CalvinDude.com

By the way, Jacob Michael and I have been able to resume our cross-examination in our debate on Justification.  You can view it on the old site still, and hopefully by the end of the week the new codes will all be finished for ease of navigation, etc.  Look at http://www.calvindude.com/old for the old version of the site to follow along.

First, I have now read the entire ESV Bible.  That’s right, since November 3 (when my dad gave me my first copy of it), I have now read every single book of Scripture.  The ESV is by far my favorite translation.  It’s just extremely readable.  I’ll be looking at re-doing a lot of the articles on this site, and as I do that I’ll probably switch over to the ESV too (although I like a lot of the NASB too, so who knows…maybe I’ll take turns!)

Speaking of those articles, I’m now working on getting them back up for the general public.  Aren’t I nice to you? :-D  If you would like to take a look at http://calvindude.com/viola then you can see the formatting status so far (and no, that link will not remain forever–it’s just for the testing purposes as I work out the PHP).  Give me your feedback as to whether you like it or think the new format stinks, etc (just give a shout to cd (at) calvindude (dot) com and I’ll igno–read your e-mails with great gusto).

If you’ve read the link to the discussion I had with exbeliever at Debunking Christianity, you’ll see a miracle of sorts. We actually agree on something.  Exbeliever said: “I feel that it is pointless for you to continue posting here if you are only going to attempt to evade and shift the burden of proof.”

I likewise “feel” it is pointless to post responses to someone who does not even realize what the burden of proof is in the first place.

In any case, since exbeliever didn’t “feel” like answering my challenge to him to prove that I exist, I’ll go ahead and post here what my reasoning was behind asking him to do that.  Exbeliever’s worldview is limited by his idea of where logic came from.  As his own words demonstrate, there is no universal aspect to logic.  There is only “apparent” or “seemingly” universal logical laws, which are based upon his assumption that everyone’s minds are basically the same and therefore come to the same basic conclusions regarding sensory data.

That’s all fine and dandy, but how does exbeliever know what any other person’s mind is like?  How does he know what is the “typical” mind-design by which logic arises in the first place?  According to his own statements, his beliefs are only true in the system for which they are employed–in other words, they cannot be true outside of his system of minds designed similarly.

That’s why I challenged him to prove that I exist.  In his worldview, it is utterly impossible to actually prove any other mind exists at all.  He cannot prove I exist, much less begin to question whether or not God exists, because he doesn’t have the framework possible to investigate that question.  His worldview is based on the assumption that I exist, and not only that I exist but that there are lots of minds that exist, and all these minds are basically similar in construction.  He cannot prove any of this because he must assume it to be true in order to begin his process of thought.

Again, his logic is that all minds are basically similar and therefore come to similar conclusions about what they perceive, and therefore have similar laws of logic (which he claims is objective-like).  His logic therefore depends on these things being true, which means that he cannot use his logic to question whether any of these other minds actually exist or not.  If he questions their existence, he cannot use the logic that is based on their existence to do so.  He must use a higher form of logic, one that is based on something more basic than the existence of common minds, in order to prove there are common minds.

I, for one, don’t have any problem saying there are commonly designed minds, because God made creatures, and of the creatures God made He made man in His image.  Therefore, it is certainly possible for me to use the same logic that exbeliever employs–but not to ask the question of whether or not God exists.  We only agree on logic that probes questions after the assumption of similar minds is reached.

In other words, it’s a question of axioms.  Your logic is only as good as your axioms involved, and if your axioms involved don’t allow you to question whether God exists or not your logic will be unable to delve into the question.

This article informs us that the London mayor was suspended from office for four weeks for “bringing his office into disrepute.”  Apparently, he compared a Jewish journalist to a Nazi concentration camp guard.  Naturally, that’s not a very bright thing for a politician to do…but I have a question.

If the standard is bringing an office into disrepute, wouldn’t we have to suspend every one in public office?

Just wondering…. :-D

I have recently been involved in the comments section on this blog. Since my next response is really too unweildy to display in the comments section, I am posting it here. If you wish to review that post to gain the context, I would highly recommend it :-)  I am going to respond to the second response of exbeliever first, since the end of that second response he re-asks part of the first response too.

exbeliever wrote:

You wrote: “you then ask that we provide some kind of substance beyond mere opinion to justify our beliefs.”

No, I simply ask that you use the laws of logic that you believe exist to formulate an argument that demonstrates that your god does exist.

So are you aknowledging that, according to your view, logic is merely an opinion?  Is that how you can disagree with my statement that you were asking for more than an opinion?  Logic is itself opinion? 

