside of your playground rhetoric?

Funny as.

The godist whose entire argument is predicated on MAGIC accuses atheists of relying on magic. How very droll, hypocritical as hell, but droll.

"Once upon a time, a long, long time ago (around 13.9 billion years ago), something happened for no reason that we speculate about as to what exactly....

Once upon a time about six thousand years ago a being of enormous power, unheard of until this time, spoke existence into existence from nothing according to ignorant primitive superstitious savages.

A nice fairy tale for the gullible!

God could exist apart from His creation.

Balderdash. Give an example.

Why should they continue to happen in a prescribed pattern that we call a law of nature? There is no reason unless there is a Reasonable Being behind the universe sustaining it. Reason comes from mindful beings. Show me a stone that is reasonable or reasoning. 

i think you have acidentally conflated two meanings of 'Reason'. a) 'Cause' and b) 'Thinking about'.

God explains why we are moral beings, where we came from, why the universe exists, why evil exists in the world, why human beings act unjustly, why we find meaning and purpose in the universe, why we love, why we reason, what truth is, why we are logical beings, etc. Chance addresses none of this. So the nonsense is from chance happenstance and you are welcome to such nonsense since you want to make an appeal to emotion.

I'm happy to call it chance.

it is perfectly possible to expain human behaviour in physicalist terms.   indeed i would say that the physicalist explanation of human behavoiur explains the existence of 'saintly' and 'devilish' individuals better than God's grace and demon posession does!

its seems to me you seriousy underestimate the explanatory power of physicalism and simulataneoulsy exagerate what god explains.  you don't say how god makes us love, reason or be logical  - he just does, presumbly to serve some private purpose.   

The explanations offered by physicalism for love and reasoning aren't particularly elevating - they boil down to helping us to survive and reproduce.  But how it happened and why happened don't matter as much as the fact that we can - and do - love and reason.  Given that, whatmatters is what should we apply our powers of logic to?   To the worship of the non-existent gods?

The nihilists are right that nothing is written in the laws of physics to guide us.   Gravity and entropy have no morality, good nor bad.   Atheism is  bit like waking up alone on a desert island - the big question is what do we do?

You place enormous faith in the proclamations of men, why is that?

He does not need you to believe. It is in your best interest. God reveals what you need to understand and that is your merit is flawed before God. Have you ever lied, ever stolen, ever committed adultery in your mind or physically cheated on your wife, or lusted after a woman, or coveted something that is not yours, or not given God His due for His grace towards you? If so, then you are guilty of wrong in the sight of God

So says some man. Why believe such a man?

So what was the criterion for being separated from god in the first place?

Without my faith, I am guilty before God of being separated from His presence, yet another took my place, dealt with my sins, suffered the punishment (death) and provided their righteousness in my place. 

This another did this for all humans then?

This space, time universe (generally agreed) had a beginning. What caused it? 

A voice from nowhere and nowhen, from nothing.. Sound reasonable?

They don't claim to be the Creator of the universe.

Neither does your god.

Men claim your god is the creator of the universe.

You really need to get your head around the fact that what you believe are the words of men.

Collaborative evidence would be the history and archeology from the period

Egyptian mention of 400yrs of Jewish slavery. NONE

Archaeological evidence that 4million people wandered around a small desert for 40yrs. NONE

That rules that story false then.

I believe they are eventually boiled down to two, God or chance. 

Which is more reasonable?

Then I choose chance. 

How do you logically eliminate all other possible gods?

Response to response #1: Atheism assumes no "origin of the universe." Some atheists choose to believe in evolution as the cause. Others simply don't claim to know. I'm the latter. Evolution does exist, and we've seen it happen countless times with creatures and objects. We have tangible proof of it. However, evolution as an explanation of how the universe started? We have no more proof of that than we do of gods, therefore I believe in neither explanation. You assume that I assume these things because you can't seem to comprehend the idea of not having an affirmative belief of the origins of the universe. Just because you can't wrap your head around it doesn't mean I assumed something.

Response to response #2: You can't seem to make a point without manipulating every definition you can into fitting your worldview. If you have to manipulate something in order for it to support your beliefs, then they're probably wrong.

