CalvinDude.com

I saw this headline and thought it was interesting: World Cup viewers may top 30 billion.

Of course the population of the Earth is only 6 billion.  They must be counting alien viewers too…. :-)

Actually, the article does explain how this works:

The 2006 soccer World Cup continues to set television ratings records, with cumulative viewing figures for the month-long tournament expected to exceed 30 billion or five times the total world population.

Naturally, when you can count someone over and over again, you can get well over five times the population of the Earth.

In fact, I think this is how politicians do elections….

Daniel Morgan wrote a post on abortion on his blog.  Unfortunately, the comments section truncates after a certain length.  I already put forth a short response (basically just putting forth the logic of the Prolife position without defending any of it yet) and Daniel responded in the comments.  Since my own response will necessarily be lengthy, I’m going to post it here (and provide the link to Daniel).

First it would be best if I went ahead and demonstrated the Prolife argument that was put forth since both Daniel and I have/will be referencing it.  I wrote:

P1. It is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being without proper justification.

P2. Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being.

P3. While there are possible circumstances when this is justifiable (such as when saving the life of the mother), the vast majority of abortions are not morally justifiable, especially “abortion on demand.”

C1. The vast majority of abortions are immoral.

The first thing I should note is that the above argument is a legal argument, not a religious argument.  This will help clear up some confusion, especially in P1 where I mention “innocent human being.”  In this argument, I am refering to legal innocence and not moral innocence (the difference being that someone can do something morally evil without necessarily breaking the law, and thus be legally innocent).

This answers Daniel’s objection that: “There are no ‘innocent human beings’ in your total depravity worldview.”  When talking about moral innocence, Daniel’s statement is correct; when talking about legal innocence, Daniel’s statement is incorrect.

I should note that if Daniel would like me to argue from the religious perspective, I can certainly do so–but that would entail me bringing forth my presuppositional argument once again :-D  Therefore, it is probably better to replace the pharse “are immoral” in the conclusion with the phrase “ought to be illegal” to help maintain the legal aspect of the argument, so from now on I will refer to C1 as:

C1. The vast majority of abortions ought to be illegal.

Now with the issue framed, let us look at Daniel’s objections.  I shall stick to his objections that are dealing with the legal issue since A) it probably wasn’t apparent that I was only making a legal argument originally so it’s not fair to argue against Daniel when he speaks of religious stands instead of legal stands; and B) it would take too long to put forth the proper foundation for the moral argument here.

Daniel said:

…I think it is also equally immoral to enforce upon others some restriction of what they can do to their own bodies, and anything which depends directly upon their body’s CNS/circulatory system/liver/etc. for life support.

I agree in principal with the above, but with the following caveat: basic human rights (including the right to life) are more important that the rights of someone to do what they want to “their body” (and the unborn is not part of the woman’s body anyway).  As such, when there is a conflict, the basic human rights ought to take precedence legally.

Daniel wrote:

We all differentiate “killing” based on some concept of the organisms’ value. How do we evaluate a creature’s life potential?

An organism’s “value” is not equivalent to its “life potential” though.  For instance, human rights are based on the organism’s humanity.  Similarly, animal rights (which Daniel also speaks about in his post) are intrinsic upon the organism’s ontological animal-ness.

Human rights are ontological rights.  They depend on the being of the creature.  The reason that these rights are thus linked is so that all men and women are viewed equal under law.  This equality can only be due to the equality of humanity that all people share.  If it is linked to some other aspect (like consciousness, as Daniel suggests) then human rights vary according to the degree that that aspect is present.  In the case of consciousness, people who are awake would have more human rights than those who are asleep if human rights are determined that way.

In point of fact, most of the rationals for abortions do not enable us to have consistent human rights.  For instance, someone might argue “The fetus is really small–you can’t even see it!”  In this instance, he is making the claim that larger humans have more rights than smaller humans.  Someone might argue (as Daniel seems to be): “The fetus is inside the woman, therefore it doesn’t have the same rights as a human outside the womb.” In this case, human rights depend on the location of the human. 

Finally, there is the issue of “self awareness” (which Daniel also mentions).  For instance, he said:

We have to use those criteria [to evaluate life potential] which make some sense–self-awareness implies that an organism will know it is dying, wish not to die, and have an intense experience of pain in death. Because these creatures have a volitional opposition to us killing them, we afford them rights.

In this instance, then, animal rights and human rights ought to be identical.  Under the above, any animal that fits the description has just as many “rights” as any other animal.  However, under the law humans have more rights than animals do, precisely because human rights are based upon ontology–the fact that they are human.

