Carlos Castaneda

[moralist]

I know about the "astounding truth of the DNA in [my] own body," altho I didn't know how long it was.

For you... 27 billion miles of DNA strands in one human body is evidence of blind stupid mindless random chaos.

For me... 27 billion miles of DNA strands in one human body is evidence of God's intelligent design.

This defines the difference between our two views. And notice... there is absolutely no evidence that could possibly change either of our views, because they were each made by our own free choice. Our two completely different views both arose from exactly the same physical evidence.This explains why there's no resolution. We each can only resolve it for ourselves, and for no one else...

...and even that is by design.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

I know about the "astounding truth of the DNA in [my] own body," altho I didn't know how long it was.

For you... 27 billion miles of DNA strands in one human body is evidence of blind stupid mindless random chaos.

For me... 27 billion miles of DNA strands in one human body is evidence of God's intelligent design.

This defines the difference between our two views. And notice... there is absolutely no evidence that could possibly change either of our views, because they were each made by our own free choice. Our two completely different views both arose from exactly the same physical evidence.This explains why there's no resolution. We each can only resolve it for ourselves, and for no one else...

...and even that is by design.

Greg

Sorry, friend, but my view of ignorance doesn't mean "blind[,] stupid[,] mindless[,] random chaos." It means I don't know, which is logically congruent with ignorance, not that contradiction you put up. I won't let you segue me onto your premises. My views come from reason and experience, yours, faith and experience. Why you like hopping around on one leg or sitting on a three-legged stool with one of its legs sawed off, I do not know. This is not a game.

--Brant

not curious, either, but you're one with billions though a lot more sophisticated and operatively more intelligent than most of them, for you have a broader field of operations being an American, although you didn't have to man up against knowledge* and brains**

*if you know you're ignorant, that's knowledge

**it's not how smart but how used

[moralist]

I know about the "astounding truth of the DNA in [my] own body," altho I didn't know how long it was.

For you... 27 billion miles of DNA strands in one human body is evidence of blind stupid mindless random chaos.

For me... 27 billion miles of DNA strands in one human body is evidence of God's intelligent design.

This defines the difference between our two views. And notice... there is absolutely no evidence that could possibly change either of our views, because they were each made by our own free choice. Our two completely different views both arose from exactly the same physical evidence.This explains why there's no resolution. We each can only resolve it for ourselves, and for no one else...

...and even that is by design.

Greg

Sorry, friend, but my view of ignorance doesn't mean "blind[,] stupid[,] mindless[,] random chaos." It means I don't know

But you already know, Brant... for you had already chosen your view:

Only the mundane can create the transcendent or something no evidence can be adduced for.

Just as I had already chosen mine:

only transcendent can create mundane

So we each had already chosen two completely different views from exactly the same evidence of 27 billion miles of DNA.

I affirm that 27 billions miles of DNA as evidence of a transcendent Creator.

While you deny that same 27 billion miles of DNA as being evidence of anything more than dumb chance.

Now which view is more rational?

To me, my view of a transcendently sophisticated design made by a transcendently sophisticated designer is more rational than yours.

And to you, your view of a transcendently sophisticated design made by stupid random chance is more rational than mine.

This is how two completely antithetical views can be derived from exactly the same physical evidence.

This is the transcendent sophisticated design of completely free choice which is totally devoid of any coercion by physical evidence.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Please note, again (not for Greg; it's hopeless) that "your view of a transcendently sophisticated sign made by stupid random chance" is NOT my "view."

--Brant

rationality + irrationality = irrationality

ergo, I cannot proceed

[moralist]

Please note, again (not for Greg; it's hopeless) that "your view of a transcendently sophisticated sign made by stupid random chance" is NOT my "view."

Ok, Brant.

I'll bite.

So then your view is that 27 billion miles of DNA IS a transcendently sophisticated design? Either it is or it isn't. So please, just a simple answer of yes or no will do.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Please note, again (not for Greg; it's hopeless) that "your view of a transcendently sophisticated sign made by stupid random chance" is NOT my "view."

Ok, Brant.

I'll bite.

So then your view is that 27 billion miles of DNA IS a transcendently sophisticated design? Either it is or it isn't. So please, just a simple answer of yes or no will do.

I'm sure of my ignorance. I can talk about my ignorance. You cannot talk about yours, but you must talk about something or the fire goes out. You claim something out of nothing, a Big Bang of epistemology. You pin the God tail on the reality donkey but do not acknowledge the blindfold so you likely miss the ass claiming the contrary.

--Brant

if we cannot talk about ignorance we cannot talk about anything: I have no explanation for the genesis of DNA; I agree DNA's incredible (can you reference that 27 billion miles?)

[Selene]

(can you reference that 27 billion miles?)

Of course not, or, he can send you a source.

Greg is resourceful in his use of Socratic semantics.

He never "actually" confronts you.

He "grabs you by the belt" [as the North Vietnamese General projected a strategy to nullify the American artillery and air power] and wrestles you through a semantic steeplechase until you are exhausted.

Quite clever. PDS has him zeroed in.

A...

always ranging and listening to my forward observers...