This is important, because if logic is just an opinion then why bother “proving” anything by logic in the first place?  Why not simply say, “My opinion is that God exists” or “My opinion is that God does not exist”?  How are we better served by using “logic” in this situation?

You wrote: “Your laws of logic are rooted in the assumption that objects exist in the universe. Your laws of logic therefore depend on the existence of those objects to be validated.”

This is not true. Whether there are actual objects in the universe or only perceived objects makes no difference to the argument I’ve presented.

You said: “As for the laws of logic, what if they are only seemingly universal, but are truly not so? In the atheistic worldview there are objects in the universe.”  So am I to now presume that when you say “there are objects in the universe” (emphasis added) you really mean only that objects are perceived and not that they actually are in the universe?

I guess I have to accept that you do not really know for certain that there are any objects in the universe, for you ask:

By the way, do you disagree with my feeling that there are objects in the universe?

Yes, I disagree with your “feeling” that there are objects in the universe.  I know for a fact that there are objects in the universe–God made these objects.

You wrote: “I cannot use my worldview to provide evidence in your worldview, and you cannot use your worldview to provide evidence in my worldview.”

I’m not asking you to use your “worldview” to provide evidence, I am asking you to use logical laws to formulate an argument that proves your god exists.

But my “logical laws” are based on my worldview.  They do not function divorced from my worldview.  It’s easy enough to demonstrate the difference:

I say that it is impossible for a contradiction to be valid because God cannot lie and a contradiction is a lie.  You say that it is impossible for a contradiction to be valid because you’ve never observed a contradiction being valid among the objects in the universe that may or may not actually exist but which are somehow perceived.  My view of non-contradiction is vastly more certain than your view (certain at this point meaning “no wiggle room” not “more proven”); there is no way for my view to ever have a contradiction, whereas your view allows for a contradiction if you ever do happen to perceive one.  Therefore, we have different views of what constitutes a contradiction in the first place, and this is demonstrated by the simple fact that if I observe a contradiction since I know that God cannot lie I know I must be mistaken in thinking that I observed a contradiction, whereas you would instead be able to say that you were not mistaken but that you can trust what you empirically observed.

You wrote: “I can only prove by logic that which is under my system of logic. . .”

Which laws of logic do you think we will disagree on? Non-contradiction? Identity?

Frankly, all of them.  If your laws of logic are mere opinion based on the observation of objects (objects which, as you’ve said, may not even exist, but are only perceived to exist) then all your laws of logic are fundamentally different than mine.  My laws of logic are rooted in the fact that God exists as an omnipotent, omnipresent, immutable, God who has, as one of His divine attributes, Logic.  They are not dependent upon what I observe, what I think, what I feel, or what I imagine–they are true regardless of me and regardless of you.  Thus, my laws of logic are universal and transcendent.

Your laws of logic, on the other hand, flow only from the perception of objects.  Your laws of logic are therefore relativistic (because they are based on personal experience, which is relative to the perceiver) and non-universal.  You admit as much when you speak about how people would think differently if we each had the same “brain damage.”  Your logic is not certain, but is instead a subjective extention of your thinking.  Thus, your laws of logic function in no way like my laws of logic.

You wrote: “even if we agree on the words used, we do not agree on the principle of how these laws of logic came about.”

So what? If I believe E=MC2 because my physics teacher said it was true, and you believe it because you worked it out and proved it for yourself, are we not equally able to use that formula to make subsequent proofs even though I can’t explain how the proof came about?

In a word, no.  We are not dealing with using a term equally in formula.  We are talking about the fundamental nature of the laws themselves.  Again, my view of the Law of Non-Contradiciton is radically different from your view because my view is based on an objective standard and your view is based on a subjective feeling.  The two ideas are not compatible.

You wrote: “You, however, cannot use your system of logic to speak anything about where those objects came from–they have to pre-exist in order for you to have your laws of logic.”

That doesn’t follow from anything that I’ve said.

You are correct that it doesn’t follow from anything you “said”, but it most certainly does follow from your position (I, for one, have never said that you actually understand your position).  If there are no objects that can be perceived then you have no laws of logic–this is foundational to your belief that laws of logic depend on the perceiving of objects.  If those objects did not exist (whether physically, or just in your mind) then you would not be able to use logic at all, in your belief system.  Your belief system cannot precede the foundation of your belief system.

Think of it this way.  Suppose that the universe existed illogically, but that this illogical universe made objects that you could perceive in such a manner that you were able to deduce your laws of logic from those objects.  Would you be able to then say that the universe as a whole was logical?  Of course not, because it was an illogical universe that created your perceived objects.  Where those objects come from is irrelevant in your position–the only thing that matters is that you can somehow deduce your logical laws from those objects.  You therefore cannot extrapolate to what is prior to those laws.