Daniel’s argument then shifts to an issue of citizenship when he says:

Legally, if we don’t give people the option to prevent their own physical pain [when that option is available, obviously], so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of other citizens [which our own constitution defines as someone BORN here, so fetuses don't count, but once they are born, then yes, they have rights], then we have basically eroded liberty.

But this is not correct.  Citizenship has no bearing over human rights.  That is why you will still be prosecuted if you kill an illegal alien, despite the fact that the alien is not a citizen.  Human rights do not depend on citizenship, but on the ontology of being human.  The right to life is, again, a human right, not a citizen’s right.

Daniel then states:

I have tried to lay out a systematic method of appraising the legality of an abortion, when it is presupposed that a fetus is intrinsically the property of the woman carrying it, and her body is her sovereign property, and granting that we cannot, contrary to protests to the otherwise, do “whatever we wish to our own property” [we can't torture it - implying "it" is a conscious organism].

I would argue that a human being cannot ever be property.  Even if a human could be property, a human being does not become the property of another person simply because of the location of that human (being inside the womb). 

Furthermore, simply because any thing is in the woman does not make that thing her property.  For instance, if a woman steals a diamond and swallows it, the diamond does not become her property even though it is in her body.  Likewise, if a woman were to force someone to donate a kidney, the kidney would not become hers (it is only hers if the original “owner” of the kidney relinquishes it willingly).

Daniel then asks a pertinent question:

In defining a fetus as a “human being,” we must ask, “what is a human being?” Just something with human DNA?

The answer to the second question in the above is obviously “no.”  My skin cells have human DNA, but they are not human.

So what is a human being?  A good definition would be: “a self-contained homo sapien sapien that typically begins as two cells joined together (sperm and egg–although perhaps genetic modification will alter this part) and develops from there to naturally progress through the various stages of humanity (such as the fetal stage, infant stage, childhood, adolesence, adulthood, and elderlyness).”

Daniel then asks:

Do human beings lose their rights upon brain death?

No, they do not.

Does this mean we shouldn’t “pull the plug”?  Not at all.  It is not a human right for a machine to breathe for us, for example, and thus it is not a violation of human rights to turn off the machines.  What would be a violation of a human right is actively killing someone who can live apart from machines with only the normal care necessary for all human beings (for example, food and water).  Thus, a respirator or heart machine is not a basic human right, but a feeding tube is (not a tube per se, but the food and water it brings are a right; the tube is simply a means to deliver them).

Daniel asks:

Do we humans have the right to have life support, even as citizens? Obviously we do not. In that sense, even ER workers, when they attempt to revive a victim, are rendering aid, but once it is established that the person’s heart will not start on its own, they do not have the obligation to hook you up to a heart-lung machine, or continue doing chest compressions ad infinitum. WHY?

Again, because it is not a human right to have a machine breathe for us or to cause our heart to beat for us.

Daniel then says:

In the same sense, a woman’s body is life support for a fetus.

Actually, it is in a completely different sense.  The woman’s body provides nutrients to the fetus–but food and water are basic human rights.  (I know that the mother also “breathes” for the fetus–but in this case, the oxygen comes in the blood as a nutrient; the fetus does not breathe at all.)

Based on all the above, I would still argue that legally the vast majority of abortions should be outlawed.

I think John Loftus is obsessed. Steve at Triablogue wrote a response to something Loftus had said (click the link to read–it’s well worth it).  What did Loftus say?

He pointed to a Dagoods post and said: “I’ve never done this before, but I want to highlight a post that demands a Christian response. It’s this one by Dagoods. Why no response?”

Gee, it wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that you ban people from your site when they disagree with you.

Now I haven’t read what Dagoods posted on the DC site (other than the sections Steve quoted) since I couldn’t care less what the Debunking Atheism whackos are up to anymore.  But Loftus’s comments do make it seem that they are obsessed with Christians, like the toddler who screams for attention when he’s ignored for 37 seconds.  It’s like “Snap-snap!  I posted a blog entry!  Answer now!!!”

Oh well.  One can only hope that someday they will grow up.

On September 29 (if I remember the date correctly) I’m heading to Denver with my bro-in-law and friends to see Queensryche.  I got to see them when they opened for Judas Priest last year, but I never really got into Queensryche all that much.  I will say that live they were awesome (but every band is better live, IMO).

Anyway, since they’re doing their Operation: Mindcrime II tour, which will consist of them playing in their entirety both Operation: Mindcrime and Operation: Mindcrime II, my bro-in-law (who is a huge Queensryche fan) gave me both CDs so that I can become familiar with the music.