[Mikee]

Calling evolutionary processes "dumb chance" is a clue someone doesn't know what they're talking about. The trouble with science is even a very intelligent person cannot understand even a few of the details without putting in a lot of effort. Much easier to jump to conclusions "God did it"!!! Where's the reason in that? It's also irrational to expect to be able to know everything, we are finite, we have limited bandwidth, the universe is full of unknowns, it is presumptuous and irrational to jump to a "God" conclusion without even knowing how the universe works. What is gravity? What makes gravity? Don't say "mass", that tells you nothing. Calculating orbits doesn't tell you what causes the force to exist. What is momentum? Discussions about the existence or non-existence of "God" are at the level of sophistication of a goat herd.

[Selene]

Yep.

[moralist]

Please note, again (not for Greg; it's hopeless) that "your view of a transcendently sophisticated sign made by stupid random chance" is NOT my "view."

Ok, Brant.

I'll bite.

So then your view is that 27 billion miles of DNA IS a transcendently sophisticated design? Either it is or it isn't. So please, just a simple answer of yes or no will do.

I'm sure of my ignorance. I can talk about my ignorance. You cannot talk about yours, but you must talk about something or the fire goes out. You claim something out of nothing, a Big Bang of epistemology. You pin the God tail on the reality donkey but do not acknowledge the blindfold so you likely miss the ass claiming the contrary.

--Brant

if we cannot talk about ignorance we cannot talk about anything: I have no explanation for the genesis of DNA; I agree DNA's incredible (can you reference that 27 billion miles?)

Just a reminder that you evaded a simple direct question by jumping to critiquing conclusions...

... when I had asked nothing beyond your own opinion on the quality of design of the DNA in your own body, Brant.

So I'll ask the same simple direct question again:

Is the physical fact of 27 billion miles of DNA in your own body the result of a highly intelligent design?... or is it there only by stupid random chance?

I can also add that the fact of 27 billion miles of DNA (and you have no idea just how fantastically long that actually is in real physical terms) in every human body is nothing when compared to the REAL kicker...

That's 27 billion miles of written lines of genetic software code which specifically determines the form and function of your body. 27 billion miles of information.

The deeper scientists explore the physical nature of our bodies... the more absolutely jaw dropping truths they continue to discover.

Greg

[moralist]

(can you reference that 27 billion miles?)

Of course not, or, he can send you a source.

I had already referenced one source of many. There is absolutely no controversy on how long DNA is because it can be accurately micro measured and extrapolated to the 50 trillion cells in the average human body.... and you can't even conceive of what that number actually means in physical terms.

Greg is resourceful in his use of Socratic semantics.

He never "actually" confronts you.

There is no need to confront when each of our two freely chosen view arises from exactly the same physical evidence. We are both examining exactly the same physical phenomena and arrive at two completely different views of it. This is the blessing of free choice. There is absolutely no coercion. We are not forced in any way to choose either of the two views.

So we each describe the view we each chose and demonstrate how it differs from the view we each did not choose. Everyone believes that the view they chose is the right one, or they would not have chosen it. So even that is not up for debate because it is a given.

The two views are utterly irreconcilable so there's really no point in arguing. However, there is a useful point in describing the difference between the views we each have already chosen.

Greg

[Selene]

Greg is resourceful in his use of Socratic semantics.

He never "actually" confronts you.

There is no need to confront when each of our two freely chosen view arises from exactly the same physical evidence. We are both examining exactly the same physical phenomena and arrive at two completely different views of it. This is the blessing of free choice. There is absolutely no coercion. We are not forced in any way to choose either of the two views.

So we each describe the view we each chose and demonstrate how it differs from the view we each did not choose. Everyone believes that the view they chose is the right one, or they would not have chosen it. So even that is not up for debate because it is a given.

The two views are utterly irreconcilable so there's really no point in arguing. However, there is a useful point in describing the difference between the views we each have already chosen.

The prosecution rests.

A...

Post Script: Does everyone hear an immense sucking sound when Greg goes into his Socratic semantics salsa dance?

[moralist]

Greg is resourceful in his use of Socratic semantics.

He never "actually" confronts you.

There is no need to confront when each of our two freely chosen view arises from exactly the same physical evidence. We are both examining exactly the same physical phenomena and arrive at two completely different views of it. This is the blessing of free choice. There is absolutely no coercion. We are not forced in any way to choose either of the two views.

So we each describe the view we each chose and demonstrate how it differs from the view we each did not choose. Everyone believes that the view they chose is the right one, or they would not have chosen it. So even that is not up for debate because it is a given.

The two views are utterly irreconcilable so there's really no point in arguing. However, there is a useful point in describing the difference between the views we each have already chosen.

The prosecution rests.

A...

Post Script: Does everyone hear an immense sucking sound when Greg goes into his Socratic semantics salsa dance?

Thanks for demonstrating what I had just described. You've just clearly expressed your feeling that the view you already chose is the right one, and that the view you did not choose is the wrong one.

You are completely, totally, without a doubt, convinced that that you are right, and that I am wrong.

But step back to take note of the undisputable truth that everyone ~feels~ exactly the same way about the view they already freely chose...

...only the view that we each have already chosen is different.

