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….

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

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.

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”.

“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

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

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

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

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

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.”

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

sorry, i’m using my wife’s computer

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!

Uhm what “arguments” are those Celeste?

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.

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

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

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.

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

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!

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!

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

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

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.

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!