Donny's Ramblings

“Atheist” Richard Dawkins Open to Possibility Of God, Just Not the Term ‘God’ ?

701 Comments

I found the third paragraph in this article of particular interest:

And, although he resisted calling it God, he said that he believed in the possibility of a transcendent “gigantic intelligence” existing beyond the range of human experience. He added that his main target in The God Delusion was fundamentalists.

Sounds like a simple twisting of semantics to me.

In my opinion, and as I expressed in an email to Carrie in regards to this article, it doesn’t matter the label one uses, be it Allah, God, Diós, Dieu, Deus, Krishna, the Great Spirit, or something totally different… it seems to me that Richard’s problem is simply with the tendency of Christian fundamentalists to define who God is, or to assume they know what God wants, and not with the possibility of God’s existence. If that is the case, and the definition of an atheist is someone who denies the existence of god, Richard Dawkins cannot accurately be described as a true atheist.

What say you?

701 thoughts on ““Atheist” Richard Dawkins Open to Possibility Of God, Just Not the Term ‘God’ ?

  1. I think Richard Dawkins, like myself, is a Fundamentalist Agnostic. He’s atheist in practice, because there are no existing definitions of God that are congruent with reality. He hasn’t shut the door on the possibility of God, and neither has Hitchens, Dennett or Harris. They’re all just reasonable guys, who know that religious dogma is harmful. Check out some discussions going on at http://www.createcognitivedissonance.wordpress.com

    Ben

  2. I think Richard Dawkins, like myself, is a Fundamentalist Agnostic. He’s atheist in practice, because there are no existing definitions of God that are congruent with reality. He hasn’t shut the door on the possibility of God, and neither has Hitchens, Dennett or Harris. They’re all just reasonable guys, who know that religious dogma is harmful. Check out some discussions going on at http://www.createcognitivedissonance.wordpress.com

    Ben

  3. I say I love this blog post!

  4. I say I love this blog post!

  5. It seems to me that you’re the one who cares about the semantics, not Richard.

    He’s always openly stated that a God is possible, but that there is no evidence for one. A God is possible the way it is possible that a miniature John Travolta lives at the bottom of the forest. Anything is possible. That does not mean you should believe in it.

  6. It seems to me that you’re the one who cares about the semantics, not Richard.

    He’s always openly stated that a God is possible, but that there is no evidence for one. A God is possible the way it is possible that a miniature John Travolta lives at the bottom of the forest. Anything is possible. That does not mean you should believe in it.

  7. Carrie, I’m sorry but that is not at all what his quote, nor the article, suggests. Stating otherwise is, in my opinion, pure stubbornness.

  8. Carrie, I’m sorry but that is not at all what his quote, nor the article, suggests. Stating otherwise is, in my opinion, pure stubbornness.

  9. You may also find these quotes of interest

    http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/FAQs.shtml
    I was interested to hear your comments in a recent programme in the series Holloway’s Road. I was particularly struck by your remarks about the sense of awe and reverence which you have in the face of the universe. Has this ever led you to consider that there may be a god? from: C. Kerr

    No. This would be an utter non-sequitur. Either there is evidence for a god (in which case you would not “accept the scientific account of reality” because the scientific account of reality would have been found wanting. That is what evidence would mean). Or there is no such evidence (as I and apparently you and Bishop Holloway believe). In which case what difference can the sense of awe and reverence engendered by the universe possibly make? On an atheistic view of the universe, it is STILL an awe-inspiring place. How could it not be, when it has engendered creatures capable of understanding and appreciating it? What would be truly absurd would be to wake up in a universe, whether with or without a god, and NOT feel awe and reverence at the fact of one’s own existence.

    http://richarddawkins.net/article,1219,The-Atheism-FAQ-with-Richard-Dawkins,Diganta-Richard-Dawkins

    In your book, you’ve said that God ‘almost certainly’ does not exist. Why are you leaving open the possibility?

    Any scientific people will leave open that possibility, that they cannot disprove whatever unlikely the event might be. I would be the first person to accept God once evidence comes in favour of it.

  10. You may also find these quotes of interest

    http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/FAQs.shtml
    I was interested to hear your comments in a recent programme in the series Holloway’s Road. I was particularly struck by your remarks about the sense of awe and reverence which you have in the face of the universe. Has this ever led you to consider that there may be a god? from: C. Kerr

    No. This would be an utter non-sequitur. Either there is evidence for a god (in which case you would not “accept the scientific account of reality” because the scientific account of reality would have been found wanting. That is what evidence would mean). Or there is no such evidence (as I and apparently you and Bishop Holloway believe). In which case what difference can the sense of awe and reverence engendered by the universe possibly make? On an atheistic view of the universe, it is STILL an awe-inspiring place. How could it not be, when it has engendered creatures capable of understanding and appreciating it? What would be truly absurd would be to wake up in a universe, whether with or without a god, and NOT feel awe and reverence at the fact of one’s own existence.

    http://richarddawkins.net/article,1219,The-Atheism-FAQ-with-Richard-Dawkins,Diganta-Richard-Dawkins

    In your book, you’ve said that God ‘almost certainly’ does not exist. Why are you leaving open the possibility?

    Any scientific people will leave open that possibility, that they cannot disprove whatever unlikely the event might be. I would be the first person to accept God once evidence comes in favour of it.

  11. Um, I read the article and the quote. In what way does ‘belief in the possibility of a “transcendent ‘gigantic intelligence’ existing beyond the range of human experience” contradict all his consistent statements on the possibility of God?

  12. Um, I read the article and the quote. In what way does ‘belief in the possibility of a “transcendent ‘gigantic intelligence’ existing beyond the range of human experience” contradict all his consistent statements on the possibility of God?

  13. Maybe you mean that the article’s author wrote it without context, so that if you know nothing about Dawkins, you might on face value interpret this to mean that he actively believes in a higher power. You need only re-read the attribution (‘belief in the possibility’) and refer to any of his writings and statements to clear your head of any intentional or unintentional deception.

  14. Maybe you mean that the article’s author wrote it without context, so that if you know nothing about Dawkins, you might on face value interpret this to mean that he actively believes in a higher power. You need only re-read the attribution (‘belief in the possibility’) and refer to any of his writings and statements to clear your head of any intentional or unintentional deception.

  15. winking face unintended.

  16. Once again I believe this is a case of “what you look for you will find”. Perhaps Dawkins is more of a genius than I give him credit for…

    In one film clip he is admitting to the possibility of aliens seeding this planet but stating that said aliens would have had to evolve the same way we did (as if he has the knowledge of what life conditions would be on their planet – ha! – pretty arrogant, in my opinion, to assume that he possibly could) and in the article above he concedes the possibility of intelligence beyond the understanding of humans, and still the flock of his “followers” somehow believe he is an atheist.

    Fascinating.

  17. Once again I believe this is a case of “what you look for you will find”. Perhaps Dawkins is more of a genius than I give him credit for…

    In one film clip he is admitting to the possibility of aliens seeding this planet but stating that said aliens would have had to evolve the same way we did (as if he has the knowledge of what life conditions would be on their planet – ha! – pretty arrogant, in my opinion, to assume that he possibly could) and in the article above he concedes the possibility of intelligence beyond the understanding of humans, and still the flock of his “followers” somehow believe he is an atheist.

    Fascinating.

  18. Right. Because he says over and over what he means by atheist. He believes (and I do too) that it would be unscientific to assert that you know beyond any other possibility, that there is no God. The same way that you cannot assert that you know beyond any other possibility that there is one. He is a non-theist in that he does not espouse any theistic explanations for the universe. I don’t think he’d care if you felt that ‘agnostic’ was a better term for this. Or in any case, I sure don’t. But on that level, you’d better be an agnostic too.

  19. Right. Because he says over and over what he means by atheist. He believes (and I do too) that it would be unscientific to assert that you know beyond any other possibility, that there is no God. The same way that you cannot assert that you know beyond any other possibility that there is one. He is a non-theist in that he does not espouse any theistic explanations for the universe. I don’t think he’d care if you felt that ‘agnostic’ was a better term for this. Or in any case, I sure don’t. But on that level, you’d better be an agnostic too.

  20. It seems Mr. Dawkins is unsure of his own beliefs, to be honest. In some clips he flat out denies the possibility of God. In others he concedes to the possibility.

    Sounds to me like the man is conflicted inside.

    —-

    Lots of Dawkins clips on Youtube for those wishing to become more familiar with him:

    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=richard+dawkins

  21. It seems Mr. Dawkins is unsure of his own beliefs, to be honest. In some clips he flat out denies the possibility of God. In others he concedes to the possibility.

    Sounds to me like the man is conflicted inside.

    —-

    Lots of Dawkins clips on Youtube for those wishing to become more familiar with him:

    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=richard+dawkins

  22. If you’ve seen anything where he actually (and without editing) denies the POSSIBILITY of a God, I would love love love to see it.

  23. If you’ve seen anything where he actually (and without editing) denies the POSSIBILITY of a God, I would love love love to see it.

  24. Carrie,

    Perhaps memory does not serve me well, but I am pretty sure I have seen him deny the possibility of God when watching multiple youtube clips. However, this weekend I am busily finishing up the final touches on two papers that are due to be handed in on Monday, and because of that I cannot take the time to review Richard Dawkins clips.

    My point is that Richard is championed a prominent atheist by many, yet his admissions that a “gigantic intelligence” might exist or that we may have been seeded by aliens seems to indicate that he is not, in fact, a pure atheist.

    His position seems to be made more clear by stating that “the God Delusion” is targeted primarily at fundamentalists. This seems to suggest that his problem is not with God but with those who claim to represent God. That, too, was the conclusion I reached in my own life near the end of my porn career. Once I realized the root of my real problem my life was changed.

    I’m not talking a “head knowledge” , either. I mean, once I realized way deep down inside of my being that God really did want to interact with me, regardless of whether or not I believed the parameters Christians placed on that interaction, I was set free. I will not be surprised if someday Richard Dawkins reaches that same place. His attitude towards fundamentalists reminds me much of my own.

  25. Carrie,

    Perhaps memory does not serve me well, but I am pretty sure I have seen him deny the possibility of God when watching multiple youtube clips. However, this weekend I am busily finishing up the final touches on two papers that are due to be handed in on Monday, and because of that I cannot take the time to review Richard Dawkins clips.

    My point is that Richard is championed a prominent atheist by many, yet his admissions that a “gigantic intelligence” might exist or that we may have been seeded by aliens seems to indicate that he is not, in fact, a pure atheist.

    His position seems to be made more clear by stating that “the God Delusion” is targeted primarily at fundamentalists. This seems to suggest that his problem is not with God but with those who claim to represent God. That, too, was the conclusion I reached in my own life near the end of my porn career. Once I realized the root of my real problem my life was changed.

    I’m not talking a “head knowledge” , either. I mean, once I realized way deep down inside of my being that God really did want to interact with me, regardless of whether or not I believed the parameters Christians placed on that interaction, I was set free. I will not be surprised if someday Richard Dawkins reaches that same place. His attitude towards fundamentalists reminds me much of my own.

  26. Memory, indeed, does not serve you well.

    Your only problem seems to be with him using the term ‘atheist.’ That’s why he gives his definition of the term over and over. It would be ridiculous for anyone to claim they know there is no God. Just as ridiculous as it is that some claim there is one.

    If you don’t want to call him an atheist, I couldn’t care less, and I doubt he would either. That’s why many of us, who aren’t active believers, flip between the terms ‘atheist’ and ‘agnostic.’ We believe that everyone should be agnostic in their pursuit of the truth. We also believe that there is little to no reason to believe that a God exists.

    Call us whatever you want.

  27. Memory, indeed, does not serve you well.

    Your only problem seems to be with him using the term ‘atheist.’ That’s why he gives his definition of the term over and over. It would be ridiculous for anyone to claim they know there is no God. Just as ridiculous as it is that some claim there is one.

    If you don’t want to call him an atheist, I couldn’t care less, and I doubt he would either. That’s why many of us, who aren’t active believers, flip between the terms ‘atheist’ and ‘agnostic.’ We believe that everyone should be agnostic in their pursuit of the truth. We also believe that there is little to no reason to believe that a God exists.

    Call us whatever you want.

  28. http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=atheist

    Noun

    * S: (n) atheist (someone who denies the existence of god)

  29. http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=atheist

    Noun

    * S: (n) atheist (someone who denies the existence of god)

  30. Right. This is why, to repeat, you have to give your own definition before you call yourself anything. Richard Dawkins explains what he believes over and over. You are the one hyped up on what to call it.

  31. Right. This is why, to repeat, you have to give your own definition before you call yourself anything. Richard Dawkins explains what he believes over and over. You are the one hyped up on what to call it.

  32. You’ll notice that my myspace profile says I am an agnostic. Feel free to call me that. Feel free to call Richard Dawkins that. Just as long as you realize it doesn’t mean we think there is equal evidence for a God and against one.

  33. You’ll notice that my myspace profile says I am an agnostic. Feel free to call me that. Feel free to call Richard Dawkins that. Just as long as you realize it doesn’t mean we think there is equal evidence for a God and against one.

  34. I look forward to your thoughts on the evidence for God presented in D’Souza’s book.

    Some people, after publicly stating their opinions on a subject, stubbornly stick to that subject no matter what evidence is presented. I would hope that you will not be one of those people.

    If D’Souza’s thoughts on the subject aren’t enough to change your mind I am afraid nothing will be.

  35. I look forward to your thoughts on the evidence for God presented in D’Souza’s book.

    Some people, after publicly stating their opinions on a subject, stubbornly stick to that subject no matter what evidence is presented. I would hope that you will not be one of those people.

    If D’Souza’s thoughts on the subject aren’t enough to change your mind I am afraid nothing will be.

  36. I publicly stated belief in God for years and years. I just want to know the truth.

    I’ll let you know how the book goes.

  37. I publicly stated belief in God for years and years. I just want to know the truth.

    I’ll let you know how the book goes.

  38. I just posted another one that might be of interest. I haven’t read it myself, however. I’ve just browsed through it a bit.

    http://donnysramblings.com/2008/08/16/thank-god-for-evolution/

  39. I just posted another one that might be of interest. I haven’t read it myself, however. I’ve just browsed through it a bit.

    http://donnysramblings.com/2008/08/16/thank-god-for-evolution/

  40. a couple of things.

    why does anyone care that much about what richard dawkins thinks to begin with?…he is just someone whos very vocal about his opinion..he is a personality, not THE benchmark that we base OUR opinions on. and he is totally wrong about the outlook of science in regards to God or that science itself is atheistic. thats crap, atheism is not science, its a worldview, an interpretation of the facts. its a metaphysical statement, not empirical. he is just as guilty as the fundamentalists he criticizes. towards the end of the debate between him and john lennox..he invokes the anthropic principle and the theory of multiverses to explain the sheer luck of humanity, and even admits that its not as satisfying an answer but an answer none-the-less. for one..the theory of multi verse cannot even be falsified..meaning as of now, its conjecture, a statement of faith. i think that richards opinions are probably based on %45 INTERPRETATION of fact and the other %55 is faith.

    and donny is right. the guy is conflicted…the guy doesnt even know and concedes that the world and the universe do look designed and of course if your familiar with his work, youll know how he sweeps that under the rug. but theres another component to the design thing…you may criticize the design of the universe as being” faulty” if you wish, but one thing youd have to admit is that the universe does have breathtaking regularity, as newton expressed. the sun goes down, the sun comes up, the tides roll in, the tides roll out etc.

    there are plenty of good theistic scientists…im not even going to call them “christian” scientists. christianity is a belief system that one could have AFTER already believing in a GOD. i myself am a christian..but it does me little good explaining theology when someone doesnt even believe in GOD to begin with. so i wouldnt start there.

    heres some old school theistic scientists:

    newton
    kepler
    galileo
    copernicus
    pascal
    boyle
    mendel

    and heres a quote from paul davies:

    People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.

    you cant really argue with that.

  41. a couple of things.

    why does anyone care that much about what richard dawkins thinks to begin with?…he is just someone whos very vocal about his opinion..he is a personality, not THE benchmark that we base OUR opinions on. and he is totally wrong about the outlook of science in regards to God or that science itself is atheistic. thats crap, atheism is not science, its a worldview, an interpretation of the facts. its a metaphysical statement, not empirical. he is just as guilty as the fundamentalists he criticizes. towards the end of the debate between him and john lennox..he invokes the anthropic principle and the theory of multiverses to explain the sheer luck of humanity, and even admits that its not as satisfying an answer but an answer none-the-less. for one..the theory of multi verse cannot even be falsified..meaning as of now, its conjecture, a statement of faith. i think that richards opinions are probably based on %45 INTERPRETATION of fact and the other %55 is faith.

    and donny is right. the guy is conflicted…the guy doesnt even know and concedes that the world and the universe do look designed and of course if your familiar with his work, youll know how he sweeps that under the rug. but theres another component to the design thing…you may criticize the design of the universe as being” faulty” if you wish, but one thing youd have to admit is that the universe does have breathtaking regularity, as newton expressed. the sun goes down, the sun comes up, the tides roll in, the tides roll out etc.

    there are plenty of good theistic scientists…im not even going to call them “christian” scientists. christianity is a belief system that one could have AFTER already believing in a GOD. i myself am a christian..but it does me little good explaining theology when someone doesnt even believe in GOD to begin with. so i wouldnt start there.

    heres some old school theistic scientists:

    newton
    kepler
    galileo
    copernicus
    pascal
    boyle
    mendel

    and heres a quote from paul davies:

    People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.

    you cant really argue with that.

  42. and just food for thought

    what if there really was a God and you DID have to operate by faith?
    and not by compulsion but by necessity

  43. and just food for thought

    what if there really was a God and you DID have to operate by faith?
    and not by compulsion but by necessity

  44. please please watch this…if your impatient, forward up to about 9-10 minutes into it. ive never heard it explained like this

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4065080646891971315&ei=tXmnSPXlF4PM4ALP1Jwl&q=gerald+schroeder

  45. please please watch this…if your impatient, forward up to about 9-10 minutes into it. ive never heard it explained like this

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4065080646891971315&ei=tXmnSPXlF4PM4ALP1Jwl&q=gerald+schroeder

  46. I love that the sun “goes up” and “goes down” in your world. There is a God!

  47. I love that the sun “goes up” and “goes down” in your world. There is a God!

  48. semantics lol.

    i actually posted the video for both you and donnie to watch, or whoever. did you get a chance to watch it?

  49. semantics lol.

    i actually posted the video for both you and donnie to watch, or whoever. did you get a chance to watch it?

  50. around 13 minutes and some change…my hair stood up on end after listening to him explain the chronology of light beams to US!
    what did you think?

  51. around 13 minutes and some change…my hair stood up on end after listening to him explain the chronology of light beams to US!
    what did you think?

  52. You’ve got to be kidding.

  53. You’ve got to be kidding.

  54. do you think the guy is lying and why would i be kidding?

    seriously.

  55. do you think the guy is lying and why would i be kidding?

    seriously.

  56. He believes in the POSSIBILITY of there being a “god.” I am more than 99.9% sure that Santa Clause does not exist, but because the world has yet to discover a way to find 100% proof that something doesn’t exist, I suppose you could say that I believe in the possibility of there being a fat old man in red velvet flying around the whole world in one night giving gifts to only good little boys and girls. Richard is just being honest that Atheism can’t be proved 100%… yet!

    BUT

    Does this really matter anyway? It still does not dispute the fact the Richard pretty much thinks religion is a waste of time. And I agree, at least for myself personally. In my opinion (obviously you can believe what you want) life is better spent loving the people and things that you can actually help and effect here on earth rather than worshiping something that may or may not exist in the here after. Invest your energy into loving life and everyone in it while you still can!! And if God really does exist and he is merciful as I think most Christians believe, don’t you think that he would still accept you with loving arms when you die knowing that you tried your best to be a great person and contributed so much love and happiness to the world?

  57. He believes in the POSSIBILITY of there being a “god.” I am more than 99.9% sure that Santa Clause does not exist, but because the world has yet to discover a way to find 100% proof that something doesn’t exist, I suppose you could say that I believe in the possibility of there being a fat old man in red velvet flying around the whole world in one night giving gifts to only good little boys and girls. Richard is just being honest that Atheism can’t be proved 100%… yet!

    BUT

    Does this really matter anyway? It still does not dispute the fact the Richard pretty much thinks religion is a waste of time. And I agree, at least for myself personally. In my opinion (obviously you can believe what you want) life is better spent loving the people and things that you can actually help and effect here on earth rather than worshiping something that may or may not exist in the here after. Invest your energy into loving life and everyone in it while you still can!! And if God really does exist and he is merciful as I think most Christians believe, don’t you think that he would still accept you with loving arms when you die knowing that you tried your best to be a great person and contributed so much love and happiness to the world?

  58. this thing is not posting…or is it?

  59. this thing is not posting…or is it?

  60. erin

    but there’s something to be said about a God who can affect the entire core of a person and change their thinking and approach towards the treatment of others…for the better.

    for whatever reason, some of us do not naturally put that much value on other human beings without outside assistance.

    mr donny pauling would be a great example of that

    myself as well

  61. erin

    but there’s something to be said about a God who can affect the entire core of a person and change their thinking and approach towards the treatment of others…for the better.

    for whatever reason, some of us do not naturally put that much value on other human beings without outside assistance.

    mr donny pauling would be a great example of that

    myself as well

  62. Yes, Erin’s analysis of the quote is 100% accurate. I think Donny may have misunderstood the quote due to the fact that the article’s author did not do much to clarify the statement.

  63. Yes, Erin’s analysis of the quote is 100% accurate. I think Donny may have misunderstood the quote due to the fact that the article’s author did not do much to clarify the statement.

  64. When Santa Claus is mentioned, the argument becomes quite silly. I seriously doubt there are many adults that believe Santa Claus actually exists, nor are books written to show scientific evidence of his existence, nor do billions of people base their lives upon a belief in him.

    Dawkins thoughts on the possibility of God in no way relates to a concession of the possibility of Santa Claus, and any implication that even hints at such is an insult to the intelligence of the readers.

  65. When Santa Claus is mentioned, the argument becomes quite silly. I seriously doubt there are many adults that believe Santa Claus actually exists, nor are books written to show scientific evidence of his existence, nor do billions of people base their lives upon a belief in him.

    Dawkins thoughts on the possibility of God in no way relates to a concession of the possibility of Santa Claus, and any implication that even hints at such is an insult to the intelligence of the readers.

  66. ok i think we should bring this example to a more reasonable level.

    i fully agree with donny. santa claus is a complete characiture of the argument.

    so, who was the last scientist who went on record and said that they believe in the 1% possibility of santa claus because they couldnt find it in their heart to prove a negative?

    and it seems that the reason the interviewer even published this story was because dawkins usually doesnt even concede that much. the guy said hes open. otherwise why even bring it up? we already know what he thinks

  67. ok i think we should bring this example to a more reasonable level.

    i fully agree with donny. santa claus is a complete characiture of the argument.

    so, who was the last scientist who went on record and said that they believe in the 1% possibility of santa claus because they couldnt find it in their heart to prove a negative?

    and it seems that the reason the interviewer even published this story was because dawkins usually doesnt even concede that much. the guy said hes open. otherwise why even bring it up? we already know what he thinks

  68. Dawkins says tons and tons and tons of times that it’s possible that God exists. Read his book. Watch the lecture posted here: http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2989,Richard-Dawkins-Lecture-at-UC-Berkeley,Richard-Dawkins. Heck, watch any interviews. Anyone who actually reads and watching Professor Dawkins (whose webpage is my homepage, and whose posts and interviews I read every single day) would not make this argument, and perhaps I should have taken my friend’s original advice not to answer such a blatantly uninformed question. I’m growing tired of this bizarre argument about what to call Richard Dawkins. Who the hell cares as long as we understand what he believes and why?

    The Santa Claud analogy is not to show whether it is likely that Santa Claus exists, but to show why it is necessary that any rational person leave open the possibility of God. There is, for me, no convincing evidence of God’s existence. However, it would be unscientific for me to argue that his existence is impossible. That’s the only thing to understand. If you don’t, you won’t.

  69. Dawkins says tons and tons and tons of times that it’s possible that God exists. Read his book. Watch the lecture posted here: http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2989,Richard-Dawkins-Lecture-at-UC-Berkeley,Richard-Dawkins. Heck, watch any interviews. Anyone who actually reads and watching Professor Dawkins (whose webpage is my homepage, and whose posts and interviews I read every single day) would not make this argument, and perhaps I should have taken my friend’s original advice not to answer such a blatantly uninformed question. I’m growing tired of this bizarre argument about what to call Richard Dawkins. Who the hell cares as long as we understand what he believes and why?

    The Santa Claud analogy is not to show whether it is likely that Santa Claus exists, but to show why it is necessary that any rational person leave open the possibility of God. There is, for me, no convincing evidence of God’s existence. However, it would be unscientific for me to argue that his existence is impossible. That’s the only thing to understand. If you don’t, you won’t.

  70. excuse me– if you don’t, you probably won’t. After all, it would be unscientific to claim I know.

  71. excuse me– if you don’t, you probably won’t. After all, it would be unscientific to claim I know.

  72. There is overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrating God’s existence. Overwhelming.

    Carrie, pardon me, but you are an artist, not a scientist.

    According to a study published by ABC News in 2007, amongst scientists who profess to be Atheists, Biologists lead the way. Biologists seem to have motive to feel as they do:

    The disciplines studied include physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, economics, political science and psychology. Physicists did not lead the list of nonbelievers, which may be a bit surprising given the historic battles between the church and Galileo and Copernicus. Of all those surveyed, biologists were least likely to be religious, the study shows. And who’s on the hot seat these days? Biologists. Most of the controversial issues today involve various biological fields from stem cell research to evolution to genetic engineering. Physicists can relax. It’s pretty much agreed now that Earth revolves around the sun. But biologists are in deep conflict with a society in which 90 percent claim some affiliation with a religious organization.

    Ecklund said she doesn’t know if the lack of religion among biologists is a cause or effect of that ongoing clash. One would guess it’s probably both.

    Interestingly, Richard Dawkins happens to be a biologist, does he not?

  73. There is overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrating God’s existence. Overwhelming.

    Carrie, pardon me, but you are an artist, not a scientist.

    According to a study published by ABC News in 2007, amongst scientists who profess to be Atheists, Biologists lead the way. Biologists seem to have motive to feel as they do:

    The disciplines studied include physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, economics, political science and psychology. Physicists did not lead the list of nonbelievers, which may be a bit surprising given the historic battles between the church and Galileo and Copernicus. Of all those surveyed, biologists were least likely to be religious, the study shows. And who’s on the hot seat these days? Biologists. Most of the controversial issues today involve various biological fields from stem cell research to evolution to genetic engineering. Physicists can relax. It’s pretty much agreed now that Earth revolves around the sun. But biologists are in deep conflict with a society in which 90 percent claim some affiliation with a religious organization.

    Ecklund said she doesn’t know if the lack of religion among biologists is a cause or effect of that ongoing clash. One would guess it’s probably both.

    Interestingly, Richard Dawkins happens to be a biologist, does he not?

  74. From Richard Dawkins’ Lecture at UC Berkley:

    Isn’t it a remarkable coincidence? Almost everyone has the same religion as their parents. And it always just happens to be the RIGHT religion!

    Religions run in families. If we’d been brought up in ancient Greece, we’d all be worshiping Zeus and Apollo. If we’d been born Vikings we’d be worshiping Wotan and Thor. How does this come about? Well of course, through childhood indoctrination.

    I wonder if Mr. Dawkins has ever considered that, no matter what part of the world one reaches, no matter how distant or remote or cut off from society, people believe in a power that is bigger than themselves.

    Could this be because that power is self evident? Could it be that built into every human, no matter what their circumstances, is a knowledge of this power?

    Regardless of who describes it correctly or incorrectly, the very being of all humanity knows God exists. We may want to deny this knowledge because we take issue with individual people who use this knowledge to manipulate others, but we cannot deny that deep inside of us we know the truth, and always have.

  75. From Richard Dawkins’ Lecture at UC Berkley:

    Isn’t it a remarkable coincidence? Almost everyone has the same religion as their parents. And it always just happens to be the RIGHT religion!

    Religions run in families. If we’d been brought up in ancient Greece, we’d all be worshiping Zeus and Apollo. If we’d been born Vikings we’d be worshiping Wotan and Thor. How does this come about? Well of course, through childhood indoctrination.

    I wonder if Mr. Dawkins has ever considered that, no matter what part of the world one reaches, no matter how distant or remote or cut off from society, people believe in a power that is bigger than themselves.

    Could this be because that power is self evident? Could it be that built into every human, no matter what their circumstances, is a knowledge of this power?

    Regardless of who describes it correctly or incorrectly, the very being of all humanity knows God exists. We may want to deny this knowledge because we take issue with individual people who use this knowledge to manipulate others, but we cannot deny that deep inside of us we know the truth, and always have.

  76. carrie yeah, but still at the end of the day noone even remotely believes in santa claus because of a 1% allowance, or even considers the possibility. i mean who reflects on that? i understand what youre saying, but thats not a good example.

    i would say that the razor-thin crack in the door that you, dawkins, or anyone else leaves for God, should be a moot point. its not even worth bringing up as a serious consideration. i mean, do you seriously consider it?

    do you or dawkins believe in the possibility of God because it truly is a possibility or only because you cannot disprove God?

    big difference

    another thing dawkins constantly says is that although he cannot disprove God, he says that God is very unlikely indeed.

    well, so is life in the universe. can you even remotely fathom all the parameters upon parameters that have to be stacked on each other for life to occur? we cant just tell a supernova, “pardon me, but can you explode a few 100 lightyears in the other direction? Were trying to allow an atmosphere to form so that we can develop a single celled organism which in turn will learn to play violin and write war and peace.”

    if you can accept it, we are walking in a miracle already. its anybodys game

  77. carrie yeah, but still at the end of the day noone even remotely believes in santa claus because of a 1% allowance, or even considers the possibility. i mean who reflects on that? i understand what youre saying, but thats not a good example.

    i would say that the razor-thin crack in the door that you, dawkins, or anyone else leaves for God, should be a moot point. its not even worth bringing up as a serious consideration. i mean, do you seriously consider it?

    do you or dawkins believe in the possibility of God because it truly is a possibility or only because you cannot disprove God?

    big difference

    another thing dawkins constantly says is that although he cannot disprove God, he says that God is very unlikely indeed.

    well, so is life in the universe. can you even remotely fathom all the parameters upon parameters that have to be stacked on each other for life to occur? we cant just tell a supernova, “pardon me, but can you explode a few 100 lightyears in the other direction? Were trying to allow an atmosphere to form so that we can develop a single celled organism which in turn will learn to play violin and write war and peace.”

    if you can accept it, we are walking in a miracle already. its anybodys game

  78. Great point, Donny. It’s one I’d want to consider if I were an athiest.

    I watched the Dawkins lecture at Berkley. Thanks for the link, Carrie! It was very interesting. He seems to me to be the type of person I’d love to have lunch with. That is, if he could find a way to keep his sarcastic, I’m-better-and-more-intelligent-than-you-because-I-don’t-believe-in-religion comments to a minimum during the course of our meal. If so, I think he would make wonderful company. He’s intelligent and witty, though I wouldn’t consider him the hands-down king of all knowledge and understanding like you do. (Sorry, I just watched an hour of his condescending banter; I think it may have rubbed off a bit on me.)

    I’m just now beginning my personal journey with theology, but I’ve been a believer for a long time.

    Several points Dawkins makes strike me as very narrow-minded and uninformed, but I don’t feel that I’m the one to call him on them. Others, like D-Souza (the book Donny sent you), do a much better job at that.

    I do have to remark on one thing, however. R. Dawkins says that because “X” (implying religion) is comforting, doesn’t mean that X is true. I know that comfort, like love and pain, aren’t physically tangible. Yet, we ttake it for granted that they are true. Even you wouldn’t deny that. How do you know your mom loves you? And how do you know when you are in love? Can you prove it? If not, then how do you know it even exists?

  79. Great point, Donny. It’s one I’d want to consider if I were an athiest.

    I watched the Dawkins lecture at Berkley. Thanks for the link, Carrie! It was very interesting. He seems to me to be the type of person I’d love to have lunch with. That is, if he could find a way to keep his sarcastic, I’m-better-and-more-intelligent-than-you-because-I-don’t-believe-in-religion comments to a minimum during the course of our meal. If so, I think he would make wonderful company. He’s intelligent and witty, though I wouldn’t consider him the hands-down king of all knowledge and understanding like you do. (Sorry, I just watched an hour of his condescending banter; I think it may have rubbed off a bit on me.)

    I’m just now beginning my personal journey with theology, but I’ve been a believer for a long time.

    Several points Dawkins makes strike me as very narrow-minded and uninformed, but I don’t feel that I’m the one to call him on them. Others, like D-Souza (the book Donny sent you), do a much better job at that.

    I do have to remark on one thing, however. R. Dawkins says that because “X” (implying religion) is comforting, doesn’t mean that X is true. I know that comfort, like love and pain, aren’t physically tangible. Yet, we ttake it for granted that they are true. Even you wouldn’t deny that. How do you know your mom loves you? And how do you know when you are in love? Can you prove it? If not, then how do you know it even exists?

  80. I don’t know how to word this exactly how I felt it, but today as I was walking across a parking lot, I was thinking that the very fact that these cars and this parking lot are here prove that someone created them, and as I was driving home looking at the olive trees and grass and horses and clouds and innumerable other things, I knew they were proof that Someone created them.
    Sometimes I stare at my hands and think how amazing hands are. Sometimes I think about how the human brain is the only organ that actually studies itself.
    And as I drove home I felt a deep, powerful longing to worship my Creator.
    As I saw a little squirrel running across the road I prayed that I will NEVER hit a squirrel or any little animal.
    The world is astounding. Yeah, there are many things wrong with it, mostly caused by people, but the Bible does give a reason for that.
    My faith is not easy for me and I often wonder why God does not make Himself more easily known to people, but there is a verse that says that he who comes to God must BELIEVE THAT HE IS, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. (Hebrews 11:6.)
    By FAITH we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. (Hebrews 11:3)
    It comes down to faith.
    But the whole point of Christianity is that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins. The first time I heard this was BEFORE my parents were Christians. I responded immediately and accepted it.
    I admire those who can articulately express their faith. I don’t know how to convince anyone that there is a God. Sometimes when I share what He has done in my life it seems to fall on deaf ears.
    I think it’s cool that both of the men who are running for President of our country say they believe in God, and they both believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for their sins!

  81. I don’t know how to word this exactly how I felt it, but today as I was walking across a parking lot, I was thinking that the very fact that these cars and this parking lot are here prove that someone created them, and as I was driving home looking at the olive trees and grass and horses and clouds and innumerable other things, I knew they were proof that Someone created them.
    Sometimes I stare at my hands and think how amazing hands are. Sometimes I think about how the human brain is the only organ that actually studies itself.
    And as I drove home I felt a deep, powerful longing to worship my Creator.
    As I saw a little squirrel running across the road I prayed that I will NEVER hit a squirrel or any little animal.
    The world is astounding. Yeah, there are many things wrong with it, mostly caused by people, but the Bible does give a reason for that.
    My faith is not easy for me and I often wonder why God does not make Himself more easily known to people, but there is a verse that says that he who comes to God must BELIEVE THAT HE IS, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. (Hebrews 11:6.)
    By FAITH we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. (Hebrews 11:3)
    It comes down to faith.
    But the whole point of Christianity is that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins. The first time I heard this was BEFORE my parents were Christians. I responded immediately and accepted it.
    I admire those who can articulately express their faith. I don’t know how to convince anyone that there is a God. Sometimes when I share what He has done in my life it seems to fall on deaf ears.
    I think it’s cool that both of the men who are running for President of our country say they believe in God, and they both believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for their sins!

  82. I find it absolutely fascinating that we can all read/see the same things and have completely different opinions as to what they mean. For example: when I see parking lots and trees and look at my hands I am more affirmed in my belief that these things were not just designed by a creator, but rather that it is so cool how the universe was statistically possible to create through trial and error, earth and me and everything else amazing on it. And just how lucky I am to be here!!!

    In response to Donny,
    My opinion is that civilizations usually start out believing in a higher power because it is easier to imagine there being someone like you but smarter and more powerful creating everything than it is to jump to a conclusion usually discovered through hard work and science. That takes time and technology. But as proven over the coarse or time… a lot of things previously believed to be created on the whims of a god were eventually explained very well through science.

    Celest,
    I don’t think that you were understanding the comment correctly. I don’t think he meant that comfort isn’t true, he meant that the act of being comforting does not give something truth, it just makes life easier to bare. But I am sure that he thinks love and pain and comfort are true parts of life in themselves. And as far as “how do you know your mom loves you?” goes, I know because she tells me all the time and does really nice things for me almost every day.

    john,
    Good point. I think that Dawkins only believes in the tiny possibility of a god because he can’t disprove it. That is why I think it is totally kosher to call him an Atheist.

    Anyway, regardless of what you believe, like I said before, it is amazing that we are all so lucky to be here living life.

  83. I find it absolutely fascinating that we can all read/see the same things and have completely different opinions as to what they mean. For example: when I see parking lots and trees and look at my hands I am more affirmed in my belief that these things were not just designed by a creator, but rather that it is so cool how the universe was statistically possible to create through trial and error, earth and me and everything else amazing on it. And just how lucky I am to be here!!!

    In response to Donny,
    My opinion is that civilizations usually start out believing in a higher power because it is easier to imagine there being someone like you but smarter and more powerful creating everything than it is to jump to a conclusion usually discovered through hard work and science. That takes time and technology. But as proven over the coarse or time… a lot of things previously believed to be created on the whims of a god were eventually explained very well through science.

    Celest,
    I don’t think that you were understanding the comment correctly. I don’t think he meant that comfort isn’t true, he meant that the act of being comforting does not give something truth, it just makes life easier to bare. But I am sure that he thinks love and pain and comfort are true parts of life in themselves. And as far as “how do you know your mom loves you?” goes, I know because she tells me all the time and does really nice things for me almost every day.

    john,
    Good point. I think that Dawkins only believes in the tiny possibility of a god because he can’t disprove it. That is why I think it is totally kosher to call him an Atheist.

    Anyway, regardless of what you believe, like I said before, it is amazing that we are all so lucky to be here living life.

  84. Erin,

    Part of the reason Dawkins makes this simple argument (“Just because X is comforting, does not make X true.”) is to show us just how silly and illogical he believes our conclusion of God’s existence is when we base it on “feeling.” I get that part.

    I still don’t think it’s his strongest argument. I feel love for my husband, but that means that I created this feeling in order to make living with a partner, in this case my husband, easier to bear? So, I could have chosen any guy in the world to “love” because the only purpose would be to bring me comfort? What about everything that comes out of this feeling of love that people feel–like the nice things your mom does for you? Does that not make real?

    I’m happy to hear that you mom tells you she loves you and that she does things for you everyday, but it surprises me that you feel her actions and words are enough for you to “know” that her love exists. What if she’s been pretending her whole life? Going through the motions and not really feeling anything for you. Of course you would think this is silly and blow it off as nonsense, but my point is that you really cannot prove to me that she loves you. You’d probably say, “I feel her love and that’s enough for me.” Good for you, but I still don’t see her love. I think you have a strong faith in the belief that she loves you based on her actions in your life and the feeling you get when she’s around. But how do you “prove” to me that she’s not faking?

    You can’t.

    I don’t believe in God because I can prove to you that he’s real. I believe because of the experiences I have had when I chose to accept and believe in him—the unbelievable peace I felt, despite being prone to anxiety attacks, for example, in the instant after I knelt down to pray after my grandmother died of cancer while she and I were alone at home. I used to lie awake, terrified, as a child, afraid that someone close to me would die. Yet, when it happened, I felt peace I’d never felt before and peace I haven’t felt since. And believe me when I tell you that I am not a naturally peaceful person. I didn’t conjure that peace up that night on my own. If I could, it’d do it again in an instant. …Just one of many experiences I have had with God. But I can’t prove to you that His love exists. Just like you can’t prove to me that your mom’s love exists. I don’t care if I can see your mom; I don’t see her love. But somehow that doesn’t keep you from believing in it. You can “see” that your mom loves you, yet you can’t prove it to me. That’s some kind of faith.

  85. Erin,

    Part of the reason Dawkins makes this simple argument (“Just because X is comforting, does not make X true.”) is to show us just how silly and illogical he believes our conclusion of God’s existence is when we base it on “feeling.” I get that part.

    I still don’t think it’s his strongest argument. I feel love for my husband, but that means that I created this feeling in order to make living with a partner, in this case my husband, easier to bear? So, I could have chosen any guy in the world to “love” because the only purpose would be to bring me comfort? What about everything that comes out of this feeling of love that people feel–like the nice things your mom does for you? Does that not make real?

    I’m happy to hear that you mom tells you she loves you and that she does things for you everyday, but it surprises me that you feel her actions and words are enough for you to “know” that her love exists. What if she’s been pretending her whole life? Going through the motions and not really feeling anything for you. Of course you would think this is silly and blow it off as nonsense, but my point is that you really cannot prove to me that she loves you. You’d probably say, “I feel her love and that’s enough for me.” Good for you, but I still don’t see her love. I think you have a strong faith in the belief that she loves you based on her actions in your life and the feeling you get when she’s around. But how do you “prove” to me that she’s not faking?

    You can’t.

    I don’t believe in God because I can prove to you that he’s real. I believe because of the experiences I have had when I chose to accept and believe in him—the unbelievable peace I felt, despite being prone to anxiety attacks, for example, in the instant after I knelt down to pray after my grandmother died of cancer while she and I were alone at home. I used to lie awake, terrified, as a child, afraid that someone close to me would die. Yet, when it happened, I felt peace I’d never felt before and peace I haven’t felt since. And believe me when I tell you that I am not a naturally peaceful person. I didn’t conjure that peace up that night on my own. If I could, it’d do it again in an instant. …Just one of many experiences I have had with God. But I can’t prove to you that His love exists. Just like you can’t prove to me that your mom’s love exists. I don’t care if I can see your mom; I don’t see her love. But somehow that doesn’t keep you from believing in it. You can “see” that your mom loves you, yet you can’t prove it to me. That’s some kind of faith.

  86. Celeste,

    I have encountered God in similar ways. Like the day I was driving home from Playboy’s office after being offered an additional $4,000 a day to produce a new lesbian series for them. Laughingly, I prayed to God and told him that Christians must be wrong because it seemed that no matter what I did, He blessed me. That was the moment when a buzz of electricity went through my body. That very instant. It felt like my whole body was shocked. And as I’ve said over and over again, it wasn’t a punishing shock. The message was clear: I have so much MORE for you than this. It was a feeling of complete love, and I instantly lost all desire to produce porn.

    Another time I encountered God was when He instantly healed my ear (I blogged about that too). I had an ear infection. The pain was horrible, and had been there for 2 days. Ten seconds into prayer for it, my ear popped and the pain went away. It happened on a day when I was very down, feeling depressed. I don’t think the point was to heal my ear. The point was to remind me He is very real and loves me very much.

    And then there are the answers to the deep questions I’ve had. Certain questions that I have struggled with when it comes to religion. The questions that have always been used by me to hold onto bitterness and hatred, towards Christians in particular. I have received the answers to many of those questions in numerous ways. My favorite is when I have been dreaming, and in my dream God whispers over my shoulder into my ear, answering some of the things I’ve been asking Him in my real, non-dream life. Unlike most dreams, I remembered these upon awakening. It’s happened on two occasions now.

    Such things can always be explained away by those seeking to explain them away. But inside I know the truth. I know it deeply.

    God is there for those who seek Him. Because of free will, He won’t push Himself on those who do not.

  87. Celeste,

    I have encountered God in similar ways. Like the day I was driving home from Playboy’s office after being offered an additional $4,000 a day to produce a new lesbian series for them. Laughingly, I prayed to God and told him that Christians must be wrong because it seemed that no matter what I did, He blessed me. That was the moment when a buzz of electricity went through my body. That very instant. It felt like my whole body was shocked. And as I’ve said over and over again, it wasn’t a punishing shock. The message was clear: I have so much MORE for you than this. It was a feeling of complete love, and I instantly lost all desire to produce porn.

    Another time I encountered God was when He instantly healed my ear (I blogged about that too). I had an ear infection. The pain was horrible, and had been there for 2 days. Ten seconds into prayer for it, my ear popped and the pain went away. It happened on a day when I was very down, feeling depressed. I don’t think the point was to heal my ear. The point was to remind me He is very real and loves me very much.

    And then there are the answers to the deep questions I’ve had. Certain questions that I have struggled with when it comes to religion. The questions that have always been used by me to hold onto bitterness and hatred, towards Christians in particular. I have received the answers to many of those questions in numerous ways. My favorite is when I have been dreaming, and in my dream God whispers over my shoulder into my ear, answering some of the things I’ve been asking Him in my real, non-dream life. Unlike most dreams, I remembered these upon awakening. It’s happened on two occasions now.

    Such things can always be explained away by those seeking to explain them away. But inside I know the truth. I know it deeply.

    God is there for those who seek Him. Because of free will, He won’t push Himself on those who do not.

  88. Beautiful, Donny! Loved what you just blogged!!

  89. Beautiful, Donny! Loved what you just blogged!!

  90. John:

    [blockquote] i would say that the razor-thin crack in the door that you, dawkins, or anyone else leaves for God, should be a moot point. its not even worth bringing up as a serious consideration. i mean, do you seriously consider it?

    do you or dawkins believe in the possibility of God because it truly is a possibility or only because you cannot disprove God?

    big difference [/blockquote]

    That is correct. I believe in the possibility of God only because I cannot disprove God, and thus cannot say it is impossible that he exists. That is exactly the point that I am making. And yes, there is a huge difference. It is of no consequence to me whether you find it moot. If you do, you may call us atheists. If you don’t, you may call us agnostics. The name is up to you.

    Erin, Celeste, Donny, John, and everyone else interested in Santa Claus:

    Actually, there are millions of people who believe Santa Claus exists. In fact, they are largely the children brought up in the Christian faith, but that is neither here nor there. The fact remains that children accept their parents’ statements of the existence of Santa Claus as evidence for the truth of his existence. As they grow older, they learn otherwise (a parent tells them that he or she personally put those presents under the Christmas tree), and they take this firsthand account as reasonable evidence that Santa probably doesn’t exist. Technically, do we know that Santa doesn’t exist? No. Scientifically speaking, we can’t know that Santa doesn’t exist. But in the virtual absence of evidence for his existence, we find it reasonable to work off the assumption that he doesn’t. You can “accept Santa into your heart” because of faith and feelings, but that says nothing of his reality, and in my opinion, it says nothing of the reality of God either.

    Celeste:

    I understand that you’re feeling frustrated by the ‘comfort’ analogy, but I think you misunderstand the syllogism Dawkins sets up about comfort. What he is saying is that finding comfort in an idea is not a guarantor that that idea is true. Example: Some people find comfort in the idea that a celebrity they have never met is in love with them. If I find comfort, say, in the idea that Colin Firth is in love with me (and who wouldn’t?), it does not mean that he, in fact, loves me, or even that he knows who I am. In fact, we call this delusion, or more specifically, erotomania. In this case, the fact that something has brought me comfort is actually sort of tragic, in that it leads me away from the truth and into a life of delusion. Now, is it possible that something true can also bring you comfort? Of course. But the point made by Dawkins (and here, by Erin) is that finding comfort in an idea does not inherently MAKE that idea true.

    And on the topic of whether my mother loves me: I think she does. Do I know she does? No, I do not. In the scientific, rationalist sense (which is the sense in which RD is discussing ‘belief in the possibility of God’), I literally CANNOT know she loves me, but I can come awfully close. For example, I can decide what I mean by love. Do I mean actions? Do I mean that a person acts in such a way that s/he shows benevolence toward me? Do I mean a feeling (I think this is what most people mean when they ask if someone TRULY loves them)? If by ‘love’ we mean a real feeling in the body, we can define that feeling by the hormones and neural impulses that mark it. Then we can set up blood or brain wave tests that measure the levels of these hormones/brain waves. This helps us to get more and more specific not only about our definition of ‘love,’ but also about whether my mom loves me. Of course, we can call this approach cold and heartless, and instead insist on couching love in terms of mystery, but this widens our uncertainty about whether dear old mom loves me, rather than strengthening my certainty that she does. So, the long and short of it is that, where REAL knowledge of TRUE matters is concerned, I can’t KNOW that my mom loves me, nor can I KNOW that there is no God. On this level, we all must be agnostics. It is a nit-picky level, indeed, but because the idea of God is quite ethereal and void of satisfactory evidence, it is the only place we atheists/agnostics can find any ‘possibility of belief’ in your God.

  91. John:

    [blockquote] i would say that the razor-thin crack in the door that you, dawkins, or anyone else leaves for God, should be a moot point. its not even worth bringing up as a serious consideration. i mean, do you seriously consider it?

    do you or dawkins believe in the possibility of God because it truly is a possibility or only because you cannot disprove God?

    big difference [/blockquote]

    That is correct. I believe in the possibility of God only because I cannot disprove God, and thus cannot say it is impossible that he exists. That is exactly the point that I am making. And yes, there is a huge difference. It is of no consequence to me whether you find it moot. If you do, you may call us atheists. If you don’t, you may call us agnostics. The name is up to you.

    Erin, Celeste, Donny, John, and everyone else interested in Santa Claus:

    Actually, there are millions of people who believe Santa Claus exists. In fact, they are largely the children brought up in the Christian faith, but that is neither here nor there. The fact remains that children accept their parents’ statements of the existence of Santa Claus as evidence for the truth of his existence. As they grow older, they learn otherwise (a parent tells them that he or she personally put those presents under the Christmas tree), and they take this firsthand account as reasonable evidence that Santa probably doesn’t exist. Technically, do we know that Santa doesn’t exist? No. Scientifically speaking, we can’t know that Santa doesn’t exist. But in the virtual absence of evidence for his existence, we find it reasonable to work off the assumption that he doesn’t. You can “accept Santa into your heart” because of faith and feelings, but that says nothing of his reality, and in my opinion, it says nothing of the reality of God either.

