CalvinDude.com

From Michelle Malkin:

From: la-voz-de-aztlan-admin@aztlan.net To: la-voz-de-aztlan@aztlan.net Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 20:27:37 -0700 Subject: [La Voz de Aztlan] URGENT ALERT: From The Revolutionary Council and Provisional Government of AztlanDear La Voz de Aztlan Subscribers:

We have received the following communique from the
Minister of Information of the Nation of Aztlan. We rarely
receive any communiques from the “Revolutionary Council
and Provisional Government of Aztlan” so we must assume
that it is of upmost importance. We urge that you carefully
consider the information that it contains. Please pass this
to others in your network!
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

URGENT ALERT: From The Revolutionary Council and
Provisional Government of Aztlan

April 26, 2006

Estimada Raza de Aztlan and Beyond,

Our Director of Special Intelligence Services has brought
to our attention disturbing information that threatens the
safety of our families. This information requires that we
prepare a defense strategy to protect our communities.

Due to the recent large demonstrations of our people in
major cities in occupied Anahuac, extremist European
invaders are preparing violent actions against us.
They are expected to use physical violence in the upcoming
marches and rallies planned for May 1, 2006 and we must
take steps to protect our families.

The Director of Special Intelligence Services has reliable
information that anti-Mexican forces in Aztlan and in
certain other area of Anahuac, are preparing to utilize
explosives and snipers to kill our people. We urge our
community to arm themselves to protect our families. We
are also urging our soldiers presently serving In Iraq,
Afghanistan and other foreign lands to do everything
possible to return home and fight for your own. The
situation here is critical.

In addition, all political prisoners shall be in constant
alert and ready for action. Also, youth groups in our
barrios shall call truces and direct their energies against
the racist enemy that has vowed to annihilate our families.

Our Prime Minister is instructing every able bodied male to
arm himself to protect the women and children in his home.
We can not depend on local White law enforcement
authorities because in many cases they will join the
criminal elements and participate in the slaughter of our
people. Make sure you have weapons and plenty of
ammunition in your homes at the ready.

Criminal racist elements have already made death threats
against certain “occupation administrators” and they will
not stop at killing our civilians. We hope that the
massacres of Mexicans that the White criminals have vowed
to undertake are just the rantings of cowardly insane minds
but we must take these threats seriously.

Cuauhtli
Minister of Information
Nation of Aztlan
La Voz de Aztlan

My favorite part is “European invaders are preparing violent actions against us.”  I’m thinking….Spain is in Europe.  It was the Spainards who settle Mexico.  It was…*GASP* European invaders!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111!111!

Seriously, though, this is just yet more evidence that we need to get this illegal immigration thing under control.  It’s not like it’s hard to become a legal citizen of America.  It should be easy enough to enforce the law.

My patron saint is St. Arbucks.  I just happen to like coffee.

On their current campaign, they’re promoting “Akeelah and the Bee.”  They do this by using obscure words like “prestidigitation” and the like.  But one thing about this annoys me.

Take my current coffee “sleeve.”  It says “cambist.”  For the defintion of the word, they have “1: wining word from the 1977 national spelling bee.”

I’m sorry, but that is not a definition.  It tells us absolutely nothing about what “cambist” means (by the way, it means someone who is skilled in trading, in case you were wondering).

Oh well.  I’ll chalk this up with the irritating fact that the bottom of my cup says “Careful, the beverage you’re about to enjoy is extremely hot” even though my coffee is now an hour old and nowhere near “extremely hot”…..

I find it ironic that atheists (and other non-Christians) will often try to argue that since we don’t have the original autographs of the Gospels, they could have been altered.  What this argument fails to consider is that since we don’t have the original autographs, they could be identical to what we now have.

Both of these things are making an argument from silence.  We don’t have the original texts of the Gospel.  But simply because something is possible does not mean it is probable.

Which of these two views is actually supported?  Is it more likely to think that the Gospels that we have now are substantially different from the original Gospels that were written, or is it more likely to think that they are substantially the same?  A little common sense in this area goes a long way.