Response to response #3: 

Another dispute regarding your debate (link in a previous post):

There are only two forms of knowledge available to humans:

• Knowledge a priori
  
• Knowledge a posteriori
  

I contend that there is another form of evidence, transcendent in nature - God's revelation. 

Oh. So the voices in your head? Yeah that'll hold up in court.

Science is a tool with many flaws that forms many worldviews. It can be used as an idol of worship in the sense that it replaces God as the ultimate authority when, as you say, so much just can't be known about the world via science. First, in the case of origins, it relies on the interpretation of the data which could be wrong. It is observing things in the present from the past that doesn't come stamped, 13.9 billion years old, or 3.4 billion years old. Many, many things have to be presupposed. 

You say tangibly proven data is presumptuous, yet you call an incomprehensible "ultimate being" no one has ever actually encountered a reasonable explanation? That's ass backward, bro. Something tells me you don't accept "chance" as an explanation because you simply can't wrap your head around it, and it's so much easier to blame it on something you don't have to try to comprehend(god). Blaming things on magical creatures is intellectually lazy.

I just don't understand how any of them change anything about epistemological limits and or logic and or basic standards of evidence.

The biblical teaching is God has revealed Himself, thus it would be via His thoughts written down and by His interactions in the world and universe. 

From a created universe you would expect to find things that give evidence of a Creator, like finding reasons in what we see. We find meaning and reasons why things are the way they are. We don't create those reasons, we discover them. The reasons were there before we thought them. The laws of logic or the laws of gravity or any natural law, such as the laws of thermodynamics do not depend on your reasoning for their existence. They exist independent of your reasoning. 

"Reasoning" is a mindful process, yet these laws are not dependent on your mind, or mine, and yet you find they are reasonable. 

Logical and mindful are not the same.  A computer acts logically, this does not mean a computer is mindful.

You keep harping on "meaningfulness" but what is that?  Doesn't the "YHWH" teach that our highest purpose is to worship god forever and ever?

That seems pretty pointless to me.

You start out with the premise that God does not exist 

I start out, like anyone, with the premise that nothing exists (all phenomena are unreliable).

If all phenomena are unreliable then don't worry about looking both ways when you cross the street. That car coming at you is unreliable. It is not there. Nothing exists. Now see how your thought process works in the real world (Nice knowing you!). Do you see the inconsistency of such a statement? 

Step one, wipe the slate clean of presupposition, you can do this by hypothesizing, "nothing exists (all phenomena are unreliable)".

Step two, identify what is logically impossible to disbelieve, you can do this by recognizing the fact that, "I think, therefore I am".

Step three, continue along this path, making a clear distinction between what is logically impossible to disbelieve (QUANTA) and what is purely imaginary (QUALIA).

or there is no evidence for God and you look for your explanations by excluding God as the likely reason. 

The axiom "there is no god" is absolutely nowhere in my ontology.

It must be somewhere or you would not have stated it. 

I've never asserted "there is no god".  In fact, I am often very quick to defend hypothetical Desim.

You can conceptualize God. You are discussing God. You have beliefs ABOUT God. 

Oh, god.  Not the ontological argument again.

Nevertheless, you deny God. 

I only "deny" god in the same way you "blaspheme" Marduk.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Heb 11:1

While this is true that you need your mind to comprehend anything your mind is not a necessary mind and what you perceive is not always what really is. So how can you be sure your mind is rightly discerning something?

Basic standards of evidence.

Why did they and those before exist? You are not getting to the base of the question. I'm speaking of origins. Why did this universe happen? Why is there life in this universe? How did you, as a conscious being come about from matter?

This is a red-herring.  Even IF some sort of conscious being created everything, how does this fact alone make the slightest difference regarding your personal sense of "meaningfulness"?

So what was molding your development if there was no intent or agency behind it, and what maintains it (the uniformity of nature)? Again, how does chance happenstance sustain anything? Things just happen. Why should they continue to happen in a prescribed pattern that we call a law of nature? There is no reason unless there is a Reasonable Being behind the universe sustaining it. Reason comes from mindful beings. Show me a stone that is reasonable or reasoning. 