    Celeste:

    I understand that you’re feeling frustrated by the ‘comfort’ analogy, but I think you misunderstand the syllogism Dawkins sets up about comfort. What he is saying is that finding comfort in an idea is not a guarantor that that idea is true. Example: Some people find comfort in the idea that a celebrity they have never met is in love with them. If I find comfort, say, in the idea that Colin Firth is in love with me (and who wouldn’t?), it does not mean that he, in fact, loves me, or even that he knows who I am. In fact, we call this delusion, or more specifically, erotomania. In this case, the fact that something has brought me comfort is actually sort of tragic, in that it leads me away from the truth and into a life of delusion. Now, is it possible that something true can also bring you comfort? Of course. But the point made by Dawkins (and here, by Erin) is that finding comfort in an idea does not inherently MAKE that idea true.

    And on the topic of whether my mother loves me: I think she does. Do I know she does? No, I do not. In the scientific, rationalist sense (which is the sense in which RD is discussing ‘belief in the possibility of God’), I literally CANNOT know she loves me, but I can come awfully close. For example, I can decide what I mean by love. Do I mean actions? Do I mean that a person acts in such a way that s/he shows benevolence toward me? Do I mean a feeling (I think this is what most people mean when they ask if someone TRULY loves them)? If by ‘love’ we mean a real feeling in the body, we can define that feeling by the hormones and neural impulses that mark it. Then we can set up blood or brain wave tests that measure the levels of these hormones/brain waves. This helps us to get more and more specific not only about our definition of ‘love,’ but also about whether my mom loves me. Of course, we can call this approach cold and heartless, and instead insist on couching love in terms of mystery, but this widens our uncertainty about whether dear old mom loves me, rather than strengthening my certainty that she does. So, the long and short of it is that, where REAL knowledge of TRUE matters is concerned, I can’t KNOW that my mom loves me, nor can I KNOW that there is no God. On this level, we all must be agnostics. It is a nit-picky level, indeed, but because the idea of God is quite ethereal and void of satisfactory evidence, it is the only place we atheists/agnostics can find any ‘possibility of belief’ in your God.

  92. Oh yes. And:

    To Donny, the former porn-producer turned public speaker:

    I apologize for my vapid knowledge of scientific evidence for God. Obviously, your expertise trumps mine.

    Yours,
    Carrie the Actor/Writer

  93. Oh yes. And:

    To Donny, the former porn-producer turned public speaker:

    I apologize for my vapid knowledge of scientific evidence for God. Obviously, your expertise trumps mine.

    Yours,
    Carrie the Actor/Writer

  94. erin, it IS very amazing that we are here. i am incredibly fascinated with life and reality itself. especially so much more so that i believe God made it. before i didnt really have that much interest in that sort of thing. but thats just me, everyone’s different.

    anyways, when you say the universe created or made things possible through trial and error. do you realize you are ascribing God-like qualities to nature?

    and id also like to know what those “many things” that were formally ascribed to God but now disproven by science, are.

    theres a difference between what is called a mechanism and what is called an agent.

    a mechanism is basically just that. a system and the way it operates. it could be an engine, the weather, evolution.

    an agent is that thing which puts the mechanism in place. you dont need knowledge of the agent to see how the mechanism operates. take for instance a ford automobile. henry ford invented it. but when you observe the system that makes up the automobile, ford himself is no longer required for the mechanism to operate. FORD IS NOT IN THE ENGINE TURNING THE CRANK HIMSELF. but, the existence of a mechanism is not in itself an argument for the non-existence of an agent who designed the mechanism.

    its a good thing to not get the two confused. ill admit im not an expert with this, but its definitely something you should check into.

    whats definitely something to think about would be the fact that even dawkins admits that evolution itself isnt a random system…one example would be the formation of the eye. even dawkins admits that the eye forming by sheer chance wouldnt work. but everytime he mentions that those sort of things are not random….what he really shows is that there is another type of causation at work. how can something that is blind be able to “select”?

  95. erin, it IS very amazing that we are here. i am incredibly fascinated with life and reality itself. especially so much more so that i believe God made it. before i didnt really have that much interest in that sort of thing. but thats just me, everyone’s different.

    anyways, when you say the universe created or made things possible through trial and error. do you realize you are ascribing God-like qualities to nature?

    and id also like to know what those “many things” that were formally ascribed to God but now disproven by science, are.

    theres a difference between what is called a mechanism and what is called an agent.

    a mechanism is basically just that. a system and the way it operates. it could be an engine, the weather, evolution.

    an agent is that thing which puts the mechanism in place. you dont need knowledge of the agent to see how the mechanism operates. take for instance a ford automobile. henry ford invented it. but when you observe the system that makes up the automobile, ford himself is no longer required for the mechanism to operate. FORD IS NOT IN THE ENGINE TURNING THE CRANK HIMSELF. but, the existence of a mechanism is not in itself an argument for the non-existence of an agent who designed the mechanism.

    its a good thing to not get the two confused. ill admit im not an expert with this, but its definitely something you should check into.

    whats definitely something to think about would be the fact that even dawkins admits that evolution itself isnt a random system…one example would be the formation of the eye. even dawkins admits that the eye forming by sheer chance wouldnt work. but everytime he mentions that those sort of things are not random….what he really shows is that there is another type of causation at work. how can something that is blind be able to “select”?

  96. Carrie,

    I’m really in a hurry here–to get to church, ironically–but I’ll comment on a couple of things…

    Colin Firth doesn’t do it for me. Johnny Depp…ok, now you have my attention. But your analogy is still weak because we’re not talking about centuries full of obviously crazed people holding on to a strong belief in a superior being. You’re not living in a world full of insane Christians. If all Christians were uneducated and loopy, then this analogy would fit. But you’re dealing with tons of intelligent, rational, educated people who believe in God, many of us based on personal experiences with Him. I’m sure you’d like to believe that all Christians just refuse to think hard enough, but it just isn’t true. We’ve heard your side. You just can’t argue with experience sometimes. Honestly, I’ve been thankful on many occassions that I’ve had such undeniable life-changing experiences with God because I tend to doubt…a lot. I just can’t argue with what I’ve seen and felt.

    Second, you agree that you cannot know for sure that your mom loves you, but my point is that you still believe it and that you’ve never stopped to question it.

    And, if you’re looking for some “cold, heartless” scientific evidence of brain activity during worship, then read this short article:

    http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2006/09/01/2003325742

    Apparently, there is a way to measure the TRUE power of prayer with REAL knowledge.

    Blessings!

  97. Carrie,

    I’m really in a hurry here–to get to church, ironically–but I’ll comment on a couple of things…

    Colin Firth doesn’t do it for me. Johnny Depp…ok, now you have my attention. But your analogy is still weak because we’re not talking about centuries full of obviously crazed people holding on to a strong belief in a superior being. You’re not living in a world full of insane Christians. If all Christians were uneducated and loopy, then this analogy would fit. But you’re dealing with tons of intelligent, rational, educated people who believe in God, many of us based on personal experiences with Him. I’m sure you’d like to believe that all Christians just refuse to think hard enough, but it just isn’t true. We’ve heard your side. You just can’t argue with experience sometimes. Honestly, I’ve been thankful on many occassions that I’ve had such undeniable life-changing experiences with God because I tend to doubt…a lot. I just can’t argue with what I’ve seen and felt.

    Second, you agree that you cannot know for sure that your mom loves you, but my point is that you still believe it and that you’ve never stopped to question it.

    And, if you’re looking for some “cold, heartless” scientific evidence of brain activity during worship, then read this short article:

    http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2006/09/01/2003325742

    Apparently, there is a way to measure the TRUE power of prayer with REAL knowledge.

    Blessings!

  98. P.S. Just click “cancel” if your computer asks to install language packs on your way to the article. I did, and I can still read it.

  99. P.S. Just click “cancel” if your computer asks to install language packs on your way to the article. I did, and I can still read it.

  100. Hi Celeste

    Johnny Depp? Really?

    I was once a Christian (in fact, until about a year ago), so I am not speaking from a space of detachment here. I believe it is a delusion, and saying that many people subscribe to it says nothing about its truth. You’re still going to have to deal with the evidence. And ‘I’ve had experiences’ is, in my opinion, a reflection of transparent confirmation bias. You don’t notice all the times you pray for God to cure your ailments, and forget that he doesn’t. Then one day, your ear pops during prayer, and poof! There’s a God. I really do understand this viewpoint– I had it. I had it for many years. And I clung to the idea that there was a God, in hopes that one day I would convince my brain. Finally, I recognized that there was no actual reason to believe. And really, I’ve never been happier about my ‘spiritual walk.’

    You are right– I can’t prove my mom loves me, and I assume she does. You are making my point for me. I cannot prove that there is no God, but I can certainly live my life on the assumption that there isn’t, since I have no reason to believe otherwise.

    Have fun at church.

  101. Hi Celeste

    Johnny Depp? Really?

    I was once a Christian (in fact, until about a year ago), so I am not speaking from a space of detachment here. I believe it is a delusion, and saying that many people subscribe to it says nothing about its truth. You’re still going to have to deal with the evidence. And ‘I’ve had experiences’ is, in my opinion, a reflection of transparent confirmation bias. You don’t notice all the times you pray for God to cure your ailments, and forget that he doesn’t. Then one day, your ear pops during prayer, and poof! There’s a God. I really do understand this viewpoint– I had it. I had it for many years. And I clung to the idea that there was a God, in hopes that one day I would convince my brain. Finally, I recognized that there was no actual reason to believe. And really, I’ve never been happier about my ‘spiritual walk.’

    You are right– I can’t prove my mom loves me, and I assume she does. You are making my point for me. I cannot prove that there is no God, but I can certainly live my life on the assumption that there isn’t, since I have no reason to believe otherwise.

    Have fun at church.

  102. carrie theres really not much more that i can say.

    in regards to your reply to celeste about knowing if your mother loves you or knowing that theres a GOD:

    this WHOLE conversation has been metaphysical conversation. i thought you already knew that. that is why i cannot understand why you put so much stock in dawkins and his book. when he says he does not believe in God, THAT is not science talking, that is his interpretation of reality. scientifically his opinion holds just as much weight as a southern baptist preacher, preaching in tuscaloosa mississippi. i hope you dont pretend to stand behind science with your beliefs. so dont knock someone else in a metaphysical conversation when your opposing argument is metaphysical as well. and i hope to God that richard dawkins big book of opinions called the “God Delusion” wasnt the thing that swayed you to throw in the towel on your faith. please let it not be that because that is just lame, im sorry. if thats what did it for you, id bet my money you didnt spend too much time researching this issue. that book pop culture fluff.

    and i am at a loss for words behind your reasoning to believe in the possibility of God ONLY because you cannot disprove Him. again that is a moot point. who are you trying to convince? thats like an atheist in agnostics clothing.

    there im calling you an atheist.

  103. carrie theres really not much more that i can say.

    in regards to your reply to celeste about knowing if your mother loves you or knowing that theres a GOD:

    this WHOLE conversation has been metaphysical conversation. i thought you already knew that. that is why i cannot understand why you put so much stock in dawkins and his book. when he says he does not believe in God, THAT is not science talking, that is his interpretation of reality. scientifically his opinion holds just as much weight as a southern baptist preacher, preaching in tuscaloosa mississippi. i hope you dont pretend to stand behind science with your beliefs. so dont knock someone else in a metaphysical conversation when your opposing argument is metaphysical as well. and i hope to God that richard dawkins big book of opinions called the “God Delusion” wasnt the thing that swayed you to throw in the towel on your faith. please let it not be that because that is just lame, im sorry. if thats what did it for you, id bet my money you didnt spend too much time researching this issue. that book pop culture fluff.

    and i am at a loss for words behind your reasoning to believe in the possibility of God ONLY because you cannot disprove Him. again that is a moot point. who are you trying to convince? thats like an atheist in agnostics clothing.

    there im calling you an atheist.

  104. I’m… not sure what the argument is any more. Richy and I are atheists in agnostics’ clothing? Agnostics in atheists’ clothing? I happily accept your label John. Atheist is fine by me.

    This is truly a bizarre turn of events.

  105. I’m… not sure what the argument is any more. Richy and I are atheists in agnostics’ clothing? Agnostics in atheists’ clothing? I happily accept your label John. Atheist is fine by me.

    This is truly a bizarre turn of events.

  106. lol

    sigh, carrie

    im…not even sure what your point is anymore. you spent a whole lot of time doing this ambiguous dance between atheism and agnosticism.it was exotic and entertaining and you were trying to teach us… what?

    im a little tired and getting ready for bed. this is the east coast and its alot later here.

    so ill throw this out there…you are a WILLFUL agnostic idk?

    lol

  107. lol

    sigh, carrie

    im…not even sure what your point is anymore. you spent a whole lot of time doing this ambiguous dance between atheism and agnosticism.it was exotic and entertaining and you were trying to teach us… what?

    im a little tired and getting ready for bed. this is the east coast and its alot later here.

    so ill throw this out there…you are a WILLFUL agnostic idk?

    lol

  108. here i got it,

    you are a willful agnostic whos trying to be atheist

    yeah i think thats it

  109. here i got it,

    you are a willful agnostic whos trying to be atheist

    yeah i think thats it

  110. i’m sorry you all, but if God doesn’t exist, neither do you
    the arguments are all great, and i’m sure the mom loves the daughter (can’t be proved, but mom knows for sure and you would too if you came to a place where truth reigns supreme)
    and people want to act like they can’t have faith in something they don’t see and what not, but they keep going through the drive thru and the local burger joint paying money for food they’re assuming hasn’t fallen on the floor
    and isn’t ignorance bliss? yes it is
    but just as that wrong order with dust bunnies from the tile is brought to light when the bag is opened, so will this issue finally be solved when God is revealed to everyone (those who’ve seen and heard and those who ignore)
    the sad part is, you won’t be able to return the order
    and you’ve got all these people who love you and want to show you, but they can’t ’cause you’ve got to seek God, and when you don’t, you’ll never know
    i’ve sought Him, i’ve spoken to Him, i’ve seen and i’ve heard
    and if He doesn’t exist, neither do you ’cause i see your comments here, but you’re telling me what i see and hear can’t be real
    oh, well

  111. i’m sorry you all, but if God doesn’t exist, neither do you
    the arguments are all great, and i’m sure the mom loves the daughter (can’t be proved, but mom knows for sure and you would too if you came to a place where truth reigns supreme)
    and people want to act like they can’t have faith in something they don’t see and what not, but they keep going through the drive thru and the local burger joint paying money for food they’re assuming hasn’t fallen on the floor
    and isn’t ignorance bliss? yes it is
    but just as that wrong order with dust bunnies from the tile is brought to light when the bag is opened, so will this issue finally be solved when God is revealed to everyone (those who’ve seen and heard and those who ignore)
    the sad part is, you won’t be able to return the order
    and you’ve got all these people who love you and want to show you, but they can’t ’cause you’ve got to seek God, and when you don’t, you’ll never know
    i’ve sought Him, i’ve spoken to Him, i’ve seen and i’ve heard
    and if He doesn’t exist, neither do you ’cause i see your comments here, but you’re telling me what i see and hear can’t be real
    oh, well

  112. I like bananas.

  113. I like bananas.

  114. And you can thank God for those.

    (Couldn’t resist)

    Have a fantastic day, Carrie, Donny, and everyone else!

  115. And you can thank God for those.

    (Couldn’t resist)

    Have a fantastic day, Carrie, Donny, and everyone else!

  116. You should try next time.

  117. You should try next time.

  118. “Such things can always be explained away by those seeking to explain them away. But inside I know the truth. I know it deeply.

    God is there for those who seek Him. Because of free will, He won’t push Himself on those who do not.”

    Well said, Donny.

  119. “Such things can always be explained away by those seeking to explain them away. But inside I know the truth. I know it deeply.

    God is there for those who seek Him. Because of free will, He won’t push Himself on those who do not.”

    Well said, Donny.

  120. *sigh* Donnie and John, you guys are extremely myopic. I’ve skimmed this blog and here’s what I’ve noticed. One – Dawkins is an ATHEIST about God. What do I mean by God? Your God. Yahweh. The man is most certainly an atheist about Yahweh. He has pointed out numerous times that just the word god is loaded. The god I continue to see being discussed here bounces all over the place from yahweh, to a quasi-deism. Now Richard has been pretty explicit that if someone wants to call the laws of the cosmos god, go ahead, he will agree he believes in such a thing, but for clarities sake, he won’t call it god because people like you two tend to go crazy with it. Furthermore one can be an agnostic about the origins of the cosmos, while living their life as an atheist. Richard doesn’t pray, he doesn’t practice a ritual or a superstition either. Furthermore he never relies on anything but himself and the people around him. He lives “non theistically.” The reason Santa Claus is brought up, something everyone seems to of overlooked, is not because of the amount of santa believers vs YAHWEH (lets be explicit) believers, but because literally, for someone like Dawkins (and myself, and carrie) Yahweh has as much footing in reality as Santa. Frankly the three of us simply don’t care that more people believe in Yahweh, ad populum never meant a thing to me 😉

    p.s. your misunderstanding of the alien life thing is equally myopic. Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin left their diapers on the moon. Is it really that hard to believe that perhaps some bacteria could survive and reproduce?

  121. *sigh* Donnie and John, you guys are extremely myopic. I’ve skimmed this blog and here’s what I’ve noticed. One – Dawkins is an ATHEIST about God. What do I mean by God? Your God. Yahweh. The man is most certainly an atheist about Yahweh. He has pointed out numerous times that just the word god is loaded. The god I continue to see being discussed here bounces all over the place from yahweh, to a quasi-deism. Now Richard has been pretty explicit that if someone wants to call the laws of the cosmos god, go ahead, he will agree he believes in such a thing, but for clarities sake, he won’t call it god because people like you two tend to go crazy with it. Furthermore one can be an agnostic about the origins of the cosmos, while living their life as an atheist. Richard doesn’t pray, he doesn’t practice a ritual or a superstition either. Furthermore he never relies on anything but himself and the people around him. He lives “non theistically.” The reason Santa Claus is brought up, something everyone seems to of overlooked, is not because of the amount of santa believers vs YAHWEH (lets be explicit) believers, but because literally, for someone like Dawkins (and myself, and carrie) Yahweh has as much footing in reality as Santa. Frankly the three of us simply don’t care that more people believe in Yahweh, ad populum never meant a thing to me 😉

    p.s. your misunderstanding of the alien life thing is equally myopic. Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin left their diapers on the moon. Is it really that hard to believe that perhaps some bacteria could survive and reproduce?

  122. David you HEAR and SEE Yahweh?
    Please take a picture and an audio recording and post them ASAP.

  123. David you HEAR and SEE Yahweh?
    Please take a picture and an audio recording and post them ASAP.

  124. John the metaphysics of carries position is simple. Where did the cosmos come from to allow for this metaphysics conversation? Simple answer: We don’t know. That doesn’t de-facto make Yahweh the most plausible choice. Not in the slightest. Since Yahwehs account of creation in genesis is so false it should be an axiom. Man you guys are so used to the word god being one thing, that you really forget you’re in one sect. Go said god in south africa, iran, egypt, russia, or new guinea, and you’re going to be equally confusing to those around you.

  125. John the metaphysics of carries position is simple. Where did the cosmos come from to allow for this metaphysics conversation? Simple answer: We don’t know. That doesn’t de-facto make Yahweh the most plausible choice. Not in the slightest. Since Yahwehs account of creation in genesis is so false it should be an axiom. Man you guys are so used to the word god being one thing, that you really forget you’re in one sect. Go said god in south africa, iran, egypt, russia, or new guinea, and you’re going to be equally confusing to those around you.

  126. chris, i know its simple. thats precisely why i said it has no more scientific weight than what a preacher says. my point is to look at what she, you, or anyone else is grounding their beliefs in. the question you gotta ask yourself is, are your beliefs really as grounded as youd like to think? and i certainly hope it isnt in the God delusion. when an atheist talks, they are not speaking on behalf of science. because atheism is NOT science. it is a metaphysical position, a philosophy, and basically an interpretation of reality.

    the scientific facts are what the theist and atheist are interpreting.

    and its always funny how atheists are the ones who allow themselves to be confused on who or what God is. im sorry but thats not even an issue for me.

  127. chris, i know its simple. thats precisely why i said it has no more scientific weight than what a preacher says. my point is to look at what she, you, or anyone else is grounding their beliefs in. the question you gotta ask yourself is, are your beliefs really as grounded as youd like to think? and i certainly hope it isnt in the God delusion. when an atheist talks, they are not speaking on behalf of science. because atheism is NOT science. it is a metaphysical position, a philosophy, and basically an interpretation of reality.

    the scientific facts are what the theist and atheist are interpreting.

    and its always funny how atheists are the ones who allow themselves to be confused on who or what God is. im sorry but thats not even an issue for me.

  128. a tad presumptuous I see.
    What are my beliefs? or Carries? We lack belief in Yahweh (that’s not a belief) that’s correct – I’m curious where you extrapolate from there? I do believe my lack of belief is course quite tenable.

    I’ve been an atheist/agnostic type since I was born – I was raised in fairly heavily in and around christianity(or to be more specific, catholicism, unitarianism, southern baptism, and evangelicals) , but it never stuck. So no Dawkins book was an fun read, but of course I’m not the mans lickspittle and hold my own opinion. Regardless that won’t prevent me from defending him when the title of this blog is teetering on the edge of willful equivocation.

    Your rant on science is irrelevant, I never said science was atheism. Granted science does operate on an empiricism principle, that the cosmos operates in an orderly fashion, of cause and effect material events.

    Your last paragraph doesn’t make a lick of sense. I was going out of my way to be explicit about god. We are on a Christian blog, so I feel I’m in safe waters to presume everyone here is referring to Yahweh – no? As far as your confusion part on atheist, I just don’t know what you’re talking about. A rather riddled, incongruent, emotional post. Thank you I suppose…

  129. a tad presumptuous I see.
    What are my beliefs? or Carries? We lack belief in Yahweh (that’s not a belief) that’s correct – I’m curious where you extrapolate from there? I do believe my lack of belief is course quite tenable.

    I’ve been an atheist/agnostic type since I was born – I was raised in fairly heavily in and around christianity(or to be more specific, catholicism, unitarianism, southern baptism, and evangelicals) , but it never stuck. So no Dawkins book was an fun read, but of course I’m not the mans lickspittle and hold my own opinion. Regardless that won’t prevent me from defending him when the title of this blog is teetering on the edge of willful equivocation.

    Your rant on science is irrelevant, I never said science was atheism. Granted science does operate on an empiricism principle, that the cosmos operates in an orderly fashion, of cause and effect material events.

    Your last paragraph doesn’t make a lick of sense. I was going out of my way to be explicit about god. We are on a Christian blog, so I feel I’m in safe waters to presume everyone here is referring to Yahweh – no? As far as your confusion part on atheist, I just don’t know what you’re talking about. A rather riddled, incongruent, emotional post. Thank you I suppose…

  130. Chris,

    I tried not to laugh at your attempts to infuse your comments with 10 dollar words. I was not successful.

    If the objective of such was to make yourself appear more intelligent, in this man’s opinion you’ve failed. I find it amusing that many of the professed atheists I’ve personally encountered have a tendency to do the same thing.

    Labeling oneself a “bright”, by the way, does not make it so.

  131. Chris,

    I tried not to laugh at your attempts to infuse your comments with 10 dollar words. I was not successful.

    If the objective of such was to make yourself appear more intelligent, in this man’s opinion you’ve failed. I find it amusing that many of the professed atheists I’ve personally encountered have a tendency to do the same thing.

    Labeling oneself a “bright”, by the way, does not make it so.

  132. I get accused of this ten dollar words thing a lot. It’s my lexicon*, I’d apologize for it, but I don’t see a reason to – especially since it’s a subtle ad hominem attack that continues to divert from the core of the initial blogging. I’m not trying to appear intelligent, I don’t really care what opinion you hold of me, we don’t know each other :/

    The bright comment is again irrelevant, I never claimed I was a bright, or went by the label, or supported the label. All my points have been(since I’m trying to stay on topic), is that Dawkins is an atheist about Yahweh – the god I presume you worship and support.

    *On a totally irrelevant note. I grew up with a Father who was a voracious reader, and like myself, inadvertently used “ten dollar words.” (which passed on to me) Even entering grade school my vocabulary was clearly “different” from the other students – if you have trouble actually understanding me, I’ll gladly clarify my position, but please don’t think I’m trying to come across as some elitist member of some intelligentsia.

  133. I get accused of this ten dollar words thing a lot. It’s my lexicon*, I’d apologize for it, but I don’t see a reason to – especially since it’s a subtle ad hominem attack that continues to divert from the core of the initial blogging. I’m not trying to appear intelligent, I don’t really care what opinion you hold of me, we don’t know each other :/

    The bright comment is again irrelevant, I never claimed I was a bright, or went by the label, or supported the label. All my points have been(since I’m trying to stay on topic), is that Dawkins is an atheist about Yahweh – the god I presume you worship and support.

    *On a totally irrelevant note. I grew up with a Father who was a voracious reader, and like myself, inadvertently used “ten dollar words.” (which passed on to me) Even entering grade school my vocabulary was clearly “different” from the other students – if you have trouble actually understanding me, I’ll gladly clarify my position, but please don’t think I’m trying to come across as some elitist member of some intelligentsia.

  134. Chris,

    With see and hear with our eyes and ears, but there are also other ways to “see” and “hear.” The word “intuition” exists for a reason. EVERYONE relies on other, more personal, ways ot seeing and hearing on a daily basis. You’re free to say that you always limit yourself to the tangible, but I know you often don’t. We ALL often don’t in one way or another.

  135. Chris,

    With see and hear with our eyes and ears, but there are also other ways to “see” and “hear.” The word “intuition” exists for a reason. EVERYONE relies on other, more personal, ways ot seeing and hearing on a daily basis. You’re free to say that you always limit yourself to the tangible, but I know you often don’t. We ALL often don’t in one way or another.

  136. ugh. i hate spelling errors. please excuse all of mine in the comment above.

  137. ugh. i hate spelling errors. please excuse all of mine in the comment above.

  138. its all good brother.

    so you believe in a God just not yahweh…

    i mean, how far does your lack of belief go? do you not even believe its possible or that there ever COULD be a governing agency or some type of intelligence that set things in motion….no possibility? and may i ask you why you think that.

    never mind religion or belief system…do you feel that ALL mind came from matter. or that first, there was mind, then matter.

    im a little bit sketchy in going into theology or the identity of God with someone who doesnt even believe in God in the first place. your not going to believe that water turned into wine if you dont think its possible to begin with.

  139. Celeste don’t mind any errors above, I’ll do my best to read through them, and if I make a mistake just let me know.

    I don’t doubt intuition exist, and we exercise it, but there are at least two problems I can find with it.
    1. It doesn’t exist in a vacuum. IE you don’t use intuition with your eyes closed, ears plugged, nose plugged, and devoid of any thought. So a petty example, if I isolate you in a opaque box, and tell you when I let you out, you have to use your intuition of what I was doing on the outside for five minutes -you’re simply playing guess work. Unless you knew me before hand, in which case you’d base some of your decision of what you know about me. Either where there is no reason to be convicted in this scenario of what I was up to.
    2. Like everything we do, it’s prone to error. Another petty example. A jealous GF of mine once found glitter around my stomach and waist line. Her intuition told her I had been cheating(because girls wear glitter). It turned out my cell phone was chipped, and was sprinkling silver flakes, somehow they got on my waist line. Her intuition wasn’t “dumb” obviously, but it was wrong nonetheless.

    You know I don’t limit myself to the tangible? Uhm… explain, please. I unfortunately can’t concede your point here, until I’m positive of what it is. At the moment it’s a bit ambiguous.

  140. its all good brother.

    so you believe in a God just not yahweh…

    i mean, how far does your lack of belief go? do you not even believe its possible or that there ever COULD be a governing agency or some type of intelligence that set things in motion….no possibility? and may i ask you why you think that.

    never mind religion or belief system…do you feel that ALL mind came from matter. or that first, there was mind, then matter.

    im a little bit sketchy in going into theology or the identity of God with someone who doesnt even believe in God in the first place. your not going to believe that water turned into wine if you dont think its possible to begin with.

  141. Celeste don’t mind any errors above, I’ll do my best to read through them, and if I make a mistake just let me know.

    I don’t doubt intuition exist, and we exercise it, but there are at least two problems I can find with it.
    1. It doesn’t exist in a vacuum. IE you don’t use intuition with your eyes closed, ears plugged, nose plugged, and devoid of any thought. So a petty example, if I isolate you in a opaque box, and tell you when I let you out, you have to use your intuition of what I was doing on the outside for five minutes -you’re simply playing guess work. Unless you knew me before hand, in which case you’d base some of your decision of what you know about me. Either where there is no reason to be convicted in this scenario of what I was up to.
    2. Like everything we do, it’s prone to error. Another petty example. A jealous GF of mine once found glitter around my stomach and waist line. Her intuition told her I had been cheating(because girls wear glitter). It turned out my cell phone was chipped, and was sprinkling silver flakes, somehow they got on my waist line. Her intuition wasn’t “dumb” obviously, but it was wrong nonetheless.

    You know I don’t limit myself to the tangible? Uhm… explain, please. I unfortunately can’t concede your point here, until I’m positive of what it is. At the moment it’s a bit ambiguous.

  142. Hey John,
    I don’t believe in Yahweh, that’s true. As far as god, it depends on how you define it, the word is very ambiguous, and I’m extremely cautious anytime someone uses it. See even now you said “you don’t believe in yahweh but you believe in god.” What does that mean? God to you IS yahweh, correct? If it’s not, you’re not Christian I’d presume. And since god is yahweh, to you, and I don’t believe in yahweh, I certainly can’t believe in god, correct? Now if you give me Albert Einsteins definition of god, the manifest laws of the universe, sure I believe in that…but since I’m cautious I just don’t use the word god in that sense.

    My position on the “cause” of the universe, is only explainable using the “effect”. Obviously it’s a sheer impossibility for ANY of us, to speak about things that are not the effect, with any tangibleness to them. My position on the cause of the universe is simply “I don’t know.” It always has been, and probably always will be. Perhaps the cause is something entirely separate from the effect, in which case we will never be able to explain it, ever. Perhaps it’s a multi-verse theory. Perhaps the universe bangs, and crunches back, and repeats, over and over for a limitless eternity. Maybe this is a universe that emerged from the black hole of another Universe?

    When you say intelligence though being behind it, I’m fearful you’re referring to something akin to a homo-sapien intelligence. In which case, no, I do not believe a homo-sapien-esque intelligence is behind this at all(with our biology, our neural faculties, our sense of cognition, and our thought patterns and processes). Now I’m not going to say I’m 100% certain of this, but probability wise I’d gamble on some of the stuff I said above, long before I’d gamble on the latter. I am however 99.9% sure that Yahweh isn’t the cause.

    So when you go onto mind and matter, since I don’t think the matter that comprises and allows our homo-sapien brains to function, is the same brain system that created this universe, you could say I believe matter came first to mind. (Now again, if this is a universe that plopped out of a black hole, and in that cosmos there are cognitive beings we enter a very ambiguous area haha).

    Anyway yes, the evolutionary history of life on Earth elucidates a very slow and gradual build up of cognitive faculties, so with that evidence before me, I’m pretty certain mind/brain, are a build up of matter.

    Yeah going into Christian theology with me would be boring and a time waster, since I don’t believe the premise that Yahweh (please, just for me be careful with the god word) created the cosmos. A very strong factor in my reasoning here is that Yahweh (or more likely the mortal man moses who wrote both accounts of genesis) simply got cosmological, and biological earth history wrong.

  143. Hey John,
    I don’t believe in Yahweh, that’s true. As far as god, it depends on how you define it, the word is very ambiguous, and I’m extremely cautious anytime someone uses it. See even now you said “you don’t believe in yahweh but you believe in god.” What does that mean? God to you IS yahweh, correct? If it’s not, you’re not Christian I’d presume. And since god is yahweh, to you, and I don’t believe in yahweh, I certainly can’t believe in god, correct? Now if you give me Albert Einsteins definition of god, the manifest laws of the universe, sure I believe in that…but since I’m cautious I just don’t use the word god in that sense.

    My position on the “cause” of the universe, is only explainable using the “effect”. Obviously it’s a sheer impossibility for ANY of us, to speak about things that are not the effect, with any tangibleness to them. My position on the cause of the universe is simply “I don’t know.” It always has been, and probably always will be. Perhaps the cause is something entirely separate from the effect, in which case we will never be able to explain it, ever. Perhaps it’s a multi-verse theory. Perhaps the universe bangs, and crunches back, and repeats, over and over for a limitless eternity. Maybe this is a universe that emerged from the black hole of another Universe?

    When you say intelligence though being behind it, I’m fearful you’re referring to something akin to a homo-sapien intelligence. In which case, no, I do not believe a homo-sapien-esque intelligence is behind this at all(with our biology, our neural faculties, our sense of cognition, and our thought patterns and processes). Now I’m not going to say I’m 100% certain of this, but probability wise I’d gamble on some of the stuff I said above, long before I’d gamble on the latter. I am however 99.9% sure that Yahweh isn’t the cause.

    So when you go onto mind and matter, since I don’t think the matter that comprises and allows our homo-sapien brains to function, is the same brain system that created this universe, you could say I believe matter came first to mind. (Now again, if this is a universe that plopped out of a black hole, and in that cosmos there are cognitive beings we enter a very ambiguous area haha).

    Anyway yes, the evolutionary history of life on Earth elucidates a very slow and gradual build up of cognitive faculties, so with that evidence before me, I’m pretty certain mind/brain, are a build up of matter.

    Yeah going into Christian theology with me would be boring and a time waster, since I don’t believe the premise that Yahweh (please, just for me be careful with the god word) created the cosmos. A very strong factor in my reasoning here is that Yahweh (or more likely the mortal man moses who wrote both accounts of genesis) simply got cosmological, and biological earth history wrong.

  144. maybe i should ask you a better question than the one above that would better illustrate my point. im trying to think of a way to word it…

    JESUS, yahweh, allah, wotan… all aside.

    im taking it that you agree that atheism is not science. and im not coming down on you in saying that either. its just that it cannot be tested and the same goes with theism. you cant put either one under a microscope. thats why they are both metaphysical issues. you can however go with persuasive evidence..which is what is used in alot of science, especially historical science. only in mathematics can you have absolute proof.

    do you feel that your interpretation of atheism, as opposed to theism, is the correct interpretation of reality? and why do you think that it is a better alternative? do you feel, or have you ruled out that there is no trace of intelligence WHATSOEVER ( i mean, NONE) or of any kind of information even at the roots of the physical world? and if you do see intelligence, id like to know on a scale of 1-10 how much you see.

  145. maybe i should ask you a better question than the one above that would better illustrate my point. im trying to think of a way to word it…

    JESUS, yahweh, allah, wotan… all aside.

    im taking it that you agree that atheism is not science. and im not coming down on you in saying that either. its just that it cannot be tested and the same goes with theism. you cant put either one under a microscope. thats why they are both metaphysical issues. you can however go with persuasive evidence..which is what is used in alot of science, especially historical science. only in mathematics can you have absolute proof.

    do you feel that your interpretation of atheism, as opposed to theism, is the correct interpretation of reality? and why do you think that it is a better alternative? do you feel, or have you ruled out that there is no trace of intelligence WHATSOEVER ( i mean, NONE) or of any kind of information even at the roots of the physical world? and if you do see intelligence, id like to know on a scale of 1-10 how much you see.

  146. wow i didnt know youd reply that quickly so my second post wasnt a response to your most latest.

    let me just get this straight. forget homo sapien intelligence, forget you fearing any type of implication or me trying to trap you.

    do you see any intelligence in the universe AT ALL.

    who cares where it came from or what to call it

    is the regularity of the universe able to produce an effect, does it have a purpose, or do the events that take place in the universe always produce chaos?

    is the earth itself the result of chaos?

  147. wow i didnt know youd reply that quickly so my second post wasnt a response to your most latest.

    let me just get this straight. forget homo sapien intelligence, forget you fearing any type of implication or me trying to trap you.

    do you see any intelligence in the universe AT ALL.

    who cares where it came from or what to call it

    is the regularity of the universe able to produce an effect, does it have a purpose, or do the events that take place in the universe always produce chaos?

    is the earth itself the result of chaos?

  148. Hey John. I’ll answer both post I suppose. I believe that;s what you’d like? (If not just ignore the reply of whichever was superfluous.)

    No I don’t think atheism is science. I think plenty of atheist are literate in science, and really enjoy the field, but certainly they aren’t conflated. And of course there are atheist who are also relatively ignorant of “science.” Hemingway is an example.

    And I of course agree theism isn’t science. However I would say, certain tenants of certain theisms are capable of being tested via the scientific method. I don’t want to enter a theology debate, so this is just a quick example. If a catholic earnestly believes wine turns into the blood of christ, the tools of science and the method can examine that glass and give a sound answer on the material compounds of that wine(I’m not touching symbolism or anything here, just matter of fact material compounds). So a microscope can determine if the wine is literally now red blood cells, or still fermented fruit.

    I don’t know what you mean by “my interpretation of atheism.” As I said I don’t believe in Yahweh, and since that is your god, that I reject, I’m pretty sure I’m an atheist in your eyes. Which is fine by me(I don’t believe in any deities from holy books, so for convenience you can call me an atheist). But I don’t have an interpretation of atheism(beyond the rejection of holy book deities), because like all theist, all atheist are nuanced too. Stalin was an atheist, but I hope beyond our rejection of Yahweh we have nothing in common 😉 Bill Gates is an atheist, and philanthropy wise I’d much wiser line up with him then Stalin 😉

    My reason for being an atheist, or as you say, finding it a better explanation is almost because of its lack of explanation. As I said, none of us are 100% certain where this cosmos came from. Anyway who claims to be 100%, I’d personally avoid. Because I’m not certain where it came from, I try not to make any extrapolations based on its origin, or presumptions. So for me, agnosticism on the cosmos’s origin is ideal, yes. Now since I don’t believe in holy book deities, and don’t live my life in a theistic fashion, I suppose yes, day to day experience I’m an atheist, and it works best for me.

    I see you’re getting into intelligence in both post, so, I’ll make this my ending for post one.
    ____________________

    I can’t get away from homo-sapien intelligence(or earthly biological intelligence), that’s impossible for me. My only understanding of intelligence is the various brain/minds of the world around me. I can’t apply the word to anything else, because I don’t know anything else to apply it to.

    So yes I see intelligence in the world/universe around me, ranging through the animal community, but that’s the extent of it.

    I personally do care where this intelligence came from, evolutionary history and the history of life on Earth is a subject I do enjoy reading and learning about. I know I’m slightly jumping off course, but the book “The Third Chimpanzee” by Jared Diamond, is a history of Australopithecus-africanus(sp) our ancestor from 6 million years ago, to Homo-sapiens today, and the evolution of their brains. That was a book I was blown away by, absolutely fascinating. And I’ve done some reading on cognitive faculties dating farther back in time. I’m currently pursuing microbiology in college, hoping to enter into neurology, and really study the evolution of brains.

    Is the regularity of the universe able to produce an effect? Interesting question. This seems like an ambiguous ground though. Yes the Universe for all of history has constantly seemed to operate in a cause and effect fashion, with time progressing forward. When two hydrogen atoms collide with a single oxygen atom, we have water, h20. That is an effect, and it’s regular.

    Does the cosmos have a purpose, not that I can see, but I don’t “know” for certain. And even if it does, I personally have no idea what that purpose is.

    I think the Earth is the same as the result as the water molecule example above. Just more atoms. The history of how Earth came to be though, and more importantly our solar system, and more importantly our galaxy, is pretty well elucidated today. The explanation isn’t perfect, but considering how much we do know, it’s awe-striking.

  149. Hey John. I’ll answer both post I suppose. I believe that;s what you’d like? (If not just ignore the reply of whichever was superfluous.)

    No I don’t think atheism is science. I think plenty of atheist are literate in science, and really enjoy the field, but certainly they aren’t conflated. And of course there are atheist who are also relatively ignorant of “science.” Hemingway is an example.

    And I of course agree theism isn’t science. However I would say, certain tenants of certain theisms are capable of being tested via the scientific method. I don’t want to enter a theology debate, so this is just a quick example. If a catholic earnestly believes wine turns into the blood of christ, the tools of science and the method can examine that glass and give a sound answer on the material compounds of that wine(I’m not touching symbolism or anything here, just matter of fact material compounds). So a microscope can determine if the wine is literally now red blood cells, or still fermented fruit.

    I don’t know what you mean by “my interpretation of atheism.” As I said I don’t believe in Yahweh, and since that is your god, that I reject, I’m pretty sure I’m an atheist in your eyes. Which is fine by me(I don’t believe in any deities from holy books, so for convenience you can call me an atheist). But I don’t have an interpretation of atheism(beyond the rejection of holy book deities), because like all theist, all atheist are nuanced too. Stalin was an atheist, but I hope beyond our rejection of Yahweh we have nothing in common 😉 Bill Gates is an atheist, and philanthropy wise I’d much wiser line up with him then Stalin 😉

    My reason for being an atheist, or as you say, finding it a better explanation is almost because of its lack of explanation. As I said, none of us are 100% certain where this cosmos came from. Anyway who claims to be 100%, I’d personally avoid. Because I’m not certain where it came from, I try not to make any extrapolations based on its origin, or presumptions. So for me, agnosticism on the cosmos’s origin is ideal, yes. Now since I don’t believe in holy book deities, and don’t live my life in a theistic fashion, I suppose yes, day to day experience I’m an atheist, and it works best for me.

    I see you’re getting into intelligence in both post, so, I’ll make this my ending for post one.
    ____________________

    I can’t get away from homo-sapien intelligence(or earthly biological intelligence), that’s impossible for me. My only understanding of intelligence is the various brain/minds of the world around me. I can’t apply the word to anything else, because I don’t know anything else to apply it to.

    So yes I see intelligence in the world/universe around me, ranging through the animal community, but that’s the extent of it.

    I personally do care where this intelligence came from, evolutionary history and the history of life on Earth is a subject I do enjoy reading and learning about. I know I’m slightly jumping off course, but the book “The Third Chimpanzee” by Jared Diamond, is a history of Australopithecus-africanus(sp) our ancestor from 6 million years ago, to Homo-sapiens today, and the evolution of their brains. That was a book I was blown away by, absolutely fascinating. And I’ve done some reading on cognitive faculties dating farther back in time. I’m currently pursuing microbiology in college, hoping to enter into neurology, and really study the evolution of brains.

    Is the regularity of the universe able to produce an effect? Interesting question. This seems like an ambiguous ground though. Yes the Universe for all of history has constantly seemed to operate in a cause and effect fashion, with time progressing forward. When two hydrogen atoms collide with a single oxygen atom, we have water, h20. That is an effect, and it’s regular.

    Does the cosmos have a purpose, not that I can see, but I don’t “know” for certain. And even if it does, I personally have no idea what that purpose is.

    I think the Earth is the same as the result as the water molecule example above. Just more atoms. The history of how Earth came to be though, and more importantly our solar system, and more importantly our galaxy, is pretty well elucidated today. The explanation isn’t perfect, but considering how much we do know, it’s awe-striking.

  150. i think we can get of of the “is it Yahweh or not” campaign
    it’s Yahweh (and for the record, He goes by a bunch of different names) we’re talking about here – the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. etc.
    chris, i’d like to just point out a scientific fact for you to
    i’m assuming that at one point or another in your life you’ve seen a piano’s keyboard
    88 keys – hasn’t always been, but when Liszt extended the range 88 keys became pretty much standard
    in reality, the range extends infinitely in both directions, but our ears are only able to discern a very finite range of pitches
    does that mean that the other pitches don’t exist? well, for our ears they don’t, but in reality, they do
    God’s the same way, the only difference is, if He needs to, He will reveal Himself to you
    if you seek Him, this may happen for you too
    but don’t worry, one day you’ll have all the proof that you require – just don’t wind up separated from Him ’cause that’s gonna really stink
    take it easy 🙂

  151. i think we can get of of the “is it Yahweh or not” campaign
    it’s Yahweh (and for the record, He goes by a bunch of different names) we’re talking about here – the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. etc.
    chris, i’d like to just point out a scientific fact for you to
    i’m assuming that at one point or another in your life you’ve seen a piano’s keyboard
    88 keys – hasn’t always been, but when Liszt extended the range 88 keys became pretty much standard
    in reality, the range extends infinitely in both directions, but our ears are only able to discern a very finite range of pitches
    does that mean that the other pitches don’t exist? well, for our ears they don’t, but in reality, they do
    God’s the same way, the only difference is, if He needs to, He will reveal Himself to you
    if you seek Him, this may happen for you too
    but don’t worry, one day you’ll have all the proof that you require – just don’t wind up separated from Him ’cause that’s gonna really stink
    take it easy 🙂

  152. whoops, sorry for the bad spelling – you guys know what i mean

  153. whoops, sorry for the bad spelling – you guys know what i mean

  154. Well I mean I’ll mix it up with all those other names too if you like, but that seems rather cumbersome. Yahweh allows for certainty in the conversation. Saying god, as I’ve explained, is ambiguous, because if someone from India reads this blog, they will presume a different definition of god. So personally I’ll stick with Yahweh (I’m not doing it to be offensive or anything).

    Yes I agree with your pitch example. Of course the same applies to sight, infrared and ultraviolet light exist, but we can’t “see them” without using certain tools. So of course they exist without us “seeing” them (although they are material, and they can be measured now, and their cause and effect relationship on other material bodies is demonstrable. Another corny quick example. Stay out in the sun too long and you get burned. We couldn’t see why before, but there was clearly something going on. Now we know it’s UV rays.

    You say Yahweh is the same way(I’m presuming you’re Christian). So Yahweh is material, like pitches and light spectrum’s we are referring too? Interesting….keep going….if this Yahweh is material point me in its direction to observe (and I already explained I don’t believe in yahweh because genesis is simply wrong).

    I already told you I grew up in a christian upbringing. I’m not seeking yahweh or a deity, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I’m also not “worried” about anything at the moment, except school tuition 😉 I’m just fine David lol.

  155. Well I mean I’ll mix it up with all those other names too if you like, but that seems rather cumbersome. Yahweh allows for certainty in the conversation. Saying god, as I’ve explained, is ambiguous, because if someone from India reads this blog, they will presume a different definition of god. So personally I’ll stick with Yahweh (I’m not doing it to be offensive or anything).

    Yes I agree with your pitch example. Of course the same applies to sight, infrared and ultraviolet light exist, but we can’t “see them” without using certain tools. So of course they exist without us “seeing” them (although they are material, and they can be measured now, and their cause and effect relationship on other material bodies is demonstrable. Another corny quick example. Stay out in the sun too long and you get burned. We couldn’t see why before, but there was clearly something going on. Now we know it’s UV rays.

    You say Yahweh is the same way(I’m presuming you’re Christian). So Yahweh is material, like pitches and light spectrum’s we are referring too? Interesting….keep going….if this Yahweh is material point me in its direction to observe (and I already explained I don’t believe in yahweh because genesis is simply wrong).

    I already told you I grew up in a christian upbringing. I’m not seeking yahweh or a deity, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I’m also not “worried” about anything at the moment, except school tuition 😉 I’m just fine David lol.

  156. no id like you to not refer to yahweh anymore i am not asking if you believe in yahweh or any named deity. yes of course im a christian…but do YOU believe in intelligence or some kind of intelligence behind all of reality?.. forget names, forget religions..all of that.

    or do you feel that all there is is matter?
    what gives matter its direction, its course of action. does it have a course of action? in the smallest possible way, is matter doing any type of work or is it just colliding and making chaos?

    and im not asking if you see intelligence in living things only. im asking, do you see intelligence in the universe? especially in the cause and effect.. do things make sense? im not saying that we understand it all but is there rationality in the universe? when a scientist goes out to do his work, does he presuppose that things will make sense or does he presuppose that it will be utter chaos, and what does he actually find, chaos or regularity?

    now when i asked about purpose, i didnt mean does all of reality have a purpose…you wouldnt know that. what i meant is, is there a purpose for water, or the sun, or gravity, do they have purposeful roles or are they just there? is there any kind of relationship between all of these components at all? at the beginning of the big bang all there were was was microwave radiation. how did this radiation self assemble into all of these components to bring about the current events?

    and you didnt answer my question, was the earth the result of chaos or rationality? did certain things HAVE TO HAPPEN in sequence to make the earth possible? can we look back and say that it makes sense that the earth was here because we can observe that its formation carefully followed a set order of events?

    now, would you say that sequence of events is rational?

    now at the bare minimum, would it be better in your mind to relate the regularity of the rationality of the universe to intelligence or non intelligence?

    if you feel there is ANY kind of intelligence in the universe, YOU are not an atheist.

  157. no id like you to not refer to yahweh anymore i am not asking if you believe in yahweh or any named deity. yes of course im a christian…but do YOU believe in intelligence or some kind of intelligence behind all of reality?.. forget names, forget religions..all of that.

    or do you feel that all there is is matter?
    what gives matter its direction, its course of action. does it have a course of action? in the smallest possible way, is matter doing any type of work or is it just colliding and making chaos?

    and im not asking if you see intelligence in living things only. im asking, do you see intelligence in the universe? especially in the cause and effect.. do things make sense? im not saying that we understand it all but is there rationality in the universe? when a scientist goes out to do his work, does he presuppose that things will make sense or does he presuppose that it will be utter chaos, and what does he actually find, chaos or regularity?

    now when i asked about purpose, i didnt mean does all of reality have a purpose…you wouldnt know that. what i meant is, is there a purpose for water, or the sun, or gravity, do they have purposeful roles or are they just there? is there any kind of relationship between all of these components at all? at the beginning of the big bang all there were was was microwave radiation. how did this radiation self assemble into all of these components to bring about the current events?

    and you didnt answer my question, was the earth the result of chaos or rationality? did certain things HAVE TO HAPPEN in sequence to make the earth possible? can we look back and say that it makes sense that the earth was here because we can observe that its formation carefully followed a set order of events?

    now, would you say that sequence of events is rational?

    now at the bare minimum, would it be better in your mind to relate the regularity of the rationality of the universe to intelligence or non intelligence?

    if you feel there is ANY kind of intelligence in the universe, YOU are not an atheist.

