Forget it, then.

> We're a staggeringly complex grouping of chemicals

Yes, and I guess that's part of the point. We are such a staggering complexity of data, seeming design, balance, and wonder, we have to infer the most reasonable conclusion as to whether this came about by matter+time+chance, or from an intelligent, purposeful source.

> We are part of nature, as you say. What's the problem?

You attribute meaning where there is only the mechanical. It's like asking a traffic light to recognize my car, given enough time. You're jumping over a bridge with no evidence or logic.

> Our ability to consciously experience reality, reflect on it, conceive of other possibilities, manipulate and improve upon nature, and so on.

But what is the source of reasoning consciousness—time+matter+chance? How can you trust any thought you have if the source is random mutations and natural selection—both blind (not reasoned) processes? How can reasoning come from this, given that these are the only tools in the box? You can't even trust your thoughts, because evolution is only concerned with the four "F"s—food, fight, flight, and reproduction—not with truth statements and rational processes.

> This doesn't make us categorically different from anything else in nature, but so what? We're pretty interesting, and so is the world we live in. Again, what's the problem?

But we ARE different from other things in nature. As far as we know, humans are the only ones who...

1. We can remember (as in history and culture): we have cultures and ways of transmitting information. (Marvin Minsky, artificial intelligence pioneer)

2. We can reason with one another. (Daniel Dennett, cognitive scientist)

3. Humans have a unique ability to imitate desire (mnemetic desire). Animals can imitate behavior, but they don't imitate desire. (Warren Brown, neuroscientist).

4. The capacity to worship; religious practice (Craig Hazen)

5. Humans are the only creatures in the universe who ask "Why?" (Loren Eiseley, anthropologist, educator, philosopher and natural science writer)

>Don't you find that at all, I don't know - exciting? I think it's great

I'm not too concerned with your emotional response, but only with what is not only possible, but reasonable. If we are just chemicals, that we're just chemicals. As Dawkins says, "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."

> The fact that the world has structure and order doesn't mean it has any "purpose" beyond perpetuating its own existence.

Structure and order betray more than just existence, but also purpose. We humans don't don't know of anything that shows evidence of being purposefully designed that wasn't indeed purposefully designed. Whenever we know of something that exhibits purpose (a reason for why it exists or why something happened the way it did), and whenever we know whether or not it was the product of intelligent design (somebody thought it up and made it happen), it was indeed the designed product of an intelligent being. Whether a watch, a washer, or a window, if we can infer that there was a purpose behind it, it's safe to say that an intelligent being designed it for that purpose, or at least for a purpose.

There are many parts of the universe, earth, and life as we know it that exhibit characteristics of purpose. Every scientists asks "Why" because we assume purpose. We are always looking for reasons and purpose. Therefore, if we are inferring the most logical conclusion, it's reasonable to assume purposeful design, not that this amazing, beautiful, wonder, complex universe was the result of an staggering number of beneficial accidents, mutations, and chances. Purpose doesn't logically sprout all by itself. We invest things with purpose, give them purpose, and design them with purpose. Exciting stuff, but we have to figure out the most reasonable explanation, not just, "Wow, this all came about all by itself out of nothing. Isn't that just awesome?"

> Something being unthinkable doesn't make it impossible.

Of course not, but if we are trying to infer the most reasonable conclusion, we have to make logical connections. How can personality come from the impersonal, meaning from randomness, purpose from mechanics, morality from chemicals, order from chance, and informational data from non informational sources? It doesn't make sense.

> Perhaps life and existence has no meaning. I don't see why that is required.

If life and existence have no meaning, then start killing people. Rape who you want. Steal. Who cares. Life and existence have no meaning. Enjoy it!

> God really doesn't need to come into it.

Logically, he must. You're not following any logic or evidence to get from impersonal forces, mechanics, energy and time to personality, value, morality, purpose, and meaning. There is no logical progression or scientific evidence that can take you from your point A to your point B.

> If we are just a grouping of chemicals, then let's be honest: we're just a grouping of chemicals.

Yes, if A then A. I agree. Though I'm not sure what you're implying by the word "just". We're a staggeringly complex grouping of chemicals that has evolved into the organism we are over billions of years. That's incredible, and something we still have an incomplete understanding of.

> On what basis can you claim the sum is more than the parts, when the parts are impersonal, mechanical, assembled by chance and blind forces, and non-moral?

I'm not claiming that. We are part of nature, as you say. What's the problem?

> What makes us any different if that's truly all we are? What gives us meaning?

Our ability to consciously experience reality, reflect on it, conceive of other possibilities, manipulate and improve upon nature, and so on. This doesn't make us categorically different from anything else in nature, but so what? We're pretty interesting, and so is the world we live in. Again, what's the problem?

> All is finally chaotic, irrational, and absurd. If everything is meaningless, then it truly is that.

Don't you find that at all, I don't know - exciting? I think it's great. We've cheered up a bit since Camus, generally speaking. And even he was pretty optimistic, when it comes down to it.

> But no one can hold to that position because there is an external world that has form and order, purpose and rationality (math, at the very least).

