Donny's Ramblings

NOONE is perfect chris. everyone “sins” no matter how upstanding we are or at least appear to the joneses. and i wont deny that there are varying degrees. but bottom line is that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, no matter the terminology used or the degrees taken into account. this is one of the reasons i believe in christianity, because it asserts this verifiable truth, that you see all around you.

if we are going to talk about God we might as well get the theology right. so no, God didnt “make” us that way. it was mans rebellion that set this in motion. in fact, mans rebellion sets ALOT of things in motion whether you choose to believe in God or not. you can take the route by blaming God that there even was a tree in the garden but i personally find it extremely interesting that an omniscient and omnipresent being who could easily FILL, and RULE the entire universe, would “back-off” enough to give us the space to decide, to let us be us, without trying to control or intervene. and at the same time, even when our actions rejected Him, He came alongside us at every step, even promising the coming of the messiah RIGHT after what happened in the garden. youll see this in the book of genesis. another thing id like to point out is that the “fall” wasnt a total loss. the “fall” so to speak, didnt take away our core will and identity. we still choose and are in control of our actions. that is, if you take the time to read what it actually says or care to believe it.

rofl, you believe xtianity is true because it asserts that mankind has foibles? Do you really think Christianity is the first thing to come on the scene with this idea? Or that totally separate indigenous groups of people didn’t alsonotice this concept?

And you seriously believe in that genesis fairy tale about the garden of eden? There is no such as the garden of eden. It is not located on any Earth map. Mankind evolved out of southern africa, as you accepted earlier. There was no “sudden” point of homo-sapien creation, nor was there a sudden point where humans were capable of “sin.” If you look at the entire animal community, especially primates, “sin” is found in all of them. It’s a natural by product of evolution. I highly doubt all these creatures had their own apple fairy tales too.

Furthermore, the absolutely absurdness, and overall stupidity of Yahweh in that story is this: How the holy fuck was Eve (If you take at least 100 mental gymnastic leaps in believing that grade school fairy tale in the first place – even though the six days of creation, as established, are dead wrong) to know, that plucking an apple was “WRONG.” If wrongness/sin, you know, disobeying trust, misbehaving, etc…was CREATED by Eve’s mistake, than how was Eve to have any idea what she was doing was on that caliber? You have a totally ignorant woman, lacking the entire concept of what’s right and wrong, eating an apple, and it damns the rest of us? Hahahhahahaha You seriously believe that stupid shit?

no actually what i think it comes down to is how selective we want to be with our preferred mental gymnastics. what kind of music do you like to listen to when you “limber” up chris?

just asking

but before i COPY AND PASTE, id like to say that carl sagan explicitly referred to the universe as “cosmos” because in his view, it certainly wasnt correct to label it as “chaos”. pretty funny huh? its just that one wouldnt expect these kinds of results from unguided processes.

Needs Statement for a Suitable Universe:

An abbreviated list of requirements for a universe suitable to support life of any imaginable type must include the following items:

Order to provide the stable environment that is conducive to the development of life, but with just enough chaotic behavior to provide a driving force for change.
Sufficient chemical stability and elemental diversity to build the complex molecules necessary for essential life functions: processing energy, storing information, and replicating. A universe of just hydrogen and helium will not “work.”
Predictability in chemical reactions, allowing compounds to form from the various elements.
A “universal connector,” an element that is essential for the molecules of life. It must have the chemical property that permits it to react readily with almost all other elements, forming bonds that are stable, but not too stable, so disassembly is also possible. Carbon is the only element in our periodic chart that satisfies this requirement.
A “universal solvent” in which the chemistry of life can unfold. Since chemical reactions are too slow in the solid state, and complex life would not likely be sustained as a gas, there is a need for a liquid element or compound that readily dissolves both the reactants and the reaction products essential to living systems: namely, a liquid with the properties of water.
A stable source of energy to sustain living systems in which there must be photons from the sun with sufficient energy to drive organic, chemical reactions, but not so energetic as to destroy organic molecules (as in the case of highly energetic ultraviolet radiation).
A means of transporting the energy from the source (like our sun) to the place where chemical reactions occur in the solvent (like water on Earth) must be available. In the process, there must be minimal losses in transmission if the energy is to be utilized efficiently.
Unless ALL of these conditions and many more not included in this list are met, we would have a universe that would preclude the possibility of conscious, complex life forms. However, it is possible to meet all of these conditions for the universe and still not necessarily find a suitable habitat in the universe for complex, conscious life. Therefore, we might say that the above requirements for our universe are necessary, but not by themselves sufficient, conditions for a habitat suitable for complex human life. Next we try to identify the additional conditions within such a suitable universe that would provide a place of habitation for conscious, complex life.

Needs Statement for a Habitat Place in the Suitable Universe for Complex, Conscious Life

An abbreviated, but illustrative, list of additional requirements must be specified for a place of habitation in this universe. First, we need a star that is located in a relatively “quiet” region of the universe (e.g., not too many neighbors that are producing high intensity, sterilizing radiation). This star needs to have its highest intensity of radiation in the range that is suitable to drive the chemical reactions essential to life without destroying the products of these reactions. Furthermore, this star needs to have a very special satellite within its solar system. A partial list of the requirements this satellite must meet include:

a planet or moon that is terrestrial–or, solid rather than gaseous;
a temperature range suitable to maintain the universal solvent as a liquid rather than a solid or gas;
just the right concentration of heavy (radioactive) elements to heat the core of the planet and provide the necessary energy to drive plate tectonics, to build up land mass in what would otherwise be a smooth, round planet completely covered with solvent;
just the right amount of solvent (carefully coupled to the plate tectonics activity) to provide a planet with similar proportions of its surfaces as oceans and land mass;
just the right protection from the destructive forces in nature such as radiation and asteroids over a reasonable amount of time; and
just the right stabilized axis tilt and angular velocity to give moderate, regular, and predictable seasons and moderate temperature fluctuations from day to night.
While one is temped to think that these requirements are easily met, given the large number of stars, it should be noted that there are few places in the universe sufficiently free of sterilizing radiation to provide a suitable solar system. The number of candidate “neighborhoods” is further reduced by the requirements of a sun with the right amount of mass to give the right electromagnetic radiation spectrum. Furthermore, the occurrence of a suitable satellite in conjunction with such a star is even more problematic. Only the earth in our solar system of sixty-two satellites meets the above requirements for a “home” (earth) in safe “neighborhood” like our sun and solar system, which are well placed in a quiet place in a suitable universe as described above.

In the next sections, we will see how these universal and local “needs” (or design requirements) are met by: the specific mathematical form encoded in nature, the exact values of the universal constants in our universe, and the remarkable “coincidence” that initial (or boundary) conditions are exactly what they must be. We will also see that the “evolutional” or developmental path that our universe navigated is consistently remarkable, making the origin of our “Garden of Eden” all the more wondrous and enigmatic.

Blueprint for a Habitable Universe – Mathematics and the Deep Structure of the Universe

Mathematics–in contrast to mere calculation–is an abstract intellectual activity that began in Greece in the sixth century BC. Pythagoras was a key figure, as were his successors, Euclid and Archimedes. Their studies focused especially on geometric objects such as straight lines, circles, ellipses, and conic sections (i.e., the curves made by cutting a cone with a plane).

In the third century BC, Appolonius of Perga wrote eight monumental volumes devoted to these curves, describing their properties as “miraculous.” Yet the geometric and mathematical formulations to which they devoted themselves were actually descriptions encoded into the very fabric of nature. Imagine the delight of Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) some eighteen centuries later, when he discovered that the orbits of planets around the sun conformed to these same beautiful but abstract mathematical forms. Kepler declared: “The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed to us in the language of mathematics.”{3}

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) asserted that “the laws of nature are written by the hand of God in the language of mathematics.”{4} In his Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty,{5} historian Morris Kline demonstrates that the religious mathematicians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries–including Newton, Galileo, Kepler, and Copernicus–viewed the universe as orderly and capable of mathematical description precisely because a rational God had fashioned it thus. These scientist-mathematicians believed that, since God had designed the universe, then “all phenomena of nature would follow one master plan. One mind designing a universe would almost surely have employed one set of basic principles to govern all related phenomena.”{5}

Only in the 20th century have we come to fully understand that the incredibly diverse phenomena that we observe in nature are the outworking of a very small number of physical laws, each of which may be described by a simple mathematical relationship. Indeed, so simple in mathematical form and small in number are these physical laws that they can all be written on one side of one sheet of paper, as seen in Table 1.

Physicists and Nobel laureate Eugene Wigner in his widely quoted paper, The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Physical Sciences notes that scientists often take for granted the remarkable–even miraculous–effectiveness of mathematics in describing the real world. Wigner muses:

The enormous usefulness of mathematics is something bordering on the mysterious . . . . There is no rational explanation for it . . . . The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve.{6}
Albert Einstein was struck by the wondrous orderliness of the world.

You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way . . . . [T]he kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the “miracle” which is being constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands.{7}
Table 1. The Fundamental Laws of Nature.