  158. no id like you to not refer to yahweh anymore i am not asking if you believe in yahweh or any named deity. yes of course im a christian…but do YOU believe in intelligence or some kind of intelligence behind all of reality?.. forget names, forget religions..all of that.

    or do you feel that all there is is matter?
    what gives matter its direction, its course of action. does it have a course of action? in the smallest possible way, is matter doing any type of work or is it just colliding and making chaos?

    and im not asking if you see intelligence in living things only. im asking, do you see intelligence in the universe? especially in the cause and effect.. do things make sense? im not saying that we understand it all but is there rationality in the universe? when a scientist goes out to do his work, does he presuppose that things will make sense or does he presuppose that it will be utter chaos, and what does he actually find, chaos or regularity?

    now when i asked about purpose, i didnt mean does all of reality have a purpose…you wouldnt know that. what i meant is, is there a purpose for water, or the sun, or gravity, do they have purposeful roles or are they just there? is there any kind of relationship between all of these components at all? at the beginning of the big bang all there were was was microwave radiation. how did this radiation self assemble into all of these components to bring about the current events?

    and you didnt answer my question, was the earth the result of chaos or rationality? did certain things HAVE TO HAPPEN in sequence to make the earth possible? can we look back and say that it makes sense that the earth was here because we can observe that its formation carefully followed a set order of events?

    now, would you say that sequence of events is rational?

    now at the bare minimum, would it be better in your mind to relate the regularity of the rationality of the universe to rationality or non rationality?

    well call that rationality intelligence

    if you feel there is ANY kind of intelligence in the universe, YOU cannot be an atheist. you must give account for it and there is only one source for intelligence- MIND.

  159. no id like you to not refer to yahweh anymore i am not asking if you believe in yahweh or any named deity. yes of course im a christian…but do YOU believe in intelligence or some kind of intelligence behind all of reality?.. forget names, forget religions..all of that.

    or do you feel that all there is is matter?
    what gives matter its direction, its course of action. does it have a course of action? in the smallest possible way, is matter doing any type of work or is it just colliding and making chaos?

    and im not asking if you see intelligence in living things only. im asking, do you see intelligence in the universe? especially in the cause and effect.. do things make sense? im not saying that we understand it all but is there rationality in the universe? when a scientist goes out to do his work, does he presuppose that things will make sense or does he presuppose that it will be utter chaos, and what does he actually find, chaos or regularity?

    now when i asked about purpose, i didnt mean does all of reality have a purpose…you wouldnt know that. what i meant is, is there a purpose for water, or the sun, or gravity, do they have purposeful roles or are they just there? is there any kind of relationship between all of these components at all? at the beginning of the big bang all there were was was microwave radiation. how did this radiation self assemble into all of these components to bring about the current events?

    and you didnt answer my question, was the earth the result of chaos or rationality? did certain things HAVE TO HAPPEN in sequence to make the earth possible? can we look back and say that it makes sense that the earth was here because we can observe that its formation carefully followed a set order of events?

    now, would you say that sequence of events is rational?

    now at the bare minimum, would it be better in your mind to relate the regularity of the rationality of the universe to rationality or non rationality?

    well call that rationality intelligence

    if you feel there is ANY kind of intelligence in the universe, YOU cannot be an atheist. you must give account for it and there is only one source for intelligence- MIND.

  160. Hey John I haven’t read your post, but I’m busy for the rest of the night. I’ll gladly read them and opine tomorrow morning or afternoon! Hope you don’t mind, it has been fun so far.

  161. Hey John I haven’t read your post, but I’m busy for the rest of the night. I’ll gladly read them and opine tomorrow morning or afternoon! Hope you don’t mind, it has been fun so far.

  162. I think this will be my last post. I’m tired. And reading through the longer comments is starting to feel a little tedious. I’ll admit, I skipped a few of the last ones.

    Chris,
    It’s ridiculous to assume things do not exist simply because we can’t physically see, hear, or even prove them. It may also seem ridiculous to you to assume that things do exist based on faith alone, but faith in God and the power of prayer can add a lot richness to your life. Studies even show that belief in prayer can help people cope with and recover better from illness (do your own research online). If I’m wrong about God, I’ve lost nothing in this life and gained a lot after death. If your wrong. well, you know.

    And by the tangible comment, Chris, I meant that you base a mllion decisions of your every day life solely on your emotions, “gut feelings” and even your perceptions of others’ emotions toward you. (Read my other comments to Carrie for more elaboration) You’re not walking around asking for proof of every one of your assumptions or things you place your faith in every day. My point isn’t that those gut feelings are or are not accurate 100% of the time; my point is you live and walk in faith a lot. Why do you Demand to physically see and hear God before you place your faith in him? I’m asking that question…but honestly I’m not even interested in your answer by this point–just because I’m tired of this particular discussion since I’ve been following it for a while now–so don’t feel like you have to answer that.

    Also, maybe you should try being a bit more humble about all things in general. You don’t know everything. Everyone’s knowledge about the world around him or her is limited. Science proves that on a daily basis. We learn new things and prove–and disprove–new things in the scientific community every day. Just because something doesn’t make sense to us now, doesn’t make it invalid. You–Chris–just don’t know it all. Don’t spend your energy trying to prove Christians wrong. I’m not interested in trying to prove you wrong. I’m just trying to let you know that I believe you’re missing out on some good stuff. I think that Donny, David, Nancy and John wish that for you also. Don’t take accept it if you don’t want it.

    .Have a great work week.

    Sincerely,
    Celeste

  163. I think this will be my last post. I’m tired. And reading through the longer comments is starting to feel a little tedious. I’ll admit, I skipped a few of the last ones.

    Chris,
    It’s ridiculous to assume things do not exist simply because we can’t physically see, hear, or even prove them. It may also seem ridiculous to you to assume that things do exist based on faith alone, but faith in God and the power of prayer can add a lot richness to your life. Studies even show that belief in prayer can help people cope with and recover better from illness (do your own research online). If I’m wrong about God, I’ve lost nothing in this life and gained a lot after death. If your wrong. well, you know.

    And by the tangible comment, Chris, I meant that you base a mllion decisions of your every day life solely on your emotions, “gut feelings” and even your perceptions of others’ emotions toward you. (Read my other comments to Carrie for more elaboration) You’re not walking around asking for proof of every one of your assumptions or things you place your faith in every day. My point isn’t that those gut feelings are or are not accurate 100% of the time; my point is you live and walk in faith a lot. Why do you Demand to physically see and hear God before you place your faith in him? I’m asking that question…but honestly I’m not even interested in your answer by this point–just because I’m tired of this particular discussion since I’ve been following it for a while now–so don’t feel like you have to answer that.

    Also, maybe you should try being a bit more humble about all things in general. You don’t know everything. Everyone’s knowledge about the world around him or her is limited. Science proves that on a daily basis. We learn new things and prove–and disprove–new things in the scientific community every day. Just because something doesn’t make sense to us now, doesn’t make it invalid. You–Chris–just don’t know it all. Don’t spend your energy trying to prove Christians wrong. I’m not interested in trying to prove you wrong. I’m just trying to let you know that I believe you’re missing out on some good stuff. I think that Donny, David, Nancy and John wish that for you also. Don’t take accept it if you don’t want it.

    .Have a great work week.

    Sincerely,
    Celeste

  164. CHRIS, forget my last posts.

    well, here let me condense them into one question:

    does the universe make sense, is it rational or irrational?

    note, i am not asking you if we understand it completely. but i am asking if you if it is safe to assume that the universe makes sense.

  165. CHRIS, forget my last posts.

    well, here let me condense them into one question:

    does the universe make sense, is it rational or irrational?

    note, i am not asking you if we understand it completely. but i am asking if you if it is safe to assume that the universe makes sense.

  166. Alright John I snagged some time to reply tonight. On your word, since I’m just reading this first, I will not read your previous two post (both at your request and to save time).

    That’s a difficult question, for the most part the universe makes sense. I mean basic everyday things make sense – as in, if I turn my car key to the right, the car starts. If i pull on the handle the door will open. Shorts keep me cool in this summer florida heat. Yet – the study of quantum physics for instance, makes absolutely no rational sense, at the moment. Hopefully it will one day. So yes the cosmos on a macro scale seems orderly, coherent, even predictable (to our current capabilities of what’s feasible). However on an atomic sense, it’s still quite a puzzling universe 😉

  167. Alright John I snagged some time to reply tonight. On your word, since I’m just reading this first, I will not read your previous two post (both at your request and to save time).

    That’s a difficult question, for the most part the universe makes sense. I mean basic everyday things make sense – as in, if I turn my car key to the right, the car starts. If i pull on the handle the door will open. Shorts keep me cool in this summer florida heat. Yet – the study of quantum physics for instance, makes absolutely no rational sense, at the moment. Hopefully it will one day. So yes the cosmos on a macro scale seems orderly, coherent, even predictable (to our current capabilities of what’s feasible). However on an atomic sense, it’s still quite a puzzling universe 😉

  168. Hey Celeste,
    Woah that’s a lot at once! I’m happy to reply however…

    Chris,
    It’s ridiculous to assume things do not exist simply because we can’t physically see, hear, or even prove them.

    I would need an example, I sincerely don’t know what you mean by things. For instance I’m willing to agree that, as an example, there are plenty of insects, and marine life, we’ve never seen – that exist. Although when it comes to “proving” that’s difficult if I’m not understanding what you’re talking about.

    That’s nice of you to say faith in god and prayer can add richness – but I’m fine as is. As I’ve said, I believe you’re a Christian (based off the fact John and Donnie are) – and I’m quite comfortable not believing in the judeo-christian deity. It’s fine that you do however.

    I’ve done some prayer study – yes it’s great for coping, for those that believe it works. Personally the studies I have read show as statistically equal to save someone as chance alone. The Harvard prayer study was an unbiased, well conducted experiment:
    http://web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/3_31STEP.html
    And surprisingly, those that knew they were prayed for, in a small percentage, died the most :/
    Regarldess I’m not here to say don’t pray(I was really here just to say the blog title was confusing, but Dawkins is an atheist to Yahweh), I just personally get along fine without it.

    That pascals wager gamble, tacitly implying I risk eternal damnation is…well not exactly behooving. This is also rather misleading, there are hundreds of thousands of religions and faith based systems that have been around since the dawn of homo-sapien life. Furthermore even within the Abrahamic god, tens of thousands of branch offs amongst the three major faiths (islam, judaism, christianity) and even the Mormon faith. Regardless, I’m fine, I don’t fear hell….

    Right I agreed with you about gut feelings/instinct/intuition. As I said though, it doesn’t operate in a vacuum, and it’s prone to error. My silly example about the GF and the glitter seemed understandable. And you’re right I’m not walking around demanding proof from everyone – but I mean – that applies to a broader scope than ones theism. Nor have I come here and questioned your theism, I was only here to say Dawkins is an atheist to Yahweh, and from there I was questioned by some of the posters here.

    Now the faith that I walk in, on my gut feelings, is separate from a belief system, that yahweh created the cosmos. There is theological tenants, dogmas, or anything of that nature in my day to day interactions. Furthermore I’m demanding evidence or anything from anyone here about Yahweh, I don’t care that you believe in that deity, I personally don’t because as I’ve said a number of times, genesis is wrong with cosmological and evolutionary history…among other things.

    I’m not sure where your crass humility comment came from. I’ve said countless times, when it comes to the origins of the cosmos, my answer is, and always has been “I don’t know.” I think John may attest, I haven’t overstepped my bounds in any kind of knowledge or claims here. If I have please say which, because I’m at a loss of what you’re accusing me of.

    Finally, I’m not spending my energy trying to prove anyone wrong. Well, only in relation to Dawkins being an atheist to Yahweh. Everything else, has been me answering questions and such.

    Thank you for your concern, but I’m quite content as is, I don’t feel as if I’m missing out on a thing 😉

  169. Hey Celeste,
    Woah that’s a lot at once! I’m happy to reply however…

    Chris,
    It’s ridiculous to assume things do not exist simply because we can’t physically see, hear, or even prove them.

    I would need an example, I sincerely don’t know what you mean by things. For instance I’m willing to agree that, as an example, there are plenty of insects, and marine life, we’ve never seen – that exist. Although when it comes to “proving” that’s difficult if I’m not understanding what you’re talking about.

    That’s nice of you to say faith in god and prayer can add richness – but I’m fine as is. As I’ve said, I believe you’re a Christian (based off the fact John and Donnie are) – and I’m quite comfortable not believing in the judeo-christian deity. It’s fine that you do however.

    I’ve done some prayer study – yes it’s great for coping, for those that believe it works. Personally the studies I have read show as statistically equal to save someone as chance alone. The Harvard prayer study was an unbiased, well conducted experiment:
    http://web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/3_31STEP.html
    And surprisingly, those that knew they were prayed for, in a small percentage, died the most :/
    Regarldess I’m not here to say don’t pray(I was really here just to say the blog title was confusing, but Dawkins is an atheist to Yahweh), I just personally get along fine without it.

    That pascals wager gamble, tacitly implying I risk eternal damnation is…well not exactly behooving. This is also rather misleading, there are hundreds of thousands of religions and faith based systems that have been around since the dawn of homo-sapien life. Furthermore even within the Abrahamic god, tens of thousands of branch offs amongst the three major faiths (islam, judaism, christianity) and even the Mormon faith. Regardless, I’m fine, I don’t fear hell….

    Right I agreed with you about gut feelings/instinct/intuition. As I said though, it doesn’t operate in a vacuum, and it’s prone to error. My silly example about the GF and the glitter seemed understandable. And you’re right I’m not walking around demanding proof from everyone – but I mean – that applies to a broader scope than ones theism. Nor have I come here and questioned your theism, I was only here to say Dawkins is an atheist to Yahweh, and from there I was questioned by some of the posters here.

    Now the faith that I walk in, on my gut feelings, is separate from a belief system, that yahweh created the cosmos. There is theological tenants, dogmas, or anything of that nature in my day to day interactions. Furthermore I’m demanding evidence or anything from anyone here about Yahweh, I don’t care that you believe in that deity, I personally don’t because as I’ve said a number of times, genesis is wrong with cosmological and evolutionary history…among other things.

    I’m not sure where your crass humility comment came from. I’ve said countless times, when it comes to the origins of the cosmos, my answer is, and always has been “I don’t know.” I think John may attest, I haven’t overstepped my bounds in any kind of knowledge or claims here. If I have please say which, because I’m at a loss of what you’re accusing me of.

    Finally, I’m not spending my energy trying to prove anyone wrong. Well, only in relation to Dawkins being an atheist to Yahweh. Everything else, has been me answering questions and such.

    Thank you for your concern, but I’m quite content as is, I don’t feel as if I’m missing out on a thing 😉

  170. totally agreed and im aware of the quantum worlds own seperate dynamics in the fact that it acts nothing like the world that you and i exist in. eventually i feel they will figure it out. and that is because the universe DOES MAKE SENSE. it HAS to, otherwise nothing would work. science has to accept this fact by faith BEFORE it does the research. a scientist must believe that he can make sense of things before he goes into the field.

    in one of my above posts i asked you if the earth was the result of chaos or a careful sequence of events. so which is it? and are those sequence of events rational or irrational, can we follow and understand them? and in what case has rationality ever been apart from intelligence? id like for you to find that our for me and come back to me when you do. im not going to hold my breath rotfl

    chris rationality ONLY comes from intelligence. if the entire universe makes sense…to which you agree for the most part and dont back out now because of any sort of implication..id like for you to explain to me how rationality would come from non-intelligence. atheism denies rationality BECAUSE IT DENIES MIND. according to your worldview, nothing should make sense because there is no mind behind it all, no direction, no sense. but rationality is what we explicitly see in nature. things work, cause and effect.

    you cannot in the same sentence say the universe is rational and be a true atheist. and dont even sweat yahweh..im asking you if you are an atheist to the rationality all around us. the universe is shot full of intelligence and you need to give an account for it.

    like freaking yesterday

  171. totally agreed and im aware of the quantum worlds own seperate dynamics in the fact that it acts nothing like the world that you and i exist in. eventually i feel they will figure it out. and that is because the universe DOES MAKE SENSE. it HAS to, otherwise nothing would work. science has to accept this fact by faith BEFORE it does the research. a scientist must believe that he can make sense of things before he goes into the field.

    in one of my above posts i asked you if the earth was the result of chaos or a careful sequence of events. so which is it? and are those sequence of events rational or irrational, can we follow and understand them? and in what case has rationality ever been apart from intelligence? id like for you to find that our for me and come back to me when you do. im not going to hold my breath rotfl

    chris rationality ONLY comes from intelligence. if the entire universe makes sense…to which you agree for the most part and dont back out now because of any sort of implication..id like for you to explain to me how rationality would come from non-intelligence. atheism denies rationality BECAUSE IT DENIES MIND. according to your worldview, nothing should make sense because there is no mind behind it all, no direction, no sense. but rationality is what we explicitly see in nature. things work, cause and effect.

    you cannot in the same sentence say the universe is rational and be a true atheist. and dont even sweat yahweh..im asking you if you are an atheist to the rationality all around us. the universe is shot full of intelligence and you need to give an account for it.

    like freaking yesterday

  172. My favorite of the sentences in your response?

    “That pascals wager gamble, tacitly implying I risk eternal damnation is…well not exactly behooving. ”

    I like the phrase “pascals wager gamble” and it made me smile. 🙂 It sounds like something a cute old man might say over a cup of coffee.

    And…I guess you don’t think you know it all and I’m sorry if I was grouchy and hurt your feelings. Except, you know what? You do assume a lot. When I wrote, “If your wrong, well, you know.” All I meant was that I assume you know what happens after death according to my religion because you said you have a “Christian” background. That’s all I meant. You assumed I was implying that you’re going to be eternally damned. That’s wasn’t the case. I just figured I wouldn’t go into it because you already know–and you proved that you do by getting all defensive about it. I’m not shy about telling you what I think if you really want to know. I just didn’t want to waste time explaining what you obviously already know. So, yeah, if you ask me, I do think you “overstepped your bounds” on that one.

    Another thing, if you have always claimed that you “don’t know,” then how can you be so sure you shouldn’t fear hell? I’m not trying to convert you based on a fear of hell, by any means. I’m just saying…you’re not sure, you “don’t know”. Heck, then, why not just be safe? And why Christianity and not the others? I would say you could start that research by reading some of the books Donny has been recommending here.

    Thank you for the cute little old man visual, though. Cute! Really!

  173. My favorite of the sentences in your response?

    “That pascals wager gamble, tacitly implying I risk eternal damnation is…well not exactly behooving. ”

    I like the phrase “pascals wager gamble” and it made me smile. 🙂 It sounds like something a cute old man might say over a cup of coffee.

    And…I guess you don’t think you know it all and I’m sorry if I was grouchy and hurt your feelings. Except, you know what? You do assume a lot. When I wrote, “If your wrong, well, you know.” All I meant was that I assume you know what happens after death according to my religion because you said you have a “Christian” background. That’s all I meant. You assumed I was implying that you’re going to be eternally damned. That’s wasn’t the case. I just figured I wouldn’t go into it because you already know–and you proved that you do by getting all defensive about it. I’m not shy about telling you what I think if you really want to know. I just didn’t want to waste time explaining what you obviously already know. So, yeah, if you ask me, I do think you “overstepped your bounds” on that one.

    Another thing, if you have always claimed that you “don’t know,” then how can you be so sure you shouldn’t fear hell? I’m not trying to convert you based on a fear of hell, by any means. I’m just saying…you’re not sure, you “don’t know”. Heck, then, why not just be safe? And why Christianity and not the others? I would say you could start that research by reading some of the books Donny has been recommending here.

    Thank you for the cute little old man visual, though. Cute! Really!

  174. “Furthermore I’m demanding evidence or anything from anyone here about Yahweh, I don’t care that you believe in that deity, I personally don’t because as I’ve said a number of times, genesis is wrong with cosmological and evolutionary history…among other things.”

    chris – understand that until you seek that evidence for yourself, you won’t find it – and since you don’t want to everything is cool
    also, cosmological and evolutionary history is largely based on hypothesis and faith in ideas – you’re living on histories that are as theoretical as the book of genesis (in your opinion)

    remember “My position on the cause of the universe is simply “I don’t know.” It always has been, and probably always will be. Perhaps the cause is something entirely separate from the effect, in which case we will never be able to explain it, ever. Perhaps it’s a multi-verse theory. Perhaps the universe bangs, and crunches back, and repeats, over and over for a limitless eternity. Maybe this is a universe that emerged from the black hole of another Universe?”

    so, how is the book of genesis wrong according to a cosmological history of “we don’t know?”

  175. “Furthermore I’m demanding evidence or anything from anyone here about Yahweh, I don’t care that you believe in that deity, I personally don’t because as I’ve said a number of times, genesis is wrong with cosmological and evolutionary history…among other things.”

    chris – understand that until you seek that evidence for yourself, you won’t find it – and since you don’t want to everything is cool
    also, cosmological and evolutionary history is largely based on hypothesis and faith in ideas – you’re living on histories that are as theoretical as the book of genesis (in your opinion)

    remember “My position on the cause of the universe is simply “I don’t know.” It always has been, and probably always will be. Perhaps the cause is something entirely separate from the effect, in which case we will never be able to explain it, ever. Perhaps it’s a multi-verse theory. Perhaps the universe bangs, and crunches back, and repeats, over and over for a limitless eternity. Maybe this is a universe that emerged from the black hole of another Universe?”

    so, how is the book of genesis wrong according to a cosmological history of “we don’t know?”

  176. i really feel like i’m getting to know a lot of folks here! this has been a whole lot of fun!

  177. i really feel like i’m getting to know a lot of folks here! this has been a whole lot of fun!

  178. Hey John
    Fast replies!
    I fully agree with you, the quantum world will hopefully be elucidated and explained one day, because yes, the macro scale holds strong. I was recently listening to Stephen Weinberg in an interview, and he was saying that all the quantum experiments to date deal with single electrons, and at most up to two or four at a time in each experiment. So maybe the problem is quantum uncertainity is legit, however, once you throw a few more atoms in there, the strength of gravity comes into play and is strong enough to override uncertainity (if that makes sense hehe).

    Really bamboozling me with questions upahead I see…

    Do I think the earth is a result of careful events? This sounds a lot you’re asking if there is some kind architecht here. No I don’t see it that way at all. I mean yes Earth came about in a series of cause and effect events, and it’s a great set of events because it led to us, but I don’t see any reason to postulate something akin to a homo-sapien architecht putting it all together. The Earth has been responsible for the death of 99.8% of all species. I love the planet, but it has serious flaws too 😉 (Also it’s only one planet out of 8 in a single solar system, and currently, the cosmos potentially holds 72 with 22 zeros following it, so 72^22 solar systems. We can’t even fathom numbers that large!)

    Yes for the most part scientist are doing a good job of deducing backwards to various parts of the Earths formation. However, even though we can do this, doesn’t mean we have consummated the process, or are close. For instance if you take a cup of coffee, pour cream, and swirl. We know the physical processes to measure the action, we know what molecules are involved, densities, and “how” the cream will mix – however our current tools are not actually powerful enough to truly isolate EACH “cream” molecule, and explain its future during and after the stirring process. So we see nebulas in the sky, we monitor them, and we notice that they form gas balls. We’ve seen large evidence that various gas balls do lead to planets. And we can deduce various parts backwards on our own planets formation, but we’ll never narrow it down to literally each and every single collision of the trillions upon trillions upon trillions of atoms involved.

    In what case has rationality ever been devoid of intelligence. You’re hinting at this architecht again I see. As I said, I don’t know where the cosmos came from, however yahweh is insufficient. Genesis is flat out wrong, so even if we play the deism/architecht game, this does not vindicate christianity(after lifes, prayer, etc). Regardless, the cosmos operated for 13.7 billion years without us, at least 4.5billion without Earth life. So I suppose the cosmos was operating “rationally” before cognitive faculties came into being, for at least some 12 billion years.

    Now you’re saying rationality only follows from intelligence. Well the ability to reason is of course a cognitive faculty of ours, yes. But I don’t see how you take the leap that rationality ONLY follows intelligence(water always takes the path of least resitance, and it’s non-sentient). What do you base this on? How do you “know” this? Because the last time I did any research, no one knew where this cosmos came from….it seems rather haughty to “know” otherwise. Furthermore this is starting to teeter on subjective. The Universe is rational on a macro sense, but yet we both agree it’s irrational, and at this moment incomprehensible on a micro level. So no, the universe isn’t rational. We both agree that we are optimistic scientist (not theologians…) will solve the problem, but neither of us is certain. Furthermore the cosmos is going to spend the next several hundred trillion years in a stage of heat death, where simple molecules (more than one atom) can’t form. That’s a bleak, barren, “irrational” construction.

    Finally I’ll address this strange strawman paragraph:
    “you cannot in the same sentence say the universe is rational and be a true atheist. and dont even sweat yahweh..im asking you if you are an atheist to the rationality all around us. the universe is shot full of intelligence and you need to give an account for it.
    like freaking yesterday”

    Then I’m a fake atheist, lol? I don’t know what you mean in the least. All atheism is, at least from myself, is my lack of theism. As in I don’t pray, I don’t worship, I don’t have any tenents I follow that I feel are divine or divinely inspired. The end. Furthermore you’re forgetting that one can take the middle road approach, deism. Where the cosmos is rational, but homo-sapiens aren’t any kind of pinnacle being watched over(so prayer isn’t needed, after lifes aren’t granted, worship is superfluous, etc). Regardless – No I’m not an atheist to the cause and effect events around me(because theism is not a correlation), however as I’ve said, and you said, the cosmos, is not rational on a micro scale. And the cosmos is equally micro, as it is macro. So, 50% of the cosmos is entirely irrational. Furthermore I don’t “NEED” to give an account of why 50% is rational. As I continue to state, which I feel is the most humble position (carrie), is that as far as the origins of this cosmos, I don’t know. What I do know is, Yahweh, the deity I believe is worshipped, prayed too, etc here, is an obsolete, and unteable answer.

    Your post felt rather…condesending, and interrigative. I’m not here to upset you. I was just came to explain, that even with Donnys quote, Dawkins is still atheist to Yahweh. If you want to ask me questions fine, but please don’t be so hostile.

  179. Hey John
    Fast replies!
    I fully agree with you, the quantum world will hopefully be elucidated and explained one day, because yes, the macro scale holds strong. I was recently listening to Stephen Weinberg in an interview, and he was saying that all the quantum experiments to date deal with single electrons, and at most up to two or four at a time in each experiment. So maybe the problem is quantum uncertainity is legit, however, once you throw a few more atoms in there, the strength of gravity comes into play and is strong enough to override uncertainity (if that makes sense hehe).

    Really bamboozling me with questions upahead I see…

    Do I think the earth is a result of careful events? This sounds a lot you’re asking if there is some kind architecht here. No I don’t see it that way at all. I mean yes Earth came about in a series of cause and effect events, and it’s a great set of events because it led to us, but I don’t see any reason to postulate something akin to a homo-sapien architecht putting it all together. The Earth has been responsible for the death of 99.8% of all species. I love the planet, but it has serious flaws too 😉 (Also it’s only one planet out of 8 in a single solar system, and currently, the cosmos potentially holds 72 with 22 zeros following it, so 72^22 solar systems. We can’t even fathom numbers that large!)

    Yes for the most part scientist are doing a good job of deducing backwards to various parts of the Earths formation. However, even though we can do this, doesn’t mean we have consummated the process, or are close. For instance if you take a cup of coffee, pour cream, and swirl. We know the physical processes to measure the action, we know what molecules are involved, densities, and “how” the cream will mix – however our current tools are not actually powerful enough to truly isolate EACH “cream” molecule, and explain its future during and after the stirring process. So we see nebulas in the sky, we monitor them, and we notice that they form gas balls. We’ve seen large evidence that various gas balls do lead to planets. And we can deduce various parts backwards on our own planets formation, but we’ll never narrow it down to literally each and every single collision of the trillions upon trillions upon trillions of atoms involved.

    In what case has rationality ever been devoid of intelligence. You’re hinting at this architecht again I see. As I said, I don’t know where the cosmos came from, however yahweh is insufficient. Genesis is flat out wrong, so even if we play the deism/architecht game, this does not vindicate christianity(after lifes, prayer, etc). Regardless, the cosmos operated for 13.7 billion years without us, at least 4.5billion without Earth life. So I suppose the cosmos was operating “rationally” before cognitive faculties came into being, for at least some 12 billion years.

    Now you’re saying rationality only follows from intelligence. Well the ability to reason is of course a cognitive faculty of ours, yes. But I don’t see how you take the leap that rationality ONLY follows intelligence(water always takes the path of least resitance, and it’s non-sentient). What do you base this on? How do you “know” this? Because the last time I did any research, no one knew where this cosmos came from….it seems rather haughty to “know” otherwise. Furthermore this is starting to teeter on subjective. The Universe is rational on a macro sense, but yet we both agree it’s irrational, and at this moment incomprehensible on a micro level. So no, the universe isn’t rational. We both agree that we are optimistic scientist (not theologians…) will solve the problem, but neither of us is certain. Furthermore the cosmos is going to spend the next several hundred trillion years in a stage of heat death, where simple molecules (more than one atom) can’t form. That’s a bleak, barren, “irrational” construction.

    Finally I’ll address this strange strawman paragraph:
    “you cannot in the same sentence say the universe is rational and be a true atheist. and dont even sweat yahweh..im asking you if you are an atheist to the rationality all around us. the universe is shot full of intelligence and you need to give an account for it.
    like freaking yesterday”

    Then I’m a fake atheist, lol? I don’t know what you mean in the least. All atheism is, at least from myself, is my lack of theism. As in I don’t pray, I don’t worship, I don’t have any tenents I follow that I feel are divine or divinely inspired. The end. Furthermore you’re forgetting that one can take the middle road approach, deism. Where the cosmos is rational, but homo-sapiens aren’t any kind of pinnacle being watched over(so prayer isn’t needed, after lifes aren’t granted, worship is superfluous, etc). Regardless – No I’m not an atheist to the cause and effect events around me(because theism is not a correlation), however as I’ve said, and you said, the cosmos, is not rational on a micro scale. And the cosmos is equally micro, as it is macro. So, 50% of the cosmos is entirely irrational. Furthermore I don’t “NEED” to give an account of why 50% is rational. As I continue to state, which I feel is the most humble position (carrie), is that as far as the origins of this cosmos, I don’t know. What I do know is, Yahweh, the deity I believe is worshipped, prayed too, etc here, is an obsolete, and unteable answer.

    Your post felt rather…condesending, and interrigative. I’m not here to upset you. I was just came to explain, that even with Donnys quote, Dawkins is still atheist to Yahweh. If you want to ask me questions fine, but please don’t be so hostile.

  180. Hey Celeste,

    I assume a lot? But you’re right, I’m just following your identical reasoning. I had Christianity heavily in my upbringing. And I’m fully aware that flat out denying Yahweh
    is a damnable sin. I heard it in several of the various Christian sects I attended(Accept maybe the unitarian church, they never really mentioned hell). I don’t see how I’m overstepping my bounds here, that is verbatim the information I was taught. I mean what else did you mean by your comment? What other possibility had you left open under Pascals wager besides hell for me? Obviously not heaven if I deny Yahweh. So where have I become presumptuous? Where did I overstep?

    I said I don’t know the origins of the Universe. That’s a humble and honest position. Hell though is really an entirely different factor. I don’t fear hell, because again, I don’t believe Yahweh is the cause of this cosmos, and as I’ve said, because Yahweh (or more likely mortal moses) botched genesis. That account of the origins of the universe and life is just flat out wrong, through and through. So I don’t fear damnation from rejection of that deity or his supposed authorship.

    And this “just to be safe” thing is again a tacit threat, and one I’m comfortable not capitulating on(maybe not really from you, but the premise is an afterlife threat nonetheless). I’m well aware of the history of Christanity, without reading Donnies books lol. And each theism, and their sects, are grounded on revelation, all the way up to Mormonism. I would ask why don’t you accept the revelations, that god spoke to Muhammad or Joeseph Smith? And have you really given them as much scrutinizing research as you have your own faith? And was your entrance in Christianity one based on research, or one based on upbringing – initially? For the same reason you reject these other revelations, are the same reason I’m rejecting the rest.
    -Chris

  181. Hey Celeste,

    I assume a lot? But you’re right, I’m just following your identical reasoning. I had Christianity heavily in my upbringing. And I’m fully aware that flat out denying Yahweh
    is a damnable sin. I heard it in several of the various Christian sects I attended(Accept maybe the unitarian church, they never really mentioned hell). I don’t see how I’m overstepping my bounds here, that is verbatim the information I was taught. I mean what else did you mean by your comment? What other possibility had you left open under Pascals wager besides hell for me? Obviously not heaven if I deny Yahweh. So where have I become presumptuous? Where did I overstep?

    I said I don’t know the origins of the Universe. That’s a humble and honest position. Hell though is really an entirely different factor. I don’t fear hell, because again, I don’t believe Yahweh is the cause of this cosmos, and as I’ve said, because Yahweh (or more likely mortal moses) botched genesis. That account of the origins of the universe and life is just flat out wrong, through and through. So I don’t fear damnation from rejection of that deity or his supposed authorship.

    And this “just to be safe” thing is again a tacit threat, and one I’m comfortable not capitulating on(maybe not really from you, but the premise is an afterlife threat nonetheless). I’m well aware of the history of Christanity, without reading Donnies books lol. And each theism, and their sects, are grounded on revelation, all the way up to Mormonism. I would ask why don’t you accept the revelations, that god spoke to Muhammad or Joeseph Smith? And have you really given them as much scrutinizing research as you have your own faith? And was your entrance in Christianity one based on research, or one based on upbringing – initially? For the same reason you reject these other revelations, are the same reason I’m rejecting the rest.
    -Chris

  182. Wew, only one more to go haha.
    Hey David,
    Thank you for your understanding haha on my apathy towards further research in Yahweh being the cause of the cosmos lol.

    Alright it appears is if I’m going to have to teach a basic science lesson, learned in grade school, but earnestly utilized from birth. Why do you always turn your door handle in one direction to open it? Why do you always “pull” on the refrigerator door to open it. Why do you pedal with your feet forward on a bicycle, etc. Because under your observations, testing, and now theory, that is what will propel the bike, that will open the fridge, that will open the door.

    Cosmological and evolutionary history is based on a panoply of strong, overwhelmingly so, evidence. Initially when going out to research, yes, one deals with a hypothesis, but scientist, in these fields, are leaps and bounds past that point of initial hypothetical investigation. We don’t have one fossil for instance, we have hundreds of thousands, all congruent. Where as the book of genesis isn’t any kind of investigation, it’s a flat out history, that isn’t true.

    So how is genesis wrong, brb grabbing my bible 😉

    Alright, to start off, most scholars acknowledge that Genesis is actually two separate creation accounts. So just to begin with, yahweh is already ambiguous and confusing. Hardly something I’d expect from omniscience.

    Anyway,
    1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

    Well fine, if we skip 9 billion years of cosmological history we get to 1:1. 1:2 though is wrong. The earth was as bright as it is today, because the sun precluded it. Planets are born from the formation of stars. Also there wasn’t any water on earth for at least half a billion years. It was molten lava.

    1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
    1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

    Again, light precluded the Earth in our solar system, and it also precluded our solar system in general, but 10 billion years. There was never an intervention to divide these substances.

    I’m going to skip ahead, because I’m frankly too lazy to pick apart every last verse.

    1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

    The moon isn’t a light producer, it’s a light reflector. All the light we see representing the moon is conducted by the sun.

    Now we are getting to a seriously demonstratable error:
    1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
    1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

    Well the concept that grass life, and herbs and seeds and fruit trees existed BEFORE sea life, is wrong. Follow the fossil record, sea life precludes land life by over a billion years. While the algae, and eels were evolving, the earth was barren of life.

    Now we enter more factual error:
    1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
    1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

    This is also false, you can’t have winged creatures before the “beast of the earth.” “Gliding” animals, came around at the time of dinosaurs 265 million years ago. Beast life was 500 million. Now actually bird flying life, came about after the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. So again, this order of events is just wrong.

    That’s enough Genesis for one morning. I could go on…

  183. Wew, only one more to go haha.
    Hey David,
    Thank you for your understanding haha on my apathy towards further research in Yahweh being the cause of the cosmos lol.

    Alright it appears is if I’m going to have to teach a basic science lesson, learned in grade school, but earnestly utilized from birth. Why do you always turn your door handle in one direction to open it? Why do you always “pull” on the refrigerator door to open it. Why do you pedal with your feet forward on a bicycle, etc. Because under your observations, testing, and now theory, that is what will propel the bike, that will open the fridge, that will open the door.

    Cosmological and evolutionary history is based on a panoply of strong, overwhelmingly so, evidence. Initially when going out to research, yes, one deals with a hypothesis, but scientist, in these fields, are leaps and bounds past that point of initial hypothetical investigation. We don’t have one fossil for instance, we have hundreds of thousands, all congruent. Where as the book of genesis isn’t any kind of investigation, it’s a flat out history, that isn’t true.

    So how is genesis wrong, brb grabbing my bible 😉

    Alright, to start off, most scholars acknowledge that Genesis is actually two separate creation accounts. So just to begin with, yahweh is already ambiguous and confusing. Hardly something I’d expect from omniscience.

    Anyway,
    1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

    Well fine, if we skip 9 billion years of cosmological history we get to 1:1. 1:2 though is wrong. The earth was as bright as it is today, because the sun precluded it. Planets are born from the formation of stars. Also there wasn’t any water on earth for at least half a billion years. It was molten lava.

    1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
    1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

    Again, light precluded the Earth in our solar system, and it also precluded our solar system in general, but 10 billion years. There was never an intervention to divide these substances.

    I’m going to skip ahead, because I’m frankly too lazy to pick apart every last verse.

    1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

    The moon isn’t a light producer, it’s a light reflector. All the light we see representing the moon is conducted by the sun.

    Now we are getting to a seriously demonstratable error:
    1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
    1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

    Well the concept that grass life, and herbs and seeds and fruit trees existed BEFORE sea life, is wrong. Follow the fossil record, sea life precludes land life by over a billion years. While the algae, and eels were evolving, the earth was barren of life.

    Now we enter more factual error:
    1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
    1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

    This is also false, you can’t have winged creatures before the “beast of the earth.” “Gliding” animals, came around at the time of dinosaurs 265 million years ago. Beast life was 500 million. Now actually bird flying life, came about after the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. So again, this order of events is just wrong.

    That’s enough Genesis for one morning. I could go on…

  184. Chris,

    Why do you feel so threatened? To me, the mention of hell is not a threat. I do consider it truth, but I don’t feel threatened when someone talks about it.

    Listen, I appreciate you coming back to respond so extensively. I didn’t read your comment to David, but…
    🙂 Um… I’ve reaaaally had enough. Donny, make me stop coming back! 😉

    Chris, you’re awesome, I’m sure. I don’t think we’re the first atheist/Christian pair to think of one another as stubborn and lacking in reason. You think I’m wrong. I think you’re wrong. You don’t convince me; I obviously won’t convince you.

    I do wish you the best though. Take care!

  185. Chris,

    Why do you feel so threatened? To me, the mention of hell is not a threat. I do consider it truth, but I don’t feel threatened when someone talks about it.

    Listen, I appreciate you coming back to respond so extensively. I didn’t read your comment to David, but…
    🙂 Um… I’ve reaaaally had enough. Donny, make me stop coming back! 😉

    Chris, you’re awesome, I’m sure. I don’t think we’re the first atheist/Christian pair to think of one another as stubborn and lacking in reason. You think I’m wrong. I think you’re wrong. You don’t convince me; I obviously won’t convince you.

    I do wish you the best though. Take care!

  186. No I don’t actually “feel” threatened. However, Pascals wager is a tacit threat – to deny this seems dishonest. I asked before, where did I overstep my assumption on the wager?

    I haven’t called you stubborn, or lacking in reason…sorry you feel that way about me.

  187. No I don’t actually “feel” threatened. However, Pascals wager is a tacit threat – to deny this seems dishonest. I asked before, where did I overstep my assumption on the wager?

    I haven’t called you stubborn, or lacking in reason…sorry you feel that way about me.

  188. wow youre dealing with alot of replies. i dont want to come off as hostile but i do want to get you to think and sometimes it may seem like im backing you into a corner.

    lets back up real quick. you are putting words into my mouth. i didnt say a thing about an architect. im puttting a magnifying glass into the universe and i want you to look through it….hard.

    forget names, forget religions, forget all of that. i dont care

    lets back up and make this super-simple. take a breath

    lets look at the universe. do you think that somehow, somewhere it makes sense……..

    …….even though at the present we cant completely understand it?

    otherwise science needs to fold up and go home right?

    the ONLY way that the universe can make sense is if it is a rational system, not an irrational one. meaning from top to bottom it has to follow a set series of events of cause and effect of which we can observe. and we DO observe that.

    chris, nevermind yahweh, or an architect. did the earth form from a SEQUENCE OF EVENTS or from CHAOS, did the earth have to play by certain rules? this would be a statement of science, not a religious statement. so did it? im not trying to trap you. if its science and if its factual it is what it is.

    you have already said on two occasions and agree with me that eventually they will figure out the quantum world. i agree. now there are two implications here that you need to address. one, the scientist presupposes by faith that the universe makes sense. they feel that eventually they will figure out how it works even though at the time, they dont have a complete picture of the system. this is FAITH AND TRUST that the universe is rational and will make sense to them (on a side note, its very funny how a scientist with homo sapien intelligence is arrogant enough to assume the universe will make sense to such an animal as them, as if the universe has anything to explain to them:)

    you dont have to address the parentheses

    the second implication is that of the universe actually making sense. that would imply it follows rules, laws, patterns, sequences, cause and effect….all of which would be observable.

    chris, that IS the definition of rationality.

    i know that somewhere in your mind you dont want science to pack up and go home. i dont either. but if the universe had not one iota of rationality, science would NEVER understand it. it would be a complete waste of time. it would also be hypocritical of you to say that the universe has no rationality but at the same time in your various posts, quote all of the rational findings of science.

    so this goes back to my original question’

    is the universe rational?

    scientists seems to think so

    …because they keep heading out into the field believing it will be there and also finding that rationality on explicitly numerous occasions. they find the reasons things act as they do all of the time.

    i would put out all of my money and say that ALL OF REALITY is rational, even though we cant figure it all out just yet.

    you dont have to prove anything to me, i want you to think and answer the question yourself.

    chris, rationality does not come from non-intelligence.

    and at the very least you can admit that the universe is shot full of rationality

    if there were no Mind, no reason, no order….if this universe was truly atheistic it would not look as it does. there would be no rationality. and we do not observe that. in fact ALL of science hinges on the fact that the universe does make sense.

    so, how and why does the universe make sense?

    and this is probably what keeps richard dawkins up at night

  189. wow youre dealing with alot of replies. i dont want to come off as hostile but i do want to get you to think and sometimes it may seem like im backing you into a corner.

    lets back up real quick. you are putting words into my mouth. i didnt say a thing about an architect. im puttting a magnifying glass into the universe and i want you to look through it….hard.

    forget names, forget religions, forget all of that. i dont care

    lets back up and make this super-simple. take a breath

    lets look at the universe. do you think that somehow, somewhere it makes sense……..

    …….even though at the present we cant completely understand it?

    otherwise science needs to fold up and go home right?

    the ONLY way that the universe can make sense is if it is a rational system, not an irrational one. meaning from top to bottom it has to follow a set series of events of cause and effect of which we can observe. and we DO observe that.

    chris, nevermind yahweh, or an architect. did the earth form from a SEQUENCE OF EVENTS or from CHAOS, did the earth have to play by certain rules? this would be a statement of science, not a religious statement. so did it? im not trying to trap you. if its science and if its factual it is what it is.

    you have already said on two occasions and agree with me that eventually they will figure out the quantum world. i agree. now there are two implications here that you need to address. one, the scientist presupposes by faith that the universe makes sense. they feel that eventually they will figure out how it works even though at the time, they dont have a complete picture of the system. this is FAITH AND TRUST that the universe is rational and will make sense to them (on a side note, its very funny how a scientist with homo sapien intelligence is arrogant enough to assume the universe will make sense to such an animal as them, as if the universe has anything to explain to them:)

    you dont have to address the parentheses

    the second implication is that of the universe actually making sense. that would imply it follows rules, laws, patterns, sequences, cause and effect….all of which would be observable.

    chris, that IS the definition of rationality.

    i know that somewhere in your mind you dont want science to pack up and go home. i dont either. but if the universe had not one iota of rationality, science would NEVER understand it. it would be a complete waste of time. it would also be hypocritical of you to say that the universe has no rationality but at the same time in your various posts, quote all of the rational findings of science.

    so this goes back to my original question’

    is the universe rational?

    scientists seems to think so

    …because they keep heading out into the field believing it will be there and also finding that rationality on explicitly numerous occasions. they find the reasons things act as they do all of the time.

    i would put out all of my money and say that ALL OF REALITY is rational, even though we cant figure it all out just yet.

    you dont have to prove anything to me, i want you to think and answer the question yourself.

    chris, rationality does not come from non-intelligence.

    and at the very least you can admit that the universe is shot full of rationality

    if there were no Mind, no reason, no order….if this universe was truly atheistic it would not look as it does. there would be no rationality. and we do not observe that. in fact ALL of science hinges on the fact that the universe does make sense.

    so, how and why does the universe make sense?

    and this is probably what keeps richard dawkins up at night

  190. the most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible-

    albert einstein

  191. the most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible-

    albert einstein

  192. I just wanted to pop in to say that thanks to John I am able to concentrate on doing the homework I have to do for the week, rather than writing responses to the issues being discussed here. Most of what you’ve been writing, John, is along the same lines of thought I’d attempt to convey.

    FYI: a copy of every comment posted on this blog is emailed to my laptop and iPhone. I read every one of them.

  193. I just wanted to pop in to say that thanks to John I am able to concentrate on doing the homework I have to do for the week, rather than writing responses to the issues being discussed here. Most of what you’ve been writing, John, is along the same lines of thought I’d attempt to convey.

    FYI: a copy of every comment posted on this blog is emailed to my laptop and iPhone. I read every one of them.

  194. thanks donny

  195. thanks donny

  196. chris i also wanted to ask you one more question

    youre confusing me because at various points you either stand behind the fact that eventually, the quantum world will be understood.

    but when i ask you if the universe is rational, you flip flop and say that well 50% of it is and that the micro level is not. or when i ask you about the formation of the earth, all of a sudden you get sketchy about the reliability of the science.

    so….are you saying that the quantum world will never be understood or that currently we dont understand it? or how about the formation of the earth, did it play by rules or did it squeeze its way in for no apparent reason?

    or how about this, how about we say that the quantum world makes sense, we just dont know how yet, agreed?

    but if it is understood, wouldnt that make it RATIONAL?

    so by default then, that would be one more chalk mark towards the rationality of the universe.

    and that isnt such a bad thing because its good for science. we WANT to understand things. but the real ticker is that we ONLY understand things that are rational.

    does that idea appeal to you or would you rather the universe not be so sensible?

    you cant get around this because if the entire universe makes sense, which ALL of science hinges on, AND is in the process of uncovering, that would make for a buttload of implications.

    MIND, chris.

  197. chris i also wanted to ask you one more question

    youre confusing me because at various points you either stand behind the fact that eventually, the quantum world will be understood.

    but when i ask you if the universe is rational, you flip flop and say that well 50% of it is and that the micro level is not. or when i ask you about the formation of the earth, all of a sudden you get sketchy about the reliability of the science.

    so….are you saying that the quantum world will never be understood or that currently we dont understand it? or how about the formation of the earth, did it play by rules or did it squeeze its way in for no apparent reason?

    or how about this, how about we say that the quantum world makes sense, we just dont know how yet, agreed?

    but if it is understood, wouldnt that make it RATIONAL?

    so by default then, that would be one more chalk mark towards the rationality of the universe.

    and that isnt such a bad thing because its good for science. we WANT to understand things. but the real ticker is that we ONLY understand things that are rational.

    does that idea appeal to you or would you rather the universe not be so sensible?

    you cant get around this because if the entire universe makes sense, which ALL of science hinges on, AND is in the process of uncovering, that would make for a buttload of implications.

    MIND, chris.

  198. ack John, quite A LOT.

    I’ll deal with your first post first.

    I’ll gladly “forget” all the names and theisms as you ask, but that means, in the course of this dialogue, you are not arguing for Yahweh or Christianity. I hope you understand that as a Christian.

    I’ve pretty much answered everything you’ve asked, and you basically continue to ask the same questions with slight rewordings.

    Yes I think the Universe is mostly rational. I do not say completely, because again, at this moment, quantum physics isn’t rational. Regardless I don’t think science needs to pack up and go home.

    I prefer to view these cause and effects as coming from the “bottom up” and not “the top down” as you worded it. For instance lifes complexity arose from the bottom up. Earths complexity arose from the bottom up, etc.

    Yes the Earth had to form under certain rules, as did everything in this universe, I don’t deny that. Of course this does teeter on determinism, something I am proponent of(Which of course does denote a lack of free-will ((although the appearance remains)) and a lack of miracles).

    Now I have not said that I agree with you that the quantum world will be solved. I’m optimistic, but, frankly, my answer is a solid “I don’t know.” I’ve read literature from both optimistic physicist, and pessimistic ones, both claiming yes and no on the solution problem. I’ll patiently await more from the professionals in that field.

    Scientist, and myself, do not presuppose both faith. Especially this all caps FAITH you feel the need to throw out. That’s simply absurd. I mean before I even address it, it’s laughable, because you’re using faith almost in a condescending way, when in day to day practice, you cherish faith. So you’re using the scientific math to support theism, and faith based belief to chastise science, when in practice you’re the polar opposite. Anywho…

    No science is not faith. Again, scientist fully acknowledge that the atomic world does NOT make sense. That doesn’t stop them from doing science though in the least, on an atomic or a macro scale. Even some scientist, notable Dawkins, Peter Medewar, Noam Chomsky, and possibly myself, fully acknowledge that science may be only to take us so far, regardless, I’m personally quite content with how far it has already taken us, and I’m quite content with what’s in store for its future. Regardless, from my birth, up until this very moment, my entire life has followed a cause and effect relationship. So for me to “practice” science, by simply observing and measuring cause and effect relationships, is NOT a faith system in the slightest, it’s every last iota of my reality. And based off every history book I’ve ever read, those homo-sapiens as well.

