David Kaufman

Thornhill, On, Canada

Someone is shy

David hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
David Kaufman
Posted over 3 years ago
Intelligent Design
You continually seek to denigrate me personally questioning my sources and where I got them from as if this will damage logic or change reality. I thought you and I agreed to disagree? The one who posits intelligent design has to answer for the existence of the creator. But the agnostic must answer for everything else. It seems much more reasonable to side with the former. I could describe love as seen through brain scans and physiological terms but I would not have understood love in the slightest. The scientific process can only describes process not meaning, purpose, intention, etc. Judaism has for the last thousands of years long before the debate such as ours states that the creator did not just create matter, but time and space. Therefore, ascribing the concept of time, space and matter to the creator is untenable. This is logical if you think it through. This is a longer theological discussion, but I only mention it because the God you believe in I also do not believe in. This is the one we learned about in day school or bible classes if you went to such thing. Few have really spent much time really forcing themselves to seek an answer from different sources whether a creator exists. I don't mean reading a few articles on the internet, but meeting people of different views and conversing as if your life depended upon it. AND I will admit that many religious people have not asked the questions to really know logically why they believe what they do about a creator as well. I care for a faith based on reason, but you'd laugh at that idea...and perhaps you have done the research, but I have rarely met an agnostic who has. Instead they assume that theology is simple. It is not. I would never say I understand astrophysics because I read the poem Twinkle Tinkle Little Star, but many who have not studied the most important question feel able to comment because they once had a conversation...
Noface
David Kaufman
Posted over 3 years ago
Intelligent Design
The one who posits intelligent design has to answer for the existence of the creator. But the agnostic must answer for everything else. It seems much more reasonable to side with the former. I could describe love as seen through brain scans and physiological terms but I would not have understood love in the slightest. The scientific process can only describes process not meaning, purpose, intention, etc. Judaism has for the last thousands of years long before the debate such as ours states that the creator did not just create matter, but time and space. Therefore, ascribing the concept of time, space and matter to the creator is untenable. This is logical if you think it through. This is a longer theological discussion, but I only mention it because the God you believe in I also do not believe in. This is the one we learned about in day school or bible classes if you went to such thing. Few have really spent much time really forcing themselves to seek an answer from different sources whether a creator exists. I don't mean reading a few articles on the internet, but meeting people of different views and conversing as if your life depended upon it. AND I will admit that many religious people have not asked the questions to really know logically why they believe what they do about a creator as well. I care for a faith based on reason, but you'd laugh at that idea...and perhaps you have done the research, but I have rarely met an agnostic who has. Instead they assume that theology is simple. It is not. I would never say I understand astrophysics because I read the poem Twinkle Tinkle Little Star, but many who have not studied the most important question feel able to comment because they once had a conversation...
Noface
David Kaufman
Posted over 3 years ago
Intelligent Design
The problem just saying that there are trillions of collisions means little especially given only 13 billion years to create life in - and many of those years were useless in terms of the evolution of just amino acids let alone the human brain and DNA. The one who posits intelligent design has to answer for the existence of the creator. But the agnostic must answer for everything else. It seems much more reasonable to side with the former. I could describe love as seen through brain scans and physiological terms but I would not have understood love in the slightest. The scientific process can only describes process not meaning, purpose, intention, etc. Judaism has for the last thousands of years long before the debate such as ours states that the creator did not just create matter, but time and space. Therefore, ascribing the concept of time, space and matter to the creator is untenable. This is logical if you think it through. This is a longer theological discussion, but I only mention it because the God you believe in I also do not believe in. This is the one we learned about in day school or bible classes if you went to such thing. Few have really spent much time really forcing themselves to seek an answer from different sources whether a creator exists. I don't mean reading a few articles on the internet, but meeting people of different views and conversing as if your life depended upon it. AND I will admit that many religious people have not asked the questions to really know logically why they believe what they do about a creator as well. I care for a faith based on reason, but you'd laugh at that idea...and perhaps you have done the research, but I have rarely met an agnostic who has. Instead they assume that theology is simple. It is not. I would never say I understand astrophysics because I read the poem Twinkle Tinkle Little Star, but many who have not studied the most important question feel able to comment because they once had a conversation...