Even the scriptures teach that the "YHWH" is incomprehensible to a human mind, therefore it would seem illogical to presume that the "YHWH" "thinks and plans and designs" just like a human or even in some manner that a human might be able to reasonably comprehend.

The "YHWH" is quite simply noumenon.

So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

So, if you hear the message faith can arise from it because God's thoughts are being conveyed to you. 

As soon as I "hear" directly from the Jesus, I'll be sure to let you know.

Logic is verifiable by its efficacy.

But if everything is material, how do you get something immaterial like logic. It can't be touched, tasted, seen, felt, or heard. Grab hold of logic for me. 

Grab hold of the concept of verifiability for me. 

Mathematics is an abstract system that directly relates to quantifiable reality.  Nobody has "faith" in mathematics.  We know mathematics is valid because we are able to independently verify its efficacy.

Yes, it is for you have to believe something to disbelieve God. 

This is provably false.  Any number of Deistic beings and or mythological gods may "exist" or may have "existed" at some point in the past.

Is that a belief?

The statement, "Any number of Deistic beings and or mythological gods may "exist" or may have "existed" at some point in the past." is a tautological fact.

This is not a belief.

The salient question is, "who cares?" or perhaps, "why does this matter to anyone?" or even more specifically, "why should I care?"

Either I am lucky enough to be born into an environment that allows me to have "blind faith" or I am unlucky enough to be either unaware or skeptical of this magical free trip to heaven limited time, special offer.

We, as Christians, are not called to blind faith but a reasonable faith. Whether we reason out or salvation with trembling and fear or just blindly trust Jesus told His believing followers to worship God in MIND, spirit, and body. 

Reason and faith are mutually exclusive.  "Trembling with fear" and "intelligent, rational thought" are mutually exclusive.

And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’

If your mind is full of love, there can't possibly be much room left for "intelligent, rational thought".

Interestingly, brain scans of people reportedly "in love" show that intelligence is distinctly inhibited.

I think you know the way the Bible, especially the NT, prescribes. Whether you believe in the prescribed means is up to God and you. He has provided the means for salvation (being saved from your sins that alienated you from God via the Son). 

Unfortunately the "YHWH" didn't design me with the capability to make blind leaps of faith.

Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

Of course he did.  The problem is that there are literally thousands of denominations, and many of them claim to be the one and only true path to heaven.

It seem like luck is a very poor principle to base your sense of personal "meaningfulness" on.

Where are you getting the luck from?

You must be lucky enough to have been designed by the "YHWH" with the capacity for blind faith.

I still don't understand what luck has to do with believing? I think the message is clear - Jesus died to reconcile the world (all those who would believe and trust) to God.

Why didn't the Jesus die for everyone everywhere???

Why does the Jesus neeeeeed you to "believe" anything at all?

I disagree. It shows that God is holy and pure, without sin and to enter His presence (have a close relationship with Him) you need to be without sin in yourself.

Oh sure, nobody is disputing that the "YHWH" is super cool, but humans are sinful trash.  The scriptures teach that all humans are born sinful so there isn't really anything we can do about it ourselves.

Thus, Jesus accomplishes by grace what no accountable human being can do of their own accord.

Right, humans are sinful trash that should be tossed into the flaming trash heap of She'ol.

So, in fact, it is the opposite of devaluing life to come to faith in Jesus Christ.

I agree, humans are sinful trash and the only way to make a human "valuable" is by a leap of blind faith.

This logically leads us to the conclusion that "a leap of blind faith" is intrinsically more valuable than a newborn (super sinful) baby.

Life is devalued when we don't treat all human beings equally,

All humans are sinful trash.  So, all in all, mostly equal.

yet the New Covenant teaches we are all one in Christ.

It teaches that only all blindly faithful leapers (christians) are equal in the eyes of the Jesus.

That means even though we have different abilities we have equal value before God in our humanness.

Well, not really.  All sinful trash humans are equal and all blindly faithful leapers are equal, but a sinful trash human is not equal to a blindly faithful leaper.

The unborn (being a human being) is of equal value to the newborn or adult human being. 

Well, not really.  All sinful trash humans are equal and all blindly faithful leapers are equal, but a sinful trash human is not equal to a blindly faithful leaper.