    Furthermore it isn’t arrogant in the slightest, what are you talking about? Scientist do acknowledge that there are things they don’t know, possibly can’t know, but it’s certainly not arrogant to TRY. What was so arrogant about the Greeks measuring the predictably of the seasons? or galileo turning a telescope to the stars. or Newton working privately in his lab? These “hobbies” are no more arrogant than playing basketball or football, it’s simply how some people choose to spend their time. Yes there are plenty of arrogant scientist, and “regular” folks, but that’s irrelevant.

    The universe following natural law is not the definition of rationality…you’ve basically contrived that.
    Definition:
    1. the state or quality of being rational.
    2. the possession of reason.
    3. agreeableness to reason; reasonableness.
    4. the exercise of reason.
    5. a reasonable view, practice, etc.

    The quantum world does NOT follow any of these either.

    I still share your optimism, that hopefully scientist will consummate this atomic problem, and science will continue inexorably.

    Now at the end of your speech, you come to a point, where again, you’re just contriving facts. “rationality does not come from non-intelligence.” What do you base this on? How do you know this to be true? Give me a single reason to trust that statement. Again, long before there was life, water always followed the path of least resistance. Is that rational? If so, no intelligence was needed in the process.

    Also you say if the universe was atheistic there would be no reason or order? What are you talking about? How do you know this? If yahweh doesn’t exist, that doesn’t mean this universe disappears. We have no idea where the cosmos came from, and to continue to presume you do is arrogant. Furthermore just looking at the universe does not tell you a single thing about its origin as you continue to imply. A very basic example. If I see a leaf blowing in the wind, that doesn’t tell me a single iota of information about the biological structure of the plant it came from, the physiology of the plants inter working, or the reproductive process the plant follows. On that same token, just because we a universe, that does not mean we extrapolate ONE part of it (homo sapien cognition) and claim that’s the derivation of the starting point.

    So to address your final two sentences. We know “how” the inverse makes sense, it’s operating under immutable, natural, cause and effect, deterministic law. I don’t “why” and neither does anyone else.

    As far as keeping Richard Dawkins up at night – uhm, what are you talking about? This blog really sends bent on just making things up about that man…for whatever reason. I actually believe I did read somewhere, that he sleeps just fine….

  199. ack John, quite A LOT.

    I’ll deal with your first post first.

    I’ll gladly “forget” all the names and theisms as you ask, but that means, in the course of this dialogue, you are not arguing for Yahweh or Christianity. I hope you understand that as a Christian.

    I’ve pretty much answered everything you’ve asked, and you basically continue to ask the same questions with slight rewordings.

    Yes I think the Universe is mostly rational. I do not say completely, because again, at this moment, quantum physics isn’t rational. Regardless I don’t think science needs to pack up and go home.

    I prefer to view these cause and effects as coming from the “bottom up” and not “the top down” as you worded it. For instance lifes complexity arose from the bottom up. Earths complexity arose from the bottom up, etc.

    Yes the Earth had to form under certain rules, as did everything in this universe, I don’t deny that. Of course this does teeter on determinism, something I am proponent of(Which of course does denote a lack of free-will ((although the appearance remains)) and a lack of miracles).

    Now I have not said that I agree with you that the quantum world will be solved. I’m optimistic, but, frankly, my answer is a solid “I don’t know.” I’ve read literature from both optimistic physicist, and pessimistic ones, both claiming yes and no on the solution problem. I’ll patiently await more from the professionals in that field.

    Scientist, and myself, do not presuppose both faith. Especially this all caps FAITH you feel the need to throw out. That’s simply absurd. I mean before I even address it, it’s laughable, because you’re using faith almost in a condescending way, when in day to day practice, you cherish faith. So you’re using the scientific math to support theism, and faith based belief to chastise science, when in practice you’re the polar opposite. Anywho…

    No science is not faith. Again, scientist fully acknowledge that the atomic world does NOT make sense. That doesn’t stop them from doing science though in the least, on an atomic or a macro scale. Even some scientist, notable Dawkins, Peter Medewar, Noam Chomsky, and possibly myself, fully acknowledge that science may be only to take us so far, regardless, I’m personally quite content with how far it has already taken us, and I’m quite content with what’s in store for its future. Regardless, from my birth, up until this very moment, my entire life has followed a cause and effect relationship. So for me to “practice” science, by simply observing and measuring cause and effect relationships, is NOT a faith system in the slightest, it’s every last iota of my reality. And based off every history book I’ve ever read, those homo-sapiens as well.

    Furthermore it isn’t arrogant in the slightest, what are you talking about? Scientist do acknowledge that there are things they don’t know, possibly can’t know, but it’s certainly not arrogant to TRY. What was so arrogant about the Greeks measuring the predictably of the seasons? or galileo turning a telescope to the stars. or Newton working privately in his lab? These “hobbies” are no more arrogant than playing basketball or football, it’s simply how some people choose to spend their time. Yes there are plenty of arrogant scientist, and “regular” folks, but that’s irrelevant.

    The universe following natural law is not the definition of rationality…you’ve basically contrived that.
    Definition:
    1. the state or quality of being rational.
    2. the possession of reason.
    3. agreeableness to reason; reasonableness.
    4. the exercise of reason.
    5. a reasonable view, practice, etc.

    The quantum world does NOT follow any of these either.

    I still share your optimism, that hopefully scientist will consummate this atomic problem, and science will continue inexorably.

    Now at the end of your speech, you come to a point, where again, you’re just contriving facts. “rationality does not come from non-intelligence.” What do you base this on? How do you know this to be true? Give me a single reason to trust that statement. Again, long before there was life, water always followed the path of least resistance. Is that rational? If so, no intelligence was needed in the process.

    Also you say if the universe was atheistic there would be no reason or order? What are you talking about? How do you know this? If yahweh doesn’t exist, that doesn’t mean this universe disappears. We have no idea where the cosmos came from, and to continue to presume you do is arrogant. Furthermore just looking at the universe does not tell you a single thing about its origin as you continue to imply. A very basic example. If I see a leaf blowing in the wind, that doesn’t tell me a single iota of information about the biological structure of the plant it came from, the physiology of the plants inter working, or the reproductive process the plant follows. On that same token, just because we a universe, that does not mean we extrapolate ONE part of it (homo sapien cognition) and claim that’s the derivation of the starting point.

    So to address your final two sentences. We know “how” the inverse makes sense, it’s operating under immutable, natural, cause and effect, deterministic law. I don’t “why” and neither does anyone else.

    As far as keeping Richard Dawkins up at night – uhm, what are you talking about? This blog really sends bent on just making things up about that man…for whatever reason. I actually believe I did read somewhere, that he sleeps just fine….

  200. I just read post two, and I see I can ignore it, my reply covers everything you’ve re asked. Please John, take the time to skim some of your questions, because you’re just repeating yourself. It will save both of us time 😉

  201. I just read post two, and I see I can ignore it, my reply covers everything you’ve re asked. Please John, take the time to skim some of your questions, because you’re just repeating yourself. It will save both of us time 😉

  202. p.s. Being a Christian, would typically require an irrational universe – or one that doesn’t operate on deterministic cause and effect events. Being born of a virgin, water into wine, genesis creation, resurrections, souls, battles between good vs evil, garden of eden exploding “wrongness” into the world, etc are not prosperities of a materialistic and deterministic cosmos. Although I subscribe to the latter, you ostensibly seem to be taking your religion to the proverbial cafeteria.

  203. p.s. Being a Christian, would typically require an irrational universe – or one that doesn’t operate on deterministic cause and effect events. Being born of a virgin, water into wine, genesis creation, resurrections, souls, battles between good vs evil, garden of eden exploding “wrongness” into the world, etc are not prosperities of a materialistic and deterministic cosmos. Although I subscribe to the latter, you ostensibly seem to be taking your religion to the proverbial cafeteria.

  204. Chris,

    Such things as you mentioned in your last comment are called “miracles” for a reason: they happen outside normal, rational parameters and are quite rare… thus, a “miracle”.

  205. Chris,

    Such things as you mentioned in your last comment are called “miracles” for a reason: they happen outside normal, rational parameters and are quite rare… thus, a “miracle”.

  206. “John
    Fast replies!
    I fully agree with you, the quantum world will hopefully be elucidated and explained one day, because yes, the macro scale holds strong.”

    well, im sorry if i got it the wrong way that you might agree with me on the understanding of the quantum world. you shouldve put an asterisk near hopefully.

    but a quick point on that, just because we do not understand it that does not mean it is not a working,coherent system. that might be an inadequate description but it formed the “orderly” macro world which you seem to agree with. obviously its playing some part because without it there would be no macro world to begin with. so, nothing to be said about that?

    there are plenty of refutations to bottom up causation. there is also the presence of information in the micro world and on the macro world as well. how do these small things “know” what to do anyways to form the coherence that we see all around us? information had to be injected into reality to give these components description. this is what i mean by top-down causation. fundamentally, there is no reason why reality has to be the way it is outside of injected information.

    you could also say that laws are a form of information too. after the big bang, there was basically radiation. why did that radiation go on to form galaxies,stars, hydrogen, then explode without some kind of outside directional force? out of all the things it couldve done, what made it do that?

    information.

    the whole thing about faith. no, im not equating that science is faith. you didnt understand my point. my point was that a scientist must have faith that he will find intelligibility in the universe, or that he will make sense of things he studies BEFORE he goes into the field. that is why they keep on studying the quantum world. they have faith that eventually they will make some type of sense of it.

    no, water seeking the least possible resistance may not be a rational idea, but it is an intelligible idea. we know why it does that… its an effect of gravity on liquid. and gravity is also that thing which keeps oxygen under pressure in our atmosphere that pushes air into our lungs so we wont die. funny how that happens when oxygen obeys the “rules”.

    the whole thing about rationality coming from intelligence. you find it that easy to believe that REASON can be found outside of intelligence? are rocks reasonable, trees, asteroids? that goes without saying.

    and i keep asking the same question to you because i dont feel you truly understand what im asking. so let me ask it again and this is a yes or no question.

    do you feel that somehow, someway, the ENTIRE universe works and makes sense? *

    yes or no

    *im not asking if it makes sense to you, any scientist or if we will ever comprehend all of it

  207. “John
    Fast replies!
    I fully agree with you, the quantum world will hopefully be elucidated and explained one day, because yes, the macro scale holds strong.”

    well, im sorry if i got it the wrong way that you might agree with me on the understanding of the quantum world. you shouldve put an asterisk near hopefully.

    but a quick point on that, just because we do not understand it that does not mean it is not a working,coherent system. that might be an inadequate description but it formed the “orderly” macro world which you seem to agree with. obviously its playing some part because without it there would be no macro world to begin with. so, nothing to be said about that?

    there are plenty of refutations to bottom up causation. there is also the presence of information in the micro world and on the macro world as well. how do these small things “know” what to do anyways to form the coherence that we see all around us? information had to be injected into reality to give these components description. this is what i mean by top-down causation. fundamentally, there is no reason why reality has to be the way it is outside of injected information.

    you could also say that laws are a form of information too. after the big bang, there was basically radiation. why did that radiation go on to form galaxies,stars, hydrogen, then explode without some kind of outside directional force? out of all the things it couldve done, what made it do that?

    information.

    the whole thing about faith. no, im not equating that science is faith. you didnt understand my point. my point was that a scientist must have faith that he will find intelligibility in the universe, or that he will make sense of things he studies BEFORE he goes into the field. that is why they keep on studying the quantum world. they have faith that eventually they will make some type of sense of it.

    no, water seeking the least possible resistance may not be a rational idea, but it is an intelligible idea. we know why it does that… its an effect of gravity on liquid. and gravity is also that thing which keeps oxygen under pressure in our atmosphere that pushes air into our lungs so we wont die. funny how that happens when oxygen obeys the “rules”.

    the whole thing about rationality coming from intelligence. you find it that easy to believe that REASON can be found outside of intelligence? are rocks reasonable, trees, asteroids? that goes without saying.

    and i keep asking the same question to you because i dont feel you truly understand what im asking. so let me ask it again and this is a yes or no question.

    do you feel that somehow, someway, the ENTIRE universe works and makes sense? *

    yes or no

    *im not asking if it makes sense to you, any scientist or if we will ever comprehend all of it

  208. chris,
    you actually have more faith than most of the Christians i know
    genesis isn’t the issue here, but thank you for your banter nonetheless
    and don’t you realize that carbon dating isn’t as quantitative as once was thought?
    most apparently not
    you also seem to realize that the bible was written by people who use descriptives for their revelations the best they can
    still good descriptions by any standard, and apparently not based on guesswork since we do have a sun, and moon, and stars,etc. etc. – but you seem to take things very literally
    calm down a bit – we know you don’t really want to know
    at least you realize you don’t know – but you do have so much faith
    and by the way, suggestions have been made that dinosaurs and humankind shared the earth and may not have been separated by quite as many years as you’ve been raised to believe
    and, just to point it out, the book of job does reference dinosaurs
    so, in so many words, you subscribe to religion big time
    not Christianity, obviously, but the religion of facts
    the bible talks about that too
    and keeps getting proved over and over
    i think of the book of job (26:7), where it talks about the earth hanging on nothing in the sky – yet scientists after these writings insisted that the earth was flat, or that it rode through the sky on the backs of giant turtles, etc.
    all proved wrong eventually to prove the bible correct
    and it’ll keep happening, it has so far
    all the other explanations eventually get proven wrong (or right in accordance with the bible) – how many do we have to go through?
    again, inductive reasoning is great, but scientists haven’t been able to create life from nothing, and the chances of it happening are equal to my chances of throwing a bucket of paint on a canvas resulting in the mona lisa – so why do you believe the theories you subscribe to are so plausible?
    and they may be, but my point is, you’ve got no proof

    and john, there’s going to be a day where we comprehend everything and it probably won’t matter anymore

    i’ve enjoyed everyone’s positions so far, you guys are awesome 🙂

  209. chris,
    you actually have more faith than most of the Christians i know
    genesis isn’t the issue here, but thank you for your banter nonetheless
    and don’t you realize that carbon dating isn’t as quantitative as once was thought?
    most apparently not
    you also seem to realize that the bible was written by people who use descriptives for their revelations the best they can
    still good descriptions by any standard, and apparently not based on guesswork since we do have a sun, and moon, and stars,etc. etc. – but you seem to take things very literally
    calm down a bit – we know you don’t really want to know
    at least you realize you don’t know – but you do have so much faith
    and by the way, suggestions have been made that dinosaurs and humankind shared the earth and may not have been separated by quite as many years as you’ve been raised to believe
    and, just to point it out, the book of job does reference dinosaurs
    so, in so many words, you subscribe to religion big time
    not Christianity, obviously, but the religion of facts
    the bible talks about that too
    and keeps getting proved over and over
    i think of the book of job (26:7), where it talks about the earth hanging on nothing in the sky – yet scientists after these writings insisted that the earth was flat, or that it rode through the sky on the backs of giant turtles, etc.
    all proved wrong eventually to prove the bible correct
    and it’ll keep happening, it has so far
    all the other explanations eventually get proven wrong (or right in accordance with the bible) – how many do we have to go through?
    again, inductive reasoning is great, but scientists haven’t been able to create life from nothing, and the chances of it happening are equal to my chances of throwing a bucket of paint on a canvas resulting in the mona lisa – so why do you believe the theories you subscribe to are so plausible?
    and they may be, but my point is, you’ve got no proof

    and john, there’s going to be a day where we comprehend everything and it probably won’t matter anymore

    i’ve enjoyed everyone’s positions so far, you guys are awesome 🙂

  210. sorry all, i just read what i wrote and i obviously need to get some sleep – i think randomly – i really need to proofread 😉

  211. sorry all, i just read what i wrote and i obviously need to get some sleep – i think randomly – i really need to proofread 😉

  212. and just for the record, i know i invited the breakdown of genesis – so i guess it was an issue, i would have done it too but i’m trying not to be so literal these days

  213. and just for the record, i know i invited the breakdown of genesis – so i guess it was an issue, i would have done it too but i’m trying not to be so literal these days

  214. I’m just going to ignore David. That was a very incomprehensible, desultory…thesis?

  215. I’m just going to ignore David. That was a very incomprehensible, desultory…thesis?

  216. Hey John,
    Certainly a much more lucid set of ideas 😉
    I agree that on our macro scale, the universe is orderly. And thus, for our “plane” of ‘immediate’ existence, is thus, rational.

    Well these small things don’t “know,” they have no other choice, as you acknowledge, they simply follow a very rigid, immutable, law. And these brief formations certainly aren’t immediately, or even currently coherent(especially for the ten billion years where cognitive life was a physical impossibility). Dark matter, energy, innards of a black hole, origin of the cosmos, etc.

    You go on to ask me a series of questions, that as you know, are explained via physical law. Radiation went to form galaxies and stars, because as the fabric of space time exponentially grew, the congealment of photons and extreme heat/light, were able to spread, and cool. We happen to be occupying a very fortunate moment in that event, but the universe is destined to spend an eternity in a state of molecule less death.
    You say: then explode without some kind of outside directional force?
    Yet you explain that force here: “its an effect of gravity on liquid. and gravity is also that thing which keeps oxygen under pressure in our atmosphere that pushes air into our lungs”
    Gravity, like the strong and weak nuclear forces, is a portion of the overall universal law, you and I are optimistic exist, and “believe” (if you want to use that word) in.

    You go onto say that gravity pushes oxygen into our lungs so that we don’t die. You’re acting as if oxygen and gravity are going out of their way to do this. We evolved to adapt to that factor in the environment, the environment did not evolve that factor for us. The order of events is one direction, bottom up (From evolutionary goggles).

    “the whole thing about rationality coming from intelligence. you find it that easy to believe that REASON can be found outside of intelligence? are rocks reasonable, trees, asteroids? that goes without saying.”

    You’re switching rationality with reason. No I don’t think the “ability” to reason exist outside of intelligence(Rocks don’t….). However I agree this universe is rational on our “plane.”

    My answer to your question:
    “do you feel that somehow, someway, the ENTIRE universe works and makes sense? ”
    I’m optimistic it does – I behave as if it will – but I realize, some parts simply aren’t, at this moment, and are exasperating. Regardless, to proceed with your inquisition I’ll answer “yes.”

  217. Hey John,
    Certainly a much more lucid set of ideas 😉
    I agree that on our macro scale, the universe is orderly. And thus, for our “plane” of ‘immediate’ existence, is thus, rational.

    Well these small things don’t “know,” they have no other choice, as you acknowledge, they simply follow a very rigid, immutable, law. And these brief formations certainly aren’t immediately, or even currently coherent(especially for the ten billion years where cognitive life was a physical impossibility). Dark matter, energy, innards of a black hole, origin of the cosmos, etc.

    You go on to ask me a series of questions, that as you know, are explained via physical law. Radiation went to form galaxies and stars, because as the fabric of space time exponentially grew, the congealment of photons and extreme heat/light, were able to spread, and cool. We happen to be occupying a very fortunate moment in that event, but the universe is destined to spend an eternity in a state of molecule less death.
    You say: then explode without some kind of outside directional force?
    Yet you explain that force here: “its an effect of gravity on liquid. and gravity is also that thing which keeps oxygen under pressure in our atmosphere that pushes air into our lungs”
    Gravity, like the strong and weak nuclear forces, is a portion of the overall universal law, you and I are optimistic exist, and “believe” (if you want to use that word) in.

    You go onto say that gravity pushes oxygen into our lungs so that we don’t die. You’re acting as if oxygen and gravity are going out of their way to do this. We evolved to adapt to that factor in the environment, the environment did not evolve that factor for us. The order of events is one direction, bottom up (From evolutionary goggles).

    “the whole thing about rationality coming from intelligence. you find it that easy to believe that REASON can be found outside of intelligence? are rocks reasonable, trees, asteroids? that goes without saying.”

    You’re switching rationality with reason. No I don’t think the “ability” to reason exist outside of intelligence(Rocks don’t….). However I agree this universe is rational on our “plane.”

    My answer to your question:
    “do you feel that somehow, someway, the ENTIRE universe works and makes sense? ”
    I’m optimistic it does – I behave as if it will – but I realize, some parts simply aren’t, at this moment, and are exasperating. Regardless, to proceed with your inquisition I’ll answer “yes.”

  218. thank you for ignoring it
    just don’t be afraid of truth and know that a lot of your arguments don’t hold water

  219. thank you for ignoring it
    just don’t be afraid of truth and know that a lot of your arguments don’t hold water

  220. sorry, i’m using my wife’s computer

  221. sorry, i’m using my wife’s computer

  222. chris
    one final thought
    my last post was a bit erratic, i admit, but i use simple words and the ideas expressed aren’t very hard to understand – for most people
    i’m thankful that you’ve chosen to close the debate and will consider your ignore-ance as an official concession
    i had a great time and will hopfully enjoy reading your posts again very soon

    everyone here is really awesome when it comes to expressing ideas and i’d like to thank all of you for your examples of really great writing
    hope to see you guys in the future

    and to donny – you’re doing an awesome job getting people to think on here – keep up the great work! 🙂

  223. chris
    one final thought
    my last post was a bit erratic, i admit, but i use simple words and the ideas expressed aren’t very hard to understand – for most people
    i’m thankful that you’ve chosen to close the debate and will consider your ignore-ance as an official concession
    i had a great time and will hopfully enjoy reading your posts again very soon

    everyone here is really awesome when it comes to expressing ideas and i’d like to thank all of you for your examples of really great writing
    hope to see you guys in the future

    and to donny – you’re doing an awesome job getting people to think on here – keep up the great work! 🙂

  224. Uhm what “arguments” are those Celeste?

  225. Uhm what “arguments” are those Celeste?

  226. David I’m ignoring it because one, it’s incoherent and erratic as you acknowledge. Two, a lot of it is border line on propaganda (at least I’ve read the arguments on propaganda websites). The carbon dating issue, dinosaurs walking with man, mona lisa analogy, etc.

    Take it as a concession if you like, but it’s me saving time. School just started again for the Fall semester, and frankly, I only have so much time to spend here. John is a very coherent individual – so I’m playing ball with him.

  227. David I’m ignoring it because one, it’s incoherent and erratic as you acknowledge. Two, a lot of it is border line on propaganda (at least I’ve read the arguments on propaganda websites). The carbon dating issue, dinosaurs walking with man, mona lisa analogy, etc.

    Take it as a concession if you like, but it’s me saving time. School just started again for the Fall semester, and frankly, I only have so much time to spend here. John is a very coherent individual – so I’m playing ball with him.

  228. Sorry guys, I think the “ball game” is over.

  229. Sorry guys, I think the “ball game” is over.

  230. cool, this will probably be my last post on this i suppose, unless i feel the need to address something else.

    ill go through your points.

    one quick thing to get out of the way: the use of the word reason was based on the definition you provided for rationality. it was your definition. isnt rationality full of reason?

    ok wanted to get that out of the way

    i really think you are understating the fact that our immediate existence is rational/coherent in DIRECT relationship to the micro world. there can be NO macro world without the building blocks of the micro. somehow all of that currently understood irrationality WORKS to give us the reality we see around us, with its observable order. i know its a relatively new branch of study, but i do not agree that we can treat the other half of reality as if its completely separate irrational entity. because ALL of reality rests upon it. regardless of how irrational it may appear to us, it still works. i think youd agree with that. im positive science will crack this eventually, we just have to figure out how.

    and again, that would be just one more chalk mark towards the rationality of the universe. just the idea of the entire universe making sense, makes my hair stand up on end. there has got to be some weight to that dont you think?

    and the whole thing about information. i would say again that immutable laws
    are a form of information. they direct inanimate objects to behave as they do giving them: DESCRIPTION, DEFINITION, AND BEHAVIOR.. im sure you can agree with this: reality does not have to be the way it is. why did stars form after the big bang and not something else? you dont see an “anything goes” crap shoot going on after the big bang. NO, what you see is the immediate chronology of that material going on to form stars, galaxies, planets as if that was the only directional impulse it could take. what directed that material to produce ONLY that, what gave it the definition and the limits on its formation?

    information did, because information defined that material.

    therefore, it seems that the information that produced all of the laws and objects in the universe was ALREADY injected into the throw of the dice at the outset of the big bang. the universe has a blueprint. it can only do what it does. theres nothing random going on out there. you dont see monoliths floating around or huge marshmallows. you might call that determinism. id agree to a point. do you really think anything other than stars or planets could have been formed? theres no way, because reality is a brute fact.

    this whole thing reeks of information to me

    where does information come from?

    ill let you answer that

    they say that the big bang was…..at first, the smallest thing imaginable. all of the laws, space and time we know of came into reality at that point.

    do you know what the smallest thing imaginable is?

    one step above absolutely nothing.

    my main point is that we find rationality in the universe because there is intelligence in the universe. do you not see at least a TRACE of it? you agreed that for the most part the universe is rational, works, and makes sense. i totally agree and SCIENCE HINGES on that. that is because if the universe was not rational, wed never be able to find out how it works. science not only shows that it is rational, but also presumes that it is. hence the reason science keeps going back out into the field to makes sense of things. i think the best reason for reality being this way would be an underlying intelligence/rationality. we of course do not see it at work, but as you agreed, we do see its results.

    again, i can only show you persuasive evidence, not proof. this isnt mathematics. but i think it speaks VOLUMES if we find rationality, intelligibility, and coherence in the universe. which we do.

    the main question still stands and this is something you should continue to think about for yourself

    does the universe make sense, is it rational?

    if this is true, everything changes

    it was fun:)

    p.s. i know very well as a christian of what i was persuading you 🙂

  231. cool, this will probably be my last post on this i suppose, unless i feel the need to address something else.

    ill go through your points.

    one quick thing to get out of the way: the use of the word reason was based on the definition you provided for rationality. it was your definition. isnt rationality full of reason?

    ok wanted to get that out of the way

    i really think you are understating the fact that our immediate existence is rational/coherent in DIRECT relationship to the micro world. there can be NO macro world without the building blocks of the micro. somehow all of that currently understood irrationality WORKS to give us the reality we see around us, with its observable order. i know its a relatively new branch of study, but i do not agree that we can treat the other half of reality as if its completely separate irrational entity. because ALL of reality rests upon it. regardless of how irrational it may appear to us, it still works. i think youd agree with that. im positive science will crack this eventually, we just have to figure out how.

    and again, that would be just one more chalk mark towards the rationality of the universe. just the idea of the entire universe making sense, makes my hair stand up on end. there has got to be some weight to that dont you think?

    and the whole thing about information. i would say again that immutable laws
    are a form of information. they direct inanimate objects to behave as they do giving them: DESCRIPTION, DEFINITION, AND BEHAVIOR.. im sure you can agree with this: reality does not have to be the way it is. why did stars form after the big bang and not something else? you dont see an “anything goes” crap shoot going on after the big bang. NO, what you see is the immediate chronology of that material going on to form stars, galaxies, planets as if that was the only directional impulse it could take. what directed that material to produce ONLY that, what gave it the definition and the limits on its formation?

    information did, because information defined that material.

    therefore, it seems that the information that produced all of the laws and objects in the universe was ALREADY injected into the throw of the dice at the outset of the big bang. the universe has a blueprint. it can only do what it does. theres nothing random going on out there. you dont see monoliths floating around or huge marshmallows. you might call that determinism. id agree to a point. do you really think anything other than stars or planets could have been formed? theres no way, because reality is a brute fact.

    this whole thing reeks of information to me

    where does information come from?

    ill let you answer that

    they say that the big bang was…..at first, the smallest thing imaginable. all of the laws, space and time we know of came into reality at that point.

    do you know what the smallest thing imaginable is?

    one step above absolutely nothing.

    my main point is that we find rationality in the universe because there is intelligence in the universe. do you not see at least a TRACE of it? you agreed that for the most part the universe is rational, works, and makes sense. i totally agree and SCIENCE HINGES on that. that is because if the universe was not rational, wed never be able to find out how it works. science not only shows that it is rational, but also presumes that it is. hence the reason science keeps going back out into the field to makes sense of things. i think the best reason for reality being this way would be an underlying intelligence/rationality. we of course do not see it at work, but as you agreed, we do see its results.

    again, i can only show you persuasive evidence, not proof. this isnt mathematics. but i think it speaks VOLUMES if we find rationality, intelligibility, and coherence in the universe. which we do.

    the main question still stands and this is something you should continue to think about for yourself

    does the universe make sense, is it rational?

    if this is true, everything changes

    it was fun:)

    p.s. i know very well as a christian of what i was persuading you 🙂

  232. I’m full optimistic agreement if just about your entire thesis. It’s one philosophically I’ve argued for as well. Oftentimes I engage people with the same approach you’ve used, even if the micro is helter-skelter to us, that doesn’t actually mean it’s inrrational, or truly “random,” since the macro works, is solid, is coherent, etc. We are on the same page, I’m just to say “I KNOW the micro is rational.” But optimism shared your confidence, because of the reliability of the macro.

    Where we part company is this intelligence in the universe. Yes the universe is intelligible to us, because our fastidious atomic structure happened to allow for such a thing. Yes this fortunate event was most likely deterministic, unfortunately, that also means, everything inhumane, immoral, wrong, offensive, etc was also determined. While I revel that I’m conscious, and alive – I still feel remiss and disdain at various atrocities, many outside of my control. That’s why so many of us donate for instance during events such as Katrina. Sometimes Nature is going to behave wanton, and we can’t stop it – but we acknowledge that do our best to aid those who are victims of these determined processes.

    I’ve addressed your main questions far too many times. My answer is, yes in practice, but I’m not convicted homo-sapiens will solve quantum mechanics – just optimistic. Still philosophically, I’m of your position, and it is the position I argue most vehemently.

    Of course as a Christian, your philosophy falls apart. Yahweh granted “free will.” Well that simply isn’t compatible with a deterministic, rational, law abiding cosmos. Furthermore miracle work is in addition, is not congruent with this cosmos we both accept. Obviously all of genesis is thrown out as well. Prayer answering is also tossed out because that would introduce miracles into the system – even if you can skirt this issue in ambiguity, prayer still doesn’t hold weight to any scrutinizing. Finally, since you acknowledge that our existence came about through a natural evolution of the cosmos, that doesn’t place homo-sapiens in any pristine or pinnacle category separate from the other animals. In addition, since we are a naturally evolved product, the entire concept of a soul is jettisoned and obsolete. So frankly, I don’t see how you can be a Christian. And also, you’ve been pretty much arguing for a very “agnostic/deistic/atheistic” cosmos, and not one, created, and ameliorated in the garden of eden, by Yahweh.

  233. I’m full optimistic agreement if just about your entire thesis. It’s one philosophically I’ve argued for as well. Oftentimes I engage people with the same approach you’ve used, even if the micro is helter-skelter to us, that doesn’t actually mean it’s inrrational, or truly “random,” since the macro works, is solid, is coherent, etc. We are on the same page, I’m just to say “I KNOW the micro is rational.” But optimism shared your confidence, because of the reliability of the macro.

    Where we part company is this intelligence in the universe. Yes the universe is intelligible to us, because our fastidious atomic structure happened to allow for such a thing. Yes this fortunate event was most likely deterministic, unfortunately, that also means, everything inhumane, immoral, wrong, offensive, etc was also determined. While I revel that I’m conscious, and alive – I still feel remiss and disdain at various atrocities, many outside of my control. That’s why so many of us donate for instance during events such as Katrina. Sometimes Nature is going to behave wanton, and we can’t stop it – but we acknowledge that do our best to aid those who are victims of these determined processes.

    I’ve addressed your main questions far too many times. My answer is, yes in practice, but I’m not convicted homo-sapiens will solve quantum mechanics – just optimistic. Still philosophically, I’m of your position, and it is the position I argue most vehemently.

    Of course as a Christian, your philosophy falls apart. Yahweh granted “free will.” Well that simply isn’t compatible with a deterministic, rational, law abiding cosmos. Furthermore miracle work is in addition, is not congruent with this cosmos we both accept. Obviously all of genesis is thrown out as well. Prayer answering is also tossed out because that would introduce miracles into the system – even if you can skirt this issue in ambiguity, prayer still doesn’t hold weight to any scrutinizing. Finally, since you acknowledge that our existence came about through a natural evolution of the cosmos, that doesn’t place homo-sapiens in any pristine or pinnacle category separate from the other animals. In addition, since we are a naturally evolved product, the entire concept of a soul is jettisoned and obsolete. So frankly, I don’t see how you can be a Christian. And also, you’ve been pretty much arguing for a very “agnostic/deistic/atheistic” cosmos, and not one, created, and ameliorated in the garden of eden, by Yahweh.

  234. p.s. although I believe it was addressed in my soul portion. An after-life is equally untenable, since the atomic structure that brought us about, will simply follow its malleable nature into a different construction once ours falls apart, piece by piece. Thank you for arguing for a yahweh-less cosmos 😉

  235. p.s. although I believe it was addressed in my soul portion. An after-life is equally untenable, since the atomic structure that brought us about, will simply follow its malleable nature into a different construction once ours falls apart, piece by piece. Thank you for arguing for a yahweh-less cosmos 😉

  236. lol, good points id like to address later but i have to get running.

    all i argued for was intelligence, no names, no belief systems and id like to make one point really quick. you saying that the universe is intelligible because of our fastidious atomic structure allows it to be so.

    well, thats a complete truism. of course it allows it to be so. thats not really explaining anything or taking away from the fact that its there. and i still stand by the information postulation. it is the way it is because of the information injected into the universe that defines and directed its course. that may be a little bit hard to swallow i know, but still something to think about.

    another thing, the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

    you yourself are MORE than all of your organs, tissue, muscles, etc etc. combined dont you think?

    im sure your mom thinks so:)

    beethovens 9th symphony is more than just its collection of notes

    so yeah the atomic world plays a part in presenting this order that we see but that is not all there is to it. so it leads me to ask you, of how much value is that rationality to you, to science, to humanity? think of the entire history of science before you answer that. science again would not be able to make sense of the universe if it were not rational to begin with.in some ways our very survival depends on the universe being understandable, predictable, and rational. i think that point is greater and more worthy of consideration than merely saying that the universe is only rational because of its collected structure.

    thank God that it is!

    anyways, theology is hard to navigate if you dont believe in certain assumptions to begin with. thats why it depends who im talking to before i go into that.

    eventually ill go real quick into why im a christian. and you have to understand that all of my reasoning is in a roundabout way. its not laser accurate, but more philosphical. i havent thought the points out to be able to exhaustively explain everything about it.

    i just believe it and thats about it. i know that may not be suffice so ill do my best to explain it later

    peace out!

  237. lol, good points id like to address later but i have to get running.

    all i argued for was intelligence, no names, no belief systems and id like to make one point really quick. you saying that the universe is intelligible because of our fastidious atomic structure allows it to be so.

    well, thats a complete truism. of course it allows it to be so. thats not really explaining anything or taking away from the fact that its there. and i still stand by the information postulation. it is the way it is because of the information injected into the universe that defines and directed its course. that may be a little bit hard to swallow i know, but still something to think about.

    another thing, the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

    you yourself are MORE than all of your organs, tissue, muscles, etc etc. combined dont you think?

    im sure your mom thinks so:)

    beethovens 9th symphony is more than just its collection of notes

    so yeah the atomic world plays a part in presenting this order that we see but that is not all there is to it. so it leads me to ask you, of how much value is that rationality to you, to science, to humanity? think of the entire history of science before you answer that. science again would not be able to make sense of the universe if it were not rational to begin with.in some ways our very survival depends on the universe being understandable, predictable, and rational. i think that point is greater and more worthy of consideration than merely saying that the universe is only rational because of its collected structure.

    thank God that it is!

    anyways, theology is hard to navigate if you dont believe in certain assumptions to begin with. thats why it depends who im talking to before i go into that.

    eventually ill go real quick into why im a christian. and you have to understand that all of my reasoning is in a roundabout way. its not laser accurate, but more philosphical. i havent thought the points out to be able to exhaustively explain everything about it.

    i just believe it and thats about it. i know that may not be suffice so ill do my best to explain it later

    peace out!

  238. John,

    “all i argued for was intelligence, no names, no belief systems and id like to make one point really quick. you saying that the universe is intelligible because of our fastidious atomic structure allows it to be so.”

    Well I don’t think the cosmos is “intelligent” and I don’t think it shows any signs of your “intelligent design.” For such a magnificent universe, the concept that it’s going to spend eternity in a state of death, isn’t intelligent – or a good design. You were not arguing for intelligence like you claim, this was your main question and argument constantly, as YOU concede:”does the universe make sense, is it rational?”

    Had you been more forward with me about is the cosmos an intelligent construction, then we would be having a different conversation. One I’m fine with engaging.

    And there is nothing hard to swallow in this paragraph:

    “it is the way it is because of the information injected into the universe that defines and directed its course. that may be a little bit hard to swallow i know, but still something to think about.”

    Information is not “injected.” As you previously acknowledge, this information was conflated with the big bang, not injected after the fact.

    As far as this statement:
    “you yourself are MORE than all of your organs, tissue, muscles, etc etc. combined dont you think?”
    That’s extremely ambiguous, and risk equivocation. no I don’t think I’m “more” than what I’m entirely made up of. That doesn’t make sense. And my mothers opinion is irrelevant lol.

    You say the atomic world is not all there is? What else is there? humanity, rationality, science etc are outcomes (cause and effect relationships) of the atomic world, not something “separate” or “more” than them.

    Yes I’m well aware of the history of science, and all it shows is that this rational universe is something entirely different than the archaic genesis tale, and its antiquated author presumed it to be. That’s information I’m entirely comfortable with – why aren’t you?

    And “thank god that it is” thank what god? The only thing you’ve described so far is akin to the enlightenment deist. You’ve spoke not a single word in favor of Christianity. Which again, personally I don’t care if someone is Christian or not – whatever helps them through their day is not my place to impugn. However you and I seem to be having a innocuous, and cordial, philosophical conversation…So I don’t mind “taboo” questions being passed back and forth.

    You’re right, you enter a theological conversation with me until you substantiate Yahweh, or even make Yahweh remotely tenable. As I’ve said, all you’ve touched about is quasi-deism here, so even from that approach, theology is unnecessary.

    If you want to acknowledge the end as you do, that you’re a christian on faith, and it’s simply a belief, that’s fine by me. I’ll gladly step away from this blog as well if it suits everyone here. I don’t mind people having faith in the slightest. For me though, an empiricist when it comes to epistemology, I simply can’t take leaps of faith – nor do I need to, to be entirely content with life and my surroundings.

    Maybe this conversation has reached an end…?
    -Chris

    well, thats a complete truism. of course it allows it to be so. thats not really explaining anything or taking away from the fact that its there. and i still stand by the information postulation. it is the way it is because of the information injected into the universe that defines and directed its course. that may be a little bit hard to swallow i know, but still something to think about.

    another thing, the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

    you yourself are MORE than all of your organs, tissue, muscles, etc etc. combined dont you think?

    im sure your mom thinks so:)

    beethovens 9th symphony is more than just its collection of notes

    so yeah the atomic world plays a part in presenting this order that we see but that is not all there is to it. so it leads me to ask you, of how much value is that rationality to you, to science, to humanity? think of the entire history of science before you answer that. science again would not be able to make sense of the universe if it were not rational to begin with.in some ways our very survival depends on the universe being understandable, predictable, and rational. i think that point is greater and more worthy of consideration than merely saying that the universe is only rational because of its collected structure.

    thank God that it is!

    anyways, theology is hard to navigate if you dont believe in certain assumptions to begin with. thats why it depends who im talking to before i go into that.

    eventually ill go real quick into why im a christian. and you have to understand that all of my reasoning is in a roundabout way. its not laser accurate, but more philosphical. i havent thought the points out to be able to exhaustively explain everything about it.

    i just believe it and thats about it. i know that may not be suffice so ill do my best to explain it later

    peace out!

  239. John,

    “all i argued for was intelligence, no names, no belief systems and id like to make one point really quick. you saying that the universe is intelligible because of our fastidious atomic structure allows it to be so.”

    Well I don’t think the cosmos is “intelligent” and I don’t think it shows any signs of your “intelligent design.” For such a magnificent universe, the concept that it’s going to spend eternity in a state of death, isn’t intelligent – or a good design. You were not arguing for intelligence like you claim, this was your main question and argument constantly, as YOU concede:”does the universe make sense, is it rational?”

    Had you been more forward with me about is the cosmos an intelligent construction, then we would be having a different conversation. One I’m fine with engaging.

    And there is nothing hard to swallow in this paragraph:

    “it is the way it is because of the information injected into the universe that defines and directed its course. that may be a little bit hard to swallow i know, but still something to think about.”

    Information is not “injected.” As you previously acknowledge, this information was conflated with the big bang, not injected after the fact.

    As far as this statement:
    “you yourself are MORE than all of your organs, tissue, muscles, etc etc. combined dont you think?”
    That’s extremely ambiguous, and risk equivocation. no I don’t think I’m “more” than what I’m entirely made up of. That doesn’t make sense. And my mothers opinion is irrelevant lol.

    You say the atomic world is not all there is? What else is there? humanity, rationality, science etc are outcomes (cause and effect relationships) of the atomic world, not something “separate” or “more” than them.

    Yes I’m well aware of the history of science, and all it shows is that this rational universe is something entirely different than the archaic genesis tale, and its antiquated author presumed it to be. That’s information I’m entirely comfortable with – why aren’t you?

    And “thank god that it is” thank what god? The only thing you’ve described so far is akin to the enlightenment deist. You’ve spoke not a single word in favor of Christianity. Which again, personally I don’t care if someone is Christian or not – whatever helps them through their day is not my place to impugn. However you and I seem to be having a innocuous, and cordial, philosophical conversation…So I don’t mind “taboo” questions being passed back and forth.

    You’re right, you enter a theological conversation with me until you substantiate Yahweh, or even make Yahweh remotely tenable. As I’ve said, all you’ve touched about is quasi-deism here, so even from that approach, theology is unnecessary.

    If you want to acknowledge the end as you do, that you’re a christian on faith, and it’s simply a belief, that’s fine by me. I’ll gladly step away from this blog as well if it suits everyone here. I don’t mind people having faith in the slightest. For me though, an empiricist when it comes to epistemology, I simply can’t take leaps of faith – nor do I need to, to be entirely content with life and my surroundings.

    Maybe this conversation has reached an end…?
    -Chris

    well, thats a complete truism. of course it allows it to be so. thats not really explaining anything or taking away from the fact that its there. and i still stand by the information postulation. it is the way it is because of the information injected into the universe that defines and directed its course. that may be a little bit hard to swallow i know, but still something to think about.

    another thing, the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

    you yourself are MORE than all of your organs, tissue, muscles, etc etc. combined dont you think?

    im sure your mom thinks so:)

    beethovens 9th symphony is more than just its collection of notes

    so yeah the atomic world plays a part in presenting this order that we see but that is not all there is to it. so it leads me to ask you, of how much value is that rationality to you, to science, to humanity? think of the entire history of science before you answer that. science again would not be able to make sense of the universe if it were not rational to begin with.in some ways our very survival depends on the universe being understandable, predictable, and rational. i think that point is greater and more worthy of consideration than merely saying that the universe is only rational because of its collected structure.

    thank God that it is!

    anyways, theology is hard to navigate if you dont believe in certain assumptions to begin with. thats why it depends who im talking to before i go into that.

    eventually ill go real quick into why im a christian. and you have to understand that all of my reasoning is in a roundabout way. its not laser accurate, but more philosphical. i havent thought the points out to be able to exhaustively explain everything about it.

    i just believe it and thats about it. i know that may not be suffice so ill do my best to explain it later

    peace out!

  240. Sorry, I often paste your text in the window, so I can read it while I reply. I forgot to delete it, so my post is half mine, half yours 😉

  241. Sorry, I often paste your text in the window, so I can read it while I reply. I forgot to delete it, so my post is half mine, half yours 😉

  242. oh i hate having to respond to multiple posts so quickly.

    really quick and i might have to come back to this later.

    yes i was arguing that there is intelligence in the universe because there is rationality in the universe. but if you dont feel theres anything rational about the
    universe, then of course you wouldnt postulate intelligence. but you do feel the universe is rational as youve said unless of course you wish to take that back.

    the universe is rational because of intelligence

    i did not say that information was injected AFTER the big bang. it had to be there from the get go, along with it as you say.i never said AFTER and if i came off like that, i apologize. like i said , after the big bang, there wasnt this trial and error amongst the materials of the early universe. they went directly on to form stars, galaxies, planets. how come you are not addressing this?

    no trial and error, no crap shoot, just what we have now. and when i say immediately or directly, i am not only referring to chronological time but immediate DIRECTION in formation.

    was there an alternative,? you still have not addressed this. and if no alternative, why not? you are a determinist. would not INFORMATION determine direction AND definition?

    do you really think gravity is what keeps a star a star? does gravity form the molecular clouds inside of stars? does gravity tell my DNA to give me brown hair? there is information in the universe

    and what do you mean you dont understand that you are MORE than all of your innards combined? i have two children, and they arent merely a collection of tissue, blood and guts. and neither are you. the universe is full of value. its inevitable. thats why when hitler kills 10 million people everyone gets upset. i cant believe you cant acknowledge this or understand it. you live in the same world as i do. perhaps you realize that people have value only when they are getting killed not when they are alive. i could be wrong…

    same analogy but this might make more sense to you.

    was beethovens 9th symphony merely a collection of its notes or did it have value? lets say i took all of the notes to the music and scrambled them around without losing one, would it be the same?
    this might answer your question.

    and what is this about the universe dying a slow death? i cant believe you actually put too much stock into that. i live in florida and in ’04 we had 4 hurricanes hit our state. ALL of the weather forecasting since then predicted severe hurricane seasons with multiple cat 2-4 storms devastating the state.

    did not happen.

    they dont know whats going to happen. ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN.

    and as far as the atomic world not being all there is…science itself is pointing to up to 11 different dimensions, so id say that even outside of religious reference, there is more than the atomic world. agreed?

    and when did i ever postulate genesis as an argument to you? i of course believe it, but stick to the arguments i present.

    and i have a question for you and ill leave it at that

    actually two

    in the entire universe, how important is LIGHT?

    and how important is RATIONALITY?

    that will give you its value

  243. oh i hate having to respond to multiple posts so quickly.

    really quick and i might have to come back to this later.

    yes i was arguing that there is intelligence in the universe because there is rationality in the universe. but if you dont feel theres anything rational about the
    universe, then of course you wouldnt postulate intelligence. but you do feel the universe is rational as youve said unless of course you wish to take that back.

    the universe is rational because of intelligence

    i did not say that information was injected AFTER the big bang. it had to be there from the get go, along with it as you say.i never said AFTER and if i came off like that, i apologize. like i said , after the big bang, there wasnt this trial and error amongst the materials of the early universe. they went directly on to form stars, galaxies, planets. how come you are not addressing this?

    no trial and error, no crap shoot, just what we have now. and when i say immediately or directly, i am not only referring to chronological time but immediate DIRECTION in formation.

    was there an alternative,? you still have not addressed this. and if no alternative, why not? you are a determinist. would not INFORMATION determine direction AND definition?

    do you really think gravity is what keeps a star a star? does gravity form the molecular clouds inside of stars? does gravity tell my DNA to give me brown hair? there is information in the universe

    and what do you mean you dont understand that you are MORE than all of your innards combined? i have two children, and they arent merely a collection of tissue, blood and guts. and neither are you. the universe is full of value. its inevitable. thats why when hitler kills 10 million people everyone gets upset. i cant believe you cant acknowledge this or understand it. you live in the same world as i do. perhaps you realize that people have value only when they are getting killed not when they are alive. i could be wrong…

    same analogy but this might make more sense to you.

    was beethovens 9th symphony merely a collection of its notes or did it have value? lets say i took all of the notes to the music and scrambled them around without losing one, would it be the same?
    this might answer your question.

    and what is this about the universe dying a slow death? i cant believe you actually put too much stock into that. i live in florida and in ’04 we had 4 hurricanes hit our state. ALL of the weather forecasting since then predicted severe hurricane seasons with multiple cat 2-4 storms devastating the state.

    did not happen.

    they dont know whats going to happen. ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN.

    and as far as the atomic world not being all there is…science itself is pointing to up to 11 different dimensions, so id say that even outside of religious reference, there is more than the atomic world. agreed?

    and when did i ever postulate genesis as an argument to you? i of course believe it, but stick to the arguments i present.

    and i have a question for you and ill leave it at that

    actually two

    in the entire universe, how important is LIGHT?

    and how important is RATIONALITY?

    that will give you its value

  244. John,
    I don’t disagree that there is “intelligence” in the Universe. Earth is filled with a myriad of forms. The cosmos operates rationally for each of those varying degrees of intelligent animals as well – some in its unique way (Bat’s for instance seeing with sonar) but they evolved, just as us, to function in this cosmos.

    You out of the blue, in one line say, and then leave it as its own unsubstantiated sentence – “The universe is rational because of intelligence.” Well no, the universe behaved just as rationally for the 14 billion years we weren’t around, and the 10 billion prior to the physical possibilities of life, and will continue to be rational for the eternity of its own demise. If you’re saying this could of only come about through intelligence, you’re doing what I warned of before – applying homo-sapien neural faculties as some tenable explanation for the effect of this universe. You limit yourself in the cause, because you ONLY use the effect as an explanation (It’s so doubtful that “us being made in gods image” the universe was the cause of something akin to our brain. That’s a rather pretentious position). That’s why I continue to say, I don’t know. And understand that I very may well never know. But I don’t make such audacious claims as “The universe is rational because of intelligence.”

    I did address your stars and galaxies, what are you talking about?
    (Look in the beginning of this debate you tried to say that the atheist universe was some irrational nothing. So far, my lack of christian theism, my non belief in prayer, my non belief in being the pinnacle of an unfathomable large universe, my lack of anthropocentrism, and my lack of belief in some heaven and hell, remain, just as tenable. Yahweh and his creation account, parting seas, after life granting, virgin births, prayer answering, fight with the devil, sending himself/only son, etc, not so much)
    Anyway…The cosmos went on to form stars because the size of space grew, and light was able to spread and cool. We went over that, I don’t deny it, I’ve been studying it for quite some time. What particular part do you want me to address? The first 300,000 years of the universe? The next several billion? The dawn of our solar system? The evolutionary lineage of homo-sapiens once life arose roughly 3.7 billion years ago? Science brought us all of this information, and continues to bring us more. The practice kicks ass.

