Home > "The God Delusion", Atheism, Donny Pauling, Religion, Richard Dawkins > "Atheist" Richard Dawkins Open to Possibility Of God, Just Not the Term 'God' ?

"Atheist" Richard Dawkins Open to Possibility Of God, Just Not the Term 'God' ?

August 15th, 2008 Leave a comment Go to 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?

Categories: "The God Delusion", Atheism, Donny Pauling, Religion, Richard Dawkins Tags:
← Older Comments
Newer Comments →
  • john(right or left)

    * 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:)

  • john(right or left)

    * 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:)

  • Chris

    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.

  • http://none Chris

    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.

  • Jean

    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.”

  • Jean

    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.”

  • http://www.myspace.com/davidcruzg David

    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.

  • http://www.myspace.com/davidcruzg David

    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.

  • Chris

    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.

  • http://none Chris

    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.

  • Chris

    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 ;)

  • http://none Chris

    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 ;)

  • Chris

    whoops I meant just because it’s chemical doesn’t mean it’s not sincere.

  • http://none Chris

    whoops I meant just because it’s chemical doesn’t mean it’s not sincere.

  • http://www.donnysramblings.com Donny Pauling

    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.

  • http://www.donnysramblings.com/ Donny Pauling

    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.

  • http://www.myspace.com/davidcruzg David

    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 :)

  • http://www.myspace.com/davidcruzg David

    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 :)

  • http://www.myspace.com/davidcruzg David

    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.

  • http://www.myspace.com/davidcruzg David

    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.

  • Erin

    Chirs… are you RoomMate’s hot Chris from Virginia? Or some other Chris?

  • Erin

    Chirs… are you RoomMate’s hot Chris from Virginia? Or some other Chris?

  • http://www.myspace.com/davidcruzg David

    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!

  • http://www.myspace.com/davidcruzg David

    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!

  • http://www.myspace.com/davidcruzg David

    Oh, she wondered where you were studying, if you care to give the information. If not, it’s cool.

  • http://www.myspace.com/davidcruzg David

    Oh, she wondered where you were studying, if you care to give the information. If not, it’s cool.

  • john(right or left)

    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.

  • john(right or left)

    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.

  • Chris

    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?

  • http://none Chris

    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?

  • Chris

    Erin,
    I;m from florida. I don’t have any idea who you’re referring too.

  • http://none Chris

    Erin,
    I;m from florida. I don’t have any idea who you’re referring too.

  • Chris

    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.

  • http://none Chris

    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.

  • John

    (edited out by Donny, since Chris reposted under his own name)

  • http://none John

    (edited out by Donny, since Chris reposted under his own name)

  • Chris

    DOH! I’m sorry, that last post was me(Chris), I actually signed it as John!

  • Chris

    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.

  • http://none Chris

    DOH! I’m sorry, that last post was me(Chris), I actually signed it as John!

  • http://none Chris

    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.

  • john(right or left)

    donny, call security:)

  • john(right or left)

    donny, call security:)

  • Chris

    My post really went crazy there, started posting out of order and such…regardless john, two of those are my genuine reply.

  • http://none Chris

    My post really went crazy there, started posting out of order and such…regardless john, two of those are my genuine reply.

  • http://www.donnysramblings.com/ Donny Pauling

    Chris, I edited the mistaken post for ya.

  • http://www.donnysramblings.com Donny Pauling

    Chris, I edited the mistaken post for ya.

  • Chris

    Donny thank you!
    I still can’t post my links though that I privately mailed you about.

  • http://none Chris

    Donny thank you!
    I still can’t post my links though that I privately mailed you about.

  • http://www.donnysramblings.com/ Donny Pauling
  • http://www.donnysramblings.com Donny Pauling
← Older Comments
Newer Comments →