For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

Exactly, all blindly faithful leapers are "baptized into one body".  The rest of the sinful trash humans go into the flaming sewer hole.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

This statement referrers specifically and exclusively to blindly faithful leapers.

While we have different roles and different abilities we are one in Christ. 

This statement referrers specifically and exclusively to blindly faithful leapers.

Isn't it funny how the overwhelming majority of Preachers and Deacons are male?  I wonder why?

As for the evidence, there is plenty. But I understand how it is easier to deny the evidence than to accept it. I was there once. 

Holy smokes, "evidence"??  Who needs faith again?  In order to maximize your faith, you should ignore as much evidence as humanly possible.

Without your faith, you are human trash.  Anything even remotely resembling "evidence" should be treated like toxic waste!!!!

I believe they are eventually boiled down to two, God or chance. 

Which is more reasonable?

Then I choose chance. 

How do you logically eliminate all other possible gods?

I was choosing between God and chance, as that is what PGA offered.   But if the choice was between 'gods' and chance i'd still choose chance.

It sesms to me 'God' (or 'the gods') doesn't really help explain anything.   If you start with not knowing where the universe came you end up with exactly the same problem but now its not knowing where the gods came from.   Except now instead of having to explain the origin of some simple physical laws you have to explain where multi-omni-powered entities came from - or very unreasonably - fudge that problem by giving them some other fantastic property such as 'existing outside time and space' or some other nonsense.

For example, prophecy deals with history before it happens, and history happens as prescribed. How reasonable is it to say that prophecy does take place before the facts before the history occurs? I believe it can be shown to be extremely reasonable and I think your case logically falls apart when you try to prove that prophecy was written after rather than before the fact. I keep challenging those who have a good working knowledge of prophecy to debate the subject. So far I have only had a few takers, and on DDO, not here to any in-depth degree of discussion. I got more assertions than proof of the position that prophecy was written after the fact/historical event.

You are making a classic appeal to ignorance.  (IFF) nobody can prove me wrong (THEN) I must be correct!!

The critical error with this type of assertion is that unfalsifiable claims are numerous (bigfoot, Santa Claus, lochness monster, aliens, bermuda triangle) and the simple fact that these cannot be "disproven" does absolutely nothing to validate their claims.

Manifest prophecy is not unique to the christian tradition, many religions claim to have made "true" predictions and even non-religious prognosticators (like Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce) claim to have made "true" predictions.

Being able to predict the future in vague terms is the primary function of our prefrontal cortex, it is no magic trick.

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge.  All epistemology begins with the statement "I think, therefore I am".  It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.

Yes, it is all about how we know what we know. 

I'm glad we can agree on this fundamental concept.

What would be necessary for you to know about your origins or why you exist? Science can sometimes answer the how, but not why. It more often than not speculates about origins. 

Science only considers the available data.  Science doesn't even pretend to answer the questions of "why".

I am perfectly comfortable with the mystery (of what is beyond our epistemological limits).

I do not feel compelled to fabricate a "one size fits all" answer in order to avoid saying "I don't know" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVbnciQYMiM

Epistemology rests on zero assumptions.

But do you know you are not created? 

I have never claimed to know such a thing.  I've only claimed that it doesn't appear to make any discernible difference either way.

Do you know a blind, indifferent chance is your maker? 

I have never claimed to know such a thing.  I've only claimed that it doesn't appear to make any discernible difference either way.

Knowledge would be a certainty. You can't be sure of something unless you know it, can you?

In other words, if knowledge is knowable and verifiable and logically coherent then you can have confidence in it.

I'm just not sure why anyone would imagine that the "YHWH" is somehow more likely than Vishnu, or Marduk or Pangu.

What evidence do you have for Vishnu, Marduk or Pangu? What writing convey they exist and how does those writing connect to history and the world as to what is? 

From Ancient India - http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/

From Ancient Babylon - https://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/blc/blc11.htm

From Ancient China - https://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-folklore/pangu-and-chinese-creation-myth-00347

I believe they are eventually boiled down to two, God or chance. 

Which is more reasonable?