If one wants to argue that the Gospels have been changed, one must be able to demonstrate that there are previous versions of the Gospels that are different from what we currently have.  Non-believers will often argue that the texts must have been changed because the supernatural claims would “obviously” not have actually been believed by the authors (which, of course, is predicated on the belief that the supernatural is impossible in the first place and also ignores the fact that there were many authors of text with supernatural claims who were still taken seriously aside from the Christian authors).  But if this argument is to be taken seriously, one must demonstrate a copy of the Gospel of Luke (for example) that does not contain any of the supernatural references.

The Gospels were most certainly copied and widely spread throughout the known world during even the first century.  We have proof that copyists generally tried to copy as accurately as possible.  What we do not have is any proof that the original text of Luke or John was significantly different from what we have now.  Thousands of manuscripts from all ends of the Middle East say virtually the same thing.

It seems to me that it is far more likely that the Gospels we have are true to the original manuscripts than it is that the Gospels were somehow altered hundreds of years after they were first written.  The argument from silence ignores the fact that the texts we do have are deafening in their agreement.

Ann Coulter had an interesting article that I was finally able to read today :-)  It ends:

But we’re all rotten sinners, incapable of redemption on our own. The liberal answer to sin is to say: I can never pay this back, so my argument will be I didn’t do anything wrong.

The religion of peace’s answer is: I’ve just beheaded an innocent man — I’m off to meet Allah!

I don’t know what the Jewish answer is, but I’m sure it’s something other than, “therefore, what I did is no longer bad behavior” — or the Talmud could be a lot shorter.

The Christian answer is: I can never pay this back, but luckily that Christ fellow has already paid my debt.

It is always interesting when you compare religions.  Christianity is definitely unique in the fact that our salvation is totally independent of our own personal actions.  It is completely based on something someone else (Christ) did. It is only because He lived a perfect life that His righteousness can be imputed to us; and it is only because He died and rose again that our sins can be imputed to Him.

Alright!  I am now back from my vacation.  I got to spend lots of time doing nothing, so it was very relaxing at least :-)  Unfortunately, it also means I watched more TV than usual, which means I had to put up with stupid commercials again.

Like the Taco Bell commercial that takes place in the Southern courtroom.  I want to know how many takes they had to do after the lawyer asked, “And what were you full of?” because the witness answered truthfully….  But that aside, I do have to wonder if these people who are doing a commercial ever stand there thinking, “This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever done in my life.”

Oh well.  At least now I’m back to ye olde grindstone so I can be productive again!

Just a little notice that I’ll be on vacation from today through April 23.  Internet access will be sporadic during that time, but I’ll still try to post from time to time.  Otherwise, I’ll be back in the fray on April 24!

The following is a debate challenge I just issued to John Loftus, who has “forbidden” me from using a presuppositional argument on his blog.

I find it ironic that John Loftus has said I’m not allowed to write any more about my presuppositionalist position, but then you go ahead and post questions for presuppositionalists to answer. Did you not realize that Loftus is not going to allow any response, exbeliever?

In any case, I want Loftus to either put up or shut up. If my view is so obviously erroneous, then Loftus should have no problem demonstrating that in an official written debate instead of on a severely limited blog post. I propose the thesis: “Logic presupposes the existence of God.” I will affirm, Loftus denies. I will post the debate on my website and he can post it wherever he sees fit.

Should Loftus conveniently not have the time to engage in said debate, I am more than willing to debate exbeliever instead. Or anyone else who is a contributor to “Debunking Atheism.” We can hash out details such as how many rounds, length of each section, etc. as soon as someone accepts this challenge.

If no one bothers to take the challenge, I will be forced to conclude you have no argument against my postion and are only seeking to silence me through threats instead of through a reasoned defense. Should any of you wish to engage in the debate, you can reach me at cd@calvindude.com or else just post a response here.