I’ve discovered that Queensryche is a band that grows on you.  Originally, you hear them and you think, “It’s good but I probably won’t listen to it again.”  Then you listen to it again and think, “It’s good but I probably won’t listen to it often.”  Then you listen to it again and you think, “It’s great and I’ll listen to it again.”  And suddenly you’re thinking, “Wow, this music is way better than I thought it was originally and I just listened to both albums three times in a row.”

But perhaps I’m just weird :-D

This past weekend, I got to hang out with my brother and my cousin at my grandparent’s house.  As is often the case when we hang out, we started doing some movie quotes.  One of the quotes my cousin brought up was from Pirates of the Caribbean when Barbosa says, “That’s not possible!” and Jack responds with “Not probable.”

The reminder of that line got me to thinking.  Earlier, an atheist (I think it was Daniel Morgan, but I’m not positive now and I’m too lazy to search through the comments to look for it) told me that if I were to assume the non-existence of God I would be able to come up with an alternate idea of morality just like atheists do.  (I have to interject quickly that this tactic is a rather nice one…when you can’t put forth a postive argument, make the detractor come up with the argument for you!)  I’ve been working a bit on that idea (although what I’ve written is not yet ready for publishing on the blog–if I finish it, I shall put it here though) and I’ve discovered that, from an atheist perspective, you quickly run into arguments that are no longer conclusive but instead are based on “that’s what it probably would be.”

A good illustration of this is when examining what I call the “Matrix argument” based on the Matrix movies.  An honest atheist will admit that he has no sure way to say that anything we perceive is actually real.  We could be hallucinating everything that we see, feel, hear, taste, or smell.  All these senses ultimately exist as just electrical impulses in the mind (assuming the physicality of the brain) and thus they can be manipulated by outside sources without the person who perceives the senses being aware of this manipulation.

The most common atheist response to this that I have run into is this: “It is highly improbable that a world like the Matrix exists and that I am in it.  It is more likely that the world really exists as I perceive it.”

I ued to accept this, but now I’m thinking about it more.  How does that atheist determine what idea is more “probable” than another?  Is there any way to actually do so, or is it simply an ad hoc arbitrary statement that really means “I believe it is more likely that the world I sense is real than that it is not real”? 

Most atheists at this point wield the shield of “Occam’s Razor.”  But that really doesn’t help us any here because Occam’s Razor itself does not exist in a vacuum.  Occam’s Razor is an assumed probability: “That which has the fewest premises is probably the one that is right.”  How do we know that Occam’s Razor is itself accurate?

The atheist will say, “Because we have perceived that normally the concept with fewest premises turn out to be right.”

But this, in turn, results in a greater circular reasoning.  Our perception of reality is “probably” right because of Occam’s Razor; Occam’s razor is “probably” right because of our perceptions.  In both instances, that which is “probable” is determined circularly.

Ultimately, what is “probably” true is nothing more than what the individual wants to be true.  Thus, a theist says, “It is more probable that the universe is created than eternal” while an atheist says, “It is more probable that the universe is eternal than created.”  The very term “probable” depends on a pre-existing acceptance of what one will consider to be more “likely” in the first place. When step out of the box, however, we see that “probability” is a myth.  Things are only probable if they agree with what you expect and expectations require a prior commitment to a concept of what is more probable.

Probability therefore rests on circular reasoning.

(Of course I do have to note here for the sake of clarification that I am not speaking of mathematical probabilities; this is a look at philosophical probabilities only.)

Kaffinator rightly pointed out that my blog called Headline News was not accurate regarding the actual content of the article (although I was addressing the headline specifically).  In any case, it gives me a chance to post more on why I don’t believe the Glomal Warming scare :-)

In order to frame this, we have to look at a couple of scientific concepts.    First, there is the idea of precision.  Precision is (in layman’s terms) the degree to which we can be confident of a measurement.  Thus, if someone measures a block of wood and says “This block of wood is 6 centimeters long” we have a precision down to the centimeter.  The block of wood could be 6.1 centimeters, or it could be 5.9.  But the block could not be 7 cm or 5 cm.

If, however, someone was able to measure the block of wood and say “This block of wood is 6.0 centimeters long” we have increased our precision.  The block of wood could be 6.01 cm or 6.009 cm, but it cannot be 6.2 cm or 5.9 cm.

The precision of a measurement, therefore, gives us the number of numbers beyond the decimal point.  So a measurement of 6.0 cm is more precise than a measurement of 6 cm (even though mathematically they are identical numbers).  Furthermore, a measurement of 6.00 cm is more precise than a measurement of 6.0 cm (etc.).