    Was there an alternative? Of course not. Why not? Because if there was one, we wouldn’t be here. We both acknowledge that. So of course as a determinist I acknowledge this. You also do, by your statements previously in this blog.
    Now of course there are some radical thoughts amongst physicist that perhaps every fraction of a moment in time all possibilities are existing in some unfathomable grand multi verse. Or that perhaps many Universes spring up with slightly tainted laws from one another. Or perhaps each time the big bang sets off, it crunches, and brings up a slightly different scenario((doubtfully this one as you’ll read more below)). They may all be true, they may all not be, but at this point, they aren’t substantiated enough for me to drop my deterministic position. Although they are more tenable than yahweh.

    You go on to say do I think gravity is: and you list a series of things I’ve never even hinted at.
    Look, there are many different stars, many of them actually polar opposites of the rest. Brown dwarfs, white dwarfs, super-novas, red giants, our particular sun, etc. Physicist don’t have absolutely every cause and effect scenario pinned down from start to finish of each of these stars (plus many i’m not mentioning) process of birth and death. They are observing, we’ve made mile stones in the past century, and will continue to make more. Many of these stars form solar systems of their own, some don’t. We have 720000000000000000000000 (22 zeros) stars in the universe. Fuck that’s big! (more sand grains on our entire planet, and more words, every spoken, by all of homo-sapiens aggregated.)
    The laws atoms do operate under currently, that are solid, are gravity (which operates on large bodies, not single atoms and molecules, attracting smaller ones to larger ones), the strong nuclear force (the force that holds protons and neutrons together, while retaining a tug on an electron, so the nucleus), the weak nuclear force (the force that does allow for over time that strong force to break, creating isotopes. Like carbon 14, for carbon dating. And of course every other element on the periodic table), and electro magnetism (the attraction of whole atoms and molecules to one another. This force is obviously much stronger than gravity. A childish example – if you fall off a building because gravity pulls bodies to the densest area ((like the formation of a star when nebula collapse in one themselves)) you don’t fall through the sidewalk, because the molecules comprising the cement are held together by the strong nuclear force). Finally we get the jarring process of quantum physics. As you already are familiar with. Pretty good so far. Each of these, is a mathematical portion of the hopefully final theory of everything, we both claim exist, because we claim the universe is rational and makes sense. So of course GRAVITY (the theory explaining why smaller bodies are attracted to denser larger bodies) didn’t make your hair brown, the final theory/aggregated laws, did.

    If your children aren’t a combination of their entire atomic structure, but are more, what are they? And please don’t get sentimental on me with their precious and I adore them. I would never for a moment object to that, or disagree. I hold loving relationships in my life as well. And being a materialist doesn’t change the potency, and the palatableness of those relationships. Regardless, it does inform us of the physical structure of them. I find that fascinating.

    And please, the mere fact you presume I can’t be forlorn about Hitler’s atrocity is absurd. I don’t need a deity, supernatural events, or any of the sort, to resent what happened in WWII. Regardless, that has no bearing on if Hitler is an individual comprised of matter, or this something more you subscribe too(but haven’t explained). At least from my position the event IS accountable – from the position of a benevolent deity, or even an apathetic deity, the event is even more heinous.

    This beethoven thing is equally silly, and speaks nothing of christianity, or anything of the sort of conversation we are having (neither did your child question or hitler, but I can’t understand why you think I’m some callous self-centered jerk either, who shrugs his shoulders at those things). I;m passionate about equality, equal rights, the prevention of war, the disarming of nuclear weapons, the privacy of families, the environment, etc. Looking at things in their atomic structure doesn’t change this…

    I live in Florida too. Fay was pretty weak wasn’t she? We’ve been through far worse 😉

    Of course our weather forecasters have always been notoriously bad, and have far too many individual factors to observe all at once. My scenario below though, although larger, is not nearly as difficult to monitor.
    Here’s the evidence the universe is dying, for eternity. One, the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Everything MUST break down/entropy. The cosmos will continue to plunge into a state of disorder (since the most orderly state of the cosmos was that moment at the bang, when our entire universe was a single dot , and thus, the most ordered it could be) This law has absolutely, never, ever, been violated, ever. This law is ubiquitous, and observable by everyone. Everything dies, the sun will die, our earth will die, every living creature will die, every plant, etc. This isn’t a shock though since we see it around us perennially. Now of course the cosmos is young enough that brief bits of matter can congeal and grow, but ultimately they return to disorder. A perfect example is an author(the sun), living in a single one room house(the earth), isolated with just a printer and paper. As the room fills up with trash scripts, the room becomes messy. Once it’s too messy, in order to “order” his room, he throw all the garbage out the window(space). Now the room is more orderly (our earth for instance – and of course the typist is the sun, since he’s the source of energy here), but the yard (space) isn’t.
    Well since the 1920’s Edwin Hubble also noticed a red shift amongst all the galaxies. See initially the death of the cosmos was this expectation that disorder would take over, and atoms would slow down in their “bouncing” and “congealing” until they created a rather tepid, exhausted, cosmos. Anyway, Hubble found out that the Universe was actually growing. Every time you look at another galaxy, if you wait and look again the galaxy is farther away from when you looked before. Furthermore not only are ALL galaxies farther away from us, they are all farther away from one another (the occasional few will collide, but the massive majority are receding). Finally, not only is everything running away from everything else, but in addition, every time you look it’s moving exponentially faster than it was the previous look. The cosmos is speeding up, and it’s passed the point where our model of gravity, the attraction of those large bodies, we presumed would take over and “recrunch” the cosmos into a singularity, failed. We are currently, observably, with no signs of stopping, on a course of stretching ourselves to an eternal death. In short, every atom will be SO FAR AWAY from every other atom, that molecules can’t form. Some…intelligent….design?

    (those dimensions you postulate are personally, from my readings, unsubstantiated bullshit, not worthy of any title, but tentative hypothesis. No experiment has never been conducted that even remotely confirmed that hypothesis. Regardless, that hypothesis still includes universes comprised of atomic matter. So no, something “else” isn’t it. Regardless you can do your own reading on string theory, Brian Greene is a fascinating author on making the jarring theory, comprehensible to laymen)

    No you didn’t postulate genesis, but as I said, that’s a powerful cornerstone in my atheism towards yahweh, so until that is surmounted, I won’t begin to skim theology. You had briefly mentioned theology, so I was just reiterating myself.

    Your final two questions are subjective.
    Light is important yes, but I mean, so is oxygen, carbon, helium, lithium, nitrogen, hydrogen, boron, gold, silver, copper, calcium, cheesecake, family, friends, music, books, sex, dark, night, rain, sun, etc etc etc.

    Rationality and light are not connected anymore then rationality and every other element on the periodic table of elements! (Light is a subatomic particle, not even as dense as a helium atom for instance). Rationality is of course very important, to me, in my day to day actions. Is it important to a black hole, a star, a rock, etc, no. Is it important to a sea lion, an ox, a doe, a squid, a vervet monkey, an elephant, etc, presumably yes. Is it important to a baby born with spina bifada, severe autism, or a schizophrenic? dubious.
    So the only value that gives me, is lights and rationalities, subjective value, to myself.

  245. John,
    I don’t disagree that there is “intelligence” in the Universe. Earth is filled with a myriad of forms. The cosmos operates rationally for each of those varying degrees of intelligent animals as well – some in its unique way (Bat’s for instance seeing with sonar) but they evolved, just as us, to function in this cosmos.

    You out of the blue, in one line say, and then leave it as its own unsubstantiated sentence – “The universe is rational because of intelligence.” Well no, the universe behaved just as rationally for the 14 billion years we weren’t around, and the 10 billion prior to the physical possibilities of life, and will continue to be rational for the eternity of its own demise. If you’re saying this could of only come about through intelligence, you’re doing what I warned of before – applying homo-sapien neural faculties as some tenable explanation for the effect of this universe. You limit yourself in the cause, because you ONLY use the effect as an explanation (It’s so doubtful that “us being made in gods image” the universe was the cause of something akin to our brain. That’s a rather pretentious position). That’s why I continue to say, I don’t know. And understand that I very may well never know. But I don’t make such audacious claims as “The universe is rational because of intelligence.”

    I did address your stars and galaxies, what are you talking about?
    (Look in the beginning of this debate you tried to say that the atheist universe was some irrational nothing. So far, my lack of christian theism, my non belief in prayer, my non belief in being the pinnacle of an unfathomable large universe, my lack of anthropocentrism, and my lack of belief in some heaven and hell, remain, just as tenable. Yahweh and his creation account, parting seas, after life granting, virgin births, prayer answering, fight with the devil, sending himself/only son, etc, not so much)
    Anyway…The cosmos went on to form stars because the size of space grew, and light was able to spread and cool. We went over that, I don’t deny it, I’ve been studying it for quite some time. What particular part do you want me to address? The first 300,000 years of the universe? The next several billion? The dawn of our solar system? The evolutionary lineage of homo-sapiens once life arose roughly 3.7 billion years ago? Science brought us all of this information, and continues to bring us more. The practice kicks ass.

    Was there an alternative? Of course not. Why not? Because if there was one, we wouldn’t be here. We both acknowledge that. So of course as a determinist I acknowledge this. You also do, by your statements previously in this blog.
    Now of course there are some radical thoughts amongst physicist that perhaps every fraction of a moment in time all possibilities are existing in some unfathomable grand multi verse. Or that perhaps many Universes spring up with slightly tainted laws from one another. Or perhaps each time the big bang sets off, it crunches, and brings up a slightly different scenario((doubtfully this one as you’ll read more below)). They may all be true, they may all not be, but at this point, they aren’t substantiated enough for me to drop my deterministic position. Although they are more tenable than yahweh.

    You go on to say do I think gravity is: and you list a series of things I’ve never even hinted at.
    Look, there are many different stars, many of them actually polar opposites of the rest. Brown dwarfs, white dwarfs, super-novas, red giants, our particular sun, etc. Physicist don’t have absolutely every cause and effect scenario pinned down from start to finish of each of these stars (plus many i’m not mentioning) process of birth and death. They are observing, we’ve made mile stones in the past century, and will continue to make more. Many of these stars form solar systems of their own, some don’t. We have 720000000000000000000000 (22 zeros) stars in the universe. Fuck that’s big! (more sand grains on our entire planet, and more words, every spoken, by all of homo-sapiens aggregated.)
    The laws atoms do operate under currently, that are solid, are gravity (which operates on large bodies, not single atoms and molecules, attracting smaller ones to larger ones), the strong nuclear force (the force that holds protons and neutrons together, while retaining a tug on an electron, so the nucleus), the weak nuclear force (the force that does allow for over time that strong force to break, creating isotopes. Like carbon 14, for carbon dating. And of course every other element on the periodic table), and electro magnetism (the attraction of whole atoms and molecules to one another. This force is obviously much stronger than gravity. A childish example – if you fall off a building because gravity pulls bodies to the densest area ((like the formation of a star when nebula collapse in one themselves)) you don’t fall through the sidewalk, because the molecules comprising the cement are held together by the strong nuclear force). Finally we get the jarring process of quantum physics. As you already are familiar with. Pretty good so far. Each of these, is a mathematical portion of the hopefully final theory of everything, we both claim exist, because we claim the universe is rational and makes sense. So of course GRAVITY (the theory explaining why smaller bodies are attracted to denser larger bodies) didn’t make your hair brown, the final theory/aggregated laws, did.

    If your children aren’t a combination of their entire atomic structure, but are more, what are they? And please don’t get sentimental on me with their precious and I adore them. I would never for a moment object to that, or disagree. I hold loving relationships in my life as well. And being a materialist doesn’t change the potency, and the palatableness of those relationships. Regardless, it does inform us of the physical structure of them. I find that fascinating.

    And please, the mere fact you presume I can’t be forlorn about Hitler’s atrocity is absurd. I don’t need a deity, supernatural events, or any of the sort, to resent what happened in WWII. Regardless, that has no bearing on if Hitler is an individual comprised of matter, or this something more you subscribe too(but haven’t explained). At least from my position the event IS accountable – from the position of a benevolent deity, or even an apathetic deity, the event is even more heinous.

    This beethoven thing is equally silly, and speaks nothing of christianity, or anything of the sort of conversation we are having (neither did your child question or hitler, but I can’t understand why you think I’m some callous self-centered jerk either, who shrugs his shoulders at those things). I;m passionate about equality, equal rights, the prevention of war, the disarming of nuclear weapons, the privacy of families, the environment, etc. Looking at things in their atomic structure doesn’t change this…

    I live in Florida too. Fay was pretty weak wasn’t she? We’ve been through far worse 😉

    Of course our weather forecasters have always been notoriously bad, and have far too many individual factors to observe all at once. My scenario below though, although larger, is not nearly as difficult to monitor.
    Here’s the evidence the universe is dying, for eternity. One, the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Everything MUST break down/entropy. The cosmos will continue to plunge into a state of disorder (since the most orderly state of the cosmos was that moment at the bang, when our entire universe was a single dot , and thus, the most ordered it could be) This law has absolutely, never, ever, been violated, ever. This law is ubiquitous, and observable by everyone. Everything dies, the sun will die, our earth will die, every living creature will die, every plant, etc. This isn’t a shock though since we see it around us perennially. Now of course the cosmos is young enough that brief bits of matter can congeal and grow, but ultimately they return to disorder. A perfect example is an author(the sun), living in a single one room house(the earth), isolated with just a printer and paper. As the room fills up with trash scripts, the room becomes messy. Once it’s too messy, in order to “order” his room, he throw all the garbage out the window(space). Now the room is more orderly (our earth for instance – and of course the typist is the sun, since he’s the source of energy here), but the yard (space) isn’t.
    Well since the 1920’s Edwin Hubble also noticed a red shift amongst all the galaxies. See initially the death of the cosmos was this expectation that disorder would take over, and atoms would slow down in their “bouncing” and “congealing” until they created a rather tepid, exhausted, cosmos. Anyway, Hubble found out that the Universe was actually growing. Every time you look at another galaxy, if you wait and look again the galaxy is farther away from when you looked before. Furthermore not only are ALL galaxies farther away from us, they are all farther away from one another (the occasional few will collide, but the massive majority are receding). Finally, not only is everything running away from everything else, but in addition, every time you look it’s moving exponentially faster than it was the previous look. The cosmos is speeding up, and it’s passed the point where our model of gravity, the attraction of those large bodies, we presumed would take over and “recrunch” the cosmos into a singularity, failed. We are currently, observably, with no signs of stopping, on a course of stretching ourselves to an eternal death. In short, every atom will be SO FAR AWAY from every other atom, that molecules can’t form. Some…intelligent….design?

    (those dimensions you postulate are personally, from my readings, unsubstantiated bullshit, not worthy of any title, but tentative hypothesis. No experiment has never been conducted that even remotely confirmed that hypothesis. Regardless, that hypothesis still includes universes comprised of atomic matter. So no, something “else” isn’t it. Regardless you can do your own reading on string theory, Brian Greene is a fascinating author on making the jarring theory, comprehensible to laymen)

    No you didn’t postulate genesis, but as I said, that’s a powerful cornerstone in my atheism towards yahweh, so until that is surmounted, I won’t begin to skim theology. You had briefly mentioned theology, so I was just reiterating myself.

    Your final two questions are subjective.
    Light is important yes, but I mean, so is oxygen, carbon, helium, lithium, nitrogen, hydrogen, boron, gold, silver, copper, calcium, cheesecake, family, friends, music, books, sex, dark, night, rain, sun, etc etc etc.

    Rationality and light are not connected anymore then rationality and every other element on the periodic table of elements! (Light is a subatomic particle, not even as dense as a helium atom for instance). Rationality is of course very important, to me, in my day to day actions. Is it important to a black hole, a star, a rock, etc, no. Is it important to a sea lion, an ox, a doe, a squid, a vervet monkey, an elephant, etc, presumably yes. Is it important to a baby born with spina bifada, severe autism, or a schizophrenic? dubious.
    So the only value that gives me, is lights and rationalities, subjective value, to myself.

  246. ok…..thumbs up?

    a couple of things. i asked you to address the DIRECT FORMATION of the universe post big bang to the immediate formation of stars, glaxies, etc etc. and all you showed me was what happened. i know what happened. i want you think about WHY that happened. you say you dont know. but i say it speaks volumes that that is WHAT happened and that is ALL that happened with early universe material. the best reason was that there was information in the mix. thats why there wasnt this trial and error crap shoot. the material went on to form those things because it had no other option, nothing else in its DNA so to speak. information was the governing factor. you say determinism. well what on earth determines what should be determined, a plan or a blue-print maybe? i could understand your interpretation of the universe better if all that we saw was trial and error, the universe attempting to congeal a form in many different and failed attempts, roughly speaking. NO, what happened was a direct formation from the get-go. you are still not addressing this. and that whole list of stars you gave me…. well, they are ALL stars. no floating marshmallows, no monoliths. again, what DETERMINED that the universe should be the way it is? you postulate determinism but you do not explain it, nor do you show what enforces it. information would very much fit the reason WHY things are determined a little bit better than just saying well, its determined. that tells me nothing.

    and this whole bit about value:

    your morality defies materialism because morality and value are OUTSIDE of it.

    if you cant believe in transcendent value above and beyond physical make-up, you have no basis whatsoever to put value on anything.

    you are operating intuitively and you dont even know why lol!

    oh wait, im sure “evolution of the gaps” did it!

    the fact that you can place value on another human being is a metaphysical statement. its an intuition .you cannot prove value in a laboratory. so, what do you mean that people are not MORE than a collection of physical parts? well, arent they? is your mother just a collection of parts? the value itself that you place on them is not a physical concept to begin with. so it makes no sense for you to insinuate that people are merely a collection of physical components and then go on to get forlorn over what hitler did. and please, i didnt mean to insult you in that statement. i was making a point about the value of humanity and the contradictions between strict materialist ideas and the intuitions we all have inside. a materialist in one sense says that all people are is a collection of parts, but when people are suddenly being executed, that intuition in us would scream out “STOP, they are more!” and hopefully come to their aid.

    and you are throwing me off on rationality. youve stated numerous times that the universe is rational and agree with me that it makes sense, even though we cant quite understand it. but you keep downplaying the fact that it is there and its importance. let me further strengthen the importance of rationality and then get back to your points:

    if the universe was not rational, then it would be impossible.

    or how about this, lets remove every iota of rationality from the universe…

    ok, better universe?

    and heres what you said about the universe being rational, which i agree it is:

    “the universe behaved just as rationally for the 14 billion years we weren’t around, and the 10 billion prior to the physical possibilities of life, and will continue to be rational for the eternity of its own demise.”

    “The cosmos operates rationally for each of those varying degrees of intelligent animals as well – some in its unique way”

    so what on earth are you saying when you say that the ONLY value rationality has in the universe for you would be subjective value? i would say that its a whole lot more IMPORTANT than that. the universe seems to do very well with it on a grand scale. and isnt it also rather ridiculous to say that rationality only serves you subjectively when ALL of humanity requires it to function? or is the materialist in you going to shoot that down by DE-VALUING humanities place in the cosmos?

    ?

    so in some round about way, i would say that rationality is probably pretty close up there with light, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, gravity, electromagnetism, so on and so forth. totally different job but valuable nonetheless. and im not going to get into the accuracy of that value compared to those other things but none of those things would work together if it they didnt all fit together rationally and coherently to begin with. and of course we do not understand that completely, but we both believe is the case. the entire brute fact is that the universe exists and works, we just have to find out how. therein lies its rationality.

    in your interpretation of reality, there is a huge, huge gap for all of the unanswered, unclaimed rationality in the universe. and it does not sit well with me. you may be able to get past it but i cannot. intuitively and intellectually i know there’s more to this than meets the eye. again it reeks of information and that presupposes MIND. many a scientist have also agreed with this.

    and again, i wholeheartedly recommend that you think further about this. im not asking you to think about yahweh, im asking you to ask yourself whether there is intelligence and rationality in the universe or not. and to really think about what that means.

    as one of my heroes sir john polkinghorne KBE FRS has said:

    The atheist’s “plain assertion of the world’s existence” is a “grossly impoverished view of reality,”……. “theism explains more than a reductionist atheism can ever address.”

    because there is so much more going on in reality than what is strictly material

    peace!

  247. ok…..thumbs up?

    a couple of things. i asked you to address the DIRECT FORMATION of the universe post big bang to the immediate formation of stars, glaxies, etc etc. and all you showed me was what happened. i know what happened. i want you think about WHY that happened. you say you dont know. but i say it speaks volumes that that is WHAT happened and that is ALL that happened with early universe material. the best reason was that there was information in the mix. thats why there wasnt this trial and error crap shoot. the material went on to form those things because it had no other option, nothing else in its DNA so to speak. information was the governing factor. you say determinism. well what on earth determines what should be determined, a plan or a blue-print maybe? i could understand your interpretation of the universe better if all that we saw was trial and error, the universe attempting to congeal a form in many different and failed attempts, roughly speaking. NO, what happened was a direct formation from the get-go. you are still not addressing this. and that whole list of stars you gave me…. well, they are ALL stars. no floating marshmallows, no monoliths. again, what DETERMINED that the universe should be the way it is? you postulate determinism but you do not explain it, nor do you show what enforces it. information would very much fit the reason WHY things are determined a little bit better than just saying well, its determined. that tells me nothing.

    and this whole bit about value:

    your morality defies materialism because morality and value are OUTSIDE of it.

    if you cant believe in transcendent value above and beyond physical make-up, you have no basis whatsoever to put value on anything.

    you are operating intuitively and you dont even know why lol!

    oh wait, im sure “evolution of the gaps” did it!

    the fact that you can place value on another human being is a metaphysical statement. its an intuition .you cannot prove value in a laboratory. so, what do you mean that people are not MORE than a collection of physical parts? well, arent they? is your mother just a collection of parts? the value itself that you place on them is not a physical concept to begin with. so it makes no sense for you to insinuate that people are merely a collection of physical components and then go on to get forlorn over what hitler did. and please, i didnt mean to insult you in that statement. i was making a point about the value of humanity and the contradictions between strict materialist ideas and the intuitions we all have inside. a materialist in one sense says that all people are is a collection of parts, but when people are suddenly being executed, that intuition in us would scream out “STOP, they are more!” and hopefully come to their aid.

    and you are throwing me off on rationality. youve stated numerous times that the universe is rational and agree with me that it makes sense, even though we cant quite understand it. but you keep downplaying the fact that it is there and its importance. let me further strengthen the importance of rationality and then get back to your points:

    if the universe was not rational, then it would be impossible.

    or how about this, lets remove every iota of rationality from the universe…

    ok, better universe?

    and heres what you said about the universe being rational, which i agree it is:

    “the universe behaved just as rationally for the 14 billion years we weren’t around, and the 10 billion prior to the physical possibilities of life, and will continue to be rational for the eternity of its own demise.”

    “The cosmos operates rationally for each of those varying degrees of intelligent animals as well – some in its unique way”

    so what on earth are you saying when you say that the ONLY value rationality has in the universe for you would be subjective value? i would say that its a whole lot more IMPORTANT than that. the universe seems to do very well with it on a grand scale. and isnt it also rather ridiculous to say that rationality only serves you subjectively when ALL of humanity requires it to function? or is the materialist in you going to shoot that down by DE-VALUING humanities place in the cosmos?

    ?

    so in some round about way, i would say that rationality is probably pretty close up there with light, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, gravity, electromagnetism, so on and so forth. totally different job but valuable nonetheless. and im not going to get into the accuracy of that value compared to those other things but none of those things would work together if it they didnt all fit together rationally and coherently to begin with. and of course we do not understand that completely, but we both believe is the case. the entire brute fact is that the universe exists and works, we just have to find out how. therein lies its rationality.

    in your interpretation of reality, there is a huge, huge gap for all of the unanswered, unclaimed rationality in the universe. and it does not sit well with me. you may be able to get past it but i cannot. intuitively and intellectually i know there’s more to this than meets the eye. again it reeks of information and that presupposes MIND. many a scientist have also agreed with this.

    and again, i wholeheartedly recommend that you think further about this. im not asking you to think about yahweh, im asking you to ask yourself whether there is intelligence and rationality in the universe or not. and to really think about what that means.

    as one of my heroes sir john polkinghorne KBE FRS has said:

    The atheist’s “plain assertion of the world’s existence” is a “grossly impoverished view of reality,”……. “theism explains more than a reductionist atheism can ever address.”

    because there is so much more going on in reality than what is strictly material

    peace!

  248. * Chris, your morality defies materialism because morality and value are OUTSIDE of it.

    i shouldve put your name there even though i dont use proper grammar:)

  249. * Chris, your morality defies materialism because morality and value are OUTSIDE of it.

    i shouldve put your name there even though i dont use proper grammar:)

  250. You didn’t ask me to address the direct formation, regardless I don’t see how I didn’t.
    You keep oscillating between universal law, and sudden “information.” Your basically jumping from a cause and effect deterministic universe. The cosmos that is rational, makes sense, and can be scrutinized(The one we BOTH acknowledged exist), to one where information is put in after the fact (after the bang) – one of miracles and interactions from “outside.” (something there is no evidence for).

    You go on to say that the universe didn’t have a trial and error stage. Well that’s a load of bullshit. 99.8% of all species are extinct. At the very least biology goes through trial and error all the time. Brown dwarfs are failed stars that didn’t ignite, in another instance of a failed formation. That’s some serious trial and error.

    As I continue to tell you, I don’t know “why” the universe is the way it is. You claim you do know, but you won’t prove it. You won’t even offer me your answer. We both know it’s Yahweh, and we both know that’s untenable, so keep hiding your truth for as long as you can, and wasting both our time.

    Yes the Universe went on to form what it formed, because it’s deterministic, which de-facto means your “information” anology is false. You can’t have it with both ways John. I’m sorry.

    This incoherent, equivocated paragraph is also outright bullshit:
    “ i could understand your interpretation of the universe better if all that we saw was trial and error, the universe attempting to congeal a form in many different and failed attempts, roughly speaking. NO, what happened was a direct formation from the get-go. you are still not addressing this. and that whole list of stars you gave me…. well, they are ALL stars. no floating marshmallows, no monoliths. again, what DETERMINED that the universe should be the way it is? you postulate determinism but you do not explain it, nor do you show what enforces it.”

    The universe does go through “trial and error.” Again, 99.8% of species have gone extinct. Stars form and blow up all the time. Galaxies collide, black holes eat entire solar systems with ease, etc. The cosmos is a very hostile place, with no “regard” for anythings well being. Fortunately our lineage evolved over each of these hurdles, unfortunately, the other 99.8% didn’t. And I’m willing to wager we will go exstinct one day too. Since the universe will stretch itself apart.

    You say this was a direct formation from the get go? What do you mean? The universe didn’t bang, and 5 seconds later Jesus was walking the Earth. It took 14 billion years of cosmic evolution. We happen to reside on one minuscule rock, and you seem to think this entire universe is all for us? Pretentious? The Universe has YOU in “mind” just as much as it had everything else in mind. Do you really think you’re the pinnacle? That homo-sapiens are the grandest thing around?

    So since I don’t know “why” the universe was this way, and you do, I ask you, quit wasting our time, and tell me. You’re acting like you have an ace of your sleeve, but the more we talks, the more you cower, the more your paragraphs and ideas become that much more ambiguous and incoherent. Let’s finish this. WHY is the universe this way? And please, argue from your Christian perspective.

    I don’t see how morality is “outside” of material bodies. When I reason, when I make moral decision, my material being is the process going on. There is no ghost in the machine doing this for me. Give me and MRI, ask me a series of moral questions, and watch as my neurons fire. Nothing unique here. Just the very same, I can do heinous things, and say revolting things under an MRI and my neurons are still firing. If you claim transcendence for us homo-sapiens – I ask you, and don’t dodge this question, where along the evolutionary line of history, did we develop the ability to have transcendent morals, that our animals don’t share? Because unsurprisingly our morals are akin to all the major primates, along with pigs, dolphins, elephants, etc. There is nothing we do that’s “unique” that they aren’t capable of. Sure you could say we browse the Internet, and such. But morally, we are on pretty equal footing. Most species have a family unit, a political/authoritative unit, and a remarkable ability to look after each other and their kin. So when did we evolve “transcendence” that they didn’t?

    Wtf is evolution of the gaps? You have the gap here, the gap where we are akin to all animals, but your stuffing a ghost in the machine. A superfluous ghost at that.

    Just because I place value in something, doesn’t mean, I’m not doing it with my material make up (my brain). My materialistic brain reasons scenarios. If you’re claiming it’s something more, I again ask you, what is it? You keep alluding to all these something, yet you refuse to define them or explain them. Wasting time…

    Yes my Mom is a collection of parts. That doesn’t mean I don’t love her. You’re telling me if you found out your mom was a heart, lungs, brain, eyes, etc you wouldn’t. If she’s something more, I ask you AGAIN, as I did earlier with your children, and you flat out ignored me, WHAT IS SHE? The value we place is a result of physical, material processes. Not its own force. That’s why, as a fetus to old age, you grow, you learn, your evolve, you paradigm shift, etc. You aren’t “defacto” who you are now at birth. And all this is entirely accountable by material processes.

    That intuition is of course an effect of the cause(the material brain). The reason I find horror in “execution” is because one, the individual isn’t consenting, they are being forced to die. Two, I personally have felt emotional and physical pain. Knowing I didn’t enjoy it, I presume others don’t as well. Some do, masochist for instance. In which case, they can behave that way privately and I won’t intrude. There is no need to postulate anything more here. I’ve reasoned the situation just fine.

    “if the universe was not rational, then it would be impossible. “
    Well that or just wouldn’t be around to see it. It could still exist.
    “or how about this, lets remove every iota of rationality from the universe…
    ok, better universe?”
    What? What do you mean better? Make some sense man.

    Damnit John you have go to stop conflating various ideas into one:
    “so what on earth are you saying when you say that the ONLY value rationality has in the universe for you would be subjective value?”
    For me rationality is prime. For a baby with spina bifidi who will never be cognitive, it’s irrelevant. For a child with severe autism, it’s irrelevant. For someone mentally insane, whose stuck in a state of permanent hallucination, rationality is irrelevant. Sure the rationality has allowed for their life to exist, but rationality is not something they are capable of doing, let alone recognizing, so in that instance, rationality is NOT IMPORTANT.
    “ i would say that its a whole lot more IMPORTANT than that.”
    Exaclt your subjective opinion, that the spine bifida baby isn’t going to concede.

    “the universe seems to do very well with it on a grand scale. and isnt it also rather ridiculous to say that rationality only serves you subjectively when ALL of humanity requires it to function?”
    Right, as I said, the baby with spina bifida needed a rational universe so exist, however, when it dies several months after birth, what good was rationality? And what good was rationality to the insane individual stuck in hallucination? It’s not.
    Sigh
    “so in some round about way, i would say that rationality is probably pretty close up there with light, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, gravity, electromagnetism, so on and so forth. “
    This is why you need better terms, and need to stop hopping all over the place. If we are talking about the fact that the universe operates under an immutable law, that is rational to us. Then in that case, all those forces I instructed you about, are a part of that law. As I tried to explain. Once we can merge them all, we have the “theory of everything.” The mathematical formula that will explain all cause and effect. If you’re defining rationality as, ones ability to be rational, then those immutable laws are a factor in the creation if the individuals ability, but it’s a product “rational” from the other “rational.”

    “but we both believe is the case. the entire brute fact is that the universe exists and works, we just have to find out how.”
    Correct, that’s what I’ve been stressing this entire time. You however are obsessed with not HOW, but WHY. Your why is Yahweh obviously. Since I know neither of us knows 100% for sure the WHY, I focus on the HOW. Of course you claim you “know” the why, but that’s a lie. It’s your belief/ faith.
    Those laws, strong nuclear force, weak, gravity, etc are all “hows” of the theory of everything. They will not give us why, and neither have you.

    “in your interpretation of reality, there is a huge, huge gap for all of the unanswered, unclaimed rationality in the universe. and it does not sit well with me. you may be able to get past it but i cannot. intuitively and intellectually i know there’s more to this than meets the eye. again it reeks of information and that presupposes MIND. many a scientist have also agreed with this.”
    Yes I refuse to say I know the WHY. You continue to claim you know the why, but you won’t offer it, and I know when you do, it will fall apart. Because Yahwehs account in Genesis is laughable. Regardless, just as finding a leaf blowing in the forest tells you nothing of the physiology of the tree it came from, finding a rational universe, tells you nothing of the origin. You continue to say mind. The only mind we know is those of the animal species, and it seems extremely dubious to say this cosmos was created by something akin to an animal mind.

    “and again, i wholeheartedly recommend that you think further about this. im not asking you to think about yahweh, im asking you to ask yourself whether there is intelligence and rationality in the universe or not. and to really think about what that means.”

    Sigh. Shut up already John, with your, “im asking you to think more.” As if I haven’t. As if you haven’t been repeating your banal limp wristed lines over and over, and failing to address my direct rebuttals. The cosmos is rational. I don’t why. If you do, say it. Fuck how many times have I repeated that sentence? Is the universe intelligent? No. Not at all. There is nothing about it that makes me think it was made from an animal mind. Black hole at the center of our galaxy, sun exploding in 5 billion years, Andromeda galaxy ripping through the milky way in 6 billion, and an eternity of motionless death, are not “intelligent” things.

    That quote is silly at best. My out look isn’t impoverished, I’m a very content individual, quite happy with the milestones science has garnered, and elucidated. The information and facts the system has brought forth are far more awe inspiring than any creation story I’ve ever read. Your theism, which you won’t get into, obviously hasn’t explained anything, because you haven’t used it to explain anything. If there is more going on than material, what is it? Tell me? Show me? Etc.

  251. You didn’t ask me to address the direct formation, regardless I don’t see how I didn’t.
    You keep oscillating between universal law, and sudden “information.” Your basically jumping from a cause and effect deterministic universe. The cosmos that is rational, makes sense, and can be scrutinized(The one we BOTH acknowledged exist), to one where information is put in after the fact (after the bang) – one of miracles and interactions from “outside.” (something there is no evidence for).

    You go on to say that the universe didn’t have a trial and error stage. Well that’s a load of bullshit. 99.8% of all species are extinct. At the very least biology goes through trial and error all the time. Brown dwarfs are failed stars that didn’t ignite, in another instance of a failed formation. That’s some serious trial and error.

    As I continue to tell you, I don’t know “why” the universe is the way it is. You claim you do know, but you won’t prove it. You won’t even offer me your answer. We both know it’s Yahweh, and we both know that’s untenable, so keep hiding your truth for as long as you can, and wasting both our time.

    Yes the Universe went on to form what it formed, because it’s deterministic, which de-facto means your “information” anology is false. You can’t have it with both ways John. I’m sorry.

    This incoherent, equivocated paragraph is also outright bullshit:
    “ i could understand your interpretation of the universe better if all that we saw was trial and error, the universe attempting to congeal a form in many different and failed attempts, roughly speaking. NO, what happened was a direct formation from the get-go. you are still not addressing this. and that whole list of stars you gave me…. well, they are ALL stars. no floating marshmallows, no monoliths. again, what DETERMINED that the universe should be the way it is? you postulate determinism but you do not explain it, nor do you show what enforces it.”

    The universe does go through “trial and error.” Again, 99.8% of species have gone extinct. Stars form and blow up all the time. Galaxies collide, black holes eat entire solar systems with ease, etc. The cosmos is a very hostile place, with no “regard” for anythings well being. Fortunately our lineage evolved over each of these hurdles, unfortunately, the other 99.8% didn’t. And I’m willing to wager we will go exstinct one day too. Since the universe will stretch itself apart.

    You say this was a direct formation from the get go? What do you mean? The universe didn’t bang, and 5 seconds later Jesus was walking the Earth. It took 14 billion years of cosmic evolution. We happen to reside on one minuscule rock, and you seem to think this entire universe is all for us? Pretentious? The Universe has YOU in “mind” just as much as it had everything else in mind. Do you really think you’re the pinnacle? That homo-sapiens are the grandest thing around?

    So since I don’t know “why” the universe was this way, and you do, I ask you, quit wasting our time, and tell me. You’re acting like you have an ace of your sleeve, but the more we talks, the more you cower, the more your paragraphs and ideas become that much more ambiguous and incoherent. Let’s finish this. WHY is the universe this way? And please, argue from your Christian perspective.

    I don’t see how morality is “outside” of material bodies. When I reason, when I make moral decision, my material being is the process going on. There is no ghost in the machine doing this for me. Give me and MRI, ask me a series of moral questions, and watch as my neurons fire. Nothing unique here. Just the very same, I can do heinous things, and say revolting things under an MRI and my neurons are still firing. If you claim transcendence for us homo-sapiens – I ask you, and don’t dodge this question, where along the evolutionary line of history, did we develop the ability to have transcendent morals, that our animals don’t share? Because unsurprisingly our morals are akin to all the major primates, along with pigs, dolphins, elephants, etc. There is nothing we do that’s “unique” that they aren’t capable of. Sure you could say we browse the Internet, and such. But morally, we are on pretty equal footing. Most species have a family unit, a political/authoritative unit, and a remarkable ability to look after each other and their kin. So when did we evolve “transcendence” that they didn’t?

    Wtf is evolution of the gaps? You have the gap here, the gap where we are akin to all animals, but your stuffing a ghost in the machine. A superfluous ghost at that.

    Just because I place value in something, doesn’t mean, I’m not doing it with my material make up (my brain). My materialistic brain reasons scenarios. If you’re claiming it’s something more, I again ask you, what is it? You keep alluding to all these something, yet you refuse to define them or explain them. Wasting time…

    Yes my Mom is a collection of parts. That doesn’t mean I don’t love her. You’re telling me if you found out your mom was a heart, lungs, brain, eyes, etc you wouldn’t. If she’s something more, I ask you AGAIN, as I did earlier with your children, and you flat out ignored me, WHAT IS SHE? The value we place is a result of physical, material processes. Not its own force. That’s why, as a fetus to old age, you grow, you learn, your evolve, you paradigm shift, etc. You aren’t “defacto” who you are now at birth. And all this is entirely accountable by material processes.

    That intuition is of course an effect of the cause(the material brain). The reason I find horror in “execution” is because one, the individual isn’t consenting, they are being forced to die. Two, I personally have felt emotional and physical pain. Knowing I didn’t enjoy it, I presume others don’t as well. Some do, masochist for instance. In which case, they can behave that way privately and I won’t intrude. There is no need to postulate anything more here. I’ve reasoned the situation just fine.

    “if the universe was not rational, then it would be impossible. “
    Well that or just wouldn’t be around to see it. It could still exist.
    “or how about this, lets remove every iota of rationality from the universe…
    ok, better universe?”
    What? What do you mean better? Make some sense man.

    Damnit John you have go to stop conflating various ideas into one:
    “so what on earth are you saying when you say that the ONLY value rationality has in the universe for you would be subjective value?”
    For me rationality is prime. For a baby with spina bifidi who will never be cognitive, it’s irrelevant. For a child with severe autism, it’s irrelevant. For someone mentally insane, whose stuck in a state of permanent hallucination, rationality is irrelevant. Sure the rationality has allowed for their life to exist, but rationality is not something they are capable of doing, let alone recognizing, so in that instance, rationality is NOT IMPORTANT.
    “ i would say that its a whole lot more IMPORTANT than that.”
    Exaclt your subjective opinion, that the spine bifida baby isn’t going to concede.

    “the universe seems to do very well with it on a grand scale. and isnt it also rather ridiculous to say that rationality only serves you subjectively when ALL of humanity requires it to function?”
    Right, as I said, the baby with spina bifida needed a rational universe so exist, however, when it dies several months after birth, what good was rationality? And what good was rationality to the insane individual stuck in hallucination? It’s not.
    Sigh
    “so in some round about way, i would say that rationality is probably pretty close up there with light, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, gravity, electromagnetism, so on and so forth. “
    This is why you need better terms, and need to stop hopping all over the place. If we are talking about the fact that the universe operates under an immutable law, that is rational to us. Then in that case, all those forces I instructed you about, are a part of that law. As I tried to explain. Once we can merge them all, we have the “theory of everything.” The mathematical formula that will explain all cause and effect. If you’re defining rationality as, ones ability to be rational, then those immutable laws are a factor in the creation if the individuals ability, but it’s a product “rational” from the other “rational.”

    “but we both believe is the case. the entire brute fact is that the universe exists and works, we just have to find out how.”
    Correct, that’s what I’ve been stressing this entire time. You however are obsessed with not HOW, but WHY. Your why is Yahweh obviously. Since I know neither of us knows 100% for sure the WHY, I focus on the HOW. Of course you claim you “know” the why, but that’s a lie. It’s your belief/ faith.
    Those laws, strong nuclear force, weak, gravity, etc are all “hows” of the theory of everything. They will not give us why, and neither have you.

    “in your interpretation of reality, there is a huge, huge gap for all of the unanswered, unclaimed rationality in the universe. and it does not sit well with me. you may be able to get past it but i cannot. intuitively and intellectually i know there’s more to this than meets the eye. again it reeks of information and that presupposes MIND. many a scientist have also agreed with this.”
    Yes I refuse to say I know the WHY. You continue to claim you know the why, but you won’t offer it, and I know when you do, it will fall apart. Because Yahwehs account in Genesis is laughable. Regardless, just as finding a leaf blowing in the forest tells you nothing of the physiology of the tree it came from, finding a rational universe, tells you nothing of the origin. You continue to say mind. The only mind we know is those of the animal species, and it seems extremely dubious to say this cosmos was created by something akin to an animal mind.

    “and again, i wholeheartedly recommend that you think further about this. im not asking you to think about yahweh, im asking you to ask yourself whether there is intelligence and rationality in the universe or not. and to really think about what that means.”

    Sigh. Shut up already John, with your, “im asking you to think more.” As if I haven’t. As if you haven’t been repeating your banal limp wristed lines over and over, and failing to address my direct rebuttals. The cosmos is rational. I don’t why. If you do, say it. Fuck how many times have I repeated that sentence? Is the universe intelligent? No. Not at all. There is nothing about it that makes me think it was made from an animal mind. Black hole at the center of our galaxy, sun exploding in 5 billion years, Andromeda galaxy ripping through the milky way in 6 billion, and an eternity of motionless death, are not “intelligent” things.

    That quote is silly at best. My out look isn’t impoverished, I’m a very content individual, quite happy with the milestones science has garnered, and elucidated. The information and facts the system has brought forth are far more awe inspiring than any creation story I’ve ever read. Your theism, which you won’t get into, obviously hasn’t explained anything, because you haven’t used it to explain anything. If there is more going on than material, what is it? Tell me? Show me? Etc.

  252. Enough already! Creator Almighty GOD did it, Chris, whether you want to believe it or not! Just because you have thrown out the Biblical account doesn’t make you any more correct than you think John is incorrect. Faith is a choice.

    I will not debate with you. Since you don’t believe in God, there’s no reason to discuss anything. I get that. No reason to curse, or refer to other’s opinions as “silly.”

  253. Enough already! Creator Almighty GOD did it, Chris, whether you want to believe it or not! Just because you have thrown out the Biblical account doesn’t make you any more correct than you think John is incorrect. Faith is a choice.

    I will not debate with you. Since you don’t believe in God, there’s no reason to discuss anything. I get that. No reason to curse, or refer to other’s opinions as “silly.”

  254. By your own standards you can’t love your mom Chris. Or anyone else for that matter. Love (like Yahweh) is too abstract according to your jargon here. And love’s the loophole that brings the book you’ve written here crashing down. You can claim acts of love as proof, but acts prove nothing. Love requires faith to be real, and there’s no quantitative way of measuring an abstract idea such as love. You, sir, are a walking contradiction in terms.

    And you claim math as a universal constant? Do you not know that professors at MIT are able to prove that 1+1 doesn’t always equal too? I’m sorry to instruct you on a plain and simple fact that the laws that govern your fairytale universe are not as concrete as you would have others believe.

    Nice try, but everyone’s got you licked here. I pray that someday you search for the real meaning behind it all. I pray that your someday is soon as life is short. PS – I always tell my students that vulgarity is the vernacular of idiocy – that is, people who cuss sound really, really unintelligent.

    Game over.

  255. By your own standards you can’t love your mom Chris. Or anyone else for that matter. Love (like Yahweh) is too abstract according to your jargon here. And love’s the loophole that brings the book you’ve written here crashing down. You can claim acts of love as proof, but acts prove nothing. Love requires faith to be real, and there’s no quantitative way of measuring an abstract idea such as love. You, sir, are a walking contradiction in terms.

    And you claim math as a universal constant? Do you not know that professors at MIT are able to prove that 1+1 doesn’t always equal too? I’m sorry to instruct you on a plain and simple fact that the laws that govern your fairytale universe are not as concrete as you would have others believe.

    Nice try, but everyone’s got you licked here. I pray that someday you search for the real meaning behind it all. I pray that your someday is soon as life is short. PS – I always tell my students that vulgarity is the vernacular of idiocy – that is, people who cuss sound really, really unintelligent.

    Game over.

  256. Jane you interchange the word god with yahweh, when it’s quite true that all over the world, and all over history, god does NOT have “one meaning.”
    The god of thomas paine is not the god of pat roberston, whose not the god of einstein, whose not the god of conufscious, whose not the god of socrates, whose not the god of plato, etc.

    If you define for me god as “the rational laws of the cosmos,” I’ll concede, I believe in god. If you define god as yahweh, I don’t believe.

    Regardless this god of rational law, speaks nothing of prayer answering, after life granting, anthprocentrism, miracle working, and any other dogmas.

    You go on to say “whether i want to bo believe it or not” but then admit it’s your faith. So in if it is your faith, that leaves open the option that you’re wrong, since it’s a belief, and not a fact. So on that note you can’t say to me “he did it whether you believe or not,” because you should exercise humility and recognize it’s a faith based position.

  257. Jane you interchange the word god with yahweh, when it’s quite true that all over the world, and all over history, god does NOT have “one meaning.”
    The god of thomas paine is not the god of pat roberston, whose not the god of einstein, whose not the god of conufscious, whose not the god of socrates, whose not the god of plato, etc.

    If you define for me god as “the rational laws of the cosmos,” I’ll concede, I believe in god. If you define god as yahweh, I don’t believe.

    Regardless this god of rational law, speaks nothing of prayer answering, after life granting, anthprocentrism, miracle working, and any other dogmas.

    You go on to say “whether i want to bo believe it or not” but then admit it’s your faith. So in if it is your faith, that leaves open the option that you’re wrong, since it’s a belief, and not a fact. So on that note you can’t say to me “he did it whether you believe or not,” because you should exercise humility and recognize it’s a faith based position.

  258. David,
    cut the silly crap. Of course I love my mom. Perhaps you’ve heard of the drug X/E/ecstacy, etc. It’s scientifically proven to pump the same chemicals in your brain, oxytocin, that produce the feeling of “love.” Love is a chemical reaction. Now just because it’s chemical doesn’t make it sincere. Even if you were right and love was spiritual, it doesn’t make it less sincere. So just because we know the properties that account for love, whether material or spiritual, shouldn’t change the sincerity. No?

    Now Yahweh is not too abstract. Yahweh is a man made deity, by a camel herder, in a time of great ignorance. I don’t mind that he was out there trying, but it’s antiquated.

    I don’t see how love requires faith. let me give you a very simple reason I know my mom loves me, based on observable evidence. She fed me everyday, she clothed me each year. She paid for my tuition. She sacrificed personal fun for the sake of my upbringing. She told me she loved me everyday she dropped me off at school, and when I went to bed. She offered me advice when I was upset, took my side in issues she knew I was right on, and basically raised me with care.Etc. I really don’t “need” to list this. That’s all observable evidence, no faith involved. Especially faith on the level of believing yahweh is the cause of the cosmos.

    I’ve never read anything of the sort about MIT professors and TWO (thats how it’s spelled, not too). You’ll need to cite your source, because frankly, I don’t believe you. Although, if you show me their claim and I can read it, I’m more than open to changing my mind.

    As far as game over, you’re quite right. I managed to answer all your questions, plus pose numerous ones of my own, which you’ve been ignoring for several post. Such as, tell me your “why” if you know it as you claim to do. Tell me what “more” are your kids and family. Etc.

    Cussing is irrelevant, it’s just adjectives. Life’s short, you’re right, so take advantage of it, and cherish it, because fairy tales are wasting your time 😉

  259. David,
    cut the silly crap. Of course I love my mom. Perhaps you’ve heard of the drug X/E/ecstacy, etc. It’s scientifically proven to pump the same chemicals in your brain, oxytocin, that produce the feeling of “love.” Love is a chemical reaction. Now just because it’s chemical doesn’t make it sincere. Even if you were right and love was spiritual, it doesn’t make it less sincere. So just because we know the properties that account for love, whether material or spiritual, shouldn’t change the sincerity. No?

    Now Yahweh is not too abstract. Yahweh is a man made deity, by a camel herder, in a time of great ignorance. I don’t mind that he was out there trying, but it’s antiquated.

    I don’t see how love requires faith. let me give you a very simple reason I know my mom loves me, based on observable evidence. She fed me everyday, she clothed me each year. She paid for my tuition. She sacrificed personal fun for the sake of my upbringing. She told me she loved me everyday she dropped me off at school, and when I went to bed. She offered me advice when I was upset, took my side in issues she knew I was right on, and basically raised me with care.Etc. I really don’t “need” to list this. That’s all observable evidence, no faith involved. Especially faith on the level of believing yahweh is the cause of the cosmos.

    I’ve never read anything of the sort about MIT professors and TWO (thats how it’s spelled, not too). You’ll need to cite your source, because frankly, I don’t believe you. Although, if you show me their claim and I can read it, I’m more than open to changing my mind.

    As far as game over, you’re quite right. I managed to answer all your questions, plus pose numerous ones of my own, which you’ve been ignoring for several post. Such as, tell me your “why” if you know it as you claim to do. Tell me what “more” are your kids and family. Etc.