Noface
David Kaufman
Posted over 3 years ago
Intelligent Design
In River Out of Eden, Dawkins describes the intricate functioning of genetic coding in the living cell: “The genetic code is not a binary code as in computers ... but a quaternary code, with four symbols. The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like… DNA messages ... are ... pure digital code. Dr. Paul Davies on the same subject: “In a living organism we see the power of software, or information processing, refined to an incredible degree ... the problem of the origin of life reduces to one of understanding how encoded software emerged spontaneously from hardware. How did it happen? How did nature "go digital?" Life is possible – if, and only if – the technology of life is in place. The entire apparatus of evolutionary explanation therefore depends on the prior existence of genetic material with these remarkable properties. So the problem is just pushed back a step: how did such a thing come into existence? How did life begin? Sir Fred Hoyle to describe the extreme improbability of a chance origin of the first living organism on earth: “A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe.” In an interview with Ben Stein Richard Dawkins responded to questions about the Origin of Life from the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed: Stein: How did it start? Dawkins: Nobody knows how it started, we know the kind of event that it must have been, we know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life. Stein: What was that? Dawkins: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule. Stein: How did that happen? Dawkins: I told you I don't know. What makes you so sure that there is no intelligent design
Noface
David Kaufman
Posted over 3 years ago
Intelligent Design
Dear Ms. Rose, I wish I had time to respond to all these comments, but frankly I'm overwhelmed with reading person suggested to me which I'm slowly getting through. I am still quite awed by the tone and cynical disrespect and aggression of most of the responses I have received. In addition, the preconceived notions that people feel I or anyone who believes differently than they do have is fascinatingly sad to me. My questions have been largely ignored and maligned. I've mentioned, I'm a psychotherapist and did not see the world and how we interact with each other, whether through politics, arts, intellect, medicine, etc. as separate forums which allow different behaviors in each. Love and respect are the prerequisite for all interactions at all times. The Torah states love your neighbor as yourself - it does not state love humanity as yourself, although obviously included. Why? It is easier to love an amorphous idea than the actual person next door whose character you dislike. We tend to judge ourselves according to what we think and philosophically aspire to rather than our actions. No one in the Milgram experiment would have thought they would have ever acted the way they did beforehand. When I quote a noble laureate disagreeing with their views I'm insulted and demeaned but they allow themselves a double standard. As I mentioned before I would no more tell an astrophysicist I understand what their study is about because I learned the poem twinkle, twinkle Little Star. I know many people who have not seriously studied religion in their adult years with competent teachers believe they understand theology. This is a pity. In terms of your questions. The Talmud asks these and much harder ones. I direct you to: http://www.chiefrabbi.org/ReadArtical.aspx?id=1561 . http://www.chiefrabbi.org/ReadArtical.aspx?id=1022
Noface
David Kaufman
Posted over 3 years ago
Intelligent Design
I will in the near future respond, but am presently very busy. Still, I wanted to acknowledge your thoughtful and respectful reply. Thank you.
Noface
David Kaufman
Posted over 3 years ago
Intelligent Design
You state that, "Once you understand that nature and the way it works explains the whole thing, the designer seems unnecessary, but that does not mean there is no designer." There you have it, we agree that we can disagree. Still, you and others have not addressed what I believe is the far more important issues about the nature and tone of this whole dialogue and its implications. I have no problem with this and never needed to resort to anything, but open and respectful dialogue. Far from what I experienced. Again, I am a psychotherapist, to me relationships and how the process of discussion and conclusion is paramount because only open and respectful dialogue allows the free flow of ideas and growth. What I have experienced in these conversations is far from this. Everything from telling me that my thoughts are ignorant to disallowing my comments on TED. I kept at the dialogue anyway because of this principle that I try to live by. I can imagine that many would not have and given up and you would be the worse for it. Many grand mistakes have been made in history and much suffering because one side felt it had the only truth and closed itself off from any other way of viewing issues.