This is fairly straightforward.  Where it becomes more complicated is when we begin to do mathematical calculations with more than one measurement.  In such an instance, the result can only be as precise as the measurement with the lowest precision.  To keep it simple, suppose we try to find the area of the face of a block of wood.  If we measure one side at 6.0 cm and the other side at 5 cm, the area is 30 cm (not 30.0 cm).  That is because the 5 cm measurement could be 5.1 cm if it were measured more precisely (and if that were the case, the area would really be 30.6 cm NOT 30.0 cm!).

Therefore, when we look at the precision of calculations, they can only be as precise as the lowest precision measurement.  This means that if someone measures something with an imprecise measurement in the past (e.g. “The temperature is 50 degrees F”) and we measure something with a more precise measurement today (e.g. “The temperature is 50.3 degrees F”), our calculations involving both numbers can only be as precise as the lowest precision number (thus, in comparing 50 degrees to 50.3 degrees we would have to treat the numbers as identical due to the limitations of the level of precision involved).

Secondly (and related) is the concept of instrumental and human error.  Instruments are not perfect machines–nor are the operators of those instruments perfectly able to read the results!  This means the accuracy of scientific results depends on the level of error in the instruments that make a measurement and in the people who read those instruments.

Now, with those two concepts in mind, let us look at the issue of Global Warming after applying some common sense.  Global Warming advocates claim that the average global temperature has risen by 1 degree F in the 20th Century.  The first question that we must ask is simple: “How does one determine the average global tempeerature?”

This is an interesting question and one that, as much as I’ve tried to research it, I’ve never been able to find an answer to.  Do people take the average temperatures of every city on Earth?  Do they take an average surface temperature of the entire Earth using a satellite?

What method is used can drastically affect the results.  After all, before satellite technology existed there was no way for us to use satellites to get a temperature reading.  Thus, there is no way for us to compare what those satellites get to what would have been the case 100 years ago.

On the other hand, if we are going to simply take the average temperatures at various cities around the world we need to be able to determine what level of accuracy each of those thermometers have as well as determining what the precision of those measurments are.  It is obvious that temperatures can be measured more precisely with modern equipment than they could be taken 100 years ago.

Finally there is the fact that a temperature in a city is not identical in every single part of the city!  I have actually personally experienced this.  One summer day, I rode my bike from where I work (downtown) to the house I lived at then (about 3 miles to the south).  The downtown air temperature was 93 degrees when I left work.  Two miles away, as I passed under the Interstate, it was 108 degrees.  Finally, after climbing the last hill to my house, the temperature had dropped back down to 99 degrees.  Thus, in the space of three miles there were temperatures that ranged from 93 to 108 degrees F.  (Naturally, since I was using various bank thermometers instead of scientific instruments, the accuracy of these readings is not the best…but that actually helps demonstrate my point regarding accuracy anyway.)

What was the official temperature of the city for that day?  The answer is: 91 degrees.

Why?  Because that was the temperature at the airport.

What, then, is the actual average temperature of a specific city, let alone for the entire globe?  I’ve noticed that the weathermen in my area now give various temperatures for the different parts of the city.  These temperatures often range by as much as 5-10 degrees difference.

If the city temperature fluctuates by that much, how significant is a 1 degree “rise” in “global” temperature?  How do we know that the entire globe is heating up instead of just a specific place that the temperature is measured at?  How do we know how accurate the measurments are to give us the information that it’s heated up an entire degree?

And this does not even get into the historical data.  Temperature was not recorded in the past before thermometers were created.  Even then, the first thermometers were primative and hardly accurate compared to today’s devices.  How then do we determine what the temperatures were 1,000 years ago?

Scientists use several indirect methods, such as examining ice cores and tree rings.  But these methods are not an actual measurement of the temperature itself.  It is an induction of what the temperature may have been.

Why is that important?  Because the claim is that we’re 1 degree warmer.  What is the margin of error in these inductions?  When someone looks at a tree-ring to calculate the temperature in the past, how precise is his measurements?  If he says, “This tree ring shows it was about 10 degrees warmer than this tree ring” then we see that such measurments are not precise enough for us to conclude that there has been a 1 degree temperature rise.

In order for that concusion to be solidified, we need to have tree rings and ice core samples that are precise enough to distinguish one degree in temperature change (and preferably it would be more precise than that).  Yet again, I have been unable to find research on what the margin of error is in these examinations or in how precise such experiments might be.