I won’t be holding my breath.

Michael Martin once wrote an article in which he tried to use the presuppositionalist position to disprove the existence of God (he called his position TANG).  Unfortunately, many atheists still think he actually succeeded.  Thus, I shall offer a response here.

The first problem with Martin’s position (TANG) against the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG) is found in the following:

If TANG is a sound argument, then obviously TAG is not, for it is logically impossible that there be two sound arguments with contradictory conclusions. On the other hand, if TANG is unsound, it does not follow that TAG is sound.

What Martin forgets is that it is also true that if TAG is a sound argument, then obviously TANG is not.  But Martin doesn’t even want to begin to think about that possiblity.  Instead, he focuses only on debunking TAG.

Martin begins with logic:

Logic presupposes that its principles are necessarily true. However, according to the brand of Christianity assumed by TAG, God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God.

First, God creating everything would not include logic, as logic is not a thing.  But secondly (and more importantly), is the idea of what kind of dependence.  If we say that logic is dependent on God, what is meant by that?

Martin thinks:

But if something is created by or is dependent on God, it is not necessary–it is contingent on God. And if principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary.

Martin, therefore, seeks to link dependency with contingency.  But this is to ignore the fact that there are certain things that are necessarily contingent.  The Christian states that logic is dependent upon God insofar as logic is an attribute of God.  That is, it is part of the ontology of God.  If God exists, logic necessarily exists because God is logical.  Logic is one of His attributes.  If He exists, logic does too.

Therefore, Martin’s conclusion is erroneous when he says:

Moreover, if principles of logic are contingent on God, God could change them.

God could no more change the principles of logic than He could change the fact that He exists and make Himself non-existent.  This does not in any way make logic “higher” than God, it merely points out that God’s existence is all that is required for logic to be valid, and that the instant God exists and does not non-exist, the principles of logic are affirmed.  So long as God’s existence never ceases, logic never ceases.

Thus, God could make the law of noncontradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time.

Again, this does not follow, for the laws of logic are not something God wills into being–they are something that He is.  As soon as God is A and not non-A then we have logic.  Logic, therefore, is contingent upon God’s existence only and not upon God’s willing anything.  Thus, God cannot will a contradiction unless He could be a contradiction.

So, one must conclude that logic is not dependent on God, and, insofar as the Christian world view assumes that logic so dependent, it is false.

But this is, of course, a strawman, for the manner in which the Christian world view assumes logic is dependent upon God is that it is dependent upon His existence and His attributes, not upon His will.  Logic is dependent upon God because if God did not exist, logic would not exist either (God is the source of all existence–no existence exists that is not God or created by God).

Martin then moves on to the subject of science:

[Science] presupposes the uniformity of nature: that natural laws govern the world and that there are no violations of such laws. However, Christianity presupposes that there are miracles in which natural laws are violated. Since to make sense of science one must assume that there are no miracles, one must further assume that Christianity is false.

Science is not the determiner of “true” or “false” and thus cannot make any statement as to whether Christianity is true or false.  Science is a method of investigation, not an epistemological philosophy.  People who assume a naturalistic science will be like Martin above, but it is not science that holds friction with Christianity, it is Martin’s naturalism.  Christians can also use the scientific method and come to conclusions about the nature of reality.  These conclusions do not rule out the supernatural by fide, and thus “miracles” are not a violation of science (although they are a violation of naturalism–but when would any Christian care about that?).

Martin then ends with morality:

The type of Christian morality assumed by TAG is some version of the Divine Command Theory, the view that moral obligation is dependent on the will of God. But such a view is incompatible with objective morality. On the one hand, on this view what is moral is a function of the arbitrary will of God; for instance, if God wills that cruelty for its own sake is good, then it is. On the other hand, determining the will of God is impossible since there are different alleged sources of this will (The Bible, the Koran, The Book of Mormon, etc) and different interpretations of what these sources say; moreover; there is no rational way to reconcile these differences. Thus, the existence of an objective morality presupposes the falsehood of the Christian world view assumed by TAG.