Noface
David Kaufman
Posted over 3 years ago
Intelligent Design
No, I do not know everything about evolution, I admit! I admit! But that is not not the issue. Please carefully read my response, I think you missed the point as well. I thought I was clear as I wrote: "I have no problem with the Big Bang and even the concept of evolution – it is how or through what guidance this process came about and continues to manifest itself is another issue. And this is the difference in our opinions – please inform me if it is otherwise." What difference does what my knowledge of about "Where does the theory of evolution state that each and every organism assembles itself by pure random chance?" have to do with my thoughts about what I consider purposeful and meaningful design? Misrepresenting scientific knowledge would in my mind being drawing black and white conclusions about the factual solidity and philosophic and psychological implications of that knowledge. I now respectfully ask you to comment on my concerns.
Noface
David Kaufman
Posted over 3 years ago
Intelligent Design
Dear Mr. Moreno, I also love science and have books on physics, mathematics, medicine, psychology, etc. as well as traditional Jewish texts in my home – but that is not the real issue here. It seems that my beliefs in your mind(s) are some are summarized as foolishness and ignorance because I draw a different conclusion from what science reveals to us. I understood science can only reveal information, but what conclusions we make about that information are ours to make. I conclude that functionality and design representing intelligence and purpose – you do not. I have no problem with the Big Bang and even the concept of evolution – it is how or through what guidance this process came and continues to manifest itself is another issue. And this is the difference in our opinions – please inform me if it is otherwise. But I believe that this is no longer the most important issue in our dialogues… Please pay special attention to the following because the point seems to have been lost on most of the people who have responded to me. I would not inform an astrophysicist that I understand what his or her profession and beliefs are about because I too read the poem Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star. I have not been given that courtesy about my beliefs. I'm a religious Jew and practicing psychotherapist so I will see the world differently than you do – should that not be acceptable? It is evidently not as I have discovered through these dialogues. Astoundingly to me, you and others continue to justify your aggressive, disrespectful and philosophically oppressive words by attempting to quote facts to prove that my views are incorrect. This to me is far more important and frightening because of its implications – if I'm to take the TED audience as a micro sample of the intellectual world I understand why politics is full of black-and-white thinking and the divorce rate is 50%. This to me has been the revelation of all these dialogues – sadly.
Noface
David Kaufman
Posted over 3 years ago
Intelligent Design
What is wrong with this forum. I was quiet inspired by this film and expressed my thoughts about it. And no one has yet to answer my question (on this Martin Luther King Jr. holiday yet!) why all the name calling because you do not agree with my opinion? Why all the vitriol to silence my thoughts? The states I quoted are not mine but eminent scientist in their fields. Would you tell them too take their opinions elsewhere? Is my quoting them because I share their views unacceptable? I am just astounded by many of the reactions I have received. I will state again:In general, I have experienced that many of the lefts/liberal adherents are filled with contempt and even hatred to those they disagree with -- they believe that everyone who disagrees with them is sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, islamophobic, racist and bigoted. This allows them to feel superior and do not have to engage in deeper discussions and ideas that would make them uncomfortable - such as the possibility that there is more than meets the eye than pure randomness. Or that our physical, intellectual and emotional lives might contain more than meaningless star dust. As the existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre taught, people are free to make their own meaning. (Yes, this Orthodox Jew, also has a background in philosophy as well.) The language and attitude in this debate/discussion is frightening to me as it is representative on a very small scale what happens to a society when Meaning is removed. You may think I am making too much of this. I do not believe so. Life is lived on a micro before it is lived on a macro scale.... I am actually sickened by the reactions I have received. So I will end with Toscanini said in 1933, regarding Richard Strauss, "To Strauss the composer I take off my hat; to Strauss the man I put it back on." regarding his support of the Nazi's.