My position likewise suffers from the same problem, and I make no bones about it.  I cannot use logic to probe what preceeded God (although I do not believe there was anything that preceeded God, this is not based on a logical deduction).  If God were created by some random illogical force that would not change the fact that my logic depends on His nature and His character; in the same way, you cannot argue about what created the objects that you claim you perceive, and therefore any attempt you partake on saying that God’s existence is illogical is absurd since God would preceed the basis of your logical argument anyway.

You wrote: “I never said that you couldn’t use [the laws of logic], I just point out that you have no *reason* to use them.”

So what? I use them anyway. Why don’t you use them to form an argument for the existence of your god?

Because you won’t understand it.  If you don’t agree with me as to where the laws of logic come from, how could you possibly accept anything I say as being logical?  Why should I waste my time in presenting something to you that I know is impossible for you to grasp in your given state?

You wrote: “I cannot prove logically that God exists when we do not agree on the foundation of logic in the first place.”

The foundation of logic should make no difference to the application of them. Do you believe that two different people can’t use the Pythagorean Theorem because one doesn’t know where it came from?

If one person claim that the Pythagorean Theorem is “a2 + b2 = c2″ and another person said it was “a3 + b3 = c3″ then those two people cannot use the theorem in the same way.  Likewise, you cannot use the laws of logic the way I do because you do not view them the way I do.

You wrote: “But you have no way of knowing what is “true” and what isn’t.”

“Truth” is defined by a system.

Is that true?

The word “truth” works whether laws of logic are universal or only seemingly so. Am I claiming something is universally true? No. Can I claim that something is seemingly universally true? Yes.

But that’s the whole point–I’m not claiming that logic is seemingly universally true, I’m saying that it is.  I am claiming a universal truth, so unless you are too it’s pointless to even argue this.

You wrote: “You’ve already broken several of my rules of logic.”

Which ones?

The Law of Non-Contradiction, for one (as I’ve already demonstrated).  Furthermore, since you believe laws of logic are subjective then none of your laws of logic will agree with my objective laws of logic.

You wrote: “We can have a ‘discussion’, yes, but certainly not a rational one if we do not even agree as to the definition of what is rational.”

I define a “rational discussion” as one in which people do not violate logical principles like non-contradiction, identity, etc.

It’s wonderful that you define it that way.  I, for one, say that a rational discussion is one in which the participants agree on the foundation of where the laws of logic came from and not just on the terminology of those laws.

How do you define a rational conversation?

See above.  Of course, I could just as easily say, “In my truth system, a rational conversation is one that involves the word ‘Geritol’” and it would be just as arbitrary as your definition of the term.  Or are you instead accepting my view and arguing that there is an objective meaning to the term “rational”?

So that my previous comment doesn’t get lost in all of this and you ignore it, let me restate:

Why not try me? Why not say, “exbeliever, I believe that my god exists because . . .”I will judge the claims you make by logical axioms. If you believe I have misused an axiom, you can point that out for the world to see my irrationality.

I have asked you to “give an account for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15). You have done nothing more than say this is impossible to do.

If you choose to continue to evade the question, well, I think that speaks volumes about your faith. 

Firstly, I did not posit it in such a manner because I disagreed with your primary assertion that “I’ve done what you asked of me. You have offered no challenge to my theories of logic and morality.”  I have most certainly offered a challenge to your theory of logic (and I could do so for your theory of morality too, although I do not want to get involved in that at this point in time).

Secondly, it is impossible for me to provide such evidence for you in the manner in which you wish it to be done, for to do so would be to capitulate to your understanding of logic which is something I do not agree with.  Your trying to use the passage of 1 Peter 3:15 likewise is less than underwhelming in this context because A) you won’t listen to the defense on its own terms and B) you don’t determine what constitutes “an account” (or defense) in the first place.  Since your view of truth and logic are all subjective views, it is impossible for me to provide anything for you to agree with.  Why should I waste my time?

So, when you agree that logic is universal and transcendent, then I will give you my logical arguments.  If you do not agree that logic is universal and transcendent, then bear in mind that according to your own beliefs my view is only wrong according to your opinion, and not according to my opinion; and my opinion is at least as true as your opinion.  Or are you going to impose your opinion on my view as if you had demonstrated your opinion to be an objective, transcendent truth? 

The fact of the matter is that you do not believe your own opinion or else you would not seek to debate this issue in the first place.  You believe that what is true for you is true for me too.  That is why you are seeking to convert me to your view.  You believe your view is a universal and transcendent truth, and yet you have no basis or reason to believe that.  I, on the other hand, claim there is an objective and transcendent source for truth.  Which one of us is living consistently with his worldview?