Mechanics (Hamilton’s Equations)

Electrodynamics (Maxwell’s Equations)

Statistical Mechanics (Boltzmann’s Equations)

Quantum Mechanics (Schrödinger’s Equations)

General Relativity (Einstein’s Equation)

Yet even the splendid orderliness of the cosmos, expressible in the mathematical forms seen in Table 1, is only a small first step in creating a universe with a suitable place for habitation by complex, conscious life. The particulars of the mathematical forms themselves are also critical. Consider the problem of stability at the atomic and cosmic levels. Both Hamilton’s equations for non-relativistic, Newtonian mechanics and Einstein’s theory of general relativity (see Table 1) are unstable for a sun with planets unless the gravitational potential energy is proportional to r-1, a requirement that is only met for a universe with three spatial dimensions. For Schrödinger’s equations for quantum mechanics to give stable, bound energy levels for atomic hydrogen (and by implication, for all atoms), the universe must have no more than three spatial dimensions. Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetic energy transmission also require that the universe be no more than three-dimensional.

Richard Courant illustrates this felicitous meeting of natural laws with the example of sound and light: “[O]ur actual physical world, in which acoustic or electromagnetic signals are the basis of communication, seems to be singled out among the mathematically conceivable models by intrinsic simplicity and harmony.”{8}

To summarize, for life to exist, we need an orderly (and by implication, intelligible) universe. Order at many different levels is required. For instance, to have planets that circle their stars, we need Newtonian mechanics operating in a three-dimensional universe. For there to be multiple stable elements of the periodic table to provide a sufficient variety of atomic “building blocks” for life, we need atomic structure to be constrained by the laws of quantum mechanics. We further need the orderliness in chemical reactions that is the consequence of Boltzmann’s equation for the second law of thermodynamics. And for an energy source like the sun to transfer its life-giving energy to a habitat like Earth, we require the laws of electromagnetic radiation that Maxwell described.

Our universe is indeed orderly, and in precisely the way necessary for it to serve as a suitable habitat for life. The wonderful internal ordering of the cosmos is matched only by its extraordinary economy. Each one of the fundamental laws of nature is essential to life itself. A universe lacking any of the laws shown in Table 1 would almost certainly be a universe without life. Many modern scientists, like the mathematicians centuries before them, have been awestruck by the evidence for intelligent design implicit in nature’s mathematical harmony and the internal consistency of the laws of nature. Australian astrophysicist Paul Davies declares:

All the evidence so far indicates that many complex structures depend most delicately on the existing form of these laws. It is tempting to believe, therefore, that a complex universe will emerge only if the laws of physics are very close to what they are….The laws, which enable the universe to come into being spontaneously, seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design. If physics is the product of design, the universe must have a purpose, and the evidence of modern physics suggests strongly to me that the purpose includes us.{9}
British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle likewise comments,

I do not believe that any scientist who examines the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside stars. If this is so, then my apparently random quirks have become part of a deep-laid scheme. If not then we are back again at a monstrous sequence of accidents.{10}
Nobel laureates Eugene Wigner and Albert Einstein have respectfully evoked “mystery” or “eternal mystery” in their meditations upon the brilliant mathematical encoding of nature’s deep structures. But as Kepler, Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Davies, and Hoyle and many others have noted, the mysterious coherency of the mathematical forms underlying the cosmos is solved if we recognize these forms to be the creative intentionality of an intelligent creator who has purposefully designed our cosmos as an ideal habitat for us.

Blueprint for a Habitable Universe: Universal Constants – Cosmic Coincidences?

Next, let us turn to the deepest level of cosmic harmony and coherence – that of the elemental forces and universal constants which govern all of nature. Much of the essential design of our universe is embodied in the scaling of the various forces, such as gravity and electromagnetism, and the sizing of the rest mass of the various elemental particles such as electrons, protons, and neutrons.

There are certain universal constants that are indispensable for our mathematical description of the universe (see Table 2). These include Planck’s constant, h; the speed of light, c; the gravity-force constant, G; the rest masses of the proton, electron, and neutron; the unit charge for the electron or proton; the weak force, strong nuclear force, electromagnetic coupling constants; and Boltzmann’s constant, k.

Table 2. Universal Constants.
Speed of light
c = 3.0 x 108 m/s
Planck’s constant
h = 6.63 x 10-34 J-s
Boltzmann’s constant
k = 1.38 x 10-23 J / oK
Unit charge
q = 1.6 x 10-19 Coulombs
Rest mass proton
mp = 1.67 x 10-27 kg
Rest mass of neutron
mn = 1.69 x 10-27 kg
Rest mass of electron
me = 9.11 x 10-31 kg
gravity force constant
G = 6.67 x 10-11 N-m2/ kg2
When cosmological models were first developed in the mid-twentieth century, cosmologists naively assumed that the selection of a given set of constants was not critical to the formation of a suitable habitat for life. Through subsequent parametric studies that varied those constants, scientists now know that relatively small changes in any of the constants produce a dramatically different universe and one that is not hospitable to life of any imaginable type.

The “just so” nature of the universe has fascinated both scientists and laypersons, giving rise to a flood of titles such as The Anthropic Cosmological Principle,{11} Universes,{12} The Accidental Universe,{13} Superforce,{14} The Cosmic Blueprint,{15} Cosmic Coincidences,{16} The Anthropic Principle,{17} Universal Constants in Physics,{18} The Creation Hypothesis,{19} and Mere Creation: Science, Faith and Intelligent Design.{20} Let us examine several examples from a longer list of approximately one hundred requirements that constrain the selection of the universal constants to a remarkable degree.

Twentieth-century physicists have identified four fundamental forces in nature. These may each be expressed as dimensionless numbers to allow a comparison of their relative strengths. These values vary by a factor of 1041 (10 with forty additional zeros after it), or by 41 orders of magnitude. Yet modest changes in the relative strengths of any of these forces and their associated constants would produce dramatic changes in the universe, rendering it unsuitable for life of any imaginable type. Several examples to illustrate this fine-tuning of our universe are presented next.

Balancing Gravity and Electromagnetism Forces – Fine Tuning Our Star and Its Radiation

The electromagnetic force is 1038 times stronger than the gravity force. Gravity draws hydrogen into stars, creating a high temperature plasma. The protons in the plasma must overcome their electromagnetic repulsion to fuse. Thus the relative strength of the gravity force to the electromagnetic force determines the rate at which stars “burn” by fusion. If this ratio of strengths were altered to1032 instead of 1038 (i.e., if gravity were much stronger), stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster.{21}

Electromagnetic radiation and the light spectrum also depend on the relative strengths of the gravity and electromagnetic forces and their associated constants. Furthermore, the frequency distribution of electromagnetic radiation produced by the sun must be precisely tuned to the energies of the various chemical bonds on Earth. Excessively energetic photons of radiation (i.e., the ultraviolet radiation emitted from a blue giant star) destroy chemical bonds and destabilize organic molecules. Insufficiently energetic photons (e.g., infrared and longer wavelength radiation from a red dwarf star) would result in chemical reactions that are either too sluggish or would not occur at all. All life on Earth depends upon fine-tuned solar radiation, which requires, in turn, a very precise balancing of the electromagnetic and gravitational forces.

As previously noted, the chemical bonding energy relies upon quantum mechanical calculations that include the electromagnetic force, the mass of the electron, the speed of light (c), and Planck’s constant (h). Matching the radiation from the sun to the chemical bonding energy requires that the magnitude of six constants be selected to satisfy the following inequality, with the caveat that the two sides of the inequality are of the same order of magnitude, guaranteeing that the photons are sufficiently energetic, but not too energetic.{22}

mp2 G/[_ c]>~[e2/{_c}]12[me/mp]4

(3)

Substituting the values in Table 2 for h, c, G, me, mp, and e (with units adjusted as required) allows Equation 3 to be evaluated to give:

5.9 x 10-39 > 2.0 x 10-39

(4)

In what is either an amazing coincidence or careful design by an intelligent Creator, these constants have the very precise values relative to each other that are necessary to give a universe in which radiation from the sun is tuned to the necessary chemical reactions that are essential for life. This result is illustrated in Figure 3, where the intensity of radiation from the sun and the biological utility of radiation are shown as a function of the wavelength of radiation. The greatest intensity of radiation from the sun occurs at the place of greatest biological utility.

now when you read this dont give me this stone-wall crap about you “not knowing” how all of these monumental coincidences fell one on top of the other. the fact is you do know. you KNOW there is no God. so what this leaves you with is a MONSTROUS series of accidents that you have no account for. so the next time you swallow this idea, you should add a dash of your favorite seasoning, “skepticsm” to the plate, unless of course your selective with that as well.

i know, no God whatsoever

ill leave you with a quote from someone you know quite well.

“Hahahhahahaha You seriously believe that stupid shit?”

kisses

I’m not reading another one of your copy and pasted articles. The problem with not being able to think for yourself, is that you simply apply to authority. By of course not being able to articulate and think for yourself, your disrection is questioned, because you can really just apply to whatever authority you want. You could continue being a servile authority apeal to an imam just as easily, or a drill sgt, or even dawkins.