Then I choose chance.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Heb 11:1

Faith is believing confidently in anything that does not have verifiable and or logical evidence, like bigfoot or the lochness monster.

There are three kinds of faith that I'm aware of; reasonable faith, unreasonable faith, and blind faith. 

Belief in bigfoot, Santa Claus, and the lochness monster could also be said to be based on "evidence" and therefore "reasonable" as well.

The Christian faith is reasonable. It gives reasonable and logical evidence for its belief in God. 

Please present your formal syllogism (IFF/AND/THEN/THEREFORE) that explains your claim of logical evidence for the "YHWH".

When you say Christians are delusional because they place faith in an invisible Being I query how well your belief system can make sense of why you exist? If you do not care to question this then you are left with your facts and the present alone. Nothing else can be known, or so you seem to believe.

So unless I make assumptions about things I don't actually know to be true, I can't know those things? I guess you've never heard of scientific research? Please carefully read what I'm about to say.

Do whatever you like cos the Jew has already paid the bill, morality is meaningless.

Objective morality, it is to laugh.

Black and white isn't reality.

Why do you quote meaningless drivel written by the IPSS?

Do you agree with Christian values, such as women should be submissive to their husbands? I think that's a pretty big one.

EDIT: I am not ignoring the rest of your post, i am still thinking about it

So it's not right but do it anyway, objective morality at work or is that hypocrisy?

Are you willing to live with faith in His standard (His Son) or do you think your own is adequate? You either meet His just requirements and standards through what the Son has done on your behalf, or you are responsible for meeting those requirements on your own merit. How well do you think your merit measures up?

The christian teachings seem to suggest that nobody can "meet gods just requirements and standards" and the only way to get into heaven is by faith and grace.

This would seem to devalue human life, suggesting that only the Jesus is worth anything and everyone else are just worthless free-loaders who don't deserve to get into heaven on their own merit and can only get in if they have blind faith in something for which there is zero evidence.  This means that "blind faith" itself is worth more than human life, and if you don't have "blind faith" then your life is worth nothing.

Either you believe in the means He has provided for reconciliation (His Son) or you continue to live alienated from Him. 

Either I am lucky enough to be born into an environment that allows me to have "blind faith" or I am unlucky enough to be either unaware or skeptical of this magical free trip to heaven limited time, special offer.

It seem like luck is a very poor principle to base your sense of personal "meaningfulness" on.

Your accusations of "atheist bias" (even if 100% valid) grant zero credibility to your conclusions.

Why is that? 

It seem like luck is a very poor principle to base your sense of personal "meaningfulness" on.

Do you recognize that we all hold bias? 

Are you kidding me?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEwGBIr_RIw

If you believe God does not exist how will you ever know Someone you deny exists? 

Saul of Tarsus didn't believe in gods until he saw an angel with his own eyes.  It sounds to me that Saul of Tarsus didn't have any faith at all.

Do you think Godless societies/individuals are worse than theists? Are they ethically inferior in your opinion?

the twentieth century has been the bloodiest to date

More Americans died in their civil war than died in WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam combined.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war#Wars_ranked_by_total_number_of_U.S._military_deaths

We have always been very good at killing each other.

Since you deny God you must start with some other explanation and funnel everything through that system of belief. 

Let's start from the axiom that a Deistic Being is a fact.  Now what?

Your limited subject reasoning becomes the key. Instead of focusing on the overall picture you divide the picture up into tiny pieces and focus on one aspect of the picture. Thus we have a conflicting theory of reason and evidence between atheism and Christianity. 

Ok, ok, let's start from the axiom that the "YHWH" is a fact.  Now what?

You hold a non-theistic conception of reason and evidence, which assumes the ultimacy of your human mind. And you use as an excuse for holding your position of atheism that only the facts as you determine them are valid, that what you hold as fact does not act on faith, but solely on reason and proof. You fail to look at how you arrived at atheism because this is an uncomfortable subject that exposes what I would coin a foundation resting on thin air (no visible means of support). Until you look deeper at that system of thought and determine what makes it tick I claim it is you who is delusional for you have built your whole house of cards on a shaky beginning that you refuse to look at (the Emporer has no clothes). The foundation is cracked at the seems. 