And that is naturally hindered by the fact that we need experimentation sufficient to demonstrate the correlation between temperature and ice cores and tree rings.  Unfortunately, we have not had precise machinery to measure temperature for more than a couple of decades.  Thus, we do not have a sufficient number of experiments to really show the correlation with any degree of precision.

Global Warming alarmists are scared over one degree in temperature–something that cannot even be felt by most people.  The “science” that they use to establish this, however, is hardly as precise as science needs to be in order for the conclusion to be valid.  That is why I am, and will remain, a Global Warming Unbeliever.  Only when these experiments are precise enough can we have certainty that there is a problem and that is is caused by man.

John Loftus has responded to my blog post Demonstrating Hypocrisy as follows:

Funny, as I compared the above to what we have on our Blog it’s exactly the same. Maybe this will explain: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/02/our-policy-here.html I do not tolerate ignorance very well. First graduate from High School, take a few college classes, and come back, is what I tell them. I don’t have the time to continually deal with ignorant objections that even intelligent Christians would see through. And moderation is not the same as a suppression of thought, either. That’s just stupid, again.

Ah, always a joy to read something from the cordial John “Free(d from) Thinking” Loftus.  Apparently, he is now the standard for what constitutes “ignorant” and “intelligent” discussion (I’ll grant he makes a good standard for “ignorance” just by existing…).

But I find the above interesting given the fact that Emperor Loftus has recently said (after “Paladin’s” disasterous Joshua’s Long Day argument) :

And let’s say he thinks this passage alone deals a death blow to inerrancy. So what? Your Calvinist God makes him believe that. Besides, no one can master everything there is to master in the whole range of issues which must be decided in order to make a decision to believe. So at what point is it okay for someone like Paladin to have enough reason for HIM to cease believing? Do you require that everyone who disbelieves must have a master’s degree before they can say what convinces them not to believe? … People have varying levels of intelligence and education and they do the best that they can do based upon what they know. So?  … Paladin’s reasons are good enough for him, even if they are not good enough for you. So?

( see http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/06/joshuas-long-day.html )

And later in the same comments he said:

I never stated that the people on my Blog have studied the issues out as much as you or I have done. I invite people on who have passion and who wish to test and defend their arguments in a public forum. They do not speak for me in every case, and I do not speak for them in every case, although we all agree that Christianity is false. If you want to judge my site, then judge each person on the site individually. Each of us assumes the burden to defend our own arguments. I’m offering them a chance to get in the ring…to learn….to grow….and to see if their reasons can stand up against your reasons.

So let’s summarize.  Saint Loftus deletes theistic arguments that he thinks are “ignorant” but he allows–nay, defends–the “ignorant” arguments of maltheists (thanks for the term, Kaffinator) and in fact objects to those of us who point out such comments are ignorant!  Double Standard, thy name is Pope Loftus.

This is probably going to be the last post I’ll do on the Debunking Atheism nuts, seeing as how John Loftus has gone through a complete psychological breakdown.

Okay, perhaps that’s a bit unfair.  He doesn’t really have the necessary equipment in place to undergo a psychological breakdown in the first place.

In any case, it has become obvious that Debunking Atheism is nothing more than a place for a whine-fest.  It makes it really difficult to take any of it seriously, and so I no longer shall.  The posters there seem to have no agenda other than to post criticism of Christianity and defend it at all costs with as much smokescreen as they can muster.

In fact, Loftus reminds me of those old movies where someone gets suppressed behind a rock by a bunch of people shooting at them.  They try to toss some stones into the forest to make the shooters think they’re not behind the rock.

The only problem is that Loftus doesn’t realize he is in our sites and we can see him throwing the rocks, and thus aren’t fooled by the distraction.

I should clarify.  This doesn’t mean I consider all the posters over there as insane as Loftus is.  In fact, I quite enjoyed talking with Daniel Morgan, for instance, back before Loftus banned me for making sense.  But Morgan is the exception, unfortunately.

So I’m not even going to bother to read any of that blog ever again.  It’s just not worth the effort it takes to make wade through the ponderous illogic.

I saw this headline: Study Says Earth’s Temp at 400-Year High.

Let’s translate that: “400 years ago, before man polluted the world, the Earth was warmer than it is now.”

Having a chance to read through all of those comment, I think this is the best part of ‘em:

Ebonmuse–”You seem not to understand what John was attempting to do. His post was an example of proof by contradiction.”

Loftus–”Besides, it’s simply silly to speak of my having to show a contradiction before my argument can succeed.”