Also you and I are in complete agreement with Saga, this isn’t a new incident. Both of us discussed for a month that we felt the cosmos was “determined” and we had “no free will” (yet i doubt you’re a Calvinist). So far I’ve suffered not a single iota of mental gymnastics talking to you. If the cosmos is determined, as you and Carl grant, that does away with Yahwehs blessed free will. Also it proves our scientific theories are closer to reality than the archaic OT. And that as I said earlier, genesis is 100% wrong. You can’t mental gymnastics out of that one, it’s now up to blind, stupid, faith – or facing reality for what it is, and working within those constraints.

Although I’m not reading your pasting, my pereferals are still picking up bits of it while I type this reply. shame on you. the fine tuning argument? That argument is not talking about Yahweh silly. Again, the argument fine tuning makes, and the argument genesis makes, are antithetical. Anyway if that really is a fine tuning argument, I drafted my reply to it a while ago. Christopher Hitchens readily admits it’s a question he can’t answer, and it briefly gave him pause. I was dumbstruck. So I e-mail him my reply, to which he replied to. I’ll just attach what I wrote – so again, this is me thinking for MYSELF, and being to articulate my own positions.

Mr.Hitchens,
I’ve been quite shocked to hear you and Dawkins carry on about how the fine-tuning argument gives you pause. Frankly I find it one of the easiest arguments to jettison. The very problem with the statement of fine tuning is that it presupposed homo-sapiens, or even life in general, is some kind of “pinnacle,” of the universe. That’s an entirely subjective claim. Seeing as there are more stars than all of the words homo-sapiens have spoken, aggregated (Yes I and it appears Neil DeGrasse Tyson both did the math), wouldn’t it be more plausible that the cosmos was fine tuned for stars? And since stars each have the potential to have solar systems, or at the very least a plethora of meteors and comets, isn’t the cosmos thus “fine tuned” for meteors, planets, and comets? Hell if we want to carry this line of reasoning on, black holes are extremely complex, and I know you share my awe with the concept of an event horizon. Well since there are hundreds of billions of black holes, is the cosmos now not fine tuned for black holes? And as you pointed out with Wolpe or whatever that silly Rabbi’s name is – the Cosmos will expand to a point of total oblivion. Well if you view the numbers from most leading astrophysicist, that process will take hundreds of trillions of years, all of which, life is impossible. So, isn’t the cosmos now “fine tuned” for destruction/oblivion, or barrenness if you will, since the universe will spend the remainder of eternity in this state? Finally, even if, just for sport, we acknowledge that the universe is “fine-tuned” for “life,” I still don’t see the pertinence of this. As you know, 99.9% of species go extinct. And as you presumably know, there are more cells in my colon than all of homo-sapiens to of walked the earth. Seeing as that’s just my colon, and cells have been swarming the planet in incomprehensibly larger numbers for over 3.5 billion years, all we can really reason, is that the cosmos is briefly (before it goes into this expansion death – and after the first 9 billion years where matter was too condensed to allow for life) fine tuned for cellular life – not homo-sapien life. So we have a brief, several billion (scant in cosmology time) year window, where cellular structures can run wild, leading to the massive death of 99.9% of anything on a macro-level, these non-sentient, non-cognitive, complex molecular clusters form – and you and Dawkins are taken back by fine tuning? Come on….you two should know better.
Fan,
-Chris

p.s. way to totally ignore the point that the garden of eden is an absolute fairy tale.
that yahweh is a total jerk to place punish eve for doing something “wrong” when her concept of “right and wrong” was literally nonexistent, by yahwehs own creation.

and then to argue that the cosmos is determined and carl sagan got it right…which again, destroys the entire concept of the garden of eden. Mental gymnastics are a bitch. keep compartmentalizing.

1. dont suck me into some kind of tractor beam near your orbit with what i previously stated. we may have briefly touched on some common ground but thats as far as it went. i stated that the universe is rational, intelligible, and orderly. and the amazing thing is that we humans can apprehend it, most especially with the language of mathematics. read my latest post and the “experts” agree. and i DO NOT, like you, owe these incomprehensible “coincidences” to a monstrous series of unguided accidents. i never said anything different. you prefer to notice blackholes and dying stars, i prefer to notice the staggering impossibility of us even being here. no amount of doomsaying from you can take anything away from that. i am not a determinist except in the round about sense that i feel God determines things and even then i cant give you an exhaustive description of what i mean by that, so dont get it twisted. i also never once denied free will. i prefer to take responsibility for my actions chris, not blame my dna or my neurons for the choices i make. i also teach my kids the same thing, becausei think it helps in making productive citizens.

2. i almost feel sorry for you in your complaint of me referring to the “authorities” when even in your very own letter to hitchens you, once again, do the same thing. this would only be your LATEST reference to “authority” (unless of course, you yourself are a closet cosmologist, idk?) i just cannot even understand why you wouldnt want me to read or understand a piece of scientific literature to get my information from. im clueless to that.

3. my rebuttal was to get you to understand that you yourself are guilty of the same mental gymnastics that you accuse me of, my response was not to explain or ignore my stance on the garden. youve stated that you dont believe in God. and by that i can also assume any other type of governing intelligence behind the universe. so by default, EVERY detail that i posted above in “the needs statement for a hospitable universe” is chalked up to a monstrous series of accidents. your practically a walking, intellectual contortionist chris!

4. another thing you keep forgetting or perhaps your ignorant of, is that EVEN if you rule out the presence of carbon based life as a fluke, the universe ITSELF is still on a knife’s edge. perhaps thats why hitchens was silent.

5. again, no amount of doomsaying from you can take anything away from what ALSO occurs in the universe alongside of black-holes. its a moot point.

6. why dont you bite the bullet and read my post.

enjoy the weather, we got another cold front coming in:)

1. It’s because the cosmos is rational, and orderly, as we agree, that we can agree science works. I’m not sucking you in, this was your concession earlier. If we agree science works, we should be agreeing, but you suffer from cognitive dissonance here, that the garden of eden is a fairly tale. Adam and Eve are not the origin of man. And genesis is entirely fabricated!

I don’t prefer to notice black holes and dying stars to homo-sapiens. I prefer to notice all of them. Each of them is equally fascinating in their own regard.

I’ve never claimed someone shouldn’t take responsibility for their actions. How silly. Or that you should tell your kids otherwise! This doesn’t mean your kids thought shouldn’t be aware of genetics or neurons. For instance, if Grandma has a stroke, and can no longer speak – isn’t it proper to explain to them why Grandma isn’t talking to them? A blood clot shut down some key neural faculties. Grandma didn’t “choose this.” Just like DNA is quite important in explaining that just because ones DNA may make the individual black, tan, pale, albino etc, they are still a unique individual – so don’t be mean to people due to genetics!

2. I didn’t appeal to a single authority in that letter to Hitchens. Nothing was copy and pasted, all those ideas were constructed by myself. Yes, it took individuals to do the telescope browsing, but that’s not the same appeal to authority you’ve done. Such as “I Can’t answer your moral questions, go talk to a theologian, they know for me.” That’s APPEAL to authority.

3. I haven’t suffered from any mental gymnastics, you say I have, but you haven’t actually named any, or revealed any. I could just “say you’re a thief,” but I’ve given no evidence for it.

I don’t believe in Yahweh – remember, I’m always explicit about this. I believe in the god of einstein, if you want to call that god, but that’s a different god from Yahweh. You have ignored my garden of claims however. If you think the universe is orderly and rational, and that’s why science works, why in the face of overwhelming evidence, do you still believe Genesis was spoken by the cause of the cosmos? (You’ve ignored this question A LOT).

As far as me being an accident, that’s a non sequitour. If the universe is orderly and rational, the universe doesn’t “make accidents/mistakes.” It just flows. I’m currently part of the flow, I won’t be 80 years down the road, and all life won’t be 100 trillion years down the road. Such is the universe. No gymnastics here.

4. I don’t rule it as a fluke, did you read my email at all? I’m just saying, it’s a fleeting moment of existence, that’s hardly the pinnacle of anything. A fantastic moment, one I’m glad I’m a part of, but nothing quintessential. Actually Hitchens replied to me, he wasn’t silent. I just didn’t attach the reply, because it’s irrelevant, and again, I don’t bring outside “authority” into OUR discussion.

5. What doomsaying? It’s just a fact. Does this bother you? It doesn’t me. But, if you’re going to be honest about your examinations of the cosmos, instead of saying “papa yahweh made this especially for me, because he loves me, and he’s my crutch” – black holes are something you must accept. Take off the faith goggles, and see for reality for what it is, not for what you desire it to be.

As far doomsaying, are you fucking kidding me? Ever heard of Armageddon, christ return? That shit is gospel to you blindly faithful fairy tale worshippers.

6. Because it’s not yours.

Alright read it, it’s crap. It’s the fine tuning argument, and nebulous claims that an “intelligence” had to be behind it all. I believe my e-mail to Hitchens quickly does away with this silly notion, that the Universe is all for you and me (how pretentious, selfish, greedy, and childish).

Even if the cosmos was made by an intelligence, this doesn’t defacto mean prayers are answered, after lifes are granted, and humans are the pinnacle. Nor does it mean – actually it implies quite the opposite, with “intelligent” as an adjective, that Yahweh, the god fabricated by a couple dark skinned, desolate, ignorant, arabs, near israel, over 3 thousand years ago, is watching over us now. If you’re quick to believe that poppycock, you should be equally quick to believe Joseph Smith, or Muhammed.

NYTimes story about a man who had no longer term or short term memory after undergoing surgery. For over 50 years, everything he did, was “for the first time.” How do you explain this to your kids WITHOUT using neurons, atoms, chemicals, etc.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/05/us/05hm.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1228756637-g5Ue+f41Lqz6PkU/9SznOw

i dont really have to because it speaks for itself and i do not deny that it happens. happens ALL of the time in fact. nevertheless it does not negate free-will, which is something that a determinist such as yourself, does not believe exists. therefore you throw the baby out with the bath water. but there are plenty of people who DO have the faculties to make healthy decisions but STILL choose not to. now, would THIS be the product of their neurons and DNA that WOULD JUSTIFY THEIR ACTIONS, or just plain reckless decision making? and this is what i appeal to in my kids and everyone else i engage with. bottom line, there are choices that you are free to make, regardless of the scenarios. unless of course you are completely dehabilitated. but strict determinism acts as if all of our wills are held captive like the grandma who suffered the stroke or the man who lost his memory. that simply isnt true and in fact you even agree that people should be held for their actions. well, id like you to illustrate for me, the line where our neurons and dna stop and our will takes over in order for us to be held responsible, as you say. remember, courts of law presuppose this.

again and not to attack you personally, but your worldview does not paint a complete picture. its like youve stated before, you dont believe in moral absolutes but yet you cannot bring yourself to say that anything goes. so you still cling to morality. this to me is a perfect example of mental gymnastics. you cannot justify the very things you want to hold onto, in fact you deny they exist, yet you still hold onto them. intellectually i wonder at how you accomplish this. this is soft atheism, like dawkins. he denies God yet still considers himself a cultural christian and enjoys the values and morals of a western christian society. but you throw God out, then everything else attached to that worldview goes as well. similar to what nietzche, a hard atheist, says SHOULD happen. why dont you put the skeptical light on yourself and really look at what it is you believe and see if it holds up under real scenarios.

and my post on the “needs statement for a habitable universe” shows ONLY a portion of the requirements needed to allow reality to be as it currently is. im not going to repost those requirements but id like you to humor me and call them to mind. by not believing in God or some kind of governing intelligence to bring about the precision in these sequences, you can only by default, chalk them up to a monstrous series of accidents. i mean i dont know how else you can describe them in a power that warrants their description. you take all of the fundamental laws of physics, what it takes to allow complex carbon based life, the information in DNA among other things in the universe, the very fact that mathematics is congruent with all of this AND we are able to apprehend it………but then go take out any rhyme or reason behind it. well what does that leave you with? that in my mind, makes you a contortionist. you wanted me to show you. but then you say that you dont chalk it up to a fluke, the universe is rational and orderly and so therefore “accidents” dont happen. listen to what your saying. you can either say rational and orderly universes just “pop” into existence or they are the products of an unmoved mover, where with the buck stops and who also happens to be rational and orderly so making it perfectly reasonable to see the same characteristic in the physical world. which makes more sense? are all of these laws, orderliness,and information mere designoids that richard dawkins would LIKE us to think they are…. the laws of physics are mere illusions like the kennedy shadow from the rocks? id like to think that they hold a little more weight than that. you be the judge. now i know this will make you flip the same coin to look at the other side to all of the black holes and dying stars and weve been through this before. but does all of that REALLY cancel the rest out or does it mean that something else is occurring in nature that disturbs us? totally different question.

and i was going to nitpick and show you where you did appeal to the leading astrophysicists and name drop Tyson in hitchens letter, but i wont.

please chris, i am not trying to win an argument here. i really dont care about that. im just trying to present different angles to this that you may have not thought about. im not saying that my worldview has no puzzles or answers that ill never get, im asking what makes more sense to you? everything from nothing or a God being behind all of it?

ill leave you with a quote:

“The most amazing thing to me is existence itself. How is it that inanimate matter can organize itself to contemplate itself?”

“….. the world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone.”

“God is the explanation for the miracle of existence.”

- Allan Sandage, cosmologist and Nobel Prize winner

and p.s. you say you believe in the God of einstein, so are you upgrading to deist now? cause einstein certainly wasnt comfortable with atheists using his quotes for atheism:)

do what makes the most sense to you and makes you happy man

I’m about to fall asleep, but before I do, addressing only your second post.
Einstein, from what I remember, defined god as “the laws of the universe” so do I believe the Universe is comprised of laws, yes. Therefore, by Einsteins definition, you couldn’t call me an atheist.
You define the cause of the cosmos as Yahweh. That’s absolutely the dumbest thing I hear day to day. So when it comes to your deity I’m 100% atheist. God is a loaded word, that’s why I avoid it, and Einstein should of too. Yahweh is more explicit, it refers specifically to a certain deity/fairy tale.

I’ll get to your first post later, finals are this week.

Eh fuck it, I’m exausted, but better I type this reply tonight, than tomorrow during study time.

Free will is really moot to be clear. I wrote an essay recently in Philosophy class and here was my personal argument as to why

“Finally, I’m in full agreement with Hayle that no one holds omniscience or access to a God’s-Eye-View of the cosmos – therefore, although I do think the cosmos is running on a deterministic path, this need not terrify anyone about ethics, for a very simple set of reasons. The reader will briefly have to humor me that the cosmos is without a doubt determined, under immutable, physical laws. Humankind is in no position, technologically, or even biologically, to observe all of the matter in the cosmos at once. Pretending that we are in that position, in some futuristic civilization, we are still operating under the speed limit of light (more matter). So, even if we make this observation, we still can not, and never will be in a position, to extrapolate the next move of said matter, because we would have to physically

operate faster than the speed limit, our own biological and technological matter is limited by. Therefore, even in a determined cosmos, each of our ephemeral experiences is still unique, unpredictable, genuine, and sincere – so we can and should, continue to experience routine life as if free-will was present.”

Anyway if you the universe is rational, and behaves under orderly natural law, you’d understand that free will violates that principle. Either you believe in one, or the other. But let’s drop free will entirely, as it’s not pertinent to our discussion over Yahweh being the cause of the universe.

You ask me
“but there are plenty of people who DO have the faculties to make healthy decisions but STILL choose not to. now, would THIS be the product of their neurons and DNA that WOULD JUSTIFY THEIR ACTIONS, or just plain reckless decision making? ”

Well it depends. If you compare Manson, Dahmer, and several other psychopaths, there actually is a genetic trait, and a noticeable difference in their brain structure, that scientist have noticed. Their Amygdala, the portion of the brain that processes “emotions” is 20% smaller than your average human. Furthermore, their amygdala isn’t properly connected to their frontal lobes (The portion of the brain that reasons). This mean, their ability to feel emotion, does not connect, physically, with their ability to make decision. This is a milestone in science. We know understand what can make someone a total sociopath.

Now any other decision you may be referring to, I need you to be more explicit. If you’re referring to for instance, ones decision to have an abortion, you may call it wrong, I may call it right. So please be more clear.

Our will, or our ability to make decision, as you ask me about, is a product of our DNA and neurons, not a separate entity. That’s why, cells, without a brain, don’t make decisions, they just chemically react. That’s why animals with smaller brains, make less decisions. That’s why we, humans, with bigger brains, make more decisions. Very simple explanation. I agree, people should be held accountable – free will or not, the majority of us have a pristine society in mind, and we should work together to achieve it.

My world view paints a fine picture, not mental gymnastics on my end. plenty on yours. Instead of answering my questions, you quail, and bombard me with more. yet I continue to answer them. For shame.

“again and not to attack you personally, but your worldview does not paint a complete picture. its like you’ve stated before, you don’t believe in moral absolutes but yet you cannot bring yourself to say that anything goes. so you still cling to morality. this to me is a perfect example of mental gymnastics. you cannot justify the very things you want to hold onto, in fact you deny they exist, yet you still hold onto them. ”

Actually I never once said that I couldn’t bring myself to say anything goes. I actually said the opposite, I said anything does go, that’s why hitler did what he did, even though the majority of us disagree(Remember? Otherwise you have quite possible the shittiest memory ever – either that or you’re lying, either way, sad). With god all things are possible(9/11, crusades). Without yahweh all things are possible(Stalins death camps). Everything goes no matter what, atheist, theist, doesn’t matter. We reached an agreement, that we disagree morally with Hitler, yet he could do it anyway. Anything does go, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to stop it. So, you’ve failed yet again, to catch me in any gymnastics, and you’re lying about my position.

“and my post on the “needs statement for a habitable universe” shows ONLY a portion of the requirements needed to allow reality to be as it currently is. im not going to repost those requirements but id like you to humor me and call them to mind. by not believing in God or some kind of governing intelligence to bring about the precision in these sequences, you can only by default, chalk them up to a monstrous series of accidents.”

You’re really a fucking idiot at this point John. Your memory is terrible. I’m growing tired of even answering you, you’ll forget whatever I say in a second. I’m shocked at this point you can even drive a car, without forgetting what the red light stands for. I’ve beaten to death your pathetic ID claims for months, yet here I go again. REMEMBER IT THIS TIME SHIT FOR BRAINS.

Stop using God – you mean Yahweh. You don’t mean Krishna. Your post shows how the universe operates, it does not show what caused the cosmos to exist. I agree, the universe operates as the individual said. Laws are in place, since the dawn of time. This does not mean that those laws were put in place by the author of genesis. And the only form of “intelligence” you or I know of, are products of neural faculties, aggregated, into a “brain.” Do you really think THAT, a human BRAIN, made the universe? I doubt it.I don’t chalk the existence of the universe as an accident as you claim. I have said, a zillion times over(Is there just pure dog shit between your ears? Seriously, go get some ADD medication, start drinking 8 glasses of water a day, and don’t smoke pot) that I don’t know where the universe “came from.” You don’t “KNOW” either. You have faith, that a bearded man named yahweh did it(even though his account of creation is a joke). At this fleeting moment of eternity, is life possible? Yes. Will it be for the rest of eternity, no. Does this mean an intelligence, as in, a brain made it, not at all. Is it a possibility? Sure, among a billion other “possibilities” we arm chair around, until the day we die. Either way accident is an appropriate adjective. product is better.

Another false dichotomy, by the narrow minded John:

“you can either say rational and orderly universes just “pop” into existence or they are the products of an unmoved mover, where with the buck stops and who also happens to be rational and orderly so making it perfectly reasonable to see the same characteristic in the physical world.”

Actually, you yet again forgot my position. I don’t know where the cosmos came from. Did it pop into existance, maybe. Did it come from the black hole of another unvierse, maybe. Did the cosmos bang and crunch, maybe. I don’t know – I’m not arrogant and self centered like you, to presume 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 galaxies are all here for me. There are many characteristics we can’t see in the real world, ever heard of the entire spectrum of light, we don’t see much. Dark matter? Dark energy? Inside of a black hole? Go read a mother fucking book, that isn’t 100% christian for once. You may learn a fact.

You fucking numskull: “and i was going to nitpick and show you where you did appeal to the leading astrophysicists and name drop Tyson.” Did you read that e-mail properly? I said I DID THE MATH, as well as Tyson. Not Tyson did the math and I’m just letting him know. This was so that, if he didn’t believe me, he could check with Tyson. That math was very easy to do, it took me all of five minutes.

“im asking what makes more sense to you? everything from nothing or a God being behind all of it?”

Not YAHWEH. GET IT RIGHT. THERE IS MORE THAN ONE GOD. EVERY SINGLE MOTHER FUCKER WHO HAS WALKED THIS EARTH HAS CONEIVED OF A DIFFERENT NOTION OF GOD. JEFFERSONS GOD, ROBERTSONS GOD, HUGO CHAVEZ’S GOD, FALLWELLS GOD, YOUR GOD, AHMIDINIJHADS GOD, OPRAHS GOD, EINSTEINS GOD – ARE NOT THE SAME THING. I DON’T BELIEVE IN YAHWEH, BE EXPLICIT, SHIT FOR BRAINS.

Give me one mother fucking good reason to believe THE CAUSE OF THE UNIVERSE WROTE GENESIS, OR BACK THE FUCK DOWN. You’re boring, trite, narrow-minded, and stupid. I’ve grown quite tired of this conversation, you learn nothing, remembering nothing, and can’t think for yourself. Join the army, take orders, and be servile, it’s what’s your best at.

“ill leave you with a quote:

“The most amazing thing to me is existence itself. How is it that inanimate matter can organize itself to contemplate itself?”

“….. the world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone.”

“God is the explanation for the miracle of existence.”

- Allan Sandage, cosmologist and Nobel Prize winner”

Who gives a flying fuck? Does he mean YAHWEH? Does he literally mean jesus died for your sins, homos are abominations, abortions send you to an eternity of hell fire, miracles happen, after lifes are granted, prayers are answered, fucking before marriage is a sin, and jesus christ will return for Armageddon, in an epic battle, similar to xmen 3.
I’ll leave you with a quote.

“THERE IS NO GOD”
-A homeless man I gave change too.

“GOD BLESS YOU”
-Another homesless man I gave change too.

Think for yourself, grow a fucking spine.

dude, youre the one who keeps coming back in here to post replies to me lol!
so quit your whining`!

you DID, God forbid, appeal to the authorities(people who do the actual work) in your letter.

“Well if you view the numbers from MOST LEADING ASTROPHYSICIST, that process will take hundreds of trillions of years, all of which, life is impossible.”
-chris

and YOUR telling me to go read a book, by the……AUTHORITIES?!

chris, “You fucking numskull”

and to say that anything DOES GO does not address my point. of course ANYTHING DOES GO, mr obvious! youre preaching to the choir dude. but whats really funny is that you want to stop it FROM GOING! that was exactly my point about you clinging to morality even though you deny it. GYMNASTIC #1. and for your information, thats why i capped the statement about whether peoples biology is able to JUSTIFY THEIR ACTIONS. who cares that their amygdala is 20% smaller, does that even remotely JUSTIFY dahmer cutting people up and putting them in his fridge, are you telling me he had no control over what he was doing? heh i guess caps are too subtle for you and you were unable to understand what i was saying. i knew you would do that.

so again, are you telling me that you feel that anything SHOULD go? and in the next breath youre going to deny that there are any moral absolutes, but on top of that, in your latest post you say we SHOULD try to stop the dahmers, mansons, and hitlers. well, on what grounds, the grounds that you deny even exist? lol you completely contradict yourself.

you should join a circus, your moves would blow peoples minds!

and to tell me that you dont know. well you DO know. you KNOW that there is no God behind the universe, matter just self assembles and contemplates itself. YEAH RIGHT! GYMNASTIC #2. ok to make things easier, ill just use the benign word “intelligence” so you dont get confused by spitting hairs. you KNOW there is no intelligence behind the universe, i stand corrected.

oh yeah, allan sandage most certainly is a christian, so hes referring to Jesus!

Yes when it comes to actual astrophysics, I have to aggregate theoretical authority. My ideas though, and the combination of them, into one coherent thought, are my own. You, instead of answering direct questions, rely on direct copy and pasting. There is a difference, you need
people to articulate your positions, because you don’t think for yourself(Like how you can’t articulate why homosexual sex is wrong). I take peoples work, and articulate my own position, amongst the scatter.

*sigh* the rest of your post is written by in a very simple-minded way. You’d do great in the military I’m sure.

Here we go mr hypocrite:

“ANYTHING DOES GO, mr obvious! youre preaching to the choir dude. but whats really funny is that you want to stop it FROM GOING!”

And you don’t? You’re just fine with the way things are, and want absolutely nothing to change? You never even attempt to make a difference? You’re as guilty as I am – idiot.

I don’t deny morality shit for brains. Mother of fuck, do you have any formal reading comprehension, have you been to school? Taken a basic english class? Can you remember phone numbers?

I have time and time again, morals are subjective, and they change over time. We can argue our case, but there are no absolutes. You also never presented me with any moral absolutes. The gymnastics are on your end.

No I personally don’t think the smaller amygdalah condones his actions, but perhaps his actions are a product of the smaller amygdalah. We’ve been over this before, moron. Democratically, the majority don’t want Dhamer walking the streets, free will, no free will, big or small amygdalah, the majority don’t approve.

Let me ask you though, why don’t you approve of his actions? Use the bible to justify your claim, don’t use secular reasoning.

“so again, are you telling me that you feel that anything SHOULD go?

I never said I feel that anything should go. I just said it can and it often does. quit putting words in my mouth. learn to read and comprehend. take your time replying, weeks if you have too, but get it right.

“you should join a circus, your moves would blow peoples minds!”
You should goto a local community college, and take ENC 101 – your reading comprehension is embarrassing to your children.

I never said I “know there is no god behind the cosmos.” So far, YOUR ENTIRE POST HAS BEEN NOTHING BUT CONTRIVED. LEARN TO READ. Fuck this is sad. QUIT PEOPLE WORDS IN MY MOUTH – I”VE BEEN VERY EXPLICIT, YOU’RE NARROW-MINDED, WISHFUL, AND DIM. Actually read the following, properly:
I do not know where the cosmos came from. There are a million possibilities, maybe more. None of us knows for sure. The deity described in genesis however, has more against him, than he does for him. So I’m quite certain Yahweh didn’t create the cosmos.

Intelligence and yahweh is not splitting hairs, fucking idiot. We’ve been over this, even if “intelligence” made the cosmos, this does mean jesus was his son, adam and eve are real, a garden of eden existed, prayers are answered, after lifes are granted, etc. All it means, is an intelligence made the cosmos – you’re wishing for the rest. Moron.

That’s fine that he’s a Christian, so is hugo chavez, pat robertson, obama, bush jr, nixon, fallwell, martin luther, calvin, henry VIII, etc. Yet all of their deities are slightly different.

Don’t reply, until you read my post several times over, and ensure before you asked a question, I have’t already answered it. Also don’t put a single word in my mouth – it’s the only way you can even stand on your own 2 feet in this conversation.

Please answer me, from a biblical perspective, why, what dahmer did was immoral.

ok you appeal to authority as do i, so why the heck are you STILL whining about it…. you appeal “better” than i do?

what?!

i just threw up in my mouth chris

of course i want it to change. i dont want dahmer, manson, and hitler running around wreaking havoc and i can see that you dont want them to either. the only difference is i actually believe in the grounds that warrant my stand, whereas you deny their “truth” and existence, sawing off the very branch that you rest on. you tell me how much sense that makes, youve no right to complain. you believe in morality, well what exactly does that mean? how much do you believe it? youre still not so sure that hitlers genocide and torturing babies for fun is wrong as a FACT? i bet on my life, that your head could never convince your heart of that in a million years. and before you fly off the handle and accuse me of not remembering your stance on this, believe me i do. i purposely ask these questions to cross examine you, because apparently you are not asking YOURSELF the appropriate questions. instead you just turn the high-beams of skepticism on everyone and everything else that comes your direction, selectively.

man is made in Gods image, thats why you dont commit serial murder. man is a special creation, more so than any animal. thats why we have more value than animals. no animal i believe, was made in the image of God. but at the same time, this does not mean that i can do whatever i want to an animal. cruelty is cruelty. but i feel more warranted to give mankind this assessment of value than what some worldviews allow. how can strict materialism give mankind more value than animals?

and are you telling me that if i took you out of western culture, where the majority as you say, doesnt appreciate dismemberment and refrigerator storage, you WOULD NOT know that this is wrong? or how about the general apathy in nazi germany towards what was going on? the majority certainly held their own consensus on what was best for the jews. oh yeah chris, *rolling eyes* right and wrong are established by a majority consensus. the majority can most certainly take a scary turn off course from time to time, thats why there are fixed standards. standards that you dont believe exist.

keep twirling pretzel boy

I’m not sawing off my own branch, as I’ve said, there is no branch to sit on. Sheesh. I make my moral arguments on reasoned based ground – these however are subject to change. I’m open-minded, and I don’t conform to a 2,000 year old book for guidance.

I’m glad you continue to ask me questions, without ever answering mine.

Anyway. I;ve been over this. My reason for Hitlers crimes being immoral are utilitarian. Not everyone shares the utilitarian moral approach. That’s fine by me, I don’t claim that it’s supreme. It’s the best one I’ve found, for now, but unlike theism and faith, I’m willing to change it, if a better form of ethics (In my subjective opinion) is offered. Fortunately, I also support democracy. So if you reach the same conclusion as me, but without a different set of reasoning, I’m still glad we reached the conclusion, and as a majority, can exercise our say.

Man is made in gods image? See that’s quite silly to me on multible counts. And I appreciate it if you’d address all the following questions. Does this mean god is black, white, asian, arabic, etc? Is god tall, short, fat, thin? Are babys with spina bifida born in his image? What about mental retards? Aspbergers syndrome? Sociopaths (again, these are people born with smaller amygdalas, that also don’t form a proper connection to their frontal lobes – that’s genetic, not learned). And keep in mind, god is responsible for all of the aboves existance – Exodus 4:11. So is god a sociopath? Also this is my very problem with what you believe caused the cosmos. You’re dead set on the idea that the cause of the universe was the product of, essentially, another homo-sapien. Someone with a intellect derived from a human brain – the same biology. This is entirely a position of blind faith. To stare out into the depths of the universe, conclude not only are you the pinnacle, but also someone like you made all this?

Actually under biblical rule you can do whatever you want to animals. god gave you dominion over them. enjoy.

Yet again, your reason for believing falls into, you want to be special, you want to be the pinnacle. I suppose this is why evolution scares you. The idea that you’re one of a billion products – that was planned with special intentions. Where as this is awe-striking and mezmering to me, and I’m just happy to have a shot at existence, you’re stubborn and wish for more.

“and are you telling me that if i took you out of western culture, where the majority as you say, doesnt appreciate dismemberment and refrigerator storage, you WOULD NOT know that this is wrong?”

Mother fuck dude, quit putting words in my mouth. I never once said that. And Eastern cultures, and Latin cultures would slap you silly right now. No cultures tolerate that form of behavior. Not because it’s a moral absolute, granted down from yahweh – but because we reason that it’s just outright heinous.

The fact people can “take a scary turn off course” is my point, that morals are subjective. Many nazis believed to be morally superior, many westeners disagreed. That’s why war followed, not warm fireside chats.

Want to talk about twirling?
———>Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.<———

In a court of law, if you abused or killed animals in any way that you pleased, you have never heard of someone getting the death penalty for something like that. should judges render such treatment and be harsher on the man to man crimes rather than the man to animal crimes? logical?

so, id like you to REASON to me using strict materialism why humans are more valuable than animals. i want you to use the LOGIC of materialism, do not invoke kin relationship, because kin relationship is an “instinct”, not a logic.

and the very fact that human beings can “take a scary turn off course” is no indication whatsoever that morals are subjective. honestly, its MORE indicative of free-will. because, basically thats like saying that if i decide to hold up a convenience store and then burn it and everyone inside to the ground, that would in some way make what i did legally neutral in the eyes of the law. which of course would be ludicrous. chris we are talking about adjectives and verbs here. a verb (hitler’s, dahmer’s, mansons’ ACTIONS) cant ever describe an adjective(atrocity, inhumane, unjust, heinous, perverse). what we DECIDE to DO does not change the DESCRIPTION of what we just did. when you use the word “subjective” you need to replace it with the word “free” instead. we are morally “free” to do what we want, and that has nothing to do with subjectiveness or its actual description. because obviously a whole lot of stuff happens that SHOULD NOT happen. and that has nothing to do with a majority consensus, it has to do with some things that REALLY should not be happening. if you really believe that nazi germany was subjective than you are no more correct than a white supremacist who was down with what happened. and if by your argument you believe that the only reason we dont repeat it is because the majority democratically opposes it now for some unknown reason, then all you have is numbers and mob rule, which easily can be said for the opposition, if they obtain the numbers themselves. and if you say that we reasoned ourselves to come to this decision, than what was the nature of the end of that reasoning, truth or a lie? isnt that precisely what people reason themselves into finding out?

come on chris, seriously

you ignored my questions again. Instead of answering them, you just pose. how sad, it must be to live in this state.

I never said humans were more valuable than animals did? So I have no reason to argue this. Also you know I’m a vegetarian, so obviously, I’m not in the position of treating animals as “second class.” Dur.

Look if there are morals absolutes, I ask again, name me a couple. I want to know them. I’ve begged you to list some. You can’t. You won’t. Your dumb. You have no imagination. Nothing unique sparks in your head. You’re a recycling bin for a cult.

———>Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.<———

p.s.
———>Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.<———

ps oh yeah another criteria for your reasoning;

you are not to use religion either

be careful not to inject ANY form of western christian ideology that you were inadvertantly brought up with. that darn theology can be so subtle!

stick to matter, energy and chemistry since thats ALL you say we are.

should be quite suffice for you chris:)

well than ill take it that you are saying that:

1. humans are NOT more valuable than animals

or

2. humans and animals are no different and should be treated identically

my kids are no different than the offspring of swine

good to know

im going to start calling you dr singer if you dont mind. you should read his thoughts on beastiality. probably make a great coffee table read

so to be fair, next post ill address your question, to the best of my ability. and i stress that

well then, since you dont get value ideals from either matter, energy, or chemistry and because i know theres no way youre going to be able to show me that, wouldnt it make a whole bunch more sense with a brute statement such as “man was created in the image of God” in order to build a sturdier foundation of human society? i mean if you take just that ONE ideal OUT of society and put man in the SAME place as animals and/or blur the distinction, that would be such a reverse, illogical, and ludicrous heirarchy!

To you, of course your Children are more valuable(subjective claim), but just to you. Just like to any other non-human animal, their child is more valuable(also subjective), to them, than your children. In the grand scheme of things though, I treat both equally. As in I wouldn’t hurt both, deceive both, eat both, or force my will on both (deforestation for instance). I desire for both to be content in life, and live life at their volition, so long as no one hurts anyone else.

Now that isn’t to say human animals, and non-human animals are no different. Of course a Lion is different from a snake, whose different from a squid.

“wouldnt it make a whole bunch more sense with a brute statement such as“man was created in the image of God” in order to build a sturdier foundation of human society”

Yet again you mean Yahweh, you don’t mean Einstein’s god. Because in Einsteins god, there is no “image” to create one of. And of course neither of you two share a god whose representations matches the billions of Hindu’s.

Regardless, no, that does make this any easier. One, the statement, man is in made in Yahwehs image, is simply false – unless you can demonstrate otherwise, with the question I’ve asked a thousand times. Perhaps that’s why you avoided it again – because it conflicts with this very question you’ve posed to me. P.S. I’m not your tutor, your ability to reciprocate is quite rude.

Secondly, even if we just say “man was made in the image of the cause of the universe” – that doesn’t get us anywhere morally? That i can see…No more than “Man is a product of natural evolution.” Both leave us, to devise our own moral structures – neither grant down moral absolutes. If one does though, I keep asking what moral absolutes exist, and you keep ignoring me. Mental gymnastics, dodging, equivocation – all signs your impoverishing theism is bankrupt.

———>Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.<———

“well then, since you dont get value ideals from either matter, energy, or chemistry and because i know theres no way youre going to be able to show me that,”

No, our subjective morals and values are a product of matter. Just like planets, stars, grass, water, rocks, cells, ants, and the hives they make, beavers, and the dams they build – we humans are a product, and our virtues are as well. Just like when matters come together to form a small amygdalah, that doesn’t connect to the frontal lobes – leading to a socio path – matter builds our neural faculties, which help represent what we find moral. This reasonable universe, has given reasonable evidence to support my claim. Blind faith and wishful thinking supports yours.

“i mean if you take just that ONE ideal OUT of society and put man in the SAME place as animals and/or blur the distinction, that would be such a reverse, illogical, and ludicrous heirarchy!”

I have no what what you’re even saying here. Why do they desire to badly to be the pinnacle of the cosmos? Can’t you be humble enough, and revere how fortunate you are, just to have a chance to exist in the first place? Think of the infinite numbers of individuals that could of existed and will never have a chance – at least you’re here. Don’t waste your time on fairy tales.

chris, would it be too crass to realize that we ARE the pinnacle on this planet? youd be in utter denial to not admit at least that.

let me throw you a scenario or two:

1.i am a the father of an 8 year old little girl. her mother died a few years ago in a car accident so she lives with her grandparents. i usually dont visit my kid that often because id rather hangout with my friends and my girlfriend. im just being honest, i like to do my own thing. currently its been about a year since ive seen her. christmas is coming up so after my family and my girlfriend kept harping on me, i decided to visit my daughter.

2.”On June 7, 1998, James Byrd, 49, accepted a ride from three drunk men named Shawn Allen Berry, Lawrence Russell Brewer, and John William King. He had already known one of them. Instead of taking him home, the three men beat Byrd behind a convenience store, chained him by the ankles to their pickup truck, stripped the man naked, and dragged him for three miles. Although Lawrence Russell Brewer claimed that Byrd’s throat had been slashed before he was dragged, forensic evidence suggests that Byrd had been attempting to keep his head up, and an autopsy suggested that Byrd was alive for much of the dragging and died after his right arm and head were severed when his body hit a culvert. His body had caught a sewage drain on the side of the road resulting in Byrd’s decapitation.
King, Berry, and Brewer dumped their victim’s mutilated remains in the town’s black cemetery, and then went to a barbecue. A wrench inscribed with “Berry” was found within the area along with a lighter that had “Possum” written on it, which was King’s prison nickname.
The next morning, Byrd’s limbs were scattered across a very little-used road. The police found 75 places littered with Byrd’s remains. State law enforcement officials along with Jasper’s District Attorney Guy James Gray and Assistant Pat Hardy determined that since King and Brewer were well-known white supremacists, the murder was a hate crime, and decided to bring in the FBI less than 24 hours after the discovery of Byrd’s remains. One of Byrd’s murderers, John King, had a tattoo depicting a black man hanging from a tree, and other tattoos such as Nazi symbols, the words “Aryan Pride,” and the patch for the Confederate Knights of America, a gang of white supremacist inmates. [3] In a jailhouse letter to Brewer which was intercepted by jail officials, King expressed pride in the crime and said he realized he might have to die for committing it. “Regardless of the outcome of this, we have made history. Death before dishonor. Sieg Heil!”, King wrote. ”

now, id like you to use the LOGIC of matter, energy, and chemistry to REASON to me why I and these men SHOULD or SHOULD NOT have done so. should or should not is the key word…not WHY, because what we did was entirely optional, not compulsory. why logically, using materialism, should i and these men have picked one action over the other?

oh yeah you keep telling me that i didnt show you moral absolutes when in fact i did, you called them scenarios and kept trying to change them or were ticked off because they were too secular for you. heres a few more.

do not torture babies for fun
do not hate black people for their skin color
take care of your children
do not do what jeffery dahmer did
do good and not evil
be a good friend to your friends

also, the whole statement about all men being equal…i cant imagine coming to that conclusion outside of a religious basis such as a scientific or a materialistic one. and im sure you wholeheartedly agree that all men are equal. again, please reason to me why this is true using materialism and NOT religion.

Hey look you ignored my question! How unheard of. Ass.

Sigh. I really wish you could make one post, without telling me what my position is, while also being 100% wrong. No I don’t think we are the “pinnacle” on this planet. This planet is 4.5 billion years old. 99.9% of all life that exist goes extinct. I’m quite sure, we’ll follow – one day. I find the physiology of octopus for instance – to be equally fascinating. Dinosaurs are often a favorite for the younger generations. Those creatures walked alone for 200million years. I’m sure a couple of them thought they were the pinnacle! So you say by making this statement I’m in “utter denial.” Utter denial of what? I love being a human, I love my reasoning skills, I love my kin, but I don’t think I’m the best on the planet. I mean for adaptability and survival, the cockroach has us beat! Finally, planets need starts to exist. Well, the cosmos has more stars than words ever spoken by all of humans combined. Think about that. Still the pinnacle?

1. Uhm what do you want me to say to this?
2. I’ve been over this same questions with you a thousand times. Again, you have quite possible the worst memory of anyone I’ve ever spoken to. And I’ve spent plenty of time around stoners. Simple answer as always – I’ve told you, ethically I’m a utilitarian – until someone shows me a better route – you haven’t w/ Christianity.
They should not of dragged the man for the simple reason that he did consent to be dragged. These people went out of their to make a decision, that encroached on this mans autonomy against his will. Furthermore they did so in order to inflict unnecessary pain. Seeing as man is sentient, and the men should know good and well what pain feels like – this was a cruel deed. Fortunately that state has a democracy, and the men I’m sure were punished under the(man made) law.

See. No need for anything supernatural. Very easy explanation. As I’ve said a zillion times. My morals are this The golden rule – don’t cause unjustified suffering. The end.

This aren’t morals absolutes – they are just little tidbits you’ve chosen, on your own subjective whims. While I agree with them, there’s nothing that makes them “absolute.” Furthermore, since I agree with them, and don’t need Christianity to do so, why are you a Christian. Why do you need Christianity to reach THOSE conclusions, when you know good and well I, and let’s say, Dawkins, another atheist, would never for a moment condone those acts. How petty and insulting. I want to see some CHRISTIAN absolutes – so I can know, why Christianity is better than the position I’m in.

I’m sorry you can’t come to the equal man statement without religion. What are you secretly harboring racism? First we need to be clear about equal. Obviously I’m not “equal with black people,” in the sense that, our skin color is different(Since I’m mostly Irish, this applies to everyone of different color). We are not equal in external skin. Now of course, I’m not equal to Hitler either – my amygdalah is bigger . Obviously neither of us is “equal” to Beethoven – his ability to ascertain sound, is on a level far above mine. None of us are “equal” to Hellen Keller. Essentially what I’m saying is, the desire we all have to be free, autonomous, and pursue what makes us happy, is not a position that also requires us to be genetic clones. We are different, in many ways, including genetics, and that’s what makes us great. Seeing as I presuppose everyone wants to enjoy the same autonomous lifestyle I want, I treat each person as a unique individual, and following what I said above, the golden rule. Where is religion required here?

I hope you realize, you haven’t ONCE made a single claim that requires religion or christianity whatsoever. I still have no idea why you’re even christian – and why you continue to ignore my question after you LIED and said you’d address it.

———>Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.<———

all im hearing are your arguments but youre not really telling me anything. its also true that if someone breaks into my house with intent to harm my family, im very much aware as a sentient being, that if i shoot or harm the perpetrator, he will no doubt suffer pain, yet i would not hesitate in doing so. and thats because id have “good” enough reason for MY conscience AND the law, to cancel that knowledge out.

you say byrd shouldnt have been dragged against his will, the three men who did it say otherwise. all of the parties listed are sentient but that doesnt appear to matter in the least. so again, using ONLY matter, energy, and chemistry, tell me why one of you is right and the other is wrong. because both of you cannot be right. why in one sense is a sentient being justified in inflicting pain and death but in another sense that being is not, how on earth does matter, energy, and chemistry call the shots on that?

this should be easy for you since logic, ethics, and morals all come from those ingredients. just whip something up dude, betty crocker baby!

you are not only a contortionist chris, but you would also have a very profitable tree service.

i promise ill get to why i believe in the God of the hebrews next post. and i want to stress again that ill do my best in giving my reasons.

later

I 100% agree with your first paragraph. That would be, as I set a caveat earlier, justified pain inflicting. Because either one man takes pain, or a family takes pain. You’ve taken the path of least pain. In a utilitarian ethical sense, you’re doing fine. Also, you justified doing it without the slightest bit of Christianity. If you shot and killed the man, your family would be okay with it, I’d be okay with it, you’d be okay with it, the law would be okay with it, but Yahweh wouldn’t. Ten Commandments.

Matter and energy don’t call the shots, but they are the materials we operate under. I’m sure you’d agree to that. I’ve already covered when and why pain is okay, under a utilitarian model, and have asked countlessly for you to give me the christian reason why it’s not okay. You can’t answer a simple question I’ve ever asked, and yet I’ve literally answered scores of your petty, almost insultingly childish questions.

They are not justified in their reason for inflicting pain on Byrd. Under your first paragraph, by inflicting pain, you actually had a net result of LESS pain – one man down, a family up. With Byrd however, no one was in danger, this was simply forcing a decision against Byrds will, that led to a net increased in suffering. At the very least the man breaking into your house knew what he was risking, Byrd was simply kidnapped. There is no reason to talk about matter and energy in any concrete way here – we can reason just fine without getting into the minutiae of particles.

“this should be easy for you since logic, ethics, and morals all come from those ingredients. just whip something up dude, betty crocker baby!”

Yes it was easy. I’ve answered this same question, just switch out the names a dozen times for you. your memory is pathetic. And yes logic and such are a product of our fastidious combination of molecules. This doesn’t make our logic, love, compassion, etc any less sincere, than before we knew this.

Now I’d like you for, out of a basic sense of reciprocation, to answer the same questions you gave me about byrd and the burgler, from a Christian perspective. Because if your ethics really are the way to go, I want to see them in action. (YOU WILL NOT DO THIS – I”M POSITIVE OF IT)

“you are not only a contortionist chris, but you would also have a very profitable tree service. ”
And you’re simply a stupid person with no imagination who needs to be told how to live his life, because he’s terrified of reality and decision making on his own. You’d be profitable in the army, or perhaps passing the collection plate down the aisle.

“i promise ill get to why i believe in the God of the hebrews next post. and i want to stress again that ill do my best in giving my reasons.”

Oh bullshit. You’ve already dropped the ball four times now. You’re just waiting on someone to reply to an e-mail, or return a call, so that they can answer the question for you.

———>Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.<———

hi donny lol!

me and chris are like two guests you had over your house who raided and ate everything in your fridge and took total control of your living room tv and are now asking you to go out and get us pizza

donnys blog is continuing just fine – no one reads this page really. Still – answer my questions for a change…

http://news.aol.com/health/article/babys-brain-tumor-contained-foot/280987

cool, almost all of my emails were answered so now i have the answers to address you with in at least one point. psheww, i never thought my theologian friend would get back with me, i fricken told him you were waiting!

now when you imply that God’s use of the 10 commandments would not allow us to defend ourselves lest we break the murder command, (absolute nonsense) id like to show you a few examples of Jesus slight step into utilitarian territory. not a complete utilitarian, just a common sense approach to following the jewish law, an approach that places HUMAN VALUE pretty high up there in contrast to a strict interpretation of the law.

“1At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is UNLAWFUL on the Sabbath.”
3He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was NOT LAWFUL for them to do, but only for the priests. 5Or haven’t you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? 6I tell you that one[a] greater than the temple is here. 7If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’[b] you would not have condemned the innocent. 8For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

“6On another Sabbath he went into the synagogue and was teaching, and a man was there whose right hand was shriveled. 7The Pharisees and the teachers of the law were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal on the Sabbath. 8But Jesus knew what they were thinking and said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Get up and stand in front of everyone.” So he got up and stood there.

9Then Jesus said to them, “I ask you, which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to destroy it?”

10He looked around at them all, and then said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He did so, and his hand was completely restored. 11But they were furious and began to discuss with one another what they might do to Jesus.”

“1It happened that when He went into the house of one of the leaders of the Pharisees on the Sabbath to eat bread, (A)they were watching Him closely.
2And there in front of Him was a man suffering from dropsy.

3And Jesus answered and spoke to the (B)lawyers and Pharisees, saying, “(C)Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath, or not?”

4But they kept silent. And He took hold of him and healed him, and sent him away.

5And He said to them, “(D)Which one of you will have a son or an ox fall into a well, and will not immediately pull him out on a Sabbath day?”

6(E)And they could make no reply to this.”

chris, you dont know enough about God to either hate Him or disbelieve

you still didn’t answer my question. this is pathetic.

I’m not surprised some jesus fairy tales happen to coincide with the book written over 500 years before it. How difficult to concocted a sequel given that amount of time.
Anyway this is the very point. The OT is filled with some of the most disgusting, fowl, and absurd laws ever. The deity of the NT testament is clearly a “revised” deity. This book is so tortuous, contradicting, and outright stupid, to attempt to live your life by it is a painful, unnecessary, vacuous waste of time – especially when any modem philosophy class is far more compelling ethically.

And you don’t know about God of the MILLIONS of other theisms, to disbelieve in them. Yet for the same reason you’re not a Hindu, Mormon, Jane, Zoroastrian, Scneitologist, Druid, Pagan, etc – I’m not a Christian.

Answer my bloody question. Until you can do that, I have no reason to even consider belief in your fairy tale god, since the brash, pugnacious child, can’t even get his own creation correct – why should everything else that follows me correct? DURRRR?

———>Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.<———

———>Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.Answer this one, I’ve only asked it since my first post.
If you believe the cosmos is rational, why do you believe Yahweh is the creator, and not some kind of deism, when the rational cosmos, has presented you with mountains of evidence, that the yahweh is genesis, is a fairy tale.<———

Did god make himself and if that is the case what color is god? Probably made in your image.

god why did you put in print all those scientific lies about a Universe you supposedly created? Why the stars held up in the ‘firmament’? Why the Milky Way of lost souls? Why the earth-centric universe? Did you not think we would figure it out?

absolute bollix donny. total chicanery.

“Your question is not really a question. You make an assumption not shared by John or myself, particularly this section: “Mountains of evidence that the Yahweh (did you mean “of” or “in” at this point) genesis is a fairy tale”. Mountains of evidence, eh? I find more evidence of such a creator all the time.”

John clearly stated that he believed in a 14 billion year old Universe, that evolved from the bang forward, with a 4.5billion year earth evolution, operating under natural physical law. Under those conditions, that’s an ENTIRELY incongruous account with Genesis.

I’d love to hear otherwise, but I will NOT budge past genesis, on ANY question, until we cross this mire.

and I doubt you can Donny, I watched you fail on the Dawkins forum faster than the usual Christian drive bys.

sheehs. All of you and your appeals to authority. please articulate it yourself, I’m sure you can understand me lack of motivation to peruse some christian sites.

I mean just scanning those sites, they use later scripture to attempt to draw “accurate interpretations” of PREVIOUS scripture. That;s my point, if I can’t get passed Genesis, I will not move forward into discussion latter parts of the bible. I’m also always impressed by the great leaps of mental gymnastics taken to confirm genesis creation – you’d think omniscience would know how to articulate his creation a bit better. no?

p.s. don’t give me the long days crap. even if i granted that each creation day could be any measure of time – the order of creation of plant life and animal life, is out of order with the fossil record.

Why you don’t get into depth discussions with most people? That sounds more like a faith wall, to protect yourself from reality. Regardless, of course the bible and science collide. As science has augmented itself over the years, biblical experts have had to “rectify” themselves.

I don’t read links until someone can first articulate their own position. For obvious reasons, I don’t accept appeals to authority. It’s one more way humans lack their own critical understanding, and free thinking, and just follow along like blind sheep.

That said, of course I’ve read books older than 1800. Yes language is finicky. Still, we are dealing with omniscience here – I’d still expect better.

Now even given the mental gynmastics it does require, for Christians only 2,000 later, to understand what ‘creation’ was, versus watching the History Channels Big Bang special, or evolution of Earth – Yahweh is being quite difficult. At least for your “average man.”

So before I even touch your claims that man has free-will, has fallen, and was redeemed (such a silly, banal fairy tale) – let’s stay with Genesis.

Obviously from a literal perspective Genesis 1:1-1:4 is dribble.

Genesis 1:6-1:8 is simply contrived and doesn’t exist.

(language aside, this kind of talk is just patently wrong).

Now It’s on genesis 1:11 that “life” first enters the picture. I can safely say, this life (plant life), followed all over life, after billions of years. Prior to this we were dealing with sea life, algaes, planctins, squid type creatures, etc. So Yahweh got it wrong. Language aside.

The rest of genesis proceeds forward at an equally incongruous rate with the sciences. But since Genesis will take a long time to discuss – I’ll stop at 1:11 and let you reply.

p.s. on a side note to John. No matter what Donny says, your absence is conspicuous, and I would appreciate it if you’d articulate your own answers, without relying on Donny.

calm down man, its been the holydays.

nah nothing conspicuous with donny’s post. those were his thoughts at his initiative which he is free to do.

im going to be short here and ill address you in a more detailed post later. but just to get to the gist of what it is i feel you are after. if you mean do i exhaustively tie the genesis account and cosmology together to get my bearing on the God of the bible being the creator of the universe as opposed to some sort of deism, the answer is no, at least not entirely. there are so many facets as to why i feel this is the best answer but i will be utterly honest with you chris, i cannot give you an exhaustive description using genesis. but i also want to say that genesis is not the bible and genesis is not the primary message from God to man. the bible is not a science book. but ill get back to this later.

in the meantime check out my video on youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bb6Rp7I0-J0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z9DxPcVJrA

So you can’t rectify why Yahweh wrote the history of the cosmos, entirely wrong. Not remotely correct. How/why does omnipotence, and omniscience, do that?