    Cussing is irrelevant, it’s just adjectives. Life’s short, you’re right, so take advantage of it, and cherish it, because fairy tales are wasting your time 😉

  260. whoops I meant just because it’s chemical doesn’t mean it’s not sincere.

  261. whoops I meant just because it’s chemical doesn’t mean it’s not sincere.

  262. If anyone is having a hard time posting comments for this post please email me: donny@donnypauling.com . I was told one person can’t reply here for some reason and just want to see if that is an isolated incident.

  263. If anyone is having a hard time posting comments for this post please email me: donny@donnypauling.com . I was told one person can’t reply here for some reason and just want to see if that is an isolated incident.

  264. Chris, you really need to learn how to read, I never alluded to love being spiritual, just impossible to prove. I can’t believe you love anyone based on your word.

    Plenty of folks have a laundry list larger than yours only to find after death that spouses were cheating, planning to murder them, etc. etc. Again, as you seem to have missed the first time around, works account for nothing in the abstract realm of love. I’ll repeat it for you, there’s no possible way to prove it. The only love you can prove is the love you have for others (and only to yourself since you hold the key to your sincerity), you have to accept other’s love for you on faith. Sorry, brother. I’m not saying your mom doesn’t love you, I’m sure she does.

    I knew you were going to pick apart my spelling. Have you read your past posts? Every being in the Omniverse could pick your posts apart for spelling, grammar errors, etc. etc.
    You need to do a bit of research. My own sister is completing her doctorate thesis at MIT this year in astro/aerospace engineering and was more than ecstatic to prove to me that 1+1 doesn’t equal two. I’d rather like to take the word of a her and her rocket science friends compared to yours. What was it you were studying again?

    Don’t be so afraid of truth that can’t be explained. I can’t answer questions for a know it all, but I know people whose intelligence level puts yours to shame and they don’t all agree with you.

    And you only answer questions with the same answers you’ve been posturing about since you decided to engage half the posters on this blog (I never even invited a conversation with you, but engaged you simply because you engaged me). The word to describe your tactics is REDUNDANCY.

    PS – It’s obvious your ego will be hurt if you don’t leave the last post so say whatever you like, you’ve already discredited yourself and proven your legacy.

    And by the way, I admitted to being erratic, but not incoherent. Again, please read carefully.
    Take it easy brother 🙂

  265. Chris, you really need to learn how to read, I never alluded to love being spiritual, just impossible to prove. I can’t believe you love anyone based on your word.

    Plenty of folks have a laundry list larger than yours only to find after death that spouses were cheating, planning to murder them, etc. etc. Again, as you seem to have missed the first time around, works account for nothing in the abstract realm of love. I’ll repeat it for you, there’s no possible way to prove it. The only love you can prove is the love you have for others (and only to yourself since you hold the key to your sincerity), you have to accept other’s love for you on faith. Sorry, brother. I’m not saying your mom doesn’t love you, I’m sure she does.

    I knew you were going to pick apart my spelling. Have you read your past posts? Every being in the Omniverse could pick your posts apart for spelling, grammar errors, etc. etc.
    You need to do a bit of research. My own sister is completing her doctorate thesis at MIT this year in astro/aerospace engineering and was more than ecstatic to prove to me that 1+1 doesn’t equal two. I’d rather like to take the word of a her and her rocket science friends compared to yours. What was it you were studying again?

    Don’t be so afraid of truth that can’t be explained. I can’t answer questions for a know it all, but I know people whose intelligence level puts yours to shame and they don’t all agree with you.

    And you only answer questions with the same answers you’ve been posturing about since you decided to engage half the posters on this blog (I never even invited a conversation with you, but engaged you simply because you engaged me). The word to describe your tactics is REDUNDANCY.

    PS – It’s obvious your ego will be hurt if you don’t leave the last post so say whatever you like, you’ve already discredited yourself and proven your legacy.

    And by the way, I admitted to being erratic, but not incoherent. Again, please read carefully.
    Take it easy brother 🙂

  266. I tell you what, I’m going to call my sister tonight and get some names and theorems for you so you can have some real fun. I’ll post again when I’ve got the evidence your unable to find and that will be my last post.

  267. I tell you what, I’m going to call my sister tonight and get some names and theorems for you so you can have some real fun. I’ll post again when I’ve got the evidence your unable to find and that will be my last post.

  268. Chirs… are you RoomMate’s hot Chris from Virginia? Or some other Chris?

  269. Chirs… are you RoomMate’s hot Chris from Virginia? Or some other Chris?

  270. Just got off the phone with my sister, she said she’d be happy to write a little explanation for you that I could cut and past tomorrow morning (she was at a friend’s house at the moment). She told me a lot of facts that I didn’t really understand, but she also said that in binary, 1+1=0 (just a simple example, apparently one of many). And I’d forgotten that I already knew that, or something like that? I’ll let her explain it since she’s the genius!

  271. Just got off the phone with my sister, she said she’d be happy to write a little explanation for you that I could cut and past tomorrow morning (she was at a friend’s house at the moment). She told me a lot of facts that I didn’t really understand, but she also said that in binary, 1+1=0 (just a simple example, apparently one of many). And I’d forgotten that I already knew that, or something like that? I’ll let her explain it since she’s the genius!

  272. Oh, she wondered where you were studying, if you care to give the information. If not, it’s cool.

  273. Oh, she wondered where you were studying, if you care to give the information. If not, it’s cool.

  274. you seriously need some glue dude

    ill try not to be quite as rude in my response. this will be my last post on this subject with you. its not really going anywhere anymore, tempers are flaring and youre content with your interpretation/opinion. all i can do is attempt to explain my stance, hopefully offer my hypothesis on things that arent quite settled yet and get you to think.

    ive got alot of points to go over so i will try to cover what youve written.

    ok, i asked you to address the DIRECT FORMATION of the universe.

    two things happened. one, i didnt ask you about biology and extinct species. that has ZERO to do with the early universe.

    and two, in my gut i knew youd bring up the chronological amount of time it took to happen. thats irrelevant and thats not what i meant by direct. what i meant by direct was that the material of the early universe did not go out into left field tinkering with this or that trying to find its “identity” so to speak. it went on to DIRECTLY form gas, stars, galaxies, planets so forth and so on. and this brings me to the second thing you misunderstood- the trial and error example. ALL of the “serious” trial and error scenarios you brought up made my point exactly. ALL of them were congruent within the confines and parameters of the early universe. none of them were OUTSIDE of those limits. that is because the material of the early universe came into reality already DEFINED with particular parameters, what it could do behavior wise, and under what condition. that is why you DO NOT get space marshmallows, you get stars. you gave examples of stars imploding and forming etc etc. but they are all STILL stars. that is not what i meant by a trial and error and i know youll just laugh it off and say that well of course there was no trial and error outside of the confines of the early universe, we wouldnt be here to see it. so this leads me to ask you, why? and chris, “why”questions are just another window to look at the universe through…just as important as HOW. anyways…there was no trial and error outside of the confines of the universe because that material entered reality ALREADY DEFINED. even at its smallest level..it would be almost like a cambrian explosion of quantum material appearing as it were. you would call this determinism. and id couple information to determinism as being apart of that which determines what a thing will be and what limits it will have.

    information.

    and information is what sets parameters. much like DNA giving an object DEFINITION, DESCRIPTION, AND BEHAVIOR.

    and i wholeheartedly postulate information WITH the early universe as the best explanation. you keep saying that i said GOD injected AFTER the big bang. i did not say that. im saying that information was IN, WITH, and ALONGSIDE everything that happened during the big bang.

    now let me give some examples:

    can you make a star with wood or aluminum?

    of course not because none of that material INHERENTLY has the potential for it
    can you take all of the building blocks of stars and make clouds?

    you already know the answer to that.

    obviously there is something that is setting limits…giving DESCRIPTION, DEFINITION, AND BEHAVIOR to universal objects. youd have to agree with this…both on the micro and macro scale. its a brute observation.

    now let me ask you, you know that in living things there is information. but do you not think there is any in nonliving material?

    now, it is DNA in living things that DETERMINES(key word) what the definition, appearance, size, etc etc will be.

    that is because there is information in the DNA

    even richard dawkins likes the info in DNA to “digital information”

    the reason that stars form when X and Y happen is because X and Y can only do that which is inherent to them. and that is why you cannot form a star with A and B

    this is information chris.

    so alongside rationality id like to bring another player into the universe: information.

    determinism would say that X followed Y which followed A which followed B and now you have C.

    right …and this is what happened in the early universe…strict chronology.

    but if X,Y,A, and B had no description…no inherent identity. you would NOT have all of the separate distinct building blocks that make up everything, you would have NOTHING.

    you have to agree that alongside rationality, the universe also contains INFORMATION which gives the identity and structure of every living and non living thing.

    so now you have a universe that is RATIONAL and full of INFORMATION…and if you did not deduce INTELLIGENCE before, you most certainly can now.

    and again to reiterate… i want to stress very strongly that ALL of science hinges on the fact that the universe is rational, intelligible, coherent, and understandable. this is absolutely paramount. otherwise we could find nothing out about it. in FACT science PRESUPPOSES this BEFORE it goes into the field. that by study, it will make sense of things.

    so before you bring in the supernova, sun dying, death around the corner scare tactics to downplay the presence of rationality and information in the universe…you should really pause and think about the GREATER fact that there is any rationality at all.

    im not going to lie. it still boggles me that the only value you see rationality having would be merely a subjective value ONLY to yourself.

    ive already stated that science hinges on the universe being rational, all of humanities survival depends on it..the universe ITSELF needs coherence to operate…i still do not get it your position on all of this.

    now on to your rant about spinal bifida and autistic children. i swear if you keep on bringing that up im going to start hating God…the guilt trip your weaving is starting to set in.

    dude, couple questions…do those kids see doctors? well, dont the doctors use the RATIONALITY of medical research into the human body to help treat them? so, we know NOTHING of how the human body operates, it makes ZERO sense to us?

    chris, your smarter than that

    and now onto the thing about you relating to torture victims because of past pain experience.

    well what happens if you cant relate, have never experienced, or do not care about victims of torture? lets say you were jeffrey dahmer…now wouldnt the pain of the victim TRANSCEND mr dahmers mentality or his lack of detection to it? meaning somewhere someone would have to put value on it… most likely the court of law. or how about the callousness of nazi germany?

    now onto the real meaning of impoverished outlook.

    again you completely misunderstood the quote.

    ill explain it in a nutshell:

    on your anniversary, if you go tell your girlfriend that she is nothing more than a collection of parts…and that her favorite music is only a collection of notes.

    THAT would be an impoverished view of reality.

    were not trying to say that you are a bad person or anything. so keep your head up:)

    and youd just love for me to break out the bible now wouldnt you…to prove my points

    well, the bible is not a science book so thats not going to happen.

    and you dont presuppose God, so im not going to get involved in theology with you.

    darn, its really hard dealing with all of your quirks.

    youre so high maintenance chris.

    and if you cannot tell the difference between man and animals i dont know what to tell you.

    well, heres a good quote

    “humans share 98% of DNA with chimps…but is a chimp 98% human? no, its a chimp”

    peace out and just remember reality is more than material. science believes there are up to 11 dimensions… so the game is wide open.

  275. you seriously need some glue dude

    ill try not to be quite as rude in my response. this will be my last post on this subject with you. its not really going anywhere anymore, tempers are flaring and youre content with your interpretation/opinion. all i can do is attempt to explain my stance, hopefully offer my hypothesis on things that arent quite settled yet and get you to think.

    ive got alot of points to go over so i will try to cover what youve written.

    ok, i asked you to address the DIRECT FORMATION of the universe.

    two things happened. one, i didnt ask you about biology and extinct species. that has ZERO to do with the early universe.

    and two, in my gut i knew youd bring up the chronological amount of time it took to happen. thats irrelevant and thats not what i meant by direct. what i meant by direct was that the material of the early universe did not go out into left field tinkering with this or that trying to find its “identity” so to speak. it went on to DIRECTLY form gas, stars, galaxies, planets so forth and so on. and this brings me to the second thing you misunderstood- the trial and error example. ALL of the “serious” trial and error scenarios you brought up made my point exactly. ALL of them were congruent within the confines and parameters of the early universe. none of them were OUTSIDE of those limits. that is because the material of the early universe came into reality already DEFINED with particular parameters, what it could do behavior wise, and under what condition. that is why you DO NOT get space marshmallows, you get stars. you gave examples of stars imploding and forming etc etc. but they are all STILL stars. that is not what i meant by a trial and error and i know youll just laugh it off and say that well of course there was no trial and error outside of the confines of the early universe, we wouldnt be here to see it. so this leads me to ask you, why? and chris, “why”questions are just another window to look at the universe through…just as important as HOW. anyways…there was no trial and error outside of the confines of the universe because that material entered reality ALREADY DEFINED. even at its smallest level..it would be almost like a cambrian explosion of quantum material appearing as it were. you would call this determinism. and id couple information to determinism as being apart of that which determines what a thing will be and what limits it will have.

    information.

    and information is what sets parameters. much like DNA giving an object DEFINITION, DESCRIPTION, AND BEHAVIOR.

    and i wholeheartedly postulate information WITH the early universe as the best explanation. you keep saying that i said GOD injected AFTER the big bang. i did not say that. im saying that information was IN, WITH, and ALONGSIDE everything that happened during the big bang.

    now let me give some examples:

    can you make a star with wood or aluminum?

    of course not because none of that material INHERENTLY has the potential for it
    can you take all of the building blocks of stars and make clouds?

    you already know the answer to that.

    obviously there is something that is setting limits…giving DESCRIPTION, DEFINITION, AND BEHAVIOR to universal objects. youd have to agree with this…both on the micro and macro scale. its a brute observation.

    now let me ask you, you know that in living things there is information. but do you not think there is any in nonliving material?

    now, it is DNA in living things that DETERMINES(key word) what the definition, appearance, size, etc etc will be.

    that is because there is information in the DNA

    even richard dawkins likes the info in DNA to “digital information”

    the reason that stars form when X and Y happen is because X and Y can only do that which is inherent to them. and that is why you cannot form a star with A and B

    this is information chris.

    so alongside rationality id like to bring another player into the universe: information.

    determinism would say that X followed Y which followed A which followed B and now you have C.

    right …and this is what happened in the early universe…strict chronology.

    but if X,Y,A, and B had no description…no inherent identity. you would NOT have all of the separate distinct building blocks that make up everything, you would have NOTHING.

    you have to agree that alongside rationality, the universe also contains INFORMATION which gives the identity and structure of every living and non living thing.

    so now you have a universe that is RATIONAL and full of INFORMATION…and if you did not deduce INTELLIGENCE before, you most certainly can now.

    and again to reiterate… i want to stress very strongly that ALL of science hinges on the fact that the universe is rational, intelligible, coherent, and understandable. this is absolutely paramount. otherwise we could find nothing out about it. in FACT science PRESUPPOSES this BEFORE it goes into the field. that by study, it will make sense of things.

    so before you bring in the supernova, sun dying, death around the corner scare tactics to downplay the presence of rationality and information in the universe…you should really pause and think about the GREATER fact that there is any rationality at all.

    im not going to lie. it still boggles me that the only value you see rationality having would be merely a subjective value ONLY to yourself.

    ive already stated that science hinges on the universe being rational, all of humanities survival depends on it..the universe ITSELF needs coherence to operate…i still do not get it your position on all of this.

    now on to your rant about spinal bifida and autistic children. i swear if you keep on bringing that up im going to start hating God…the guilt trip your weaving is starting to set in.

    dude, couple questions…do those kids see doctors? well, dont the doctors use the RATIONALITY of medical research into the human body to help treat them? so, we know NOTHING of how the human body operates, it makes ZERO sense to us?

    chris, your smarter than that

    and now onto the thing about you relating to torture victims because of past pain experience.

    well what happens if you cant relate, have never experienced, or do not care about victims of torture? lets say you were jeffrey dahmer…now wouldnt the pain of the victim TRANSCEND mr dahmers mentality or his lack of detection to it? meaning somewhere someone would have to put value on it… most likely the court of law. or how about the callousness of nazi germany?

    now onto the real meaning of impoverished outlook.

    again you completely misunderstood the quote.

    ill explain it in a nutshell:

    on your anniversary, if you go tell your girlfriend that she is nothing more than a collection of parts…and that her favorite music is only a collection of notes.

    THAT would be an impoverished view of reality.

    were not trying to say that you are a bad person or anything. so keep your head up:)

    and youd just love for me to break out the bible now wouldnt you…to prove my points

    well, the bible is not a science book so thats not going to happen.

    and you dont presuppose God, so im not going to get involved in theology with you.

    darn, its really hard dealing with all of your quirks.

    youre so high maintenance chris.

    and if you cannot tell the difference between man and animals i dont know what to tell you.

    well, heres a good quote

    “humans share 98% of DNA with chimps…but is a chimp 98% human? no, its a chimp”

    peace out and just remember reality is more than material. science believes there are up to 11 dimensions… so the game is wide open.

  276. Hey David,

    Fine, just to move on, we can say, we take love on faith, however, there is still evidence. Perhaps the final leap requires a small amount of faith – but this is not akin to the faith it requires to believe the tribal god yahweh is the cause of the cosmos, when absolutely EVERY bit of evidence Yahweh gave (genesis) is wrong. Where as in my love scenario for my mom, I offer tons of evidence, and then take a tiny leap.

    Rofl, how is it supposed to take a long to prove a mathematical operation doesn’t equal a result? If your sister is on this research, as I politely asked before, please link me to it. I’ve never heard of such a thing, so I have no idea where to look. Although I find it absurd to believe. I mean if I have 1 apple on the counter, and add another apple, I have 2 apples! Good luck disproving that… (which has nothing to do with yahweh)

    What truth can’t be explained? I don’t know what you’re even referring to, to believe it in the first place. It’s not as if I’m building up walls here. I continue to ask what you’re talking about, and I don’t get an answer. As far as you knowing smarter people, that’s fine, so what? You shouldn’t make your arguments from authority. Think freely.

    Where did I disprove myself? Which one of my “arguments” was disproven? Why do you just say “You’re wrong” without correcting me? How am I to know where my reasoning fell apart, if you won’t be kind enough to show me, as I’ve been doing for you?

  277. Hey David,

    Fine, just to move on, we can say, we take love on faith, however, there is still evidence. Perhaps the final leap requires a small amount of faith – but this is not akin to the faith it requires to believe the tribal god yahweh is the cause of the cosmos, when absolutely EVERY bit of evidence Yahweh gave (genesis) is wrong. Where as in my love scenario for my mom, I offer tons of evidence, and then take a tiny leap.

    Rofl, how is it supposed to take a long to prove a mathematical operation doesn’t equal a result? If your sister is on this research, as I politely asked before, please link me to it. I’ve never heard of such a thing, so I have no idea where to look. Although I find it absurd to believe. I mean if I have 1 apple on the counter, and add another apple, I have 2 apples! Good luck disproving that… (which has nothing to do with yahweh)

    What truth can’t be explained? I don’t know what you’re even referring to, to believe it in the first place. It’s not as if I’m building up walls here. I continue to ask what you’re talking about, and I don’t get an answer. As far as you knowing smarter people, that’s fine, so what? You shouldn’t make your arguments from authority. Think freely.

    Where did I disprove myself? Which one of my “arguments” was disproven? Why do you just say “You’re wrong” without correcting me? How am I to know where my reasoning fell apart, if you won’t be kind enough to show me, as I’ve been doing for you?

  278. Erin,
    I;m from florida. I don’t have any idea who you’re referring too.

  279. Erin,
    I;m from florida. I don’t have any idea who you’re referring too.

  280. David,

    I’ll be happy to read it as something interesting to read, but it really has absolutely nothing to do with me and Johns conversation. And where I study is equally irrelevent. You seem to want to base your facts and knowledge off “smarter” people and institutions. I don’t do that. I think for myself. I take information from all over the world, when I can, but I reach final conclusions on my own – where it’s possible.

  281. David,

    I’ll be happy to read it as something interesting to read, but it really has absolutely nothing to do with me and Johns conversation. And where I study is equally irrelevent. You seem to want to base your facts and knowledge off “smarter” people and institutions. I don’t do that. I think for myself. I take information from all over the world, when I can, but I reach final conclusions on my own – where it’s possible.

  282. (edited out by Donny, since Chris reposted under his own name)

  283. (edited out by Donny, since Chris reposted under his own name)

  284. DOH! I’m sorry, that last post was me(Chris), I actually signed it as John!

  285. DOH! I’m sorry, that last post was me(Chris), I actually signed it as John!

  286. Now it disapeared, I’ll repost:

    John,

    Well I asked you before about the early universe. I said, do you want me to explain the first three minutes, the first 300,000 years, for the next 10 billion? You simply didn’t reply. Cosmologist tend to tell cosmological history in chunks. Those dates are them. I’ll be more than happy to do my best to over each of those events if you think. If not, I suggest reading
    Origins – Neil DeGrasse Tyson
    or The First Three Minutes – Steven Weinberg

    I’ve never denied for a moment that the cosmos went on to form gas, stars, galaxies, etc. You and I are in agreement here. But just as it went directly on to form all of that stuff, it went on to directly form black holes, failed stars, and extinct species. So what, what’s your point? The universe is a wild place, filled with a lot of awe striking things. And I’ve been agreeing with you like five post now, that the universe came defined with laws. Of course it’s pretty funny than when I started talking about them your ignorance came shining through. You obviously don’t read any science, or really have an understanding of any specific science field. Probably just read a few intelligent design books and felt well versed on the subject…

    Now I’ll be candid. These thought right here is extremely aggravating. I mean fuck John, how many godamn times do I have to answer this EXACT question, re ask you a question, and watch you dodge it. Ughhhhhhhhhhhhh your tedious and shallow, and forgetful apparently.
    “that is not what i meant by a trial and error and i know youll just laugh it off and say that well of course there was no trial and error outside of the confines of the early universe, we wouldnt be here to see it. so this leads me to ask you, why? “

    I answered WHY. I don’t know. And neither do you. You have claimed you do. I have asked numerous times, some politely, some rudely, TELL ME WHY! You won’t. You can’t.

    Everything you do on to say about the cosmos being already defined, without outside intervention, is exactly what I’ve said here since day 1. Glad we agree there is no after life (outside intervention), prayer answering (outside intervention), miracle working (outside intervention) or Yahweh (outside intervention). You’ll make a great atheist.

    Yeah but your information term is just ambiguous. Philosophers since before the age of Christ, and every since, have referred to this as “natural law.” or “the laws of nature.” Let’s stick with that, since it has held 2000 years of scrutiny. Please?

    Actually a star with aluminum may be possible….I’d need to do research, but aluminum most likely formed in stars. Obviously not WOOD. Wood is a fucking outcome of biology lol.

    Here is where your banal, regurgitations fall apart.

    “obviously there is something that is setting limits…giving DESCRIPTION, DEFINITION, AND BEHAVIOR to universal objects. youd have to agree with this…both on the micro and macro scale. its a brute observation.”

    As we both agree, nothing is setting the limits. The limits were set at the point of the bang. There is no more “setting.” Yes I agree that this natural law has led to things that we are capable of describing, defining, and some of them hold “behavior.”

    “now let me ask you, you know that in living things there is information. but do you not think there is any in nonliving material?”
    This is why I don’t like your use of information. It’s purposely equivocated, quite possibly straight out of some intelligent design book. Anyway. If we define information, as you have been, as natural law, that allows for atoms to “do their job.” Than yes, there is JUST AS MUCH information in a rock, as in DNA. Because the rock, like the dna strand, is simply atoms. Now of course the result of the rocks atoms just lead to a non-sentient rock. And the result of the atoms in dna lead to a myriad of things. So what? We are still in agreement. All your post, we are in agreement, you just keep giving me these really poor science lessons, with ambiguous phrasing.

    “the reason that stars form when X and Y happen is because X and Y can only do that which is inherent to them. and that is why you cannot form a star with A and B
    this is information chris.”
    Or, as every scientist and philosopher has been calling it since before christ, this is the universe operating under natural law. Anyway we arent in disagreement, only where you decide to swap terms.

    Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? Are you a masochist? Do you enjoy wasting our time and repeating yourself for days?
    “you have to agree that alongside rationality, the universe also contains INFORMATION which gives the identity and structure of every living and non living thing.”

    When in pigs fucking heaven did I ever disagree with any of this? I used natural law in place of information, but that’s it. For the love of no god, STOP repeating these grade school science analogies to me when I’ve been agreeing with you for five mother fucking days.

    Ah here comes the little opining you took straight out of some dembski book:
    “so now you have a universe that is RATIONAL and full of INFORMATION…and if you did not deduce INTELLIGENCE before, you most certainly can now. “

    No I can not deduce intelligence from this. The only intelligence I know, as I’ve been saying for over five days, you sadomasochist, is that the intelligence we know, come from biological earth creatures. The range is all over the place in their capabilities and what they specialize in. I do not see, homo-sapien neural faculties, as being the cause of this cosmos, anymore than the various other theories like string theory, multiverse, cosmic crunch, etc. Homo-sapien intelligence is such a tiny, infinitesimal part of the universe, that it’s dubious to propose it’s also the cause. Perhaps a black hole is the cause? There are more black holes than homo-sapiens. And black holes do suck in matter from the universe. So it’s quite possible that the matter they suck in “big bangs” into another universe.

    “and again to reiterate… i want to stress very strongly that ALL of science hinges on the fact that the universe is rational, intelligible, coherent, and understandable. this is absolutely paramount. otherwise we could find nothing out about it. in FACT science PRESUPPOSES this BEFORE it goes into the field. that by study, it will make sense of things.”

    Thank you, I’m well aware. I learned the scientific method in lower school as well….
    This speaks nothing of yahweh, after life, miracle working, prayer answering, etc.

    “so before you bring in the supernova, sun dying, death around the corner scare tactics to downplay the presence of rationality and information in the universe…you should really pause and think about the GREATER fact that there is any rationality at all.”

    No the reason I’m talking about that, is to show, that to presume, homo-sapiens are the pinnacle of creation, and the very reason for the existence of the universe, is patently absurd. We get to occupy earth for around 100,000 years before we fully go extinct. Regardless the universe isn’t slowing down in what it’s doing. We occupy a blip of time, I’m thankful for that of course. Regardless, we aren’t the pinnacle. I find it extremely pretentious to suppose we are.

    “im not going to lie. it still boggles me that the only value you see rationality having would be merely a subjective value ONLY to yourself. “

    Well again, some creatures are born without the ability to rationalize. In that instance, rationality can’t mean anything to them. Now I’ve been saying over and over again (wear some glasses or something, you have either a defective memory, poor reading comprehension, or you’re a sadomasochist), obviously rationality brought about the ability of the spina bifida baby to exist. However, since the spina bifidia baby is never going to be cognitive on that level, and will die in misery, what “good” is rationality? Yes it brought the child about, but in this case, it isn’t a “good” or “positive” thing to of brought about.

    I’m not trying to set in a guilt trip. Not at all. But these are cold facts. Facts I morn. Facts if I was a praying man, would pray didn’t exist. However there is nothing we can do, except study, and use the tools of science to succour these poor individuals. Religion in this instance can’t do a thing. I’m not asking you to hate god, but at the time same, I do not want you to turn away from facts, no matter how callous they may be. We’d all love to believe for instance that there isn’t a war going on the middle east, but there is, and we have to accept it. Just like here. Some individuals are born, without the ability to reason, so they can’t even understand that “rationality” is the very reason for their existence. As a result, rationality means nothing to them.

    “dude, couple questions…do those kids see doctors? well, dont the doctors use the RATIONALITY of medical research into the human body to help treat them? so, we know NOTHING of how the human body operates, it makes ZERO sense to us?”

    Well yes, typically now a doctor sees a baby has spina bifida around 6 months. Almost all parents now get an abortion once they find this out, because there really is no way to make the baby survive. Even if you do, it’s going to live some 6 months in extreme pain, while the parents morn by the bedside, until it inevitably dies anyway. In this instance there really is no treatment, just prolonged suffering 😦

    I didn’t say we know nothing about how the human body operates, wtf are you talking about? I’m obviously implying we KNOW a lot. And I’m pointing out that, the rational universe sometimes gives us problems where there is no current fix, no matter how much we understand. At this moment, spina bifida is one of them. Hopefully we’ll surmount it, maybe not…We tackled polio, chicken pox, malaria, and leprosy haha.

    “well what happens if you cant relate, have never experienced, or do not care about victims of torture? lets say you were jeffrey dahmer…now wouldnt the pain of the victim TRANSCEND mr dahmers mentality or his lack of detection to it? meaning somewhere someone would have to put value on it… most likely the court of law. or how about the callousness of nazi germany?”

    Well we have to take examples one by one. Obviously I’ve never “felt” someone putting me in a gas chamber. I’m willing to wager though, if you asked each crippled, homosexual, and jew, before they entered Hitlers chambers “Do you want to do this, you have no idea how it feels, but do you WANT to do this?” They would say no. They could also use obvious evidence, so observe, how those currently in the chamber are feeling. I don’t need to felt the same pain, to recognize pain, anguish, torment etc. Yes we set up legal precedents to avoid this. Regardless, these are all materialistic processes comprised of atoms.

    HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
    I can’t believe I just read this:
    “on your anniversary, if you go tell your girlfriend that she is nothing more than a collection of parts…and that her favorite music is only a collection of notes.
    THAT would be an impoverished view of reality.
    were not trying to say that you are a bad person or anything. so keep your head up:)
    and youd just love for me to break out the bible now wouldnt you…to prove my points”

    Roflmao! Are you fucking serious? Why would I say that on my anniversary? Hahahahaha. Dude, come on! My girlfriend knows she’s comprised of atoms, it wouldn’t be earth shattering news to her. But she would be rather confused about why I chose to discuss that on an anniversary rofl. As I said, if my girlfriend is comprised of all atoms, or all “souls and spirits,” that does not change the SINCERITY (so no this isn’t impoverished) of my feelings towards her. Just because we know the material that accounts for these feelings, does change the sincerity of those feelings. As I said above with the spina bifida baby. You can’t be afraid to acknowledge the truth, if the truth is what you’re seriously going after (in your case you’re just trying to find a deity in every thing you can). My girlfriend is comprised of trillions of atoms, and I love each and every one of them 😉

    “well, the bible is not a science book so thats not going to happen.”
    Nor is it a book that is remotely coherent when it comes to the origins of the cosmos. I really want to know why Yahweh got genesis SO wrong lol.

    “youre so high maintenance chris.”
    Hypocrite. You keep repeating these same banal science analogies that I’ve been agreeing with for five days!
    “and if you cannot tell the difference between man and animals i don’t know what to tell you.”
    Depends what you mean. Man is an animal. I obviously can tell the difference between Tom Cruise and a Lizard in my drive way. But that doesn’t change the fact they both are animals that evolved from a common ancestor. Now In philosophy classes one of the most common questions asked is, “whats unique about human nature.” On that philosophical question, I personally, don’t see a SINGLE thing in our nature that “separates” us from the other animals. We are “better” at certain things, like reasoning, but we aren’t the only animals capable of this feature. I;m willing to hear your answer though. Goodluck.

    “humans share 98% of DNA with chimps…but is a chimp 98% human? no, its a chimp”

    Well again that depends. I chimp knows language, can communicate, has a family unit, often has a “government” unit (as in some authoritative tribal figures who retain power). They can reason, they can build, they can invent. Sure we talk more, and reason better, but there is actually very little difference, only in what we specialize at. We specialize MORE SO in reasoning and communications. They can do that, but they specialize in agility and adaptation to a jungle environment, so climbing, swinging, etc. We can also do those things, but not on their level.

    Oh my sweet moses, not this trite canard again, that I ALREADY ADDRESSED AND YOU IGNORE:
    “peace out and just remember reality is more than material. science believes there are up to 11 dimensions… so the game is wide open.”

    How much actualy reading have you done on string theory. “Science” doesn’t believe there are 11 dimensions. A group OF SCIENTIST do. Unfortunately, every scientific experiment every postulated to confirm this hypothesis has failed. At this moment 11 dimensions is a tentative hypothesis, proposed by a select group of scientist. Regardless, even in their 11 dimensions, the universe is STILL material. So you’re wrong.
    As I’ve asked you a zillion times:
    If there is something more, what is it? Tell me? Show me? Give me a bloody example.
    Two: You know the “why” of the origin of the cosmsos. Tell me. OR quit wasting our time.

  287. donny, call security:)

  288. donny, call security:)

  289. My post really went crazy there, started posting out of order and such…regardless john, two of those are my genuine reply.

  290. My post really went crazy there, started posting out of order and such…regardless john, two of those are my genuine reply.

  291. Chris, I edited the mistaken post for ya.

  292. Chris, I edited the mistaken post for ya.

  293. Donny thank you!
    I still can’t post my links though that I privately mailed you about.

  294. Donny thank you!
    I still can’t post my links though that I privately mailed you about.

  295. Here you go as promised:

    “In the study of number theory we learn of something called modular arithmetic
    (sometimes called modulo arithmetic or clock arithmetic). Modular arithmetic is a system
    of arithmetic for integers where numbers “wrap around” after they reach a certain value –
    the modulus. Some examples of operations modulo 12 are:
    7 + 7 = 14 = 2 (mod 12)
    5 * 7 = 35 = 11 (mod 12)
    In such a system we can easily see that for a modulo less than 2 all arithmetic solutions
    are equal to 1 or 0. So for a mod 1 situation we see that:
    1 + 1 = 0 (mod 1)
    To play with arithmetic for various modulo you can use this interactive java script:

    I’m gonna take a page out of your book and cut paste, your original email will be in “”.

    “Fine, just to move on, we can say, we take love on faith, however, there is still evidence. Perhaps the final leap requires a small amount of faith – but this is not akin to the faith it requires to believe the tribal god yahweh is the cause of the cosmos, when absolutely EVERY bit of evidence Yahweh gave (genesis) is wrong. Where as in my love scenario for my mom, I offer tons of evidence, and then take a tiny leap.”

    If you’ve read past genesis you’d see that faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains. I’m afraid all humans are capable of is a tiny leap of faith, if even that much. There’s evidence of Yahweh all over the place, it just takes a tiny leap of faith to find the Creator.

    “Rofl, how is it supposed to take a long to prove a mathematical operation doesn’t equal a result? If your sister is on this research, as I politely asked before, please link me to it. I’ve never heard of such a thing, so I have no idea where to look. Although I find it absurd to believe. I mean if I have 1 apple on the counter, and add another apple, I have 2 apples! Good luck disproving that… (which has nothing to do with Yahweh)”

    Of course, math and science are faith based. That is you theorize and then apply the scientific process. Faith leads to results. You believe it and then achieve it. Your apple analogy is cute, but doesn’t apply to the complexities math can reach. But I feel the same way, I eat one taco, then another, I’ve got two in my stomach, but numbers and equations are abstract and since you believe in wormholes, you’d understand that matter can be bent. Not so concrete. As far as Yahweh, He created all of this, it all has to do with Him. His signature is on all of it.

    “What truth can’t be explained? I don’t know what you’re even referring to, to believe it in the first place. It’s not as if I’m building up walls here. I continue to ask what you’re talking about, and I don’t get an answer. As far as you knowing smarter people, that’s fine, so what? You shouldn’t make your arguments from authority. Think freely.”

    I’m talking about Yahweh coming to earth in human form and proclaiming Himself as the Truth. The meaning behind everything and reason for everything. And people who actually study what you claim to know have point that are much more valid without being militant. They don’t have to cuss up a storm, or call other’s ideas silly because they’re lacking in the actual application of the knowledge you assume comprehension of. And I do make arguments from authority, so do you. You’ve quoted a lot of books you’ve read here. You really believe you’re thinking for yourself? Everyone references once in a while and you do it a whole lot. There’s nothing wrong with that. Besides, I’m a Christian who believes in the heavenly authority that is Yahweh based on evidence in creation and in my personal walk with Him.

    “Where did I disprove myself? Which one of my “arguments” was disproven? Why do you just say “You’re wrong” without correcting me? How am I to know where my reasoning fell apart, if you won’t be kind enough to show me, as I’ve been doing for you?”

    Well, for starters, you’ve got problems with faith based reasoning, but you’re high on math, science, and love. And you haven’t really shown me anything, only cherry picked ideologies you disagree with (and spelling, PLEASE!). That proves nothing.

    “I’ll be happy to read it as something interesting to read, but it really has absolutely nothing to do with me and Johns conversation. And where I study is equally irrelevent. You seem to want to base your facts and knowledge off “smarter” people and institutions. I don’t do that. I think for myself. I take information from all over the world, when I can, but I reach final conclusions on my own – where it’s possible.”

    It’s at the top of the post if you happened to miss it the first time. And, I’m not writing to you concerning your conversation with John. As I’ve mentioned, you addressed me first, so I addressed you back.
    I really don’t care where you study, my sister was curious as you seemed like a hack to her. It doesn’t matter where you study to me. There’s a lot of great schools all over the nation.
    And, now let me get this straight, you take others information, from all over the world no doubt, and then think for yourself? I’ve seen plenty of reiterations of other’s thinking in your posts. You really think your thinking for yourself? Maybe your opinions (final conclusions), but definitely not your presuppositions.

    Chris, I think your a great person and I wish you the best. Good luck in your studies and take it easy.

    David 🙂

    And everyone else, I feel like I know you all now!
    Take it easy and God bless (or Yahweh bless?).

  296. Here you go as promised:

    “In the study of number theory we learn of something called modular arithmetic
    (sometimes called modulo arithmetic or clock arithmetic). Modular arithmetic is a system
    of arithmetic for integers where numbers “wrap around” after they reach a certain value –
    the modulus. Some examples of operations modulo 12 are:
    7 + 7 = 14 = 2 (mod 12)
    5 * 7 = 35 = 11 (mod 12)
    In such a system we can easily see that for a modulo less than 2 all arithmetic solutions
    are equal to 1 or 0. So for a mod 1 situation we see that:
    1 + 1 = 0 (mod 1)
    To play with arithmetic for various modulo you can use this interactive java script:

    I’m gonna take a page out of your book and cut paste, your original email will be in “”.

    “Fine, just to move on, we can say, we take love on faith, however, there is still evidence. Perhaps the final leap requires a small amount of faith – but this is not akin to the faith it requires to believe the tribal god yahweh is the cause of the cosmos, when absolutely EVERY bit of evidence Yahweh gave (genesis) is wrong. Where as in my love scenario for my mom, I offer tons of evidence, and then take a tiny leap.”

    If you’ve read past genesis you’d see that faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains. I’m afraid all humans are capable of is a tiny leap of faith, if even that much. There’s evidence of Yahweh all over the place, it just takes a tiny leap of faith to find the Creator.

    “Rofl, how is it supposed to take a long to prove a mathematical operation doesn’t equal a result? If your sister is on this research, as I politely asked before, please link me to it. I’ve never heard of such a thing, so I have no idea where to look. Although I find it absurd to believe. I mean if I have 1 apple on the counter, and add another apple, I have 2 apples! Good luck disproving that… (which has nothing to do with Yahweh)”

    Of course, math and science are faith based. That is you theorize and then apply the scientific process. Faith leads to results. You believe it and then achieve it. Your apple analogy is cute, but doesn’t apply to the complexities math can reach. But I feel the same way, I eat one taco, then another, I’ve got two in my stomach, but numbers and equations are abstract and since you believe in wormholes, you’d understand that matter can be bent. Not so concrete. As far as Yahweh, He created all of this, it all has to do with Him. His signature is on all of it.

    “What truth can’t be explained? I don’t know what you’re even referring to, to believe it in the first place. It’s not as if I’m building up walls here. I continue to ask what you’re talking about, and I don’t get an answer. As far as you knowing smarter people, that’s fine, so what? You shouldn’t make your arguments from authority. Think freely.”

    I’m talking about Yahweh coming to earth in human form and proclaiming Himself as the Truth. The meaning behind everything and reason for everything. And people who actually study what you claim to know have point that are much more valid without being militant. They don’t have to cuss up a storm, or call other’s ideas silly because they’re lacking in the actual application of the knowledge you assume comprehension of. And I do make arguments from authority, so do you. You’ve quoted a lot of books you’ve read here. You really believe you’re thinking for yourself? Everyone references once in a while and you do it a whole lot. There’s nothing wrong with that. Besides, I’m a Christian who believes in the heavenly authority that is Yahweh based on evidence in creation and in my personal walk with Him.

    “Where did I disprove myself? Which one of my “arguments” was disproven? Why do you just say “You’re wrong” without correcting me? How am I to know where my reasoning fell apart, if you won’t be kind enough to show me, as I’ve been doing for you?”

    Well, for starters, you’ve got problems with faith based reasoning, but you’re high on math, science, and love. And you haven’t really shown me anything, only cherry picked ideologies you disagree with (and spelling, PLEASE!). That proves nothing.

    “I’ll be happy to read it as something interesting to read, but it really has absolutely nothing to do with me and Johns conversation. And where I study is equally irrelevent. You seem to want to base your facts and knowledge off “smarter” people and institutions. I don’t do that. I think for myself. I take information from all over the world, when I can, but I reach final conclusions on my own – where it’s possible.”

    It’s at the top of the post if you happened to miss it the first time. And, I’m not writing to you concerning your conversation with John. As I’ve mentioned, you addressed me first, so I addressed you back.
    I really don’t care where you study, my sister was curious as you seemed like a hack to her. It doesn’t matter where you study to me. There’s a lot of great schools all over the nation.
    And, now let me get this straight, you take others information, from all over the world no doubt, and then think for yourself? I’ve seen plenty of reiterations of other’s thinking in your posts. You really think your thinking for yourself? Maybe your opinions (final conclusions), but definitely not your presuppositions.

    Chris, I think your a great person and I wish you the best. Good luck in your studies and take it easy.

    David 🙂

    And everyone else, I feel like I know you all now!
    Take it easy and God bless (or Yahweh bless?).

  297. its all good dude, i know they were genuine and i read them. and when i get time ill check out those links you sent. so whereabouts in florida do you live? i live on the central east side in vero beach, just south of melbourne. and just came back from a SKIM competition at the beach. the college ministry i am apart of just got a team together. two of our guys won first place in their division

    and their success was attributed to both RATIONALITY and INFORMATION thus making their heats quite INTELLIGIBLE to the judges!

    🙂

  298. its all good dude, i know they were genuine and i read them. and when i get time ill check out those links you sent. so whereabouts in florida do you live? i live on the central east side in vero beach, just south of melbourne. and just came back from a SKIM competition at the beach. the college ministry i am apart of just got a team together. two of our guys won first place in their division

    and their success was attributed to both RATIONALITY and INFORMATION thus making their heats quite INTELLIGIBLE to the judges!

    🙂

  299. im a student at UCF, so Orlando. Just moved here for the college this year. Also I just quit my job at a christian bookstore to take on my school load 😉

  300. im a student at UCF, so Orlando. Just moved here for the college this year. Also I just quit my job at a christian bookstore to take on my school load 😉

  301. oh no doubt? i know some people up there at that school

    do you know john, kyle or joe?

    no for real some people i know go there

    now did you really quit your job at a christian bookstore?

    i was thinking you worked at a tarot card shop or something….

    check it this is a paste of a bulletin i sent out on myspace and this is for you chris and anyone else who might be interested:

    DEBATE news for the big brains peoples
    Body:
    get ready to start spazzin you freaking nerds!!!

    check it, john lennox just recently debated christopher hitchens at the edinburgh fest so be on the lookout for that audio or that video suckas

    lennox is also gettin some serious street cred …..for real. even dawkins was in the crowd at the hitchens debate watchin

    also, lennox and dawkins will debate AGAIN exactly one year from the time of their first meeting in oct of 08 !!!

    oh snap

    and what will be cool is lennox will be in tampa at the cs lewis fest sometime in november. dudes we can plan a sick game of dungeons and dragons then head off over to tampa for that!!

    best. weekend. ever.

    life is mothertruckin good

    your boy

  302. oh no doubt? i know some people up there at that school

    do you know john, kyle or joe?

    no for real some people i know go there

    now did you really quit your job at a christian bookstore?

    i was thinking you worked at a tarot card shop or something….

    check it this is a paste of a bulletin i sent out on myspace and this is for you chris and anyone else who might be interested:

    DEBATE news for the big brains peoples
    Body:
    get ready to start spazzin you freaking nerds!!!

    check it, john lennox just recently debated christopher hitchens at the edinburgh fest so be on the lookout for that audio or that video suckas

    lennox is also gettin some serious street cred …..for real. even dawkins was in the crowd at the hitchens debate watchin

    also, lennox and dawkins will debate AGAIN exactly one year from the time of their first meeting in oct of 08 !!!

    oh snap

    and what will be cool is lennox will be in tampa at the cs lewis fest sometime in november. dudes we can plan a sick game of dungeons and dragons then head off over to tampa for that!!

    best. weekend. ever.

    life is mothertruckin good

    your boy

  303. I’m not sure if your name comment was facetious or not, but, no I don’t those people…massive campus, top 5 in the USA. So there are at least dozens of those names.

    Yes I’ve been working at an ostensibly Christian bookstore since January. I’m a total book addict, unhealthy might I add 😉 So the job was good for me, because although it was Christian, we didn’t hold any bias in our “trading” process. So if the god delusion came along for instance, we’d buy it. under that condition, I scored tons of good literature, plus a lot of cheap classics.

    I’ve watched all those people debate. Of course I don’t agree with Lennox, but he seems like a harmless, and very affable individual. Hitchens however…I love the mans history books, and erudition, but he’s a bit arrogant no doubt. Oh well, I’ll try to watch the debate if I have time.

  304. I’m not sure if your name comment was facetious or not, but, no I don’t those people…massive campus, top 5 in the USA. So there are at least dozens of those names.

    Yes I’ve been working at an ostensibly Christian bookstore since January. I’m a total book addict, unhealthy might I add 😉 So the job was good for me, because although it was Christian, we didn’t hold any bias in our “trading” process. So if the god delusion came along for instance, we’d buy it. under that condition, I scored tons of good literature, plus a lot of cheap classics.

    I’ve watched all those people debate. Of course I don’t agree with Lennox, but he seems like a harmless, and very affable individual. Hitchens however…I love the mans history books, and erudition, but he’s a bit arrogant no doubt. Oh well, I’ll try to watch the debate if I have time.

  305. John would you mind putting the link up to the debate pleasE?

  306. John would you mind putting the link up to the debate pleasE?

  307. David also had problems posting a link. He emailed asking that I post this one:

    http://www.math.umbc.edu/~campbell/NumbThy/Class/BasicNumbThy.html

  308. David also had problems posting a link. He emailed asking that I post this one:

    http://www.math.umbc.edu/~campbell/NumbThy/Class/BasicNumbThy.html

  309. It won’t be long until this thread and its comments can be printed as a book. Out of curiosity I just printing it to PDF. Take a guess how many pages we’ve reached… okay, I’ll just tell you: 65 pages.

  310. It won’t be long until this thread and its comments can be printed as a book. Out of curiosity I just printing it to PDF. Take a guess how many pages we’ve reached… okay, I’ll just tell you: 65 pages.

  311. h crap dude. (donny)

    please edit my grammar, not that i need it or anything

    donny i was seriously entertaining the idea of putting a debate together, wouldnt that be sick? theres a unitarian church down the road and they always seem up for stimulating conversation, at least thats what the posts show on their signs. i know its a long shot, but how would you feel about putting something together somewhere? i think If God was behind it, it would happen regardless of the details.

    id give my left lung to see dsouza and dawkins battle royale

    chris yeah i was being faceshiousaliscious, thats a BIG J/K too so dont open a can of W.A. on me

    so the book store is a christian themed book store or just christian owned?

    you mentioned that you had a christian upbringing, any particular denomination your family involved in?

    and im still debating the idea of engaging you once more for further discussion. i was walking the other day and all of these observations hit me concerning things id like to talk about. i saw this mentally handicapped guy walking towards me in the grocery store and i was contemplating his value…or the reasons one SHOULD value the handicapped.. i was trying to see if i was intuitively referencing some type of transcendent idea or if it was ONLY biologically based reason. my gut is telling me that principles are transcendent…thats why we can choose to stop following them whenever we wish but they are still “fixed”…..at the very least, in our minds.

    for instance, take a group of friends. lets say they decide to be MORE honest with each other and stick to that ideal. so they set their mind on this idea of honesty and then bring their will into submission to its practice. wouldnt that be a transcendent idea they are tapping into?

    what say you?

  312. h crap dude. (donny)

    please edit my grammar, not that i need it or anything

    donny i was seriously entertaining the idea of putting a debate together, wouldnt that be sick? theres a unitarian church down the road and they always seem up for stimulating conversation, at least thats what the posts show on their signs. i know its a long shot, but how would you feel about putting something together somewhere? i think If God was behind it, it would happen regardless of the details.

    id give my left lung to see dsouza and dawkins battle royale

    chris yeah i was being faceshiousaliscious, thats a BIG J/K too so dont open a can of W.A. on me

    so the book store is a christian themed book store or just christian owned?

    you mentioned that you had a christian upbringing, any particular denomination your family involved in?

    and im still debating the idea of engaging you once more for further discussion. i was walking the other day and all of these observations hit me concerning things id like to talk about. i saw this mentally handicapped guy walking towards me in the grocery store and i was contemplating his value…or the reasons one SHOULD value the handicapped.. i was trying to see if i was intuitively referencing some type of transcendent idea or if it was ONLY biologically based reason. my gut is telling me that principles are transcendent…thats why we can choose to stop following them whenever we wish but they are still “fixed”…..at the very least, in our minds.

    for instance, take a group of friends. lets say they decide to be MORE honest with each other and stick to that ideal. so they set their mind on this idea of honesty and then bring their will into submission to its practice. wouldnt that be a transcendent idea they are tapping into?

    what say you?

