I read only the beginning of your argument and didn't continue because it is effectively false.

Saying happiness only has to do with hormone level is proven by science to be false.

The truth is, we don't know what really makes us lastingly happy. Seeing suffering as a problem is wrong, it's not a problem, it's a condition, we don't need to fix it, we need to understand it.

Many scientists today believe that happiness has to do with more than just the brain, as unbelievable as that sounds.

Suffering isn't a problem, it's a condition that needs to be understood, not fixed. It's not wrong to suffer, it's not ideal, but it's not wrong.

People draw more happiness from religions, the majority of the population, than people find in drugs and brain treating medication, that's just the reality.

"if you believe in the creations of something, then you believe in the creator of those things. If you believe a person exists, then inherently you believe that their mother and father existed at some point in order to create that person"

and what came before the parents? More parents. We can use our imagination to say a creator created existence, or we can use our imagination to say there was no beginning, or that creation created itself, etc, etc (lol sometimes I feel like we're under a test and we need to answer how the universe was created and why we're here)

But regardless, it's something we simply cannot prove, any logic can be applied, so his argument is as truthful as any argument that claims to address how existence was made to be, we simply don't know :)

There is only one truth, truth is absolute, by its definition and nature. You may say truth is the representation of what is, as it is.

All things in existence are part of the so called truth, even lies.

I think preaching is as warranted as it is effective. The more effective and convincing the preaching, the more people that would be willing to listen, simple as that.

Doesn't matter if it's truthful or not, since god can't be proven to exist or not exist, it's a matter of belief, in the end.

What you're not considering is that knowledge is based on reality, and reality, along with us, is constantly evolving. Therefor the more time goes on, the more we learn and the more there is to learn.

We can never reach to the extent of absolute knowledge because reality itself, along with us, is constantly evolving.

The only knowledge is questioning what is, for any answer we reach will eventually change and evolve with time.

In other words, in my opinion, there's always the same amount of knowledge to learn, no matter where we are in time, because we, along with reality and life, are evolving at the same pace :)

I have only one problem with all this thinking (don't worry, I read everything), just one point I'd like to share.

Humanity's view of "infinity" is subjective to us. You can say it's a term we created in order to try to define what we don't understand.

Is something infinite simply because we can't measure it? No, it simply means we don't have the knowledge and technology to.

So I would add: God is infinite only as long as we don't know how to measure him. Therefor we can conclude that infinity and god Himself, are potentially limited and finite.

Simply saying "We don't know infinity" just makes me question how we define infinity.

How can we say something is one way, when we don't have an empirical definition of it?

What I'm saying is that we don't know if God and infinity are infinite or not, because we don't know what infinity is, and as long as we don't know something, but we know it exists, then all that's left is to find out, with time. It's scientifically wrong to say something is something (infinite) without knowing what that something is (we don't know what infinity is).

In other words, we use something we don't understand in order to define something we don't understand, that is just wrong logic.

Buddha believed that all things are expressions of the mind, of an objective reality, therefor, Do What You Will means doing what the abstract reality wills.

Meaning, when you are most yourself, when you are one with this reality, then you are manifestation of your pure will and "can't harm", or "only positive".

In today's times, we can interpret it to this: Do what you will, as long as it's in line with the law.

Of course laws can be corrupt, but the same values apply. We are all one mind expressing itself subjectively, therefor, we need governing rules, like the law, in order to maintain order to our subjectivity.

People are more focused on achieving materialistic wealth than abstract wealth, e.g being one with the mind, the universal manner of thinking.

What I'm trying to say is that in today's times, this universal manner of thinking comes through what most agree with: Aspects such as democracy, law, etc.

it's also why philosophy is dying out, because most people fail to see the impact of abstract thinking in a world that is "expressing" its "mind" through materialistic means, such as the ones described above.

Different times, same reality, basically.

Every ocean is comprised of many droplets of water.

In other words, if the droplets of water aren't valued as much as the ocean itself, if they ocean is being treasured more, for example, then the droplets would decay, thus the ocean would decay.

However if you treasure each droplet individually, as much as the ocean, in a positive manner (it's not black and white), then the ocean itself, along everything that it is made of, will evolve and progress.

Knowledge is memory based on experience. From it we derive our own opinions on it and interpret it in different ways. Therefor the same knowledge can lead to different conclusions by different people.

Knowledge is a tool we use to measure our surroundings in order to better our manner of operating in life and on earth.

One word: Curiosity/questioning.

Although this isn't a scientific answer, kindly consider it.

What lays in front of us, in the "future", always? The unknown.
Life has a will to discover and explore. Curiosity, questioning.

Although this may end up bringing the question, "is this will the prime mover?"

But think about it, the very fact that we're asking this, that we're questioning, that I'm offering my argument, comes from curiosity and questioning, the basic and primal need to learn the unknown.

Every question in life leads to another question. Every answer is followed by more questions. There is no truth, there is only continuity and development, that is based on wonder and curiosity.

What we know now will change with time, because everything, all of reality, is constantly developing, though one mean: Learning the unknown, curiosity, even now, these very moments, we are questioning what we know, and I believe that in a million years from now, we'll still question what we "know". :)