And you wonder again why I need to provide an argument to such as you?

Apparently, Germany doesn’t allow you to “insult” religions.  This really makes me wonder what would happen if that law were in effect here in America.

Needless to say, I’m opposed to it.  Not because I think brilliant people need to go around mocking Islam (they don’t), but because people should be arrested for “insult.”  It’s just one of those feel-good do-nothing laws that suffocates free speach.

Fox News is reporting that South Dakota’s senate passed a bill outlawing all abortions except for those where the mother’s life is endangered.  At least as far as the article outlines the law, I am in full support of it.

Abortion, as you may know from some of the old articles (which will hopefully be relinked soon) on this site, is the unjustified taking of human life, and as such should be outlawed in all cases (including rape and incest cases).  I do, however, support the distinction that abortion be allowed when the mother’s life is in danger, but only because the intent in such a case isn’t to kill the child but to save the mother’s life, and the child’s life is inadvertantly taken in that process.  Such cases are, of course, extremely rare.  Virtually every abortion done today is because of convienence and has nothing to do with the health of the mother, despite the ploy abortionists to make it into a doctor’s and woman’s private health concern.

At the very least, this law should help bring the discussion back into the public forum where pro-lifers will have the opportunity to be ignored by the press yet again because their arguments are too well thought out.  But perhaps some may be convinced even yet.

Sometimes, life has a way of giving you interesting perspectives. Yesterday, a police officer was killed here in Colorado Springs.  What makes this impactful for me isn’t that I know the officer, but that I know the area he was murdered in.  In fact, I go by it nearly every day on the way to work, and had been right by that location less than five hours before the officer was killed there.

Anyway, we found out yesterday that there had been a shooting because we got emails at work notifying us that several schools had been locked-down (the emails were for parents who might have kids in one of the schools affected by the lock-down).  There weren’t any details at that time about the status of the officer, but when I went home I saw that the entire street was blocked off where the shooting had happened, and there were several police markers around the bus stop and bus bench, along with crime scene detectives there nearly six hours after the shooting.  Then, this morning, coming in I noticed that someone had left flowers and painted a cross on the bus bench, and that’s when I figured the officer had died (which was then confirmed by my reading the headlines as I walked by the newspaper vending machines).

Needless to say, having something like that occur in a place you are familiar with does make you ponder life.  Not only is it an illustration of how fragile life is, but it also is a sobering reminder that any moment we can suddenly be talking with our Maker.  It also makes you wonder, if you knew that today was your last day on Earth would you live differently than you are now?  And if so, whether good or bad, why aren’t you living that way now?

Perhaps thinking about our every day lives should be something we do more often.

Where I work, we have a video department, and the guy who runs it gets lots of promotional CDs from various bands.  Since I happen to totally dig music too, he occasionally lets me hear some of the CDs he gets (which is how I was able to hear PODs Testify album the day before it was available in stores, for example).  Anyway, today he had me listen to a CD from Family Force 5 and all I can say is….WOW!

These guys rock.  It’s like Limp Bizket only good.  Some of their songs sound like Rage Against The Machine, some like Linkin Park.  Some of it even makes you wanna kick back in a low-rider and cruise Main flashing gang signs at the elderly (hey, you know you wanna do it) :-D 

Anyway, their album is going to be coming out on March 28, and I for one will be snagging myself a copy.  Listen loud, listen proud.

In Brit Hume’s Grapevine we read the following:

A government minister in India has offered $11.5 million to anyone who beheads one of the Danish artists responsible for those controversial cartoons of the prophet Muhammad.

Muhammad Quereshi — minister of state for Haj and Minorities Welfare in India’s largest state, said “the avenger” would also receive his weight in gold, adding that the money would be paid by the people of his province.

The state’s home secretary tells the Arab News that Quereshi “was simply expressing the common feeling of members of his community” and violated no laws since he “did not make the announcement in his capacity as a minister.”

What’s more frightening, the fact that this guy said it, or the fact that it was characterized as “the common feeling of members of his community”?  Seriously, though, one cannot help but see the difference between the Christian community and the Islamic community.  In Alabama, a bunch of Christian churches have been burned to the ground and destroyed.  Christians are taking up arms and calling for the beheading of those responsible…no wait a second, they’re not doing that.  They’re not doing…anything.

Meanwhile, cartoons have got the Muslims engaged in civil discourse such as burning down buidlings, rioting, and threatening to behead cartoonists.  All for an “insult” to Islam.