  313. oh yeah and which debate did you want a link for?

    there is no transcript, audio, or video so far for the lennox, hitchens debate…just some blogs about them by people who went. ONLY one was somewhat informative .

    the way i found it was googling lennox hitchens debate

    the fixed point foundation are the ones who put it on. they also did the previous one with lennox/dawkins and will also host the second lennox/dawkins debate in anniversary of wilberforce/huxley.

    yeah i think hitchens is kind of a lazy debater more interested in being crass than being thorough. hed probably do better if it was in a written format.

    ill tell you who is an absolutely TERRIBLE debater…daniel dennet. holy crap dinesh dsouza smeared that guy. he is just not good on his feet.

    and since you are in o-town..like i was saying, in november lennox will be in tampa with the cs lewis society/foundation? im really wanting to go to that and meet the guy. i read his most recent book and its probably one of the best on that subject. very well done.

    you can google that one too, it does take a little looking for it. i think i searched cs lewis society/ foundation john lennox tampa or something.

    do you have a myspace chris?

  314. oh yeah and which debate did you want a link for?

    there is no transcript, audio, or video so far for the lennox, hitchens debate…just some blogs about them by people who went. ONLY one was somewhat informative .

    the way i found it was googling lennox hitchens debate

    the fixed point foundation are the ones who put it on. they also did the previous one with lennox/dawkins and will also host the second lennox/dawkins debate in anniversary of wilberforce/huxley.

    yeah i think hitchens is kind of a lazy debater more interested in being crass than being thorough. hed probably do better if it was in a written format.

    ill tell you who is an absolutely TERRIBLE debater…daniel dennet. holy crap dinesh dsouza smeared that guy. he is just not good on his feet.

    and since you are in o-town..like i was saying, in november lennox will be in tampa with the cs lewis society/foundation? im really wanting to go to that and meet the guy. i read his most recent book and its probably one of the best on that subject. very well done.

    you can google that one too, it does take a little looking for it. i think i searched cs lewis society/ foundation john lennox tampa or something.

    do you have a myspace chris?

  315. I read Dawkin’s post on his message board. He has made it pretty clear in several post that he finds Dsouza as a person to be disgusting (Keep in mind he does not feel that way about lennox or mcgrath – maybe because they share the same politics…I dunno). And as a result, he doesn’t want to one, debate someone who isn’t a scientist, and two, someone he sincerely dislikes. You may take this as a sign of him copping out, oh well. I understand his position though, there are certain people I simply just don’t like, and choose to ignore, even if they question me. For instance you couldn’t get me on a stage to debate the iraq war with president bush, because I’d be fuming at the site of him, I may lose my logic, and become very emotional.

    The store was run by an entire christian staff, with predominantly christian customers, closed on sundays, etc.(The store originated as a place where my boss sold his fellow church goers goods on amazon out of an office, and it grew from there) However, since most people like “trade” book stores, a secular crowd showed up over time(bringing secular novels and such), and my boss knew it would be financially myopic to ignore their basis. Now if you add up “secular” to “religious” books, the ratio is of course overwhelming in the latter.

    My mothers side of the family is mostly catholic. As was she. She took me to some Unitarian churches though mostly, and some Catholic. She couldn’t make up her mind. One of my grade school friends took me to a southern baptist church every sunday for over a year. Another friend of mine, whose house i’d sleep over a lot at, would take us to a presbyterian one( I went there off and on for years). In middle school I also joined an evangelical youth group. I joined it because the group was comprised of a lot of my friends, but even at that age, after numerous visits I couldn’t tolerate the dogma, and eventually left(some of them were even jesting to my jewish friends that they were going to hell).

    If you think your sympathy for the handicapped is “more than biology” all I can say is prove it. If we gave you an MRI during your contemplations, you’d see neurons firing, nothing new there. That doesn’t change the sincerity of your concern for the individual. Just like if we opened your brain and saw a bunch “magic and spirits” that wouldn’t change your sincerity for the individual. Occam’s razor of course tells us to jettison what’s superfluous, in this case, your idea of “something more” which you can’t articulate (yet?), can, in my “atheist outlook” be jettisoned. And of course plenty of animals do take care of their kin if they fall sick, or handicapped. This ranges from insects to primates. So I would have to ask where along our evolutionary lineage, did we “evolve” something more, and leave our cousins behind(my obvious answer is we didn’t)?

    I don’t really understand your “friends” question. If they decide to be honest, they decide to be honest, nothing that can’t be accounted by materialism there. Of course typically I try to be honest in all my friendships 😉 And of course I try to be honest to people I’m apathetic towards, or dislike. I usually just flat out speak my mind.

  316. I read Dawkin’s post on his message board. He has made it pretty clear in several post that he finds Dsouza as a person to be disgusting (Keep in mind he does not feel that way about lennox or mcgrath – maybe because they share the same politics…I dunno). And as a result, he doesn’t want to one, debate someone who isn’t a scientist, and two, someone he sincerely dislikes. You may take this as a sign of him copping out, oh well. I understand his position though, there are certain people I simply just don’t like, and choose to ignore, even if they question me. For instance you couldn’t get me on a stage to debate the iraq war with president bush, because I’d be fuming at the site of him, I may lose my logic, and become very emotional.

    The store was run by an entire christian staff, with predominantly christian customers, closed on sundays, etc.(The store originated as a place where my boss sold his fellow church goers goods on amazon out of an office, and it grew from there) However, since most people like “trade” book stores, a secular crowd showed up over time(bringing secular novels and such), and my boss knew it would be financially myopic to ignore their basis. Now if you add up “secular” to “religious” books, the ratio is of course overwhelming in the latter.

    My mothers side of the family is mostly catholic. As was she. She took me to some Unitarian churches though mostly, and some Catholic. She couldn’t make up her mind. One of my grade school friends took me to a southern baptist church every sunday for over a year. Another friend of mine, whose house i’d sleep over a lot at, would take us to a presbyterian one( I went there off and on for years). In middle school I also joined an evangelical youth group. I joined it because the group was comprised of a lot of my friends, but even at that age, after numerous visits I couldn’t tolerate the dogma, and eventually left(some of them were even jesting to my jewish friends that they were going to hell).

    If you think your sympathy for the handicapped is “more than biology” all I can say is prove it. If we gave you an MRI during your contemplations, you’d see neurons firing, nothing new there. That doesn’t change the sincerity of your concern for the individual. Just like if we opened your brain and saw a bunch “magic and spirits” that wouldn’t change your sincerity for the individual. Occam’s razor of course tells us to jettison what’s superfluous, in this case, your idea of “something more” which you can’t articulate (yet?), can, in my “atheist outlook” be jettisoned. And of course plenty of animals do take care of their kin if they fall sick, or handicapped. This ranges from insects to primates. So I would have to ask where along our evolutionary lineage, did we “evolve” something more, and leave our cousins behind(my obvious answer is we didn’t)?

    I don’t really understand your “friends” question. If they decide to be honest, they decide to be honest, nothing that can’t be accounted by materialism there. Of course typically I try to be honest in all my friendships 😉 And of course I try to be honest to people I’m apathetic towards, or dislike. I usually just flat out speak my mind.

  317. I was hoping for a video version of the Lennox hitchens debate. If it ever comes out please post it. I’m sure it may, they typically take a few days. Although I have zero interest in reading blog excerpts on the debate.

    I’ve seen Hitchens in some debates, excel far beyond my expectations (Like one he did in the freedom fest). In others, like the most recent one with Dinesh and Prager, he seemed very lazy. It probably depends on how much alcohol he has consumed before hand(and during?).

    I agree, the Dennett debate was awful. Now I’ve read some of Dennett’s books – not breaking the spell though, not interested. The man is a genuine genius, but as you acknowledge, he’s not quick on his feet. He needs a pen, paper, and time to exercise his philosophical mind. He should of debated Dinesh in written format, then sparks might fly.

    I’ve kind of made it a point not to buy a single atheist vs theist book this year. As I said I was a pretty atheistic/agnostic person from childhood. The “new atheist” movement was a little fun for me to read, because as Dawkins says it proverbially made it okay for me to come out of the closet. I was just happy to see that other people had the same thoughts I had, and I wasn’t “alone.” Although even when I am alone in an argument, it doesn’t deter me 😉

    No I don’t use any my space or face books.

  318. I was hoping for a video version of the Lennox hitchens debate. If it ever comes out please post it. I’m sure it may, they typically take a few days. Although I have zero interest in reading blog excerpts on the debate.

    I’ve seen Hitchens in some debates, excel far beyond my expectations (Like one he did in the freedom fest). In others, like the most recent one with Dinesh and Prager, he seemed very lazy. It probably depends on how much alcohol he has consumed before hand(and during?).

    I agree, the Dennett debate was awful. Now I’ve read some of Dennett’s books – not breaking the spell though, not interested. The man is a genuine genius, but as you acknowledge, he’s not quick on his feet. He needs a pen, paper, and time to exercise his philosophical mind. He should of debated Dinesh in written format, then sparks might fly.

    I’ve kind of made it a point not to buy a single atheist vs theist book this year. As I said I was a pretty atheistic/agnostic person from childhood. The “new atheist” movement was a little fun for me to read, because as Dawkins says it proverbially made it okay for me to come out of the closet. I was just happy to see that other people had the same thoughts I had, and I wasn’t “alone.” Although even when I am alone in an argument, it doesn’t deter me 😉

    No I don’t use any my space or face books.

  319. i hope i get more time to engage on some things i have been thinking about

  320. i hope i get more time to engage on some things i have been thinking about

  321. or you could default to deism 😉

  322. or you could default to deism 😉

  323. meet you half way son!

  324. meet you half way son!

  325. chris let me ask you..

    so what happened during hitlers atrocities can all be attributed to neurons firing off? of course youd see neurons firing off because thats a byproduct of whats happening. and as you said, youd see them regardless of the action or thought taking place. therefore, neurons cannot tell me a thing about right and wrong. you give those processes WAY too much credit man.

    what my point to you is…lets say you are making a case about the atrocities of hitler to someone that belongs to the third reich, or to someone who does not care and obviously does NOT get it. well, how would you MAKE them get it? on what “material” basis would you have to say that what they did was evil…and what are you referencing to tell them this? the complete idiots guide to neuron miss-firings? and more-over, id also like for you to provide the “material” basis that a court of law or a war crimes tribunal would need to prosecute this. please, prove to me by your materialism, that what hitler did was wrong.

    you cant. and i think that deep down, you know that its 100% b.s. you wouldnt have to reference anything because its all intuitive. and dont even begin to tell me that all of my neurons are telling me this. then if that is the case, then neurons are also telling scientists to go study quantum mechanics and astrophysics..what on earth does that have to do with survival of the fittest? thats a fairy tale chris.

    and that is why theism is so much more well rounded for what we experience as a description of reality then materialism will ever be. there is too much going on in reality then its mere mechanics, which seems to be the only thing that materialism can address. after that it is grossly lacking as an explanation…mostly because it wears blinders.

  326. chris let me ask you..

    so what happened during hitlers atrocities can all be attributed to neurons firing off? of course youd see neurons firing off because thats a byproduct of whats happening. and as you said, youd see them regardless of the action or thought taking place. therefore, neurons cannot tell me a thing about right and wrong. you give those processes WAY too much credit man.

    what my point to you is…lets say you are making a case about the atrocities of hitler to someone that belongs to the third reich, or to someone who does not care and obviously does NOT get it. well, how would you MAKE them get it? on what “material” basis would you have to say that what they did was evil…and what are you referencing to tell them this? the complete idiots guide to neuron miss-firings? and more-over, id also like for you to provide the “material” basis that a court of law or a war crimes tribunal would need to prosecute this. please, prove to me by your materialism, that what hitler did was wrong.

    you cant. and i think that deep down, you know that its 100% b.s. you wouldnt have to reference anything because its all intuitive. and dont even begin to tell me that all of my neurons are telling me this. then if that is the case, then neurons are also telling scientists to go study quantum mechanics and astrophysics..what on earth does that have to do with survival of the fittest? thats a fairy tale chris.

    and that is why theism is so much more well rounded for what we experience as a description of reality then materialism will ever be. there is too much going on in reality then its mere mechanics, which seems to be the only thing that materialism can address. after that it is grossly lacking as an explanation…mostly because it wears blinders.

  327. this has got to be the silliest thing I’ve ever read ;). I’m rushing out the door to class though, I may not be able to reply until tomorrow morning or late tonight.

  328. this has got to be the silliest thing I’ve ever read ;). I’m rushing out the door to class though, I may not be able to reply until tomorrow morning or late tonight.

  329. Well I see you’re playing the same trite game as always. Implying there is “something more” without ever explaining what that is. Great, keep living in a universe filled with “magic” while claiming it’s a coherent, rational, deterministic cosmos.

    “so what happened during hitlers atrocities can all be attributed to neurons firing off?”

    This is a very broad and frankly ignorant statement. I mean neurons may fire for him to “drop bomb” when he’s over London, but obviously the atrocity comes from the bomb, and the subsequent destruction is causes.
    “ of course youd see neurons firing off because thats a byproduct of whats happening.”
    Fundamentally wrong. The by product is the dropped bomb, the neurons fired first.

    I see within your first paragraph you try to pull some kind of bait and switch, and I’m not falling for it. You’re opening sentence ask if atrocities can be credit to Hitler’s brain. The answer is obviously yes, plenty of people are born “sociopathic,” “mentally retarded,” “aspbergers,” or “schizophrenic.” These are conditions that can be viewed in an MRI, and their particular personality can be narrowed to which parts of the brain are more or less active. In Hitler’s case, I don’t know his brian structure, but it’s no leap to say it’s different. Anyway you then close the paragraph with

    “ and as you said, youd see them regardless of the action or thought taking place. therefore, neurons cannot tell me a thing about right and wrong. you give those processes WAY too much credit man. “

    Well that’s an entirely different question, right from wrong, isn’t it? Let’s continue with part one. If you’re seeing Hitler’s brain doesn’t account for Hitler’s decision making, what does? Seriously, I’m cursing for emphasis here, and not anger – I’ve asked you this mother fucking question over five times now. Put up, or please, shut up. I’d love to know how Yahweh helps account for this, because with his omniscience, he’s quite the malevolent jerk to allow for Hitler to exist in the first place.

    Alright I see your second paragraph covers your erroneous conclusion from your first. How would I personally make a case? I would simply say, although Hitler has some kind of biased that all Jews are evil, we shouldn’t take the stereotype of some, to apply to every individual. There are plenty of wicked/benevolent blacks, whites, atheist, christians, pagans, etc. Now since the Jews aren’t consenting to their death, and their end of life is being forced upon them, based on an erroneous stereotype, that is where I would say what he did was “wrong.” I always follow the philosophy that if you’re going to do something to someone, have consent. Also, mitigate pain at all cost. Because I’ve experienced pain, I’m aware that it isn’t pleasant, and therefore, I try not to pass it on to others. Your court of law thing is a fine analogy. Our laws are not seriously based on Yahwehs teachings. After all we don’t stone deflowered women on their honeymoon, and shellfish is legal, as in sodomy, and abortion. Most of our laws are argued in a very secular fashion, we don’t live in a theocracy. Now of course the Nazis and the Japanese were tried in the Nuremberg trials, and they were condemned with various sentences pending secular verdicts. For instance we executed roughly 900 Japanese for torturing US troops. Why would we do this? Because we all know pain sucks, and we don’t want to be tortured. The pain one feels during torture is again material, and can be entirely elucidated through a material explanation.

    Now if you really think the bible would of stopped Hitler, that’s absurd. He had the Vatican’s consent, and often quoted scripture, and referred to Christ, and sometimes “providence” as his guiding light(If he was actually a Christian though I doubt it, but there is plenty of private talks where he refers to Providences plan for him, so he was at the very least, a deist). The bible has been used for good and bad, so clearly, since Christians haven’t reached a consummated definition that ALL christians agree on, you can’t really say the bible is the answer, because it isn’t.

    If all your neurons aren’t telling you this, what is? I ask again, and again, and again. You can type exactly what you’re typing under an MRI, and we will have our answer, there is no ghost in the machine.

    Now you ask why do scientist do science, it isn’t beneficial for survival. In once sense it is, I mean studying the subatomic allows for breakthroughs in chemistry which allows for breakthroughs in medicine. Studying the rotation of planets does allow for predictions in weather patterns and seasons, which can augment agriculture (which is why astronomy was first a study) Regardless, the question I really see here is “Why do humans spend their time doing pointless creative things, like music, dance, etc.” Well before I address humans, I want to point out, almost all animals “kill time.” For instance my dog spends roughly 1-2 hours a day wrestling with my other dog. This isn’t beneficial, they are just killing time. We all live in a 24 hour day, and we don’t need 24 hours to acquire sustenance to live. My dog also spends another hour a day trying, and mostly succeeding, in getting me to rub her belly at night. This isn’t beneficial to anything, but I’m sure it feels good.

    If you put an elephant next to a canvas with paint, surprisingly, it will paint a picture. If you give a monkey a drum set, he will play it. If a lion gives birth to kids, they will wrestle all throughout life. As I said, we all have 24 hours in a day, but we don’t all need all 24. So it’s perfectly rational for us to of evolved the ability to “kill time.” Especially since it appears countless animals do as well. Perhaps some of it is a “by product” of earlier evolution like our tonsils, tail bone, appendix, etc. If you say something more, I ask what?

    Hahahahahha and now the unfounded, untenable, and frankly un argued conclusion. That is why theism is best? Wtf are you talking about? None of what you said was argued with theism. You just asked me a couple grade school science questions, that I answered and said vuala! Yahweh is the cause of the cosmos!

    How have you reached the conclusions that because what Hitler did was wrong, and because John Doe does quantum physics in his spare time, Yahweh created the cosmos? This is a superfluous explanation. Materialism has, and continues to account for everything, and you’re running out of gaps to stuff Yahweh into.

    “ there is too much going on in reality then its mere mechanics”
    And yet earlier you said all of reality was explain by it rational and coherent mechanics. Now you imply more. I ask you AGAIN, what the cunt licking bitch ass is it?

  330. Well I see you’re playing the same trite game as always. Implying there is “something more” without ever explaining what that is. Great, keep living in a universe filled with “magic” while claiming it’s a coherent, rational, deterministic cosmos.

    “so what happened during hitlers atrocities can all be attributed to neurons firing off?”

    This is a very broad and frankly ignorant statement. I mean neurons may fire for him to “drop bomb” when he’s over London, but obviously the atrocity comes from the bomb, and the subsequent destruction is causes.
    “ of course youd see neurons firing off because thats a byproduct of whats happening.”
    Fundamentally wrong. The by product is the dropped bomb, the neurons fired first.

    I see within your first paragraph you try to pull some kind of bait and switch, and I’m not falling for it. You’re opening sentence ask if atrocities can be credit to Hitler’s brain. The answer is obviously yes, plenty of people are born “sociopathic,” “mentally retarded,” “aspbergers,” or “schizophrenic.” These are conditions that can be viewed in an MRI, and their particular personality can be narrowed to which parts of the brain are more or less active. In Hitler’s case, I don’t know his brian structure, but it’s no leap to say it’s different. Anyway you then close the paragraph with

    “ and as you said, youd see them regardless of the action or thought taking place. therefore, neurons cannot tell me a thing about right and wrong. you give those processes WAY too much credit man. “

    Well that’s an entirely different question, right from wrong, isn’t it? Let’s continue with part one. If you’re seeing Hitler’s brain doesn’t account for Hitler’s decision making, what does? Seriously, I’m cursing for emphasis here, and not anger – I’ve asked you this mother fucking question over five times now. Put up, or please, shut up. I’d love to know how Yahweh helps account for this, because with his omniscience, he’s quite the malevolent jerk to allow for Hitler to exist in the first place.

    Alright I see your second paragraph covers your erroneous conclusion from your first. How would I personally make a case? I would simply say, although Hitler has some kind of biased that all Jews are evil, we shouldn’t take the stereotype of some, to apply to every individual. There are plenty of wicked/benevolent blacks, whites, atheist, christians, pagans, etc. Now since the Jews aren’t consenting to their death, and their end of life is being forced upon them, based on an erroneous stereotype, that is where I would say what he did was “wrong.” I always follow the philosophy that if you’re going to do something to someone, have consent. Also, mitigate pain at all cost. Because I’ve experienced pain, I’m aware that it isn’t pleasant, and therefore, I try not to pass it on to others. Your court of law thing is a fine analogy. Our laws are not seriously based on Yahwehs teachings. After all we don’t stone deflowered women on their honeymoon, and shellfish is legal, as in sodomy, and abortion. Most of our laws are argued in a very secular fashion, we don’t live in a theocracy. Now of course the Nazis and the Japanese were tried in the Nuremberg trials, and they were condemned with various sentences pending secular verdicts. For instance we executed roughly 900 Japanese for torturing US troops. Why would we do this? Because we all know pain sucks, and we don’t want to be tortured. The pain one feels during torture is again material, and can be entirely elucidated through a material explanation.

    Now if you really think the bible would of stopped Hitler, that’s absurd. He had the Vatican’s consent, and often quoted scripture, and referred to Christ, and sometimes “providence” as his guiding light(If he was actually a Christian though I doubt it, but there is plenty of private talks where he refers to Providences plan for him, so he was at the very least, a deist). The bible has been used for good and bad, so clearly, since Christians haven’t reached a consummated definition that ALL christians agree on, you can’t really say the bible is the answer, because it isn’t.

    If all your neurons aren’t telling you this, what is? I ask again, and again, and again. You can type exactly what you’re typing under an MRI, and we will have our answer, there is no ghost in the machine.

    Now you ask why do scientist do science, it isn’t beneficial for survival. In once sense it is, I mean studying the subatomic allows for breakthroughs in chemistry which allows for breakthroughs in medicine. Studying the rotation of planets does allow for predictions in weather patterns and seasons, which can augment agriculture (which is why astronomy was first a study) Regardless, the question I really see here is “Why do humans spend their time doing pointless creative things, like music, dance, etc.” Well before I address humans, I want to point out, almost all animals “kill time.” For instance my dog spends roughly 1-2 hours a day wrestling with my other dog. This isn’t beneficial, they are just killing time. We all live in a 24 hour day, and we don’t need 24 hours to acquire sustenance to live. My dog also spends another hour a day trying, and mostly succeeding, in getting me to rub her belly at night. This isn’t beneficial to anything, but I’m sure it feels good.

    If you put an elephant next to a canvas with paint, surprisingly, it will paint a picture. If you give a monkey a drum set, he will play it. If a lion gives birth to kids, they will wrestle all throughout life. As I said, we all have 24 hours in a day, but we don’t all need all 24. So it’s perfectly rational for us to of evolved the ability to “kill time.” Especially since it appears countless animals do as well. Perhaps some of it is a “by product” of earlier evolution like our tonsils, tail bone, appendix, etc. If you say something more, I ask what?

    Hahahahahha and now the unfounded, untenable, and frankly un argued conclusion. That is why theism is best? Wtf are you talking about? None of what you said was argued with theism. You just asked me a couple grade school science questions, that I answered and said vuala! Yahweh is the cause of the cosmos!

    How have you reached the conclusions that because what Hitler did was wrong, and because John Doe does quantum physics in his spare time, Yahweh created the cosmos? This is a superfluous explanation. Materialism has, and continues to account for everything, and you’re running out of gaps to stuff Yahweh into.

    “ there is too much going on in reality then its mere mechanics”
    And yet earlier you said all of reality was explain by it rational and coherent mechanics. Now you imply more. I ask you AGAIN, what the cunt licking bitch ass is it?

  331. You should enjoy this article:
    “Memory is entirely material”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/science/05brain.html?hp

  332. You should enjoy this article:
    “Memory is entirely material”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/science/05brain.html?hp

  333. very soon i will do my best to show you what the C.L.B.A. it is

    word is bond son

    so i wonder, if we zoom in super close to those memory cells, will we see the actual memories being shown on like a projector or something?

    until then let this tie you over

  334. very soon i will do my best to show you what the C.L.B.A. it is

    word is bond son

    so i wonder, if we zoom in super close to those memory cells, will we see the actual memories being shown on like a projector or something?

    until then let this tie you over

  335. uhm no you won’t see projector memories. On that same token when you take LSD and the walls turn purple, your pupils don’t. Chemical reactions baby.

    So you again won’t tell me what something more is…such a waste.

    LOL is this song a joke? this has got to be satire right….puppets! you’re quite right, it’s very childish to believe santa is looking out for you.

  336. uhm no you won’t see projector memories. On that same token when you take LSD and the walls turn purple, your pupils don’t. Chemical reactions baby.

    So you again won’t tell me what something more is…such a waste.

    LOL is this song a joke? this has got to be satire right….puppets! you’re quite right, it’s very childish to believe santa is looking out for you.

  337. i really dont think you shouldve posted that under the guise that its conclusive when half of the people interviewed feel that its definitely not.

    thats not good materialism

    though, there was one thing i noticed in a quote that you should consider:

    “says Australian neuroethicist Neil Levy of the University of Melbourne by e-mail. “It is only rarely that we learn something interesting about the mind, rather than the brain, from fMRI.”

    notice that there is a difference between the brain and the mind. which you dont seem to think that there is. this is a perfect example of why you cannot attribute EVERYTHING hitler did to his “brain”. and this also suggests mind over matter, which in fact a court of law presupposes. otherwise how on earth could they prosecute someone if its their brains fault? and how often does the insanity defense work? decision making is done in the mind not in the brain, its a conscious effort, i dont care what you say.

    anyways, im going to have a reply for you on the other stuff, ive just been busy.

  338. i really dont think you shouldve posted that under the guise that its conclusive when half of the people interviewed feel that its definitely not.

    thats not good materialism

    though, there was one thing i noticed in a quote that you should consider:

    “says Australian neuroethicist Neil Levy of the University of Melbourne by e-mail. “It is only rarely that we learn something interesting about the mind, rather than the brain, from fMRI.”

    notice that there is a difference between the brain and the mind. which you dont seem to think that there is. this is a perfect example of why you cannot attribute EVERYTHING hitler did to his “brain”. and this also suggests mind over matter, which in fact a court of law presupposes. otherwise how on earth could they prosecute someone if its their brains fault? and how often does the insanity defense work? decision making is done in the mind not in the brain, its a conscious effort, i dont care what you say.

    anyways, im going to have a reply for you on the other stuff, ive just been busy.

  339. yeah it’s a very explicit way of reinforcing what one is talking about. Obviously I say “I saw the rainbow” not “my eye balls retained the light given off by the specific spectrum of said rainbow.” Our eyes create the effect of sight, and our brain creates the effect of mind. But there isn’t anything supernatural here. Just as if you take a saw to the portion of my brain that governs sight, even if I retain my eye balls I’ll still be blind. And of course the brain contains a specific section for memory of faces, memory of sounds, memory of smell etc. All of which are documented, and fall apart when damaged.

    I just have absolutely no idea what you imply by “something more.” It’s not as if mental retards are born with identical brains to einstein and beethoven.

  340. yeah it’s a very explicit way of reinforcing what one is talking about. Obviously I say “I saw the rainbow” not “my eye balls retained the light given off by the specific spectrum of said rainbow.” Our eyes create the effect of sight, and our brain creates the effect of mind. But there isn’t anything supernatural here. Just as if you take a saw to the portion of my brain that governs sight, even if I retain my eye balls I’ll still be blind. And of course the brain contains a specific section for memory of faces, memory of sounds, memory of smell etc. All of which are documented, and fall apart when damaged.

    I just have absolutely no idea what you imply by “something more.” It’s not as if mental retards are born with identical brains to einstein and beethoven.

  341. the human mind is a paradox. thats why what you are telling me is true and yet it isnt the whole picture. much like light being a particle and ALSO a wave. i just dont think that we can totally get our minds around how it works, though science is trying to understand it. i 100% agree with you that when those things happen to the brain you get those results. but again..its still not all that simple..it isnt my neurons that make me do anything.it is ME that is making me do it…my mind/ conscious self has control over what MY decision making is(unless i am insane) my brain has control over my subconscious and also body regulation…. and that without one conscious thought on my part. did your neurons make you go to college? did donnys neurons make him decide to quit porn? and you can also ask: did you consciously make your heart beat or your lungs expand?

    in some very important regards, mind IS over matter.

  342. the human mind is a paradox. thats why what you are telling me is true and yet it isnt the whole picture. much like light being a particle and ALSO a wave. i just dont think that we can totally get our minds around how it works, though science is trying to understand it. i 100% agree with you that when those things happen to the brain you get those results. but again..its still not all that simple..it isnt my neurons that make me do anything.it is ME that is making me do it…my mind/ conscious self has control over what MY decision making is(unless i am insane) my brain has control over my subconscious and also body regulation…. and that without one conscious thought on my part. did your neurons make you go to college? did donnys neurons make him decide to quit porn? and you can also ask: did you consciously make your heart beat or your lungs expand?

    in some very important regards, mind IS over matter.

  343. (No I don’t make my heart beat – if I sit here now and pray as hard as I can for it to stop, it will keep going)

    Actually most people are not aware of their subconscious… that’s why it’s called sub 😉

    Sure we haven’t entirely explained how the mind brain connection works. Just like I pointed out, even now, if we dissected your eye – we could be certain it was a functioning eye, but even then, none of us could be 100% certain you literally saw the world identical to how I see it for instance. Same if we sliced off your ear. Regardless none of this changes the fact that these operations run just fine w/ regular matter. The mind, like everything else, grows with age. None of us remember being 1-3. At most I have a fleeting memory of me in a bathtub, but for all I know it could be contrived. Obviously as I aged my mind became more powerful, and as I grow older it will slowly fall apart. This really kills the entire notion of a ghost in the machine, since the mind, a product of the brain, grows, and breaks in perfect harmony with the brain(just like sight, hearing, smell, etc).

    I agree we don’t entirely understand every last iota of the neural workings of the brain, but there is no reason anymore to doubt that it isn’t a material process. I don’t understand why this terrifies you? If you were 100% certain it was a ghost in the machine(based off sound empirical testing that you just argued is a fantastic part of the universe), it wouldn’t change the sincerity of your love, or your earnest desire to goto college. But if you know it’s hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, etc, suddenly the world isn’t sincere enough for you? How come? And keep in mind, just because you’re scared of the truth, doesn’t change the truth. I wish the Iraq war wasn’t going on…but that doesn’t change the fact that it is.

    Mind is a product of matter, not “over it.” If it was over it, brain damage, aging, flus, drugs, alcohol, traumatic sights, brain cancer, syphilis, concussions, a stroke etc, wouldn’t change your “mind.” Yet after my Grandma had a stroke for instance, she was a incoherent invalid until she died. No soul in that scenario….

  344. (No I don’t make my heart beat – if I sit here now and pray as hard as I can for it to stop, it will keep going)

    Actually most people are not aware of their subconscious… that’s why it’s called sub 😉

    Sure we haven’t entirely explained how the mind brain connection works. Just like I pointed out, even now, if we dissected your eye – we could be certain it was a functioning eye, but even then, none of us could be 100% certain you literally saw the world identical to how I see it for instance. Same if we sliced off your ear. Regardless none of this changes the fact that these operations run just fine w/ regular matter. The mind, like everything else, grows with age. None of us remember being 1-3. At most I have a fleeting memory of me in a bathtub, but for all I know it could be contrived. Obviously as I aged my mind became more powerful, and as I grow older it will slowly fall apart. This really kills the entire notion of a ghost in the machine, since the mind, a product of the brain, grows, and breaks in perfect harmony with the brain(just like sight, hearing, smell, etc).

    I agree we don’t entirely understand every last iota of the neural workings of the brain, but there is no reason anymore to doubt that it isn’t a material process. I don’t understand why this terrifies you? If you were 100% certain it was a ghost in the machine(based off sound empirical testing that you just argued is a fantastic part of the universe), it wouldn’t change the sincerity of your love, or your earnest desire to goto college. But if you know it’s hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, etc, suddenly the world isn’t sincere enough for you? How come? And keep in mind, just because you’re scared of the truth, doesn’t change the truth. I wish the Iraq war wasn’t going on…but that doesn’t change the fact that it is.

    Mind is a product of matter, not “over it.” If it was over it, brain damage, aging, flus, drugs, alcohol, traumatic sights, brain cancer, syphilis, concussions, a stroke etc, wouldn’t change your “mind.” Yet after my Grandma had a stroke for instance, she was a incoherent invalid until she died. No soul in that scenario….

  345. i havent forgotten chris!!!

  346. i havent forgotten chris!!!

  347. recanted your belief in yahweh for deism yet? It’s the most intellectually honest thing to do…

  348. recanted your belief in yahweh for deism yet? It’s the most intellectually honest thing to do…

  349. im fixing to make my pimp hand strong, you know not to talk to me like that trick

  350. im fixing to make my pimp hand strong, you know not to talk to me like that trick

  351. just kidding

    but in all seriousness let me go ask my neurons what they think about that

    they have the final word

  352. just kidding

    but in all seriousness let me go ask my neurons what they think about that

    they have the final word

  353. Silly misunderstanding still (Have you taken any science courses in college? Even psychology 101 goes over this with ample evidence). Your neurons are the faculties that allow you to ask and think, so you can’t ask them anything. Just like you can’t “look at your eyes looking.” or “hear your ears hearing.” If you think you’re separate from your brain, I again ask you to prove it. Why is it that brain damage, aging, flus, drugs, alcohol, traumatic sights, brain cancer, syphilis, concussions, a stroke, tumors, etc change your personality.

  354. Silly misunderstanding still (Have you taken any science courses in college? Even psychology 101 goes over this with ample evidence). Your neurons are the faculties that allow you to ask and think, so you can’t ask them anything. Just like you can’t “look at your eyes looking.” or “hear your ears hearing.” If you think you’re separate from your brain, I again ask you to prove it. Why is it that brain damage, aging, flus, drugs, alcohol, traumatic sights, brain cancer, syphilis, concussions, a stroke, tumors, etc change your personality.

  355. chris in the meantime could you sign this petition?

    its a petition to allow BOTH parents to have equal time in their childrens lives post-divorce.

    what ends up happening is one parent gets primary custody while the other one “visits” mostly dads. the amount of time the court allows you usually is around 4 days a month. it is extremely difficult to change this unless your ex is a crackhead.

    but children need both parents, not one. and alot of the times an ex wife will use this position to bully and manipulate the other parent due to child support owed…which ive gone through personally.

    kids need both parents and this petition will help

    thanks so much!!!

  356. chris in the meantime could you sign this petition?

    its a petition to allow BOTH parents to have equal time in their childrens lives post-divorce.

    what ends up happening is one parent gets primary custody while the other one “visits” mostly dads. the amount of time the court allows you usually is around 4 days a month. it is extremely difficult to change this unless your ex is a crackhead.

    but children need both parents, not one. and alot of the times an ex wife will use this position to bully and manipulate the other parent due to child support owed…which ive gone through personally.

    kids need both parents and this petition will help

    thanks so much!!!

  357. ok never mind the link didnt come up

    ill try it again:

  358. ok never mind the link didnt come up

    ill try it again:

  359. hmm

  360. hmm

  361. there has been A LOT of ‘meantime’

    😉

    maybe, if I see the link and get to read it thoroughly I’ll decide. Divorce law is something I’m quite ignorant of, although my attorney is a close family friend and primarily a divorce lawyer…so I could seek her insight.

  362. there has been A LOT of ‘meantime’

    😉

    maybe, if I see the link and get to read it thoroughly I’ll decide. Divorce law is something I’m quite ignorant of, although my attorney is a close family friend and primarily a divorce lawyer…so I could seek her insight.

  363. I’m speaking in Miami 3 times tomorrow (and already twice today) if any Miami peeps wanna come out and say hello:

    http://miamivineyard.com/

  364. I’m speaking in Miami 3 times tomorrow (and already twice today) if any Miami peeps wanna come out and say hello:

    http://miamivineyard.com/

  365. Everything that is psychological is simultaneously physiological. Many psychological things are certainly controllable. Muscles are fired from the nervous system and yet a person can decide exactly when to make them flex. It’s not instinct or the mere response to a stimuli; it’s free will. Just because something can be measured doesn’t mean it wasn’t designed or a neuron fired for a purpose.

    The 2nd of of thermodynamics talks about increasing entropy within a closed system (e.g. the universe). The universe cannot be infinitely old or else we would have infinite disorder. However, mass (or its energy equivalent) is conserved. Did the universe come into existence by some yet to be discovered phenomenon or was there design? Each answer contained strictly to this observation requires exactly the same amount of blind faith. It’s the historical case where Christianity gains its strengths (not 100% proof less God deny us our free will by making Himself as evident as the Sun, but its strengths come more notably outside of science).

    Biological processes support a gradualism style of macroevolution. However, the fossil record supports punctured equilibrium and rapid evolution. Which is it? Either way, the processes necessary to create what we see today are, according to evolutionary theory, random errors in the genetic code (which itself arose randomly). Trillions of errors produce the complex designs we see today including sexual reproduction which would have had to evolve separately (male and female), eyes, bacterial motors, the human brain, the respiratory/circulatory system As for Occam’s razor, this process is far more complex and unlikely than design. If “all else equal”, then we’ll go with the simpler answer. Existence of art implies the existence of an artist much the same as intelligent design implies the existence of a Creator.

    Also, let us assume for a moment that the universe is not flat with respect to space-time (this is what most big bang theorists propose). If space-time is bent to be shaped like a doughnut and the universe is a closed system, then we could have millions of light-years of aging in the outer universe (in Schwartzchild years) in a handful of earth days.

  366. Everything that is psychological is simultaneously physiological. Many psychological things are certainly controllable. Muscles are fired from the nervous system and yet a person can decide exactly when to make them flex. It’s not instinct or the mere response to a stimuli; it’s free will. Just because something can be measured doesn’t mean it wasn’t designed or a neuron fired for a purpose.

    The 2nd of of thermodynamics talks about increasing entropy within a closed system (e.g. the universe). The universe cannot be infinitely old or else we would have infinite disorder. However, mass (or its energy equivalent) is conserved. Did the universe come into existence by some yet to be discovered phenomenon or was there design? Each answer contained strictly to this observation requires exactly the same amount of blind faith. It’s the historical case where Christianity gains its strengths (not 100% proof less God deny us our free will by making Himself as evident as the Sun, but its strengths come more notably outside of science).

    Biological processes support a gradualism style of macroevolution. However, the fossil record supports punctured equilibrium and rapid evolution. Which is it? Either way, the processes necessary to create what we see today are, according to evolutionary theory, random errors in the genetic code (which itself arose randomly). Trillions of errors produce the complex designs we see today including sexual reproduction which would have had to evolve separately (male and female), eyes, bacterial motors, the human brain, the respiratory/circulatory system As for Occam’s razor, this process is far more complex and unlikely than design. If “all else equal”, then we’ll go with the simpler answer. Existence of art implies the existence of an artist much the same as intelligent design implies the existence of a Creator.

    Also, let us assume for a moment that the universe is not flat with respect to space-time (this is what most big bang theorists propose). If space-time is bent to be shaped like a doughnut and the universe is a closed system, then we could have millions of light-years of aging in the outer universe (in Schwartzchild years) in a handful of earth days.

  367. I didn’t complete my point about thermodynamics. Basically, it would require a violation of the rule to get what we see today (mass/energy conserved but there’s still order). Everything that has a beginning has a cause. We get back to an uncaused cause. What is it? Is the violation of the rule natural or not? Both answers require the same amount of blind faith when contained to this specific question.

    Also, I won’t be fooled by “time didn’t exist ‘before the universe'” Even if you get it down to moving particles that somehow spontaneously came into existance, time is there even when it’s not measurable. We still have the “problem” of an uncaused cause that violates the 2nd law.

  368. I didn’t complete my point about thermodynamics. Basically, it would require a violation of the rule to get what we see today (mass/energy conserved but there’s still order). Everything that has a beginning has a cause. We get back to an uncaused cause. What is it? Is the violation of the rule natural or not? Both answers require the same amount of blind faith when contained to this specific question.

    Also, I won’t be fooled by “time didn’t exist ‘before the universe'” Even if you get it down to moving particles that somehow spontaneously came into existance, time is there even when it’s not measurable. We still have the “problem” of an uncaused cause that violates the 2nd law.

  369. oh lord, more of these spurious claims from answersingenesis.com

    Do I seriously have to waste my time with these canards?

    I have to ask, Jeremy, did John send you here?

    there is no violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, HIGH SCHOOL biology text books go into this just fine. I’d like to know if you people have even taken a science course in a secular institution, before I start repeating basic principles from my teenage years.

  370. oh lord, more of these spurious claims from answersingenesis.com

    Do I seriously have to waste my time with these canards?

    I have to ask, Jeremy, did John send you here?

    there is no violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, HIGH SCHOOL biology text books go into this just fine. I’d like to know if you people have even taken a science course in a secular institution, before I start repeating basic principles from my teenage years.

  371. Chris,

    Please allow me to repeat a basic principle from my teenage years as well. Ad hominum (of myself or just becuase another entity you don’t like made the claim) does not replace the question. In fact, an ad hominum attack is usually just used as a last resort when all else has failed. That hasn’t happened now, has it? I’d say “answer the question”, but you know as well as I do that the question doesn’t have an answer that we can find or measure yet. My post was designed to raise more questions than answers.

    Your ad hominum attack on me fails. I’ve read many a biological sciences and physical sciences text (admittedly at the undergraduate level, so perhaps your graduate education in science can enlighten me… actually, it’s pretty clear from what you’ve written that you probably have about the same background I do in this — a firm grasp but still a layperson). An education does not have to be from a secular institution to be valid. I have medical doctor friends who did their undergraduate at Christian schools and this gave them the science foundation to become MDs. As for me, I’ve taken biological and physical sciences from from the University of Minnesota (as secular as they come and in terms of the quality of science taught, it’s one of the top 3 research institutions in the world and it’s the folks doing the research who also teach the classes). With ~50,000 students there is no way to say that all are understanding the material, so the institution only means so much, but it’s something you’re overly concerned with so I brought it up. As for where I stood there, I graduated summa cum ladue (3.9 GPA). I’m more of a labor markets / compensation person, but I have a firm grasp of the basics in science. That is, I have enough of a grasp to know that my last post raises more questions than answers; I’m asking questions that science doesn’t have the answer to. Science tries to think about natural and observable things, and we go back enough to turn it into a philosophical question rather than a scientific one.

    At a minimum, you should see that Ad hominum almost always fails. A person smart enough to think about bent space time and how the 2nd law relates to the conservation of mass at the origins probably has more than a cursory high school understanding of biology (which, by the way, is outside the scope of thermodynamics…).

    Now that I look at your post again, maybe you have the same confusion on the point that my evolutionary biology professor did (it would explain why you’re bringing up a biology book with respect to the 2nd law). On the first day of class, he outlined his case against creationism. He used the 2nd law argument confined to Earth which is not a closed system and drove the argument from there. However, the universe probably is a closed system. Since I’ve only heard creationists talk about the 2nd law problem with respect to the cosmic origins, I asked him about how it applies to to that. He said time did not exist “before” the big bang, so it was a question outside the scope of science. I was disappointed in the answer, but he was absolutely right. Back to the question:

    Mass/energy is conserved. Therefore, in a closed universe, without violating the laws, it has always existed in its present quantity. The 2nd law requires increasing entropy, but if mass/energy has always existed, then we’d expect to see infinite disorder. We see some level of order.

    I can think of at least three ways to explain this:
    1. An uncaused cause
    2. An exception to the law (none has been found, but that doesn’t mean it’s not out — look at the history behind atomic theory to see that science is constantly changing; what we know now could be turned on its head)
    3. A yet to be discovered property that could account for it

    All of these require some degree of blind faith to accept. That’s my point. I would say it takes more faith to accept only natural explanations, but that’s a judgment call. That’s where looking at the historical/philosophical case for Christ is something more divisive.

  372. Chris,

    Please allow me to repeat a basic principle from my teenage years as well. Ad hominum (of myself or just becuase another entity you don’t like made the claim) does not replace the question. In fact, an ad hominum attack is usually just used as a last resort when all else has failed. That hasn’t happened now, has it? I’d say “answer the question”, but you know as well as I do that the question doesn’t have an answer that we can find or measure yet. My post was designed to raise more questions than answers.

    Your ad hominum attack on me fails. I’ve read many a biological sciences and physical sciences text (admittedly at the undergraduate level, so perhaps your graduate education in science can enlighten me… actually, it’s pretty clear from what you’ve written that you probably have about the same background I do in this — a firm grasp but still a layperson). An education does not have to be from a secular institution to be valid. I have medical doctor friends who did their undergraduate at Christian schools and this gave them the science foundation to become MDs. As for me, I’ve taken biological and physical sciences from from the University of Minnesota (as secular as they come and in terms of the quality of science taught, it’s one of the top 3 research institutions in the world and it’s the folks doing the research who also teach the classes). With ~50,000 students there is no way to say that all are understanding the material, so the institution only means so much, but it’s something you’re overly concerned with so I brought it up. As for where I stood there, I graduated summa cum ladue (3.9 GPA). I’m more of a labor markets / compensation person, but I have a firm grasp of the basics in science. That is, I have enough of a grasp to know that my last post raises more questions than answers; I’m asking questions that science doesn’t have the answer to. Science tries to think about natural and observable things, and we go back enough to turn it into a philosophical question rather than a scientific one.

    At a minimum, you should see that Ad hominum almost always fails. A person smart enough to think about bent space time and how the 2nd law relates to the conservation of mass at the origins probably has more than a cursory high school understanding of biology (which, by the way, is outside the scope of thermodynamics…).

    Now that I look at your post again, maybe you have the same confusion on the point that my evolutionary biology professor did (it would explain why you’re bringing up a biology book with respect to the 2nd law). On the first day of class, he outlined his case against creationism. He used the 2nd law argument confined to Earth which is not a closed system and drove the argument from there. However, the universe probably is a closed system. Since I’ve only heard creationists talk about the 2nd law problem with respect to the cosmic origins, I asked him about how it applies to to that. He said time did not exist “before” the big bang, so it was a question outside the scope of science. I was disappointed in the answer, but he was absolutely right. Back to the question:

    Mass/energy is conserved. Therefore, in a closed universe, without violating the laws, it has always existed in its present quantity. The 2nd law requires increasing entropy, but if mass/energy has always existed, then we’d expect to see infinite disorder. We see some level of order.

    I can think of at least three ways to explain this:
    1. An uncaused cause
    2. An exception to the law (none has been found, but that doesn’t mean it’s not out — look at the history behind atomic theory to see that science is constantly changing; what we know now could be turned on its head)
    3. A yet to be discovered property that could account for it

    All of these require some degree of blind faith to accept. That’s my point. I would say it takes more faith to accept only natural explanations, but that’s a judgment call. That’s where looking at the historical/philosophical case for Christ is something more divisive.

  373. First off, I didn’t do any ad hominem. That would be a direct insult to you, which I don’t believe I did – so quite a waste of time.

    Look i’ll gladly address each of your points, however I’d like to talk to John first – so we can stay on topic. John and I were having a conversation, that started about “Is Dawkins an Atheist,” and it started to diverge into some other categories, and now I haven’t heard back from him in several days. If John is done talking to me, then I will gladly move on to you. If John isn’t done, at the very least I’d want to move our discussion to some new thread, so as to avoid confusion. I’m the only non-theist here, and gang bang attacks can be meddlesome.

    Just to prevent repetition though I suggest you read this thread through. I’ve explained countless times my position on the “cause” of the cosmos. And it’s quite cumbersome to go over it again, when I’ve address your claim on it, numerous times here.

    So john, the ball is in your court
    -Chris

  374. First off, I didn’t do any ad hominem. That would be a direct insult to you, which I don’t believe I did – so quite a waste of time.

    Look i’ll gladly address each of your points, however I’d like to talk to John first – so we can stay on topic. John and I were having a conversation, that started about “Is Dawkins an Atheist,” and it started to diverge into some other categories, and now I haven’t heard back from him in several days. If John is done talking to me, then I will gladly move on to you. If John isn’t done, at the very least I’d want to move our discussion to some new thread, so as to avoid confusion. I’m the only non-theist here, and gang bang attacks can be meddlesome.

    Just to prevent repetition though I suggest you read this thread through. I’ve explained countless times my position on the “cause” of the cosmos. And it’s quite cumbersome to go over it again, when I’ve address your claim on it, numerous times here.