Greg

[Selene]

You are completely, totally, without a doubt, convinced that that you are right, and that I am wrong.

But step back to take note of the undisputable truth that everyone ~feels~ exactly the same way about the view they already freely chose...

...only the view that we each have already chosen is different.

Greg

Perfect.

[moralist]

You are completely, totally, without a doubt, convinced that that you are right, and that I am wrong.

But step back to take note of the undisputable truth that everyone ~feels~ exactly the same way about the view they already freely chose...

...only the view that we each have already chosen is different.

Greg

Perfect.

You ~feel~ right.

Greg

[Selene]

You are completely, totally, without a doubt, convinced that that you are right, and that I am wrong.

But step back to take note of the undisputable truth that everyone ~feels~ exactly the same way about the view they already freely chose...

...only the view that we each have already chosen is different.

Greg

Perfect.

You ~feel~ right.

Greg

Greg:

Respectfully, bullshit.

Save it for the uninformed.

A...

[PDS]

Greg is a harmless, winking and smiley-faced subjectivist. I'm not sure why his moniker is the "moralist". Seems like it should be the "amoralist." I don't mean this as an insult--it just seems more accurate.

Greg implies that he knows more than he lets on, and I think that is because he knows that what he is "letting on" is nothing more than a I like chocolate and you like vanilla mantra. As Bentham said of John Stuart Mill, we're talking about nonsense on stilts. In Greg's case, it's nonsense blanketed in emoticons.

I still think the most interesting and entertaining part of Greg's purported philosophy is his "just desserts" view of the world. Not because I agree with it, but because I think even Greg knows it's bullshit, and scampers whenever pressed on the topic. This doctrine obviously gives him comfort, so good for him. Not so good for the Haitian kid on the garbage dump, but, hey, whatev... Right Greg? The kid should have chosen better parents....

I also find it entertaining how Greg ducks direct questions, such as whether he only filmed CC in public, and thus did not violate CC's privacy or trust with his video antics. Or almost any question Jonathan has asked him.

I hope Greg sticks around these parts. He seems to have a good spirit, winkee-emoticons notwithstanding.

[Jonathan]

I've referenced before that astounding truth about the DNA in just your own body if strung end to end would make a line over 27 BILLION MILES long... and so far no atheist has dared touch it with a ten foot pole for fear of revealing how irrational it is for them to deny the sublime order of precisely specific physical laws that make their existence possible.

Greg, which critiques of intelligent design have you read? Are you aware of the fact that atheists have touched the arguments that you're making, and that they did so very directly and without a ten foot pole?

J

[Jonathan]

I know about the "astounding truth of the DNA in [my] own body," altho I didn't know how long it was.

For you... 27 billion miles of DNA strands in one human body is evidence of blind stupid mindless random chaos.

For me... 27 billion miles of DNA strands in one human body is evidence of God's intelligent design.

This defines the difference between our two views. And notice... there is absolutely no evidence that could possibly change either of our views, because they were each made by our own free choice. Our two completely different views both arose from exactly the same physical evidence.This explains why there's no resolution. We each can only resolve it for ourselves, and for no one else...

...and even that is by design.

Greg

It's amusing that, while admitting to being impervious to evidence, and to taking positions that are unfalsifiable, you assign that same mindset to everyone else, but yet you're still not happy with the tie game scenario that you've constructed, but have to try to act victorious.

[Jonathan]

Greg,

In your view, did God guide you and your wife to spend a year of your lives stalking a minor celebrity? You seem to be pretty proud of having invaded his privacy and knowingly violated his desire to not be photographed. Do you think that you were doing God's good work? At any time during that year, did you ever ask yourself why you were doing it? If so, did you focus on answering the question rather than just shrugging it off? Do you currently ever think about your stalking behavior and consider the idea that it might be something about which you should seek professional help?

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

Calling evolutionary processes "dumb chance" is a clue someone doesn't know what they're talking about.

It's a giveaway.

Straw alternative. Big-numbers bamboozlement. The usual, and Greg isn't even good at it.

Ellen

[Mikee]

Ellen,

CC knocked Greg off his rails. I think his arguments are a dim reflection of CC but Greg is not a born con man. He essentially is saying "We have different premises, of course we draw different conclusions" totally missing AR's "check your premises" exhortation. There is no rationality without premise checking.

[moralist]

The smokescreen of responses you are all throwing up provides a real time demonstration of how atheists RUN from a simple direct question about the design of the DNA which makes the existence of your own bodies possible.

Thank you.

Greg

[Ellen Stuttle]

Mike,

There's certainly a resemblance between Greg's song and dance and Castaneda's, but there's a smattering of this and that from vague versions of Buddhist and Hindu thought as well, kind of a West Coast woo smorgasbord, combined with an infusion of Christianity.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

The smokescreen of responses you are all throwing up provides a real time demonstration of how atheists RUN from a simple direct question about the design of the DNA which makes the existence of your own bodies possible.

Thank you.

Greg

Oh, come on. You didn't ask a simple direct question. You posed a loaded straw alternative buttressed by nothing but a big-numbers stunt and invited people to fall into that obvious trap.

Ellen