A symphony starts
when the tempest winds blow,
moving gray cloud pads
behind lightening strings bow.

The thunder brass strikes
between the rain drums beat,
rippling once silent puddles
into hi-hat heat.

Undertones of texture,
crackling rooftop patter,
synthetic ambient ocean pads,
indoor muffled chatter.

Natures atmospheric ensemble,
Rhythm-ized to relax,
through the rain drums beat,
and its symphonic sax.

Guerilla global warming,
hung from careless hands,
sands slowly sinking,
shrinking tropic lands.

Temperatures are toasting,
roasting artic S’mores,
species extinguished,
dished by summer’s wars.

Heat strokes and skin cancer,
dancing through the smoke,
provoke Mother Nature,
all together now, choke.

Forests set a’ fire,
carbon in the sky,
goodbye dear planet,
for I murdered you and I.

Romancing free will is but an attempted love affair, a love affair with one’s self, with control, an effort towards independence from the causal environment. But because we are part of the casual environment, no real betrayal can be made, for any attempt to divorce from ones arranged marriage would be determined by the very union one is attempting to break. We are in wedlock, a civil union where we take on the role of both spouses. Not only are we casualties of our environment but also contributors to it. Ironically, the illusion of free will that one believes one is romancing was caused by the very deterministic environment one is rebelling against. So there can be no rebellion against it without it’s authorization and direction. To have an affair with the illusion of free will is still making love to one’s casual environment. There is no escape, there can be no affairs, as it is everywhere, we move it, it moves us, it can be your only love as it is determined and established by the trajectory of the initial conditions.

We’ve all had em, lonely days. Since there are many types of lonely feelings, some of us may even feel a loneliness everyday. So, as a tribute to you and I on those lonely days…

I present to you, my latest track, It’s a lonely day today

1. They find the idea of being a descendant of an ape highly unfashionable and degrading. Their ego has grown since the days of their ancestors, and therefore they believe they are far too superior to have evolved from these ancestral apes. They would rather believe something that was written to sell to their senses, that they are independent from causality and were created by an all powerful supernatural deity that allows them a chance to live past death in a blissful perfect place called heaven.

2. They are ignorant to what evolution means and how the process of natural selection works. They only know and care about the ancestral ape point.

3. They are ignorant to the evidence (transitional fossils, genetics, dna research, ect…) that indicates and supports evolution. Sometimes they are even willfully ignorant.

4. They misunderstand evolution to mean that we evolved from the modern ape rather then that we and the modern ape evolved from a common ancestor.

5. Because evolution is classified as a theory, they ignore all the evidence that support the theory’s verity.

6. They are too lazy to care or think about it, It’s so much easier to just say, “god did it.”

Additional reading - 24 myths and misconceptions about Evolution

I see it time and time again, after a non-believer has explained away creationists arguments, the creationist will often end their argument with the question, “What if you are wrong?”

When a creationist asks a non-believer, “What if you are wrong?,” what they are really suggesting is that if a non-believer is wrong about god not existing, then the non-believer may go to hell for not believing in god. With this question they are proposing that these “operant conditions,” heaven and hell, be ones motivation to believe in god, that if you believe, you have nothing to lose, if you don’t believe in god then you put yourself at risk of going to hell. This train of thought is commonly known as Pascal’s wager or Pascal’s Gambit. It does not try to prove that a god exist, It only proposes that one believe that god exist even without proof.

There are several problems with this reasoning mostly due to it assuming way too much:

Additional resources on the problems with Pascal’s Wager –
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html
http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsforgod/a/pascalswager.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/heaven.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/pascal_w.htm
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/pascalswager.html
http://www.freethoughtfirefighters.org/a_refutation_of_pascals_wager_Massimo_Pigliucci.htm
http://godisimaginary.com/i46.htm

Along with my newest urban art piece, I present to you its audio compliment, my latest track\soundscape, The Secret Hideout

My original design illustrating the Butterfly Effect. The butterfly effect is a phrase which encapsulates the more technical notion of sensitive dependence on initial conditions in chaos theory. Small variations of the initial condition of a nonlinear dynamical system may produce large variations in the long term behavior of the system.

The phrase refers to the idea that a butterfly’s wings might create tiny changes in the atmosphere that ultimately cause a tornado to appear (or prevent a tornado from appearing). The flapping wing represents a small change in the initial condition of the system, which causes a chain of events leading to large-scale phenomena. Had the butterfly not flapped its wings, the trajectory of the system might have been vastly different.

I find that many of the characteristics that creationists frequently apply to their god (I’ll be referring to the god, Yahweh) are contradictory and self cancelling. Creationists assert that their god has no beginning, no end, is an uncaused cause, and cannot be scientifically identified or examined as it exist outside of scientific observation because of it’s supernatural properties. They claim to know specific characteristics of Yahweh, to talk to Yahweh, to hear Yahweh speak to them, to know what Yahweh approves and disapproves of, etc… Each one of these claims raises a red flag which I cannot allow myself not to question and address.

1. God’s (Yahweh’s) infiniteness?

If Yahweh has no beginning, no end, is within everything, is infinite, and has no boundaries, then Yahweh must be without edges, without contrast, and without edges to outline it, without contrast to distinguish it, Yahweh must be formless, and if Yahweh is formless then how can it be recognized, characterized, personified, and “known” at any extent at all? It cannot. This characteristic of infiniteness that creationists apply to Yahweh actually cancels out Yahweh’s existence. We can just as easily say that everything is as it is without being possessed by this supernatural deity. Which leads me to the next questionable characteristic of Yahweh, its curious exemption from scientific observation through its “supernaturalness.”

2. God’s (Yahweh’s) supernaturalness?

As I explained above, god’s (Yahweh’s) infiniteness attribute cancels itself out, but not only does this infiniteness attribute cancel itself out but it also conflicts and contradicts with another characteristic assigned to god, it’s so called freedom from scientific examination. If god is supernatural and exist outside of what we understand as natural, and therefore cannot be observed by science, then how is it that Yahweh can be called infinite? Such infiniteness must also include that which is natural and therefore should be examinable by science. If Yahweh is claimed to intervene, participate, and embody the universe, planets, life, people, etc… then Yahweh must also be natural. Also, if Yahweh existed along with it’s supernaturalness, then it’s supernaturalness would not be supernatural, it would just be natural, and if it is natural then it must be subject to scientific examination. One cannot claim that Yahweh is supernatural and then also claim to observe Yahweh in our natural environment and to “know” Yahweh exist. Any supernatural being that can be observed cannot actually be described as supernatural, so were there supernatural beings, one would not be able to know about them.

3. God (Yahweh), an uncaused cause?

Following the contradiction of god’s infiniteness with how one could possibly “know” any specific characteristics of god , how is it that anyone could “know” that god is an uncaused cause? This characteristic often pops up when a creationist is debating how the universe came to be. Creationists of course say that god (Yahweh) created the universe, and the opposition may cite the big bang as to how the universe came to be. Both arguments eventually come down to how could have “something” of came from “nothing.” In which case I am currently researching zero point energy or vacuum energy as a potential contributor to the big bang. Creationists state that god created the universe, in which the next natural question of the opposition is, “then what created god?” In which case the creationist will cite that god is an “uncaused caused,” always been there, always will be, has no beginning nor end. And here you see the argument is circular as it goes back to god’s characteristic of infiniteness where as I explained earlier that this characteristic actually cancels god completely out of the picture.