    So john, the ball is in your court
    -Chris

  375. chis, ill write you tonight. alot going on

    thanks for the patience!

    john c

    dude, come out to the john lennox creationist think tank party in tampa nov 1st.
    its free and they reserve seats for you and the lady organizing it said i can reserve more if youd like. me and a friend are going.

    the topic for the night is that “dinosaurs were put here by satan”

    its going to be a real treat!

    j/k but you should come out since its nearby

  376. chis, ill write you tonight. alot going on

    thanks for the patience!

    john c

    dude, come out to the john lennox creationist think tank party in tampa nov 1st.
    its free and they reserve seats for you and the lady organizing it said i can reserve more if youd like. me and a friend are going.

    the topic for the night is that “dinosaurs were put here by satan”

    its going to be a real treat!

    j/k but you should come out since its nearby

  377. ok i finally have time to address you and this will be the last time i am able..its been really busy for me and theres only so many times i can go over my view to someone who may or may not be interested in listening. i hope to at least shed some kind of light to my stance and maybe privately you can take this explanation to heart in some kind of way.

    well i already addressed you with the hitler scenario. you want me to attribute hitlers deeds to his brain but i already told you that i attribute what hitler did to his mind, where all conscious decision making takes place. chris, we are not zombies…our philosophical and daily decisions are not being made unbeknownst to us, for us, in our subconscious. at some point hitler contemplated what he was doing, and knew. bad decision upon bad decision brought him to where he was. and for Gods sake, the guy attended nazi board room meetings so i highly doubt he was insane.

    again i want to stress to you that every court of law presupposes that we operate with mind over matter and that WE are in control of our actions. insanity defenses hardly if ever work and the burden of proof would be on you to show that you were NOT in control. now when i say mind over matter i do not mean that we are able to fly if we contemplate flying hard enough or that we can levitate dump trucks. what i mean is that for the most part our minds or “selves” are in control of the actions we perform and that is where the buck stops. most of us are not invalids chris.

    now this brings me to your next point about you down playing, or over-emphasizing the mind being a strictly physical construct, nothing more nothing less. well, if thats the case then why can they not find the mind or the “seat of consciousness” in the brain? i think you take the deceptively safe route on this one and think that since the mind emerges from the brain (subject to dispute in some circles) that is all there is to it. yes, its true that the mind requires the brain to function but the mind itself emerges and becomes a complete seperate entity. the mind itself is not the brain nor can they locate it, much less put it under a microscope. there are many differing camps and lines of thought on this topic but nothing is conclusive. but it certainly is not outside of the scope of the subject matter to say that the mind may actually be metaphysical. there are plenty of people who feel that it is. im sure your views rest with daniel dennett and his group. but id like to point out that in much the same way in saying that the mind may emerge from physical properties and still not be physical…you can also say the same thing about gravity. gravity is not matter but yet gravity emerges from matter. the same with protons. protons are not charge but yet charge emerges from protons. i think that is a good comparison in laymans terms.

    so the big question, does this mean that mind is not physical? well, currently noone knows just what the mind is or even how to define it. so you want me to prove to you that the mind is more? well science cant even FIND the mind chris, so theres not much more i can say about that. and dont even begin to tell me that MRI or fMRI images SHOW the mind. they do not

    so im beginning to wonder though, if you feel that ANYTHING is metaphysical or transcendent at all. perhaps you have a problem with that idea. even christopher hitchens believes in transcendence. if thats the case you should really check yourself and see if youre being intellectually honest with what actually happens in the reality we exist in. we may not agree on what the first cause is but by definition the first cause has got to be out of space, time, matter, and energy as we know it since it CAUSED all of that. im sure you can agree with that. therefore it is transcendent and you believe in the most basic of transcendent ideas.

    i also wanted to see if you agree with this statement:

    “the best things in life are not things”

    is this true?

    now i take it that you believe in scientific fact. but i also want to know if you feel that the universe presents such a thing as moral fact. for instance, do you feel that it is a moral fact that hitler killing 12 million people was wrong…….. agree?

    now i also want you to think about this:
    imagine right after the big bang when all of the early universe material is being hurled through space to go on to from stars, planets, galaxies etc etc. somewhere in all of that material eventually it would be determined that hitler or anyone who kills 12 million people would be wrong, or that humans should be given human rights and lying is bad.

    chris, was morality determined in the blueprint of the cosmos or do you at least feel that the all along, the universe had the potential to not only be rational, but also moral as well?

    definitely makes you go “hmmm”

    in addition to this id like to point out that even one of your boys, stephen pinker believes that we have innate morality. he feels that we discovered it much like we discovered math or something along those lines. now there is a big difference between discovering something and INVENTING it. and i hope to God you dont feel that we invented morality…that would be like saying we invented TRUTH. now dont get me wrong, human beings have different sorts of customs and even morality changes slightly between peoples. but what im talking about is basic human morality, and that does not change.

    now back to this transcendence deal. its a funny thing this transcendence. well richard dawkins believes in it because he goes around saying that as much as he believes in darwinian evolution he also believes that we should RISE above it and become more than it implies.
    and for the sake of the argument i agree with dawkins. chris we are the only animals who DO NOT WANT to be animals.
    now, if i believed as you do that we owe our existence on a generic, one of a trillion little planets, soon doomed for destruction to extraordinary luck, id have to reach outside of this situation to some transcendent ideal in order to find meaning and a reason to go on. and we should go on with life right chris? the whole value we put on such a bleak existence IS transcendent of that very existence and you cant deny that. it happens all of the time

    thats pretty much all ive got to say right now.

    peace nukka!

    oh yeah, ps. that was an ad hominum attack on jeremy!

    you should be ashamed of yourself!

  378. ok i finally have time to address you and this will be the last time i am able..its been really busy for me and theres only so many times i can go over my view to someone who may or may not be interested in listening. i hope to at least shed some kind of light to my stance and maybe privately you can take this explanation to heart in some kind of way.

    well i already addressed you with the hitler scenario. you want me to attribute hitlers deeds to his brain but i already told you that i attribute what hitler did to his mind, where all conscious decision making takes place. chris, we are not zombies…our philosophical and daily decisions are not being made unbeknownst to us, for us, in our subconscious. at some point hitler contemplated what he was doing, and knew. bad decision upon bad decision brought him to where he was. and for Gods sake, the guy attended nazi board room meetings so i highly doubt he was insane.

    again i want to stress to you that every court of law presupposes that we operate with mind over matter and that WE are in control of our actions. insanity defenses hardly if ever work and the burden of proof would be on you to show that you were NOT in control. now when i say mind over matter i do not mean that we are able to fly if we contemplate flying hard enough or that we can levitate dump trucks. what i mean is that for the most part our minds or “selves” are in control of the actions we perform and that is where the buck stops. most of us are not invalids chris.

    now this brings me to your next point about you down playing, or over-emphasizing the mind being a strictly physical construct, nothing more nothing less. well, if thats the case then why can they not find the mind or the “seat of consciousness” in the brain? i think you take the deceptively safe route on this one and think that since the mind emerges from the brain (subject to dispute in some circles) that is all there is to it. yes, its true that the mind requires the brain to function but the mind itself emerges and becomes a complete seperate entity. the mind itself is not the brain nor can they locate it, much less put it under a microscope. there are many differing camps and lines of thought on this topic but nothing is conclusive. but it certainly is not outside of the scope of the subject matter to say that the mind may actually be metaphysical. there are plenty of people who feel that it is. im sure your views rest with daniel dennett and his group. but id like to point out that in much the same way in saying that the mind may emerge from physical properties and still not be physical…you can also say the same thing about gravity. gravity is not matter but yet gravity emerges from matter. the same with protons. protons are not charge but yet charge emerges from protons. i think that is a good comparison in laymans terms.

    so the big question, does this mean that mind is not physical? well, currently noone knows just what the mind is or even how to define it. so you want me to prove to you that the mind is more? well science cant even FIND the mind chris, so theres not much more i can say about that. and dont even begin to tell me that MRI or fMRI images SHOW the mind. they do not

    so im beginning to wonder though, if you feel that ANYTHING is metaphysical or transcendent at all. perhaps you have a problem with that idea. even christopher hitchens believes in transcendence. if thats the case you should really check yourself and see if youre being intellectually honest with what actually happens in the reality we exist in. we may not agree on what the first cause is but by definition the first cause has got to be out of space, time, matter, and energy as we know it since it CAUSED all of that. im sure you can agree with that. therefore it is transcendent and you believe in the most basic of transcendent ideas.

    i also wanted to see if you agree with this statement:

    “the best things in life are not things”

    is this true?

    now i take it that you believe in scientific fact. but i also want to know if you feel that the universe presents such a thing as moral fact. for instance, do you feel that it is a moral fact that hitler killing 12 million people was wrong…….. agree?

    now i also want you to think about this:
    imagine right after the big bang when all of the early universe material is being hurled through space to go on to from stars, planets, galaxies etc etc. somewhere in all of that material eventually it would be determined that hitler or anyone who kills 12 million people would be wrong, or that humans should be given human rights and lying is bad.

    chris, was morality determined in the blueprint of the cosmos or do you at least feel that the all along, the universe had the potential to not only be rational, but also moral as well?

    definitely makes you go “hmmm”

    in addition to this id like to point out that even one of your boys, stephen pinker believes that we have innate morality. he feels that we discovered it much like we discovered math or something along those lines. now there is a big difference between discovering something and INVENTING it. and i hope to God you dont feel that we invented morality…that would be like saying we invented TRUTH. now dont get me wrong, human beings have different sorts of customs and even morality changes slightly between peoples. but what im talking about is basic human morality, and that does not change.

    now back to this transcendence deal. its a funny thing this transcendence. well richard dawkins believes in it because he goes around saying that as much as he believes in darwinian evolution he also believes that we should RISE above it and become more than it implies.
    and for the sake of the argument i agree with dawkins. chris we are the only animals who DO NOT WANT to be animals.
    now, if i believed as you do that we owe our existence on a generic, one of a trillion little planets, soon doomed for destruction to extraordinary luck, id have to reach outside of this situation to some transcendent ideal in order to find meaning and a reason to go on. and we should go on with life right chris? the whole value we put on such a bleak existence IS transcendent of that very existence and you cant deny that. it happens all of the time

    thats pretty much all ive got to say right now.

    peace nukka!

    oh yeah, ps. that was an ad hominum attack on jeremy!

    you should be ashamed of yourself!

  379. Glad you’re back John.
    I have zero intentions of going to a creationist gathering…come on! Haha.

    I’ll do my usual reply and follow you up paragraph by paragraph.

    John what I said was to attribute hitler’s decision to his material brain/mind. The words can often be ambiguous, so when I said brain, to be clear that meant mind as well, since mind is a product of brain. As sight is a product of eyes. Never said we were zombies haha. I’m aware Hitler contemplated, and I agree, he made heinous decisions. No dispute from me John.

    Our mind IS matter, or at the very least a product. It isn’t some intagible ghost in the machine. As I pointed out, if it WAS seperate from our material brain, strokes, fevers, concussions, amnesia, parkinsons, marijuana, alcohol, lsd, wellbutrin, tumors, alzheimers, etc wouldn’t CHANGE our personality. I never said anyone was an invalid. Or zombie. Now the ad hominem or at the very least, willful chicanery with words is on your end.

    Unfortunately I’ve already answered your seat of consciousness question a few times. As I said, read Stephen Pinkers how the mind works, the blank slate, or the stuff of thought. Consciousness is not ONE neuron. I’m sure even that idea sounds absurd. It’s a combination of a myriad of faculties. So if you lost your sight faculties, your level of consciousness would be compromised. If you subsequently lost your hearing faculties, furthermore. If you had a Lombardy following that, even more so. Now let’s take out your hypothalamus, and see if you even feel senses of joy or loathing. Etc etc etc.

    You continue to say the mind forms a separate entity, for over 2 months now I’ve asked you to PROVE IT. As far as “feeling” that way, feelings are irrelevant to truth. Amputees “feel” ghost limbs, it doesn’t mean there is such a thing. Individuals on PSP feel “god like powers” yet they lack them. Frankly your electron and gravity analogies do not make a lick of sense here.

    Yes MRI and fMRI images show the mind. I already posted that article that shows direct memory is stored, and can be electrocuted back into play, with all the previous sensations coming about. That’s quite physical. We know the sight property is physical, we know sound is physical, we know smell is physical, we know facial recognition is physical, we know euphoria is physical, we even know the neurotransmitters that produce stress and love. I’m sorry, your ghost in the machine has run out of gaps to hide in. You ask me to not even begin to tell you the truth, well that’s sad, and impoverishing.

    I’m not Christopher Hitchens. Why even bring him up? Give me an example, and I’ll give my comments on transcendence.

    As far as the cause of the comsos not having space, matter, or time to it – I don’t know. Same answer as always. If it’s a big crunch, big bounce, multi verse, string theory scenario, than you’re wrong. If it’s not, it’s not. No idea on my end.
    Your statement is subjective. What’s the best to me isn’t the best to you. The best tv show to me is Arrested Development, to you, who knows. The best ice cream to me is strawberry. You? Silly subjective statement.

    We’ve been over this Hitler thing already, I’m tired of red herrings. I want to see your “something more” or this conversation is really over with, and I’ve come out on top 😉

    Fine, in along with that evolution dinosaurs were slaughtered en masse by a meteor, homo-sapiens suffered tens of thousands of years of famine and death in an ice yeage. Tens of thousands were wiped out in a natural plague. 99.9% of species have gone extinct in a violent arms race. Yeah, some design, some designer. Benevolence…dubious.

    I don’t think the universe is in itself moral, as detailed above. Plus the suns going out in 5 billion years, and Andromeda will run into the milky way shortly after that. Not to mention the trillions of years the universe will suffer a heat death. This universe does not care about us, it shows no signs of it. We are alone, on a tiny rock – and frankly that’s awesome enough for me 😉

    As I’ve said morals can be subjective too – and no one has a consummation on a solid moral code. None of this has made me go “hmmm” instead I’ve gone “zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz”

    Maybe you should read more Stephen Pinker. In the blank slate he talks about how pedophilia, sociopathy, megalomania, psycopathy, etc are INNATE as well and genetic. He claims the golden rule is most likely innate, and I don’t doubt this, as I’ve said time and time again, almost all animals exert the golden rule and have morals amongst their own ilk. We are nothing special in the animal kingdom in the moral regard. If anything we are more crass, compare the destruction we do to the planet, versus EVERY OTHER SPECIES EVER.

    We invent some morality not others. We invented every written down moral code ever, that’s for sure. The morman morality is invented, the islamic morality invented, the christian morality invented, etc.

    Richard Dawkins statements on rising above Darwinian evolution have nothing to do with transcendence. For instance, he points out wearing a condom is rising above Darwinian evolution, yet there is nothing transcendent here. And I don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to not wanting to be an animal. That’s like saying I don’t want to be white skinned. There’s nothing I can do about that. But furthermore I have no problem being “an animal.” I evolved like everything else and am a product of said evolution. This doesn’t bother me in the slightest.

    Well if for you it takes “something more” to get out of bed, I don’t know what to say but embrace it, if that’s truly paramount to your remaining happy, sober, and active. I don’t need it. The very LUCK you mentioned is why I’m so happy to be alive. I won, the hardest lottery fathomable, in the entire universe, and I’ll be damned if I’m going to waste my time exercising my winnings!

    Jeremy can wait his turn 😉
    -Chris

  380. Glad you’re back John.
    I have zero intentions of going to a creationist gathering…come on! Haha.

    I’ll do my usual reply and follow you up paragraph by paragraph.

    John what I said was to attribute hitler’s decision to his material brain/mind. The words can often be ambiguous, so when I said brain, to be clear that meant mind as well, since mind is a product of brain. As sight is a product of eyes. Never said we were zombies haha. I’m aware Hitler contemplated, and I agree, he made heinous decisions. No dispute from me John.

    Our mind IS matter, or at the very least a product. It isn’t some intagible ghost in the machine. As I pointed out, if it WAS seperate from our material brain, strokes, fevers, concussions, amnesia, parkinsons, marijuana, alcohol, lsd, wellbutrin, tumors, alzheimers, etc wouldn’t CHANGE our personality. I never said anyone was an invalid. Or zombie. Now the ad hominem or at the very least, willful chicanery with words is on your end.

    Unfortunately I’ve already answered your seat of consciousness question a few times. As I said, read Stephen Pinkers how the mind works, the blank slate, or the stuff of thought. Consciousness is not ONE neuron. I’m sure even that idea sounds absurd. It’s a combination of a myriad of faculties. So if you lost your sight faculties, your level of consciousness would be compromised. If you subsequently lost your hearing faculties, furthermore. If you had a Lombardy following that, even more so. Now let’s take out your hypothalamus, and see if you even feel senses of joy or loathing. Etc etc etc.

    You continue to say the mind forms a separate entity, for over 2 months now I’ve asked you to PROVE IT. As far as “feeling” that way, feelings are irrelevant to truth. Amputees “feel” ghost limbs, it doesn’t mean there is such a thing. Individuals on PSP feel “god like powers” yet they lack them. Frankly your electron and gravity analogies do not make a lick of sense here.

    Yes MRI and fMRI images show the mind. I already posted that article that shows direct memory is stored, and can be electrocuted back into play, with all the previous sensations coming about. That’s quite physical. We know the sight property is physical, we know sound is physical, we know smell is physical, we know facial recognition is physical, we know euphoria is physical, we even know the neurotransmitters that produce stress and love. I’m sorry, your ghost in the machine has run out of gaps to hide in. You ask me to not even begin to tell you the truth, well that’s sad, and impoverishing.

    I’m not Christopher Hitchens. Why even bring him up? Give me an example, and I’ll give my comments on transcendence.

    As far as the cause of the comsos not having space, matter, or time to it – I don’t know. Same answer as always. If it’s a big crunch, big bounce, multi verse, string theory scenario, than you’re wrong. If it’s not, it’s not. No idea on my end.
    Your statement is subjective. What’s the best to me isn’t the best to you. The best tv show to me is Arrested Development, to you, who knows. The best ice cream to me is strawberry. You? Silly subjective statement.

    We’ve been over this Hitler thing already, I’m tired of red herrings. I want to see your “something more” or this conversation is really over with, and I’ve come out on top 😉

    Fine, in along with that evolution dinosaurs were slaughtered en masse by a meteor, homo-sapiens suffered tens of thousands of years of famine and death in an ice yeage. Tens of thousands were wiped out in a natural plague. 99.9% of species have gone extinct in a violent arms race. Yeah, some design, some designer. Benevolence…dubious.

    I don’t think the universe is in itself moral, as detailed above. Plus the suns going out in 5 billion years, and Andromeda will run into the milky way shortly after that. Not to mention the trillions of years the universe will suffer a heat death. This universe does not care about us, it shows no signs of it. We are alone, on a tiny rock – and frankly that’s awesome enough for me 😉

    As I’ve said morals can be subjective too – and no one has a consummation on a solid moral code. None of this has made me go “hmmm” instead I’ve gone “zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz”

    Maybe you should read more Stephen Pinker. In the blank slate he talks about how pedophilia, sociopathy, megalomania, psycopathy, etc are INNATE as well and genetic. He claims the golden rule is most likely innate, and I don’t doubt this, as I’ve said time and time again, almost all animals exert the golden rule and have morals amongst their own ilk. We are nothing special in the animal kingdom in the moral regard. If anything we are more crass, compare the destruction we do to the planet, versus EVERY OTHER SPECIES EVER.

    We invent some morality not others. We invented every written down moral code ever, that’s for sure. The morman morality is invented, the islamic morality invented, the christian morality invented, etc.

    Richard Dawkins statements on rising above Darwinian evolution have nothing to do with transcendence. For instance, he points out wearing a condom is rising above Darwinian evolution, yet there is nothing transcendent here. And I don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to not wanting to be an animal. That’s like saying I don’t want to be white skinned. There’s nothing I can do about that. But furthermore I have no problem being “an animal.” I evolved like everything else and am a product of said evolution. This doesn’t bother me in the slightest.

    Well if for you it takes “something more” to get out of bed, I don’t know what to say but embrace it, if that’s truly paramount to your remaining happy, sober, and active. I don’t need it. The very LUCK you mentioned is why I’m so happy to be alive. I won, the hardest lottery fathomable, in the entire universe, and I’ll be damned if I’m going to waste my time exercising my winnings!

    Jeremy can wait his turn 😉
    -Chris

  381. ok to be quite honest i am not read up enough on mind body relations so theres nothing more i can say about that. MRI’s and fMRI’s do not show the mind itself, even the article you sent me stated that. and to use your example in the same way, eyes do not show sight. lets get that clear, the mind is still an unsolved mystery.

    i cannot understand how you couldnt comprehend the example between gravity being a non-matter but rather arising from matter itself. that example in my mind still stands whether you care to accept it or not. you said it yourself and i agree that the mind is the result from a myriad of faculties. but thats why its so hard to pin down. how many neurons and synapses does it take make a conscious mind? its not that simple and they even admittedly have a difficult time defining exactly what consciousness is. but basically ill say this, we as people are not 100% instinct…the inner workings of the self and free will are not machine-like. my neurons do not say to me “do” and i do like two gears turning against one another. id say its much more complex than that. and ill use hitler again as an example. lets say there was something wrong with hitlers “machinery” (brain)
    and he did have abnormal desires due to some mental illness. to make a long story short, in the spectrum of those desires, do you feel that he was not at all aware of those feelings..did they completely overtake his mind to where he was out of control? or can sociopathic thoughts be much more subtle than that? like for instance, if you have the odd desire of wanting to harm animals. can you simultaneously have that impulse and also the awareness of it to keep it in check? well, that kind of goes without saying. and that is precisely why people are not the result of 100% instinct otherwise wed either be angels or we’d be insane. there would be no choice in the matter. and chris, EVERY human being experiences deciding between impulse and instinct. even yourself.

    yeah dawkins does talk about using condoms to go against darwinian urges but that is not at all what im talking about. im talking about dawkins reference to ethics, principles, and morals that go AGAINST darwinian natural selection or at least its implications. ethics, principles, and morals are transcendent ideas chris. they are the standards we use in conducting ourselves as people. we happen to break alot of them too because we arent perfect.
    again, we are the only animals who do not want to be animals. as a functioning society and im sure youd agree, we dont make it a complete habit to act on all our base impulses, we have standards…. i dont even have to go into that because you know already.

    chris, you dont really give into every single urge now do you?

    welcome to the human race.

    and no, you can tell me all you want that people invented muslim morality or christian morality etc etc but when you cut through all of that surface crap there still is an underlying basic human morality. it is an absolute MORAL FACT that hitler killing 12 million people was wrong. take a survey on that.
    dont point out to me petty differences and shallow morality and strawman the idea. i heard on the news recently that this guy kidnapped a brother and sister who were 8 and 9 years old. now when he entered their home, he killed both their parents and their other older sibling and then took the two remaining kids out into the woods. he sexually assaulted the boy, killed him and burned him IN FRONT of his sister. and through a turn of events she later escaped and was the only survivor. again chris, was it a MORAL FACT that what this man did was evil, or does that information elude you/us? if there indeed is a society that respects this sort of behavior, out of respect for anthropology should we allow them to carry on with it? now, you can turn this whole idea the other way around and think of compassionate or sacrificial deeds that are at the other end of the spectrum.

    you had some good points and again i am a layperson and not super well read on all of the material but i just felt like i had to re-address these things in closing.

    thanks for the exchange homeslice

    looking forward to reading you and jeremy’s exchanges

    john

  382. ok to be quite honest i am not read up enough on mind body relations so theres nothing more i can say about that. MRI’s and fMRI’s do not show the mind itself, even the article you sent me stated that. and to use your example in the same way, eyes do not show sight. lets get that clear, the mind is still an unsolved mystery.

    i cannot understand how you couldnt comprehend the example between gravity being a non-matter but rather arising from matter itself. that example in my mind still stands whether you care to accept it or not. you said it yourself and i agree that the mind is the result from a myriad of faculties. but thats why its so hard to pin down. how many neurons and synapses does it take make a conscious mind? its not that simple and they even admittedly have a difficult time defining exactly what consciousness is. but basically ill say this, we as people are not 100% instinct…the inner workings of the self and free will are not machine-like. my neurons do not say to me “do” and i do like two gears turning against one another. id say its much more complex than that. and ill use hitler again as an example. lets say there was something wrong with hitlers “machinery” (brain)
    and he did have abnormal desires due to some mental illness. to make a long story short, in the spectrum of those desires, do you feel that he was not at all aware of those feelings..did they completely overtake his mind to where he was out of control? or can sociopathic thoughts be much more subtle than that? like for instance, if you have the odd desire of wanting to harm animals. can you simultaneously have that impulse and also the awareness of it to keep it in check? well, that kind of goes without saying. and that is precisely why people are not the result of 100% instinct otherwise wed either be angels or we’d be insane. there would be no choice in the matter. and chris, EVERY human being experiences deciding between impulse and instinct. even yourself.

    yeah dawkins does talk about using condoms to go against darwinian urges but that is not at all what im talking about. im talking about dawkins reference to ethics, principles, and morals that go AGAINST darwinian natural selection or at least its implications. ethics, principles, and morals are transcendent ideas chris. they are the standards we use in conducting ourselves as people. we happen to break alot of them too because we arent perfect.
    again, we are the only animals who do not want to be animals. as a functioning society and im sure youd agree, we dont make it a complete habit to act on all our base impulses, we have standards…. i dont even have to go into that because you know already.

    chris, you dont really give into every single urge now do you?

    welcome to the human race.

    and no, you can tell me all you want that people invented muslim morality or christian morality etc etc but when you cut through all of that surface crap there still is an underlying basic human morality. it is an absolute MORAL FACT that hitler killing 12 million people was wrong. take a survey on that.
    dont point out to me petty differences and shallow morality and strawman the idea. i heard on the news recently that this guy kidnapped a brother and sister who were 8 and 9 years old. now when he entered their home, he killed both their parents and their other older sibling and then took the two remaining kids out into the woods. he sexually assaulted the boy, killed him and burned him IN FRONT of his sister. and through a turn of events she later escaped and was the only survivor. again chris, was it a MORAL FACT that what this man did was evil, or does that information elude you/us? if there indeed is a society that respects this sort of behavior, out of respect for anthropology should we allow them to carry on with it? now, you can turn this whole idea the other way around and think of compassionate or sacrificial deeds that are at the other end of the spectrum.

    you had some good points and again i am a layperson and not super well read on all of the material but i just felt like i had to re-address these things in closing.

    thanks for the exchange homeslice

    looking forward to reading you and jeremy’s exchanges

    john

  383. I literally JUST woke up, so my reply may have typos. I’m a bit of a groggy zombie for the first hour of every morning.

    The mind is not an unsolved mystery. Granted Scientist don’t literally know every nook and cranny, and in addition, all humans come out with a different Genome, so we all have nuance in our hearts, kidneys, lungs, brains, etc. Now I won’t deny, we are quite possibly ignorant of the brain the most, over all other organs – however, we are at a stage where literally, if we had that scene from “hannibal” going on, a neurologist could open your skull and start slicing away major parts of YOU. As in “lets cut away his ability to see faces.”

    I had forgotten all about this article, however I really think, if you take the time to read it, and don’t mind learning something that you don’t want to be the truth, you’ll certainly come out, informed.
    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580394,00.html
    Yes it’s written by Pinker, yes he’s atheist, but he really is the leading scientist in his field today – and his lack of theism has nothing to do with that. That article will go into the nuance of consciousness.
    “you said it yourself and i agree that the mind is the result from a myriad of faculties. but thats why its so hard to pin down.”
    Well for me that’s exactly why it’s so easy. It just shows consciousness/mind is a myriad of varying running parts. It isn’t JUST ONE neuron. So again, if we cut off the part of your brain that connected to your eyes, and allowed for sight – would you not now have a “compromised” consciousness. Just as we can slowly cut away various parts that make you – you, you grew them as well. So let’s try a different path. Do you remember the first 5 years of your life? I don’t know about you but I don’t. Never did. I really “came to” around the age of 4-6. 1-3 is nothing. And of course conception to the age of 1 is literally nothing. Just as your brain grew, synapsed, evolved, so did your mind. And as you grow old and your body starts to weather, so does your brain/mind.

    As far as how many neurons, we have trillions of course. But the same applies to your muscles, skin, heart, liver etc. Trillions of cells typically are required to maintain, build, repair, etc, those organs. The difference is, doing brain study is controversial. It’s easier to study and run test on peoples other organs than it is the brain – mostly for legal reasons haha.

    “but basically ill say this, we as people are not 100% instinct…the inner workings of the self and free will are not machine-like. my neurons do not say to me “do” and i do like two gears turning against one another. id say its much more complex than that”

    Sure not EVERYTHING you do is some knee-jerk whimsical, uncontrolled process – however isn’t a some bit of it? I mean we all know the phrase “woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?” And I have, some mornings, for no reason, I wake up happier, or angrier, or lazier, or more productive. And I can’t always tell you why. I know every time I goto sleep, I have no control of what I’m experiencing and dreaming. I can’t control my hunger, my thirst, what I’m attracted to (as you know we all have a certain taste when it comes to looks), what smells I like and others don’t, etc.

    I think Hitler was screwed up, yes. But I think first off, this is far more explainable by his nuances genome, than it is by an omnipotent deity. I have not researched sociopaths to any special degree, but I can say this. Just as I can’t 100% explain why I prefer women to men, and homosexual men to women, they are “just born that way,” I’d say it’s mostly likely the same of people with the ability to murder. They are just drawn to it. I’m sure Hitler was aware, and Hitler did from time to time exercise control, it just depends in varying examples. Regardless I’m sure the man was AS cognitive, and AS sentient as you and I.

    The sociopath question is difficult. I mean even if the child (my reading is limited, but it does exist here) knows killing animals is wrong, the child may not be able to exercise control. I know as a child a lot of my baser instincts were acted on, just due to youth and a lack of wisdom if you will. Regardless even if you chain the child up, and throw away the key, this isn’t like a brief penchant, just as the child felt thirst and hunger, I’m pretty the sociopath child still feels that lust for murder – so not acting on it will be quite uncomfortable and never truly go away. As far as we’d either be angels or insane, that’s a very, very, ignorant and simple way of looking at nature. As I said we all have different genomes, and we all vary. We do have “angels” on this earth, and we do have the insane, and we have varying levels in between.

    Yes but Dawkins does also acknowledge that the same way your genes make you black/white, red eyed/green eyed, tan/pale, etc parts of your neural faculties are equally “decided.” That’s why literally sociopaths tend to breed sociopaths, introverts breed introverts, extroverts breed extroverts, etc. He’s saying as a society we need to recognize this and than come to a democratic decision on what we do about it. So for instance, and this is very possible, if we find the genetic make up that breeds a sociopath, what do we do with that information as a society? Scary thought, and don’t feel any need to answer, I won’t at this time.

    I’m an animal and I don’t mind saying it. Also I don’t try “not” to be one. And even if I did that’s akin to trying not to be white, I can’t wind that charade.

    Animals exercise control as well. Read some primate studies. Even dog training shows this. Watch the dog whisperer on A&E – that man can certainly make dogs go against their base instincts, to please their alpha master. Nothing different or surprising there.

    I agree that there is an underlining moral premise, most of the time. But again, where as the massive majority of us recognize the golden rule, you must accept that a sociopath simply doesn’t. Nor does a psychopath. They may pretend to acknowledge it, and use fakery, but it’s not binding to them in anyway. Regardless all animals have very similar moral fabrics to us, so it’s not surprising to me that over 3.5 billion years of evolution, we developed similar moral structure form our ancestors – if we were wanton crazies (this applies to all species) we’d/they’d die out.

    Of course I find what the man did to be heinous. But we still need to acknowledge something, he didn’t. Why is this? Why doesn’t he share our “transcendence?” because transcendence here is crap, and our variations in genetics is what determines our base nature. No we won’t tolerate what he did, because the massive majority of us find it repugnant, and therefore will have a overwhelming say. That’s just democracy. No need for a deity to enter the picture. Although I’d ask, why’d the deity create this monster?

    If you admit you’re ignorant of what you’re talking about, than maybe don’t talk about it? This seems reasonable. I don’t know an iota about baseball, so I’ll never comment on it. Seriously, go read the blank slate, or how the mind works. Atheism and Religion isn’t discussed in that book, it’s irrelevant. I loved the books personally, real page turners.

    I’m not looking forward to Jeremy at all lol. Literally what he said is straight out of basic creationism propaganda. All those questions have very simple answers, and I don’t like repeating basic high school science lessons. That’s not ad hominem, that’s just fact.

    -Chris

  384. I literally JUST woke up, so my reply may have typos. I’m a bit of a groggy zombie for the first hour of every morning.

    The mind is not an unsolved mystery. Granted Scientist don’t literally know every nook and cranny, and in addition, all humans come out with a different Genome, so we all have nuance in our hearts, kidneys, lungs, brains, etc. Now I won’t deny, we are quite possibly ignorant of the brain the most, over all other organs – however, we are at a stage where literally, if we had that scene from “hannibal” going on, a neurologist could open your skull and start slicing away major parts of YOU. As in “lets cut away his ability to see faces.”

    I had forgotten all about this article, however I really think, if you take the time to read it, and don’t mind learning something that you don’t want to be the truth, you’ll certainly come out, informed.
    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580394,00.html
    Yes it’s written by Pinker, yes he’s atheist, but he really is the leading scientist in his field today – and his lack of theism has nothing to do with that. That article will go into the nuance of consciousness.
    “you said it yourself and i agree that the mind is the result from a myriad of faculties. but thats why its so hard to pin down.”
    Well for me that’s exactly why it’s so easy. It just shows consciousness/mind is a myriad of varying running parts. It isn’t JUST ONE neuron. So again, if we cut off the part of your brain that connected to your eyes, and allowed for sight – would you not now have a “compromised” consciousness. Just as we can slowly cut away various parts that make you – you, you grew them as well. So let’s try a different path. Do you remember the first 5 years of your life? I don’t know about you but I don’t. Never did. I really “came to” around the age of 4-6. 1-3 is nothing. And of course conception to the age of 1 is literally nothing. Just as your brain grew, synapsed, evolved, so did your mind. And as you grow old and your body starts to weather, so does your brain/mind.

    As far as how many neurons, we have trillions of course. But the same applies to your muscles, skin, heart, liver etc. Trillions of cells typically are required to maintain, build, repair, etc, those organs. The difference is, doing brain study is controversial. It’s easier to study and run test on peoples other organs than it is the brain – mostly for legal reasons haha.

    “but basically ill say this, we as people are not 100% instinct…the inner workings of the self and free will are not machine-like. my neurons do not say to me “do” and i do like two gears turning against one another. id say its much more complex than that”

    Sure not EVERYTHING you do is some knee-jerk whimsical, uncontrolled process – however isn’t a some bit of it? I mean we all know the phrase “woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?” And I have, some mornings, for no reason, I wake up happier, or angrier, or lazier, or more productive. And I can’t always tell you why. I know every time I goto sleep, I have no control of what I’m experiencing and dreaming. I can’t control my hunger, my thirst, what I’m attracted to (as you know we all have a certain taste when it comes to looks), what smells I like and others don’t, etc.

    I think Hitler was screwed up, yes. But I think first off, this is far more explainable by his nuances genome, than it is by an omnipotent deity. I have not researched sociopaths to any special degree, but I can say this. Just as I can’t 100% explain why I prefer women to men, and homosexual men to women, they are “just born that way,” I’d say it’s mostly likely the same of people with the ability to murder. They are just drawn to it. I’m sure Hitler was aware, and Hitler did from time to time exercise control, it just depends in varying examples. Regardless I’m sure the man was AS cognitive, and AS sentient as you and I.

    The sociopath question is difficult. I mean even if the child (my reading is limited, but it does exist here) knows killing animals is wrong, the child may not be able to exercise control. I know as a child a lot of my baser instincts were acted on, just due to youth and a lack of wisdom if you will. Regardless even if you chain the child up, and throw away the key, this isn’t like a brief penchant, just as the child felt thirst and hunger, I’m pretty the sociopath child still feels that lust for murder – so not acting on it will be quite uncomfortable and never truly go away. As far as we’d either be angels or insane, that’s a very, very, ignorant and simple way of looking at nature. As I said we all have different genomes, and we all vary. We do have “angels” on this earth, and we do have the insane, and we have varying levels in between.

    Yes but Dawkins does also acknowledge that the same way your genes make you black/white, red eyed/green eyed, tan/pale, etc parts of your neural faculties are equally “decided.” That’s why literally sociopaths tend to breed sociopaths, introverts breed introverts, extroverts breed extroverts, etc. He’s saying as a society we need to recognize this and than come to a democratic decision on what we do about it. So for instance, and this is very possible, if we find the genetic make up that breeds a sociopath, what do we do with that information as a society? Scary thought, and don’t feel any need to answer, I won’t at this time.

    I’m an animal and I don’t mind saying it. Also I don’t try “not” to be one. And even if I did that’s akin to trying not to be white, I can’t wind that charade.

    Animals exercise control as well. Read some primate studies. Even dog training shows this. Watch the dog whisperer on A&E – that man can certainly make dogs go against their base instincts, to please their alpha master. Nothing different or surprising there.

    I agree that there is an underlining moral premise, most of the time. But again, where as the massive majority of us recognize the golden rule, you must accept that a sociopath simply doesn’t. Nor does a psychopath. They may pretend to acknowledge it, and use fakery, but it’s not binding to them in anyway. Regardless all animals have very similar moral fabrics to us, so it’s not surprising to me that over 3.5 billion years of evolution, we developed similar moral structure form our ancestors – if we were wanton crazies (this applies to all species) we’d/they’d die out.

    Of course I find what the man did to be heinous. But we still need to acknowledge something, he didn’t. Why is this? Why doesn’t he share our “transcendence?” because transcendence here is crap, and our variations in genetics is what determines our base nature. No we won’t tolerate what he did, because the massive majority of us find it repugnant, and therefore will have a overwhelming say. That’s just democracy. No need for a deity to enter the picture. Although I’d ask, why’d the deity create this monster?

    If you admit you’re ignorant of what you’re talking about, than maybe don’t talk about it? This seems reasonable. I don’t know an iota about baseball, so I’ll never comment on it. Seriously, go read the blank slate, or how the mind works. Atheism and Religion isn’t discussed in that book, it’s irrelevant. I loved the books personally, real page turners.

    I’m not looking forward to Jeremy at all lol. Literally what he said is straight out of basic creationism propaganda. All those questions have very simple answers, and I don’t like repeating basic high school science lessons. That’s not ad hominem, that’s just fact.

    -Chris

  385. did you guys hear? something with the Large Hadron Collider went seriously wrong. this is footage from near the swiss border.

    http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=43515485

  386. did you guys hear? something with the Large Hadron Collider went seriously wrong. this is footage from near the swiss border.

    http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=43515485

  387. fair enough

    although when you state that you do not try to be more than an animal, i do not believe it. chris youre not going to tell me that you dont have at least some semblance of self control or any kind of basic discipline in your life that resist an assortment of random urges. so, you do nothing more than eat, sleep, poop, and procreate? not buying it. society doesnt let us get off that easy, much less our parents. to some degree, we will all inevitably have to “die to ourself” (christian concept) and our desires living as people with other people.

    morals, ethics, and principles that you DO NOT find in the animal kingdom are those things in us that do not allow us to act like animals. if you dont impose them on yourself, society would be quite happy to make you uncomfortable until you do, at least while people are watching lol!
    a HUMAN may be able to train a dog or a monkey as an OUTSIDE stimuli, but animals do not have some sort of self discipline or ethics amongst their kind.

    and these are some lyrics to a band i happen to like alot called Thrice:

    To what end do we
    proceed so boldly
    if all we are is
    chemical reactions
    and what world have you
    so deftly sold me
    if you reduce me
    if I have no soul to touch

    no heart to love
    no evil to rise up above
    no angels and no ghosts
    no real victories to toast
    if you believe that this is true
    then I must ask
    to what end do you proceed?

    NO FIRE IN OUR EYES
    NO STEEL IN OUR HEARTS
    NO MAGIC IN OUR SONGS
    ARE WE JUST EMPTY VESSELS

    No fire in our eyes
    No steel in our hearts
    No magic in our songs

    and you tell me…
    I have no soul to touch
    no heart to love
    no evil to rise up above
    no angels and no ghosts
    no real victories to toast
    if you believe that this is true
    then I must ask
    to what end do you proceed?

    Did I not feel your love?
    Did I not feel your hate?
    And did my heart not beat
    and did MY HEART NOT BREAK?!
    And are these tears for naught
    and are these worlds in vain
    if this is all we are then what
    HAVE WE TO GAIN!
    What of all the art and books
    music and poetry
    What of all our memories
    What of OUR HOPES AND DREAMS!
    They hold no value then
    We hold no faith but greed
    So I must ask you
    to what end do we proceed?

    basically if you can honestly say that all you find in reality and in YOUR life is the purely physical, nothing more than that…no rationality, no higher ideals to strive for no real meaning, nothing to live for, nothing to die for than ill concede and say that you are right, there is no God. you may not know what to call it, but we both know that is not the case. there are so many facets to reality and so much going on in the world that go beyond mere physical description. and theology is a completely separate topic. im asking you though about what you see in the world around you. death and chaos would not be the COMPLETE description, so be honest with yourself.

    there indeed are some truly noble ideas that once gotten into the heart and mind of a self replicator, that self replicator would fling themselves without thought to their very own deaths. among these noble ideas would be love, justice, compassion, mercy. these same immaterial ideas can make a 180 LB chunk(person or people) of matter move.

    peace!

  388. fair enough

    although when you state that you do not try to be more than an animal, i do not believe it. chris youre not going to tell me that you dont have at least some semblance of self control or any kind of basic discipline in your life that resist an assortment of random urges. so, you do nothing more than eat, sleep, poop, and procreate? not buying it. society doesnt let us get off that easy, much less our parents. to some degree, we will all inevitably have to “die to ourself” (christian concept) and our desires living as people with other people.

    morals, ethics, and principles that you DO NOT find in the animal kingdom are those things in us that do not allow us to act like animals. if you dont impose them on yourself, society would be quite happy to make you uncomfortable until you do, at least while people are watching lol!
    a HUMAN may be able to train a dog or a monkey as an OUTSIDE stimuli, but animals do not have some sort of self discipline or ethics amongst their kind.

    and these are some lyrics to a band i happen to like alot called Thrice:

    To what end do we
    proceed so boldly
    if all we are is
    chemical reactions
    and what world have you
    so deftly sold me
    if you reduce me
    if I have no soul to touch

    no heart to love
    no evil to rise up above
    no angels and no ghosts
    no real victories to toast
    if you believe that this is true
    then I must ask
    to what end do you proceed?

    NO FIRE IN OUR EYES
    NO STEEL IN OUR HEARTS
    NO MAGIC IN OUR SONGS
    ARE WE JUST EMPTY VESSELS

    No fire in our eyes
    No steel in our hearts
    No magic in our songs

    and you tell me…
    I have no soul to touch
    no heart to love
    no evil to rise up above
    no angels and no ghosts
    no real victories to toast
    if you believe that this is true
    then I must ask
    to what end do you proceed?

    Did I not feel your love?
    Did I not feel your hate?
    And did my heart not beat
    and did MY HEART NOT BREAK?!
    And are these tears for naught
    and are these worlds in vain
    if this is all we are then what
    HAVE WE TO GAIN!
    What of all the art and books
    music and poetry
    What of all our memories
    What of OUR HOPES AND DREAMS!
    They hold no value then
    We hold no faith but greed
    So I must ask you
    to what end do we proceed?

    basically if you can honestly say that all you find in reality and in YOUR life is the purely physical, nothing more than that…no rationality, no higher ideals to strive for no real meaning, nothing to live for, nothing to die for than ill concede and say that you are right, there is no God. you may not know what to call it, but we both know that is not the case. there are so many facets to reality and so much going on in the world that go beyond mere physical description. and theology is a completely separate topic. im asking you though about what you see in the world around you. death and chaos would not be the COMPLETE description, so be honest with yourself.

    there indeed are some truly noble ideas that once gotten into the heart and mind of a self replicator, that self replicator would fling themselves without thought to their very own deaths. among these noble ideas would be love, justice, compassion, mercy. these same immaterial ideas can make a 180 LB chunk(person or people) of matter move.

    peace!

  389. Okay clearly we have a different definition of “animal.” If you accept that the cosmos is rational, followed a set of immutable natural law, and both cosmic and organism evolution are facts, you must acknowledge that we are “animals.” As in, hairless primates(Unless you think 100,000 years ago god just magically poofed homo-sapiens into existance – which would destroy your entire argument of the cosmos being rational). You seem to be defining animal (correct me if I’m wrong) as a knee-jerk, base instincts organism. Kind of like a singular cell. However as I tried to point out before, many of our animal cousins do show “restraint.” For instance, my Dog used to rush me when I had food in my lap while watching tv. She would run full speed and try to eat it. Over time she learned to sit, and wait patiently, and maybe she’ll get a scrap. My dog also used to pee and poop whenever she had to. Now she knows to wait by the door until I notice and delicate outside. If I’m not home, she holds it. So she has LEARNED to override her base instincts – just like you and me. Granted she can’t do it on our level, but this really speaks nothing of consciousness, and is yet again, a basic elementary science lesson.

    Animals do have ethics amongst their kind, jesus christ, why do you continue to talk about things as if you are savvy on the subject, when you’re frankly ignorant. I don’t discuss baseball, because I don’t know anything about it. Instead of being presumptuous, ask some basic questions like. “do animals have ethics.”

    Just t go give an anecdote. When I was a child, frogs used to propagate to my swimming pool in the summer time. Oftentimes a few would fall in. Well as a kid I simply didn’t care, I’d just watch them (now I’d save them). Anyway one day a Mom and a child fall in. After swimming around the rim of the pool for an hour, and determining getting out was impossible – the Mom literally killed herself to save her child. She floated on the surface, and allowed the child to climb on her back (placing her breathing orifices under the surface). After several tries, the baby managed to climb, and leap out of the pool to safety, while the Mom died.

    Bees when their next are attacked by an outside intruder, send out their “military.” This military acts like kamikazes. As you know when a bee stings you, it dies. Talk about loyalty to the nest.

    Another basic example, name a species that DOESN’T look after its young. From Lions all the way down to ants, the parents go out and collect food for their young and in harsh times (as polar bears demonstrated in the documentary planet earth) will sacrafice themselves so their kids can eat. So if food is scarce due to a change in environment, the parent will starve in order for the children to eat the meal it acquired. Pretty human like. Why? We share common ancestors.

    Granted these species don’t have “highway ethics” or “internet ethics,” but to say they aren’t ethical is ignorant.

    Some articles on Primate ethics, and economics:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?pagewanted=all
    http://www.forbes.com/2006/02/11/monkey-economics-money_cz_df_money06_0214monkeys.html
    There’s mountains of evidence in both fields, I’m just picking the first two google entries due to time constraints.

    Now you’re either prevaricating, or suffer from amnesia

    “basically if you can honestly say that all you find in reality and in YOUR life is the purely physical, nothing more than that…no rationality, no higher ideals to strive for no real meaning, nothing to live for, nothing to die for than ill concede and say that you are right, there is no God. .”

    I don’t know anything beyond matter and energy. I’ve asked a thousand times for an example, you haven’t given one, and at this point I’m confident you can’t. I have however argued IN AGREEMENT with you that universe is rational. So I’m stunned that you now accuse me of the reverse. I’ve also gone over my higher ideals, basically my education. I set my goals, and I attempt to complete them. Those are my higher ideals. As far as having nothing to live for, that’s absurd, I have plenty. I don’t need a deity, to desire friendship, love, education, free times, etc. I don’t goto school for yahweh, I don’t live with my girlfriend of 5 years for yahweh, I don’t play pool on the weekend for yahweh, I don’t read books for yahweh, etc.

    Now you’ve thrown out your entire thesis of what you were arguing for for the past months:

    “you may not know what to call it, but we both know that is not the case. there are so many facets to reality and so much going on in the world that go beyond mere physical description.”

    Yet earlier you said the universe was explainable via cause and effect events, amongst matter and energy, in a contained, rational order. Now you say otherwise. Haha, this debate is over 😉

    As far as love, justice, compassion and mercy. Do you really think I don’t exercise those because I’m atheist? I doubt it.

  390. Okay clearly we have a different definition of “animal.” If you accept that the cosmos is rational, followed a set of immutable natural law, and both cosmic and organism evolution are facts, you must acknowledge that we are “animals.” As in, hairless primates(Unless you think 100,000 years ago god just magically poofed homo-sapiens into existance – which would destroy your entire argument of the cosmos being rational). You seem to be defining animal (correct me if I’m wrong) as a knee-jerk, base instincts organism. Kind of like a singular cell. However as I tried to point out before, many of our animal cousins do show “restraint.” For instance, my Dog used to rush me when I had food in my lap while watching tv. She would run full speed and try to eat it. Over time she learned to sit, and wait patiently, and maybe she’ll get a scrap. My dog also used to pee and poop whenever she had to. Now she knows to wait by the door until I notice and delicate outside. If I’m not home, she holds it. So she has LEARNED to override her base instincts – just like you and me. Granted she can’t do it on our level, but this really speaks nothing of consciousness, and is yet again, a basic elementary science lesson.

    Animals do have ethics amongst their kind, jesus christ, why do you continue to talk about things as if you are savvy on the subject, when you’re frankly ignorant. I don’t discuss baseball, because I don’t know anything about it. Instead of being presumptuous, ask some basic questions like. “do animals have ethics.”

    Just t go give an anecdote. When I was a child, frogs used to propagate to my swimming pool in the summer time. Oftentimes a few would fall in. Well as a kid I simply didn’t care, I’d just watch them (now I’d save them). Anyway one day a Mom and a child fall in. After swimming around the rim of the pool for an hour, and determining getting out was impossible – the Mom literally killed herself to save her child. She floated on the surface, and allowed the child to climb on her back (placing her breathing orifices under the surface). After several tries, the baby managed to climb, and leap out of the pool to safety, while the Mom died.

    Bees when their next are attacked by an outside intruder, send out their “military.” This military acts like kamikazes. As you know when a bee stings you, it dies. Talk about loyalty to the nest.

    Another basic example, name a species that DOESN’T look after its young. From Lions all the way down to ants, the parents go out and collect food for their young and in harsh times (as polar bears demonstrated in the documentary planet earth) will sacrafice themselves so their kids can eat. So if food is scarce due to a change in environment, the parent will starve in order for the children to eat the meal it acquired. Pretty human like. Why? We share common ancestors.

    Granted these species don’t have “highway ethics” or “internet ethics,” but to say they aren’t ethical is ignorant.

    Some articles on Primate ethics, and economics:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?pagewanted=all
    http://www.forbes.com/2006/02/11/monkey-economics-money_cz_df_money06_0214monkeys.html
    There’s mountains of evidence in both fields, I’m just picking the first two google entries due to time constraints.

    Now you’re either prevaricating, or suffer from amnesia

    “basically if you can honestly say that all you find in reality and in YOUR life is the purely physical, nothing more than that…no rationality, no higher ideals to strive for no real meaning, nothing to live for, nothing to die for than ill concede and say that you are right, there is no God. .”

    I don’t know anything beyond matter and energy. I’ve asked a thousand times for an example, you haven’t given one, and at this point I’m confident you can’t. I have however argued IN AGREEMENT with you that universe is rational. So I’m stunned that you now accuse me of the reverse. I’ve also gone over my higher ideals, basically my education. I set my goals, and I attempt to complete them. Those are my higher ideals. As far as having nothing to live for, that’s absurd, I have plenty. I don’t need a deity, to desire friendship, love, education, free times, etc. I don’t goto school for yahweh, I don’t live with my girlfriend of 5 years for yahweh, I don’t play pool on the weekend for yahweh, I don’t read books for yahweh, etc.

    Now you’ve thrown out your entire thesis of what you were arguing for for the past months:

    “you may not know what to call it, but we both know that is not the case. there are so many facets to reality and so much going on in the world that go beyond mere physical description.”

    Yet earlier you said the universe was explainable via cause and effect events, amongst matter and energy, in a contained, rational order. Now you say otherwise. Haha, this debate is over 😉

    As far as love, justice, compassion and mercy. Do you really think I don’t exercise those because I’m atheist? I doubt it.

  391. p.s. Just like my pet dog, I want you to imagine being born on earth W/out parents, friends, a school, family, books, etc, to “teach you.” I’d imagine without any form of education either, you’d be running on base instincts.