Here we see a bunch of non sequitur.  First, if something is objectively true it does not matter whether a subject knows it or not.  Thus, Martin’s claim that “determining the will of God is impossible” is irrelevant.  If morality is based on the will of God, then it is based on the will of God and our knowledge of it has nothing to do with its objectivity.  God could easily give us a moral code that we must live by or He will punish us for it despite the fact that we don’t know it and that would not alter the fact that we live under that moral law.

Martin is instead arguing that it is impossible to know what objective morality is, which is quite another thing from arguing that there is no objective morality.  The Christian will respond by saying that there is a way to know what God’s morality is–belief in the Bible.  The atheist may disagree, but his disagreement is one of epistemological evidence and not one on whether God’s law is objective or not.

As you can see, Martin’s critique of TAG leaves much to be desired.  His TANG position does not follow.  And while it is true that that does not prove TAG correct, it does mean that TAG is still plausible.

In addition to his endless ability to engage in ad hominem, exbeliever has also issued a challenge of sorts.  He has stated that motion is something that is objective and yet not universal because motion is relative to a specific framework of reference.

 

Even if we grant that this is the case, it hardly demonstrates that exbeliver’s belief that morality is objective but not universal would follow from that.  But in point of fact, exbeliever commits a category error when he brings up the idea of motion in the first place.

 

How is motion defined?  It can only be defined as it relates to a specific “framework” (as exbeliever calls is).  As such, it is impossible for the term “motion” to have any truth value to it beyond system-dependent terminology.  Indeed, this is demonstrated by a simple thought experiment: If I imagine a ball in my mind and this ball “moves” from the right side of my field of vision to the left side of my field of vision, has the ball actually moved?  Obviously not because the ball doesn’t actually exist and it is improper to use something that is system-dependent (the idea of physical motion) and apply it to something outside of the system (an imaginary ball).

 

Perhaps this is even easier to demonstrate by showing another example of something that is restricted to a specific relative idea, and that is the concept of “size.”  How big is a foot?  Most people will immediately say something like “12 inches” but this does not answer the question.  Suppose that the universe is expanding at an astronomical rate, and not only is the universe expanding but all the matter inside the universe is also expanding at the same rate.  This means that to those who are “in the system,” everything looks as if it is unchanging; but if one were to step “out of the system” and view the universe, the universe would be getting larger.  Conversely, the universe could be shrinking and experience the same effect.  The “size” of a foot therefore changes when you view it outside the system but it is unchanging when you view it inside the system.

 

Is there then a contradiction?  Can a foot be both getting larger (or smaller) and be the same size at the same time?  Indeed, at the same time but not in the same relationship.  Instead, the concept of “size” is system-dependent, just as the concept of “motion” is.  Because these concepts are system-dependent, one cannot use them as if they apply outside the system.  That is, one cannot use a “foot” as a standard of measurement to determine the size of your imaginary ball.  In the same way, one cannot use the concept of “motion” outside of the specific framework of physicality.

 

So, if one wants to make objective claims about motion, one must take into account not only the object that “moves” but also the system in which the object moves. It is improper to say “Object X is moving” as if it is an objective statement without referring to the system it is in—it is not an objective statement at all in such a case, and indeed it is not even a true proposition when the system is undefined.  Instead, one can only say, “Object X exists in such a way that in system Y it is moving.”  The objective claim, therefore, must take into account both the perceived action and the system as a whole in order for it to be objectively true.

 

So does this motion illustration actually help out exbeliever in any way on his trek toward atheistic morality?  Not at all.  In fact, it brings up even more problems than he realizes.  If exbeliever is going to claim that morality is system-dependent like motion, then he must demonstrate 1) what system this is and 2) how God is in that system, for it is impossible for him to make the claim that God is immoral if God is not in the system (it is improper to use something that is created in the system to apply it to that which is outside the system). 

