Some people claim that 2 + 2 = 4 in base 10 math. But think about this for a moment. Someone could claim that 2 + 2 = 5. Or that 2 + 2 = 7,380,934. Now here’s the thing about that. Those people who would say the answer to 2 + 2 is some particular answer or another are typically those people who fit into a certain demographic (i.e., those who come up with counterarguments to poor reasoning may be culturally biased toward stating 2 + 2 = 5). So we can use the OTF to examine whether it is right in treating any answer to 2 + 2 as valid.

Now there are essentially an infinite number of answers you could claim satisfy 2 + 2. Yet certain mathematicians will insist that 2 + 2 = 4 in all cases in base 10 math. Even facing the OTF, they insist their answer could be the only correct one.

Fine. I understand this and I grant it. Even though their particular brand of mathematical solution has a low probability to it they could still have the correct answer after all. At this point though, they are talking about possibilities. Their answer could still be true even though the odds are their answer is wrong. This is sort of like winning the lottery when there are an infinite number of mathematical tickets to draw out of a barrel. The odds are 1 in infinity but that doesn’t give any one of them pause. Even if we pare the possible solutions down to positive whole numbers, acknowledging the rest are negatives or fractions or even irrational numbers, this still doesn’t change much of anything, nor would it give them any pause. Why? Because they have done a dance that I now call The Delusional Sidestep (TDS). Since the consequences of the demographic data are quickly recognized by them to require the OTF they make a quick sidestep to avoid it by claiming they could still be right despite the odds. Wait just a minute!? What about the odds? Ahhh, just ignore them we’re told. There is nothing to see here. Move along. We prefer our delusion to the actual probabilities.

Remember, it doesn’t matter that someone can provide actual reasons why one answer is valid and another isn’t. WE MUST NOT IGNORE THE ODDS! Why, any statistician would agree with me here. What are the odds the Roman Empire was located in present-day Italy? Well, there are 195 countries in the world now, so the answer is 1 in 195. Obviously, therefore, it is not at all likely that the Roman Empire was located in present-day Italy. What are the odds that Obama is president of the United States? Well, the population of the United States is 307,006,550, so the answer is 1 in 307,006,550. Obviously, therefore, it is not at all likely that Obama is president of the United States.

It’s obvious to any intelligent person that there are far more ways for a factual question to be answered incorrectly than correctly, and therefore the odds that any particular answer is actually true is quite low. Therefore, if you make a factual claim, the OTF says you’re talking bunk so I don’t have to listen to a single thing you say. Only a non-scholar could possibly disagree with my brilliance.

In light of the ongoing goings on in the wonderful world of AGW (Alarmist Global Warming), I thought it might be beneficial to remind scientists what science is supposed to consist of. As opposed to, say, alchemy. Which is when you put a bunch of random numbers in a computer program written by a failed botanist to produce hockey-stick shaped graphs before you hide the decline and throw out the raw data, because what kind of scientist could possibly look at raw data? That’s right: the kind who would write sentence fragments followed by run-on sentences switching from a declarative statement to an interrogative in the middle.

Therefore, I present…

TORTOISE enters ACHILLES’ room. The mythical Greek god is listening to his WalkGod CD player and is oblivious to TORTOISE.

TORTOISE: Achilles? Achilles? (He touches Achilles)

ACHILLES: Egad! What is it?

TORTOISE: Aren’t you worried you’ll ruin your hearing listening to all that noisy racket?

ACHILLES: “Noisy racket”? How can you call this noisy racket! This is none other than the Beegles compilation album, Won.

TORTOISE: Beagles?

ACHILLES: Not beagles, Beegles.

TORTOISE: It’s the same word.

ACHILLES: Almost, but not quite. Beagles are dogs. Beegles is the world’s greatest band ever.

TORTOISE: It still sounds like noise to me. In fact, maybe that’s why they’re called Beegles. They sound like braying dogs!

ACHILLES: (In disgust) They are called Beegles after the great ship HMS Beagle, which St. Darwin rode to the Galapagos Islands.

TORTOISE: St. Darwin! I know about him. He’s the patron saint of selections.