That doesn't follow at all. The fact that the world has structure and order doesn't mean it has any "purpose" beyond perpetuating its own existence. In fact that's exactly what all the evidence points to. The meaning of life is to live. Again - exciting stuff, no?

> Everything that exists came out of nothing—absolutely nothing: no energy, no mass, no velocity, no personality. But that's unthinkable that everything that now exists came out of utter nothing.

Something being unthinkable doesn't make it impossible. So it's unthinkable. So what? The universe is pretty weird. Think of all the other unthinkable things (so to speak!) that might nevertheless, be true.

> where does meaning come from?

Nowhere. Why does there have to be any?

You're just repeating yourself. Perhaps life and existence has no meaning. I don't see why that is required. Isn't it enough to just enjoy it? God really doesn't need to come into it. Even if there is such a being, he's pretty obscure, so evidently doesn't value the "meaning" you seem to think we humans do all that highly.

> Your claim is that if God isn't real, then nothing really matters at all. How preposterously unimaginative.

It's not a lack of creativity, but of taking the logic of the position to its unavoidable conclusions. If we are just a grouping of chemicals, then let's be honest: we're just a grouping of chemicals. On what basis can you claim the sum is more than the parts, when the parts are impersonal, mechanical, assembled by chance and blind forces, and non-moral? Are rocks morally and personally meaningful? Of course not, that's stupid. But we are made of the same stuff. Even the stuff we assemble for our purposes, like cars and computers, are just assemblages of parts. What makes us any different if that's truly all we are? What gives us meaning? There aren't many possibilities.

1. There is no logical or rational answer. All is finally chaotic, irrational, and absurd. If everything is meaningless, then it truly is that. But no one can hold to that position because there is an external world that has form and order, purpose and rationality (math, at the very least).

2. So the second possibilities is that there is an answer that we can consider rationally, and can discuss.

Given that it's #2, not #1, there are only 3 choices:

1. Everything that exists came out of nothing—absolutely nothing: no energy, no mass, no velocity, no personality. But that's unthinkable that everything that now exists came out of utter nothing.

2. Everything that exists had an impersonal beginning: mass, energy, chemicals. But if you accept the impersonal beginning of all things, you're faced with reductionism: everything we have now can be reduced to its origin: impersonal factors. The problem with that, though, is where does meaning come from? A drop of water, then, is no different from a person—just a different arrangement of chemicals. If we can explain everything by impersonal plus time plus chance, where does that take us? Certainly not to what we see. Certainly not to where people have value, and some things are right and others are wrong, and there is purpose and meaning in life.

3. The 3rd choice is that there was a personal beginning to what exists, and therefore there is legitimate meaning and value in life.

> And even if God is real, it doesn't automatically follow that that makes life meaningful, that s/he gets to tell us what to do, etc.

You're right, it doesn't automatically flow, but it logically flows. It's a different and longer conversation.

Yeah, believers say that sort of thing a lot. I'm not buying it. Your claim is that if God isn't real, then nothing really matters at all. How preposterously unimaginative. And even if God is real, it doesn't automatically follow that that makes life meaningful, that s/he gets to tell us what to do, etc.

Ah, there we go. That's a different (and probably more honest and to the point) question. The point is that if there is no such being as God, and we really are just an agglomeration of chemicals with no particular purpose and certainly no meaning (except what we choose to give it, which is totally random) who came together by chance and selective process, then life really truly is meaningless, nothing really matters ( as Metallica sang), and what we do ultimately doesn't matter either. Good and bad are only things we've made up to get by in life, so they're negotiable, too. And when it comes right down to it, if we evolved purely by chance, random mutations and natural selection (both of which are blind processes), then even my thoughts are no reliable, because they are also the result of chance, random mutations, and blind natural selection. Our ability to think, reason, and communicate is suspect. Who can trust these processes, and on what basis?

But if there really is such a being as God, the import of that is life-shaking. We were made with purpose and intent, and endowed with value and significance. Now humans have dignity, and life has value and meaning. There is such a thing as good and bad, right and wrong, and there will be accountability for what we choose and how we live. Since the source of life is personal, moral, and intelligent, then I can understand humans as personal, moral, intelligent, and purposeful. It would change how I think of myself and others, how I treat others (and my accountability for that before God), and what I think, what I choose, and how I act matters.

It makes all the difference in the world whether or not God is actually real.

I want to understand why people insisit on hanging on to the idea that God is actually real. What's the point?

You'd be amazed what people doubt and deny. But what does that have to do with your question? You asked where God is, and the answer is everywhere. You asked what does that mean, and I explained. Now you seem to be pivoting the discussion into "How do we know God exists?" (since the form of your statement implies that there is reason to doubt that God exists)—which is fine, but if that's what you wanted to talk about, we should have gone there first. Why all the roundabout?

> language, dreams, time, memories, intuitions, perceptions, pain, music

There is no reason to doubt any of those things exist.

First of all, I said some forms of energy have no materiality. When you try to change the purpose of the analogy from materiality to detectability, the analogy loses its focus.

Secondly, God can be detected, but not by science. There are all kinds of things that exist (language, dreams, time, memories, intuitions, perceptions, pain, music) that aren't things you can just hook up to a machine and quantify them, or even prove they exist.