 

On the other hand, if exbeliever is going to say that there is a moral truth that transcends the system, he must explain how his example of “motion” (which is obviously system-dependent) is relevant here.  In either case, exbeliever is left with a lot more explaining to do than he cares to engage in.  Granted, it is difficult to think on topic when you’re busy coming up with insults.

Exbeliever is at it again.  Atheists who try to claim moral standards are hilarious.  If they didn’t take themselves so seriously, it would be the greatest comedy on Earth.

Exbeliever writes his vitriolic attack on Scriptures and concludes that the God of the Bible is immoral.  He then seeks to avoid all discussion on the issue by declaring that the presuppositional arguement is wrong.  Why?  Because he said so (who needs to provide reason when you have exbeliever’s authority?).

After I pointed out that exbeliever had given us no reason whatsoever to say that anything in the Bible is wrong, exbeliever responded with:

When I give any moral judgment, I’m making an objective, but not universal, judgment.

This is just hilarious.  What is exbeliever’s “objective” statement?  It is:

If your moral framework tells you that it is okay to set people up as pawns so that they can be destroyed, then I can admit that according to your moral framework those actions are objectively good.

But exbeliever forgets that if something is true according to a relative moral framework said action is subjective not objective!  In other words, if we take exbeliever’s claim to its logical conclusion, there is no such thing as subjectivity, because everything is objective when compared to its own relative framework!

Such is absurd beyond measure.  It is impossible for something to be objective without it being universal.  Something that is universal transcends the subject.

Next, exbeliever claims:

The acts that I listed are objectively wrong according to any moral framework that values non-violent resolutions to conflict, the protection of children and infants, the respect for people’s decisions on who they love, etc.

But this doesn’t answer the question.  Why should we accept a moral framework “that values non-violent resolution to conflict, etc.”?  What reason is there that we MUST accept this?  Exbeliever knows that his position has no reason for us in this, for he concludes:

If your moral framework tells you that it is okay to set people up as pawns so that they can be destroyed, then I can admit that according to your moral framework those actions are objectively good. That doesn’t mean that I have to accept your moral framework or that you have to accept mine.

The first sentence demonstrates yet again that exbeliever hasn’t got a clue about the definition of objective, for something is not objective if it is only objective according to my subjective framework.  His second sentence is exactly the point I’ve been making about him: I don’t have to accept his morality, so he cannot claim that his morality is actually objective!

Exbeliever then finishes up by providing yet once again my very arguement in that his position results in “Might is right.”  Exbeliever states:

Is this moral nihilism? No. I don’t say that any action is good, only that any action can be justified by reference to a specific moral framework. Power structures, however, make one more dominant than another in every society. I do everything in my power (and everything allowable in my moral framework) to assert my moral framework as the dominant one. I do not have to passively accept the moral definitions of another, but I do have to realize that there will sometimes be consequences for not accepting dominant moral frameworks.

I am left wondering why, exactly, exbeliever disagrees with my characterization of his position.  His morality is subjective, dependent upon the power of the one to enforce it, and is not actually linked to reality, for an action is not good in and of itself, but can only “be justified by reference to a specific moral framework.”

Exbeliever then says: “But what you miss every time is that in every moral framework that condemns these acts, your god is not good.”

I did not know exbeliever became omniscient.  But he is still wrong, for I have already argued before that God is not held to the same law that His creation is held to.  This is self-evident, even among parents with their children.  Parents can do things they do not allow their children to do precisely because things that won’t harm them will harm their children, etc.  Furthermore, it ignores the fact that the people who engage in these behavior are just that–people!  God is not “murdering” anyone.  Even if He allows it to occur, He is not actively doing the action.  It is people who murder, rape, steal, etc. and if God says He will punish people for doing that then He can do just that, even if He allowed them to do it when He could have stopped them.  To paraphrase what exbeliever wrote: I do not have to passively accept the moral definitions of God, but I do have to realize that there will sometimes be consequences for not accepting His moral framework.