ACHILLES: The very same, only now he’s slightly more advanced.

TORTOISE: That’s somewhat handy. But why haven’t I heard any of this “Beegles” music before?

ACHILLES: Why, you probably have. You just don’t realize it. But I bet if I played a few of their tunes you would recognize them. They’re practically universal. In fact, listen to this song originally from The Scientific Misery Tour.

WALKGOD CD PLAYER: (Singing) I am the apeman, they are the apemen, I am the walnut.

ACHILLES: Surely you must know this song!

TORTOISE: Not at all.

ACHILLES: Linen would be ashamed of you.

TORTOISE: Who?

ACHILLES: The singer. But he’s dead now. (Sadly) Just like Paul.

TORTOISE: I have no idea what you are talking about.

ACHILLES: Never mind that. I’m quite sure you did not enter my room for the sole purpose of telling me that I should not listen to loud music.

TORTOISE: You are correct. I am here to propose an experiment.

ACHILLES: Hold it right there! You haven’t been talking to Zeno again, have you?

TORTOISE: Of course not.

ACHILLES: Are you sure? Sometimes he masquerades as physicist named Douglas Hofstadter.

TORTOISE: I’m positive this has nothing to do with Zeno in any alias.

ACHILLES: So this has absolutely nothing to do with one of his paradoxes?

TORTOISE: No, no. Nothing like that.

ACHILLES: Good, because last time he made me race you and I could never pass you even though I was so much faster than you are. And then he made it impossible for me to move at all because I could never get more than halfway to anywhere. It was all disconcerting for a mythical god to be bound like that.

TORTOISE: I imagine so. But this experiment is nothing like that.

ACHILLES: Okay, fine. What is your experiment?

TORTOISE: I can’t tell you.

ACHILLES: You came in here to tell me you’re going to do an experiment but you can’t tell me what it is?

TORTOISE: Indeed.

ACHILLES: Why should I care about that?

TORTOISE: Well, you’re the subject of the experiment.

ACHILLES: WHAT?!

TORTOISE: Calm down, it’s nothing preposterous.

ACHILLES: How can I trust the word of a turtle?

TORTOISE: You can’t. But I am a tortoise, not a turtle.

ACHILLES: (Scoffing) As if there’s a difference.

TORTOISE: There is a big difference! But that’s not for our current discussion.

ACHILLES: What’s to discuss? You’re conducting an experiment on me. How do I even know you’re licensed to do that?

TORTOISE: You don’t need a license to do science.

ACHILLES: Egad! They let just anyone conduct science now?

TORTOISE: Pretty much. But there are rules to it.

ACHILLES: Rules are good. Who enforces them?

TORTOISE: Scientific consensus.

ACHILLES: You take a census to determine which rules to obey?

TORTOISE: No, I said “consensus” not “census.” Silly mythical Greek god. Consensus is when a bunch of scientists get together and agree on something.

ACHILLES: I don’t know. That doesn’t sound very legit. There was a time a bunch of Persians got together and decided to attack Thermopylae, you know.

TORTOISE: True, but that was only a Persian consensus, not a scientific consensus.

ACHILLES: Oh. (Thinks about it for a minute) Wait, why does that matter?

TORTOISE: Scientific consensus is when scientists, not just Persians, get together and agree on something.

ACHILLES: I see. So no Persians are allowed.

TORTOISE: Persians are allowed, as long as they’re scientists. These scientists determine scientific consensus regardless of what ethnicity they are.

ACHILLES: So you’re saying that scientific consensus can only be determined by scientists.

TORTOISE: Indeed, I am.

ACHILLES: And scientific consensus determines who is a scientist in the first place?

TORTOISE: Again, you are correct.

ACHILLES: (Scratching his mythical chin) So scientific consensus is determined by scientists who are determined by scientific consensus, which is determined by scientists who are determined by scientific…

TORTOISE: Knock it off.

ACHILLES: Seriously, Tortoise, I think you have a problem here. It’s much better if you stick with my method.

TORTOISE: And what method is that?

ACHILLES: I am a mythical Greek god. Therefore, what I say is right.

TORTOISