tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post115702806362096996..comments2024-01-24T04:59:45.518-05:00Comments on Jewish Atheist: The Real GenesisJewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.comBlogger75125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-86286648355195952252008-09-17T23:16:00.000-04:002008-09-17T23:16:00.000-04:00Nucleic acids "reproduced?" That's not science.Nucleic acids "reproduced?" That's not science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-1161909492525610822006-10-26T20:38:00.000-04:002006-10-26T20:38:00.000-04:00Simon wrote: "The current scientific consensus hol...Simon wrote: "The current scientific consensus holds that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs."<BR/><BR/>Larry Martin [one of the world's foremost experts on the birds of<BR/>the Mesozoic era], The Sciences, March/April 1988: "I began to grow<BR/>disenchanted with the bird-dinosaur link when I compared the<BR/>eighty-five or so anatomical features seriously proposed as being<BR/>shared by birds and dinosaurs. To my shock, virtually none of the<BR/>comparisons held up....the moral of the story is that such poor<BR/>attention to detail has been repeated with almost every feature<BR/>cited to support a bird-dinosaur relation. No wonder that [the book<BR/>criticizing the link] has an undercurrent of righteous outrage, or<BR/>that it has been so bitterly attacked by the practitioners of the<BR/>faulty logic it exposes."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-1158199148500337482006-09-13T21:59:00.000-04:002006-09-13T21:59:00.000-04:00One of the most astounding things I learned this y...One of the most astounding things I learned this year (which, of course, may end up being not true, or true) from reading Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos", is that the Singularity, at the time of the Big Bang, may have weighed at most on the order of about 20 pounds! The entire universe.<BR/><BR/>The "inflationary period" in the Big Bang, during which space itself began expanding at a rate much faster than the speed of light, itself caused matter to be created, from energy. The Singularity seems to have been a point of nearly infinite energy and order (as opposed to chaos/entropy) - the universe has been winding down, entropy increasing, ever since.<BR/><BR/>This, and the existence of human consciousness, and of course the fact the there is existence rather than nothingness, may be about the only facts that cause me to question atheism, and leave me clinging to agnosticism. I know I know, teapots may just as well be orbiting the sun, but I'm an atheist in progress ;-)Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15382405592877758715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-1157911867714935032006-09-10T14:11:00.000-04:002006-09-10T14:11:00.000-04:00One thing I found out today, Dinosaurs are not ext...One thing I found out today, Dinosaurs are not extinct!<BR/><BR/>"The current scientific consensus holds that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. Using the strict cladistical definition that all descendants of a single common ancestor are related, modern birds are dinosaurs and dinosaurs are, therefore, not extinct."<BR/><BR/>Yay! I look forward to Jurassic Park 4 featuring a few pigeons and a couple of ostriches. And geese can give you a nasty nip, I can tell you.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13905592870063005287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-1157434941407080402006-09-05T01:42:00.000-04:002006-09-05T01:42:00.000-04:00Orthopax--You'd have to go back and read what JA a...Orthopax--<BR/>You'd have to go back and read what JA actually said about chickens not coming from chickens and I was just trying to make sense of it.<BR/>:)Sadie Louhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07362158642491145353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-1157404473515901772006-09-04T17:14:00.000-04:002006-09-04T17:14:00.000-04:00I have no idea scott... but I don't think that "Go...I have no idea scott... but I don't think that "God did it" counts as an 'explanation' - at least not to me...<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure that we can even talk about the origins of the Big Bang in day to day language... but I don't know enough about it to debate it fully.CyberKittenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06394155516712665665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-1157395856376299472006-09-04T14:50:00.000-04:002006-09-04T14:50:00.000-04:00...where something came from nothing. Or not....where something came from nothing. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Or not.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06748025048481866622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-1157389943790134252006-09-04T13:12:00.000-04:002006-09-04T13:12:00.000-04:00sadie Lou posed the question: Where did this littl...sadie Lou posed the question: Where did this little, chicken-like dino come from? <BR/>It still poses the question, did something come from nothing? And if the answer is "yes", was it an isolated event? Because normally, nothing comes from nothing. <BR/><BR/>If you go back far enough then the something you're probably thinking of is a bunch of chemicals in a sea or lake somewhere... So something actually came from previous somethings all the way back to the Big Bang...CyberKittenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06394155516712665665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-1157388274470580512006-09-04T12:44:00.000-04:002006-09-04T12:44:00.000-04:00Sadie,"Even if the first 'chicken' was actually a ...Sadie,<BR/><BR/>"Even if the first 'chicken' was actually a dinosaur of some kind, the answer is still, "the chicken came first" even if the "chicken" was actually a dinosaur."<BR/><BR/>A chicken is not a dinosaur. It's really that simple. Dinosaur eggs came way before the first chicken - hence the egg came first.<BR/><BR/>However, the first _chicken egg_ could only have come out of that first chicken and therefore the chicken came before the chicken egg.<BR/><BR/>You have to be more specific.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-1157387750118638342006-09-04T12:35:00.000-04:002006-09-04T12:35:00.000-04:00IC,"If you were with Moshe at the burning bush, yo...IC,<BR/><BR/>"If you were with Moshe at the burning bush, you would not have seen any fire."<BR/><BR/>If I were at the Red Sea, would I have seen walls of water? Were I at Sinai, would I have heard God's voice?Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-1157386332034362762006-09-04T12:12:00.000-04:002006-09-04T12:12:00.000-04:00since whatever the first chicken's mother was, it ...<I>since whatever the first chicken's mother was, it wasn't a chicken. </I><BR/><BR/>What the heck?<BR/>That still does not solve the problem.<BR/>Even if the first 'chicken' was actually a dinosaur of some kind, the answer is still, "the chicken came first" even if the "chicken" was actually a dinosaur.<BR/>Where did this little, chicken-like dino come from? <BR/>It still poses the question, did <B>something</B> come from <B>nothing</B>? And if the answer is "yes", was it an isolated event? Because normally, nothing comes from nothing.Sadie Louhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07362158642491145353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-1157374923389818652006-09-04T09:02:00.000-04:002006-09-04T09:02:00.000-04:00Irviner chasid..Wow..you've just described mental ...Irviner chasid..<BR/><BR/>Wow..you've just described mental illness. Hard to believe the rishonim could pre-date Freud by that many years.<BR/><BR/>Voices talking to you in your head;<BR/>and this is prophecy?asherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09237854868544073084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-1157352463014838552006-09-04T02:47:00.000-04:002006-09-04T02:47:00.000-04:00JA,"I get the impression that they're just basical...JA,<BR/><BR/>"I get the impression that they're just basically making stuff up and calling it God."<BR/><BR/>Many of these guys were philosophical originators on grand scales. They created whole new ways of thinking about the world. You could say that such efforts were just "making stuff up," but it would be a severe insult.<BR/><BR/>"If it's "unknowable," how can we talk about it? What evidence is there for this "reality of things-in-themselves?""<BR/><BR/>See, you're stuck in the philosophical perspective of scientific skepticism or positivism where if something cannot be measured it can be considered as if it does not exist.<BR/><BR/>But you know very well that there simply _must_ be things that cannot be measured that do, in fact, exist. You are cutting yourself off from that whole section of reality just because it doesn't fit into the category of things to which you grant allowance.<BR/><BR/>There are things out there that are real even though we have no evidence for them. There are real things out there that the human mind is simply unable to conceive or for the human senses to perceive. Is this really so anathemical to your belief system? As evolved beings, do you think we were 'designed' to comprehend every aspect of our existence? It's a miracle we can understand anything at all.<BR/><BR/>Our powers of Reason have limits - and even though we may never find that black cat running around in a dark room (which may not even be there) we are still drawn to do so by our power of reason which lead us to ask the questions yet which cannot offer many answers.<BR/><BR/>The evidence for noumenal reality is not going to be the hard stuff of science, but the tracing patterns found in transcendental philosophy.<BR/><BR/>"Most of the people on your list were complete geniuses who wanted desperately to believe."<BR/><BR/>Perhaps. But perhaps you ought to also consider the possibility that they really thought it was the best solution.<BR/><BR/>"..but the "God" they leave us with isn't appreciably different from my atheism, as far as I can tell."<BR/><BR/>The difference lies in the attempt to fill in the blank. They filled it with something, while you are content to leave it blank. Yet leaving it blank is surely an incorrect answer as any test-taker will tell you.<BR/><BR/>"One thing's for sure -- and I think you'll even agree with this -- if some form of God does exist, my atheism is probably still closer to the truth than most theists' simple faith."<BR/><BR/>Probably. I'd put anyone who's thought out the subject matter thoughtfully and critically above simple faith any day.<BR/><BR/>"And certainly your panentheism/Platonic idealism/whatever provides no more guidance for how to live than my naturalistic materialism does."<BR/><BR/>Perhaps not, but that's hardly the whole of my religious philosophy.<BR/><BR/>Even were a straight up theist to come and give his spiel on theistic ontology, it wouldn't tell us anything about how to live life.<BR/><BR/>At best, all that I've offered here so far is food for thought. (Which works out nicely since I believe thinking, considering, imagining, wondering is a key aspect of life and the human experience.)Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-1157348532970709912006-09-04T01:42:00.000-04:002006-09-04T01:42:00.000-04:00Orthoprax:But I don't think you've considered some...Orthoprax:<BR/><BR/><I>But I don't think you've considered some of the great philosophical/theological minds of the past. My ideas have some resonance with Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Spinoza and even Maimonides and the Besht.</I><BR/><BR/>I may simply lack the mental apparatus necessary to understand what those guys were saying, but when I see something like<BR/><BR/><I>the unseen, utterly unknowable reality of things-in-themselves and how they really exist</I><BR/><BR/>I get the impression that they're just basically making stuff up and calling it God. If it's "unknowable," how can we talk about it? What evidence is there for this "reality of things-in-themselves?" Don't we know by now that Plato's Platonic forms, for example, are just a bunch of metaphysical silliness? There's no Platonic horse, just a bunch of things similar enough to each other that we can get away with calling them horses.<BR/><BR/>Most of the people on your list were complete geniuses who wanted desperately to believe. Yes, they can concoct some idea of "God" which is ultimately unfalsifiable, but the "God" they leave us with isn't appreciably different from my atheism, as far as I can tell.<BR/><BR/>One thing's for sure -- and I think you'll even agree with this -- if some form of God does exist, my atheism is probably still closer to the truth than most theists' simple faith. And certainly your panentheism/Platonic idealism/whatever provides no more guidance for how to live than my naturalistic materialism does.Jewish Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-1157346947528530072006-09-04T01:15:00.000-04:002006-09-04T01:15:00.000-04:00IC,"I can't say what orthoprax believes or doesn't...IC,<BR/><BR/>"I can't say what orthoprax believes or doesn't, however the words his has written in this thread do not preclude the concept of Gd interacting with our perceptions of the world around us."<BR/><BR/>Just to remove all doubt, the truth is that I do not believe God interacts with mankind in terms of miracles or revelations - at least not as far as they are commonly understood.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps 'revelation' or 'prophecy' could be the effect of some highly perceptive mind experiencing the Ultimate (like in some eureka-type moment, or perhaps a profound experience) but in no sense would I say that God talks to man as in conversation, telling stories and giving commandments.<BR/><BR/>At the very best, I might say that the stories in Tanach are the expressions of people's perceptions of God, but even then it must be recognized that a lot of what is in there must have been from baser sources.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-1157346170034142872006-09-04T01:02:00.000-04:002006-09-04T01:02:00.000-04:00JA,"Whatever it is that you think you're describin...JA,<BR/><BR/>"Whatever it is that you think you're describing with the word "God" it has NOTHING in common with what any of the other commenters here mean by it or what most religious people mean by it."<BR/><BR/>You may be right. Most religious people have very limited understandings of what God could actually mean in a realistic setting. <BR/><BR/>But I don't think you've considered some of the great philosophical/theological minds of the past. My ideas have some resonance with Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Spinoza and even Maimonides and the Besht.<BR/><BR/>"I don't see how it's fundamentally different from the multiverse or branes or infinitely expanding-contracting theory."<BR/><BR/>Ah, and that's the beauty of it! They may not realize it yet, but scientists and theologians may very well have been searching for the very same thing all along.<BR/><BR/>"Well, I do see how it's different -- you're implying an intelligence without actually saying so because you know that saying so is absurd. It seems to me like you're trying to have it both ways."<BR/><BR/>I don't know what it would mean for an intelligence to exist by itself and then 'form' the universe. It doesn't make any sense to me. But none of the other supposed explanations make much sense either. Honestly, I can't say what the nature of God may be. I don't know.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-1157345408131409852006-09-04T00:50:00.000-04:002006-09-04T00:50:00.000-04:00Cyber,"You seem to be saying that as you feel that...Cyber,<BR/><BR/>"You seem to be saying that as you feel that 'something is going on' beyond what we perceive at the material level we call reality that gives rise to the idea that the Universe *is* God."<BR/><BR/>Not exactly. It isn't the universe itself that is God, but the fundamental 'thing' going on behind the scenes that I identify with God. See the most recent post on my blog - I use the word hypokeimenon.<BR/><BR/>"If the Universe wasn't 'just so' then we wouldn't be here to observe it. It appears ordered to us because we live here & have developed senses that see order sometimes where none exists. If the Universe was chaotic then we wouldn't be here."<BR/><BR/>But the universe is not chaotic and we _are_ here. It doesn't just appear ordered, it really is. That's what makes it possible for complex structures and processes to go on in the first place.<BR/><BR/>As far as I know, we've only got one universe - and it's an ordered one. I don't believe we just lucked out that the one universe happened to be such a good one for complex stuff like humankind to form.<BR/><BR/>Only if you believe that universes are common events in some superuniverse with a universe generating machine do the properties of our one universe no longer seem impressive.<BR/><BR/>But to believe that is just a different kind of faith.<BR/><BR/>"Sorry. But you're going to have to explain that to me."<BR/><BR/>Kant's noumenal reality is the unseen, utterly unknowable reality of things-in-themselves and how they really exist - as opposed to the phenomenal world which is populated by objects and things as perceived through the human sensory organs and processed through the human mind. Our perceptions and our use of human reason are inherently flawed for the effort of determining the true nature of ultimate reality.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-1157332383740196932006-09-03T21:13:00.000-04:002006-09-03T21:13:00.000-04:00It has everything in common with the way Judaism u...<I>It has everything in common with the way Judaism ultimately defines Gd when you get down to the details.<BR/><BR/>Its called Panathiesm, which is different from panthiesm.</I><BR/><BR/>Are you saying Judaism does not hold that God spoke to Moses or appeared in a burning bush or split the Red Sea or dictated the Torah? Because I'm sure Orthoprax doesn't believe those things.<BR/><BR/><I>It sounds to me like your education about Gd never went past elementary school, where you think about a "big guy in a funky chair"</I><BR/><BR/>Not that it's particularly relevant, but I went all the way through high school and beyond in Orthodox institutions.Jewish Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-1157330561304763102006-09-03T20:42:00.000-04:002006-09-03T20:42:00.000-04:00Orthoprax:Whatever it is that you think you're des...Orthoprax:<BR/><BR/>Whatever it is that you think you're describing with the word "God" it has NOTHING in common with what any of the other commenters here mean by it or what most religious people mean by it. I don't see how it's fundamentally different from the multiverse or branes or infinitely expanding-contracting theory. <BR/><BR/>Well, I do see how it's different -- you're implying an intelligence without actually saying so because you know that saying so is absurd. It seems to me like you're trying to have it both ways.<BR/><BR/><B>Sadie Lou</B><BR/><BR/>Funny, I never thought about this, but the chicken-egg dilemma gets to the heart of the evolution-creation debate. If you believe in evolution, of course the egg came first, since whatever the first chicken's mother was, it wasn't a chicken. (Not that real evolution works so abruptly, but if we're going to draw a line somewhere, it would have to be before the egg, since any mutations or recombinations would have happened before the egg was fertilized.)<BR/><BR/>Of course, if God created animals from scratch/dirt, then the chicken would have to come first.Jewish Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-1157322827717397512006-09-03T18:33:00.000-04:002006-09-03T18:33:00.000-04:00[sigh]The opposite of planned is not random - it's...[sigh]<BR/><BR/>The opposite of planned is not random - it's unplaned.<BR/><BR/>The Universe is not random. This does not mean that it was either planned or created. Evolution is not random. That's why its called Evolution by Natural Selection. Mutations are randomly produced. Selection is not random. <BR/><BR/>Just because Evolution, the Universe or the banding together of atoms to form molecules is not random it does not follow that it *must* have been planned by God.<BR/><BR/>If the 'rules' of physics and chemistry that have been discovered over the past centuries did not exist and things only happened randomly then we would not be having this debate as nothing would exist.CyberKittenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06394155516712665665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-1157320102008052552006-09-03T17:48:00.000-04:002006-09-03T17:48:00.000-04:00Scott said,Which is all well and good but doesn't ...Scott said,<BR/><I>Which is all well and good but doesn't address my point. <BR/><BR/>Something does not come from nothing.</I><BR/><BR/>Which is why the classic question, what came first, the chicken or the egg? is so retarded.<BR/>Of course the chicken came first. What in the world would be the function of an unfertalized egg?<BR/>It couldn't be fertalized because that evidence would point to there being a chicken or two chickens (rooster) involved, wouldn't it?<BR/>It's the same with the question, if God exists, who created God?<BR/>There has to be a beginning.<BR/>Something does not come from nothing and Scott asked, in what scientific setting has that ever happened? God started the whole thing and set everything in motion and that includes your big bang theory--now, take God out of the equation what started events into motion?<BR/>Nothing?<BR/>hmmmm...Sadie Louhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07362158642491145353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-1157319113072090292006-09-03T17:31:00.000-04:002006-09-03T17:31:00.000-04:00So orthoprax...You seem to be saying that as you f...So orthoprax...<BR/><BR/>You seem to be saying that as you feel that 'something is going on' beyond what we perceive at the material level we call reality that gives rise to the idea that the Universe *is* God. Interesting (though please correct me if I'm misrepresenting you).<BR/><BR/>For many years I too thought that 'something funny' was going on but as I read & thought about things I realised that the feeling doesn't really lead anywhere productive. The Universe is strange and apparently strangely ordered but that doesn't make me think (or feel) that the Universe *is* God.<BR/><BR/>If the Universe wasn't 'just so' then we wouldn't be here to observe it. It appears ordered to us because we live here & have developed senses that see order sometimes where none exists. If the Universe was chaotic then we wouldn't be here. Order is not 'inexplicable' in the way you seem to be looking at it... again please correct me if I'm misreading you.<BR/><BR/>Orthoprax said: in a very Kantian sense, noumenal existence vs phenomenal existence.<BR/><BR/>Sorry. But you're going to have to explain that to me.CyberKittenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06394155516712665665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-1157317273261382822006-09-03T17:01:00.000-04:002006-09-03T17:01:00.000-04:00JA,I cannot qualify what I cannot understand.JA,<BR/><BR/>I cannot qualify what I cannot understand.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-1157310932639680422006-09-03T15:15:00.000-04:002006-09-03T15:15:00.000-04:00So you believe in a semi-potent Creator?So you believe in a semi-potent Creator?Jewish Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-1157306046164910262006-09-03T13:54:00.000-04:002006-09-03T13:54:00.000-04:00JA,"You might want to read up on chaos and complex...JA,<BR/><BR/>"You might want to read up on chaos and complexity theories."<BR/><BR/>I am familiar with them. The bottom line is that they require some set of orderly rules on which to operate on.<BR/><BR/>"Isn't an omnipotent Creator the ultimate "just-so" story?"<BR/><BR/>Quite right. I don't buy that either.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.com