Your accusations of "atheist bias" (even if 100% valid) grant zero credibility to your conclusions.

You base your facts on the empirical, on what you see, what complies with your rules and your evidence (only the facts please, sir). 

Don't forget logic.

But your very system of belief, atheism, is an assumption. 

Atheism is not a "system of belief".  Atheism is a general skepticism of unverifiable phenomena, like Russell's teapot.

I say it does, for you are discussing that very meaning and purpose now. The question that keeps bugging me with an atheistic perspective is why would you expect to find meaning and reasons in a chance happenstance universe? Even the chaos has an order. (^8

I am ok with discussing meaning and pupose because I am not into discussing atheism v theism.  I consider that done and dusted - you may disagree and there are many posters who you can argue about that with, but not with me!

i don't think the philosophical and ethical consequences of a god-free universe receives enough attention - many atheists enjoy battling theists too much to worry about the consequences of victory!

How do you get meaning from the quantitative as opposed to the qualitative?

Quanta (the quantitative) is emotionally meaningless.  Only qualitative experience is emotionally meaningful.

A dog a fish and an ant have motives.  For example they seek out particular foods and consume them.  Their particular type of food is valuable to them.  Finding and consuming food and reproduction are valuable activities to them.  Social creatures also value interactions with fellow members of their pack, school, and colony.

Dogs and fishes don't compose symphonies or discover laws of nature. 

I don't compose symphonies or discover laws of nature either, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, are you suggesting that other animals don't value the same things and experiences that humans do?  Well, that is actually my point.  Humans don't value the same things and experiences and other animals.  We seem to agree.

Not in the same way. Humans are the dominant species on the planet because of their reasoning ability to manipulate their environment like no animal.

Human survival instinct is functionally identical to the survival instinct of other mammals.  Your magical ability to reason and manipulate is absolutely immaterial.

I value my community because humans cannot exist in isolation.  If you have an impulse to "kill all humans" you are basically suicidal.

More like genocidal.

"Genocide" does not usually include killing the people who are actively directing the killing.

A dog, a fish, and an ant can't manipulate the world to the same degree humans can. They do not have the same ability.

Human survival instinct is functionally identical to the survival instinct of other mammals.  Your magical ability to reason and manipulate is absolutely immaterial.

I'm not sure how a hypothetical Deistic Being adds any meaningfulness to human existence.  Please explain.

Why is He hypothetical? That is your assumption, not mine. 

Please answer the question.  How does the concept of any particular god or gods add any meaningfulness to human existence?

How does meaning originate from inanimate, non-living matter? That again is your assumption, not mine.

You can identify and maintain your emotional mechanisms with science - http://www.robertlustig.com/4cs/

I don't buy it. 

You don't have to "buy it", it is 100% free to everyone everywhere.

How can you get much more basic than either God or chance happenstance (that which lacks intent)

There is no way to distinguish between the two.

Presuming gods does not automatically entail that they care at all about you as an individual.

I'm not sure you should use a capital G, but I'd agree that the choice is between a 'mindful' and a 'mindless' cause of the universe.  

I favour a mindless cause, the details of which are yet unknown but are often referred to as a 'theory of everything'.   

You, no doubt, favour a mindful cause and go further, indentifying the Christian God as the cause.   Were I to accept the cause of the universe was mindful and intelligent I'd doubt it was necessariy the Christian God when there are so many other candidates!

The universe needs something to get things started.   Does that something have to resemble what is commonly thought of as a god?  My feeling is 'no', I presume your feeling is 'yes'.  But it is a matter of gut feelings, not cold rationality.

This is a Red Herring.

Let's suppose that a Mindful, "Intelligent" Deistic Being IS 100% for certain, the creator of the universe.

That, by itself does absolutely nothing to "give your life meaning".

Imagine an orphan.

That orphan can imagine that its parents loved each other and wanted to have a baby, but some tragedy beyond their parent's control let them to become an orphan.

Or, that orphan can imagine that its parents hated each other and didn't want to have a baby, and abandoned them.

The orphan has no way to know which one of these stories is "true" or even if either one of them is "true".

Our (logically necessary) Deistic Being does not show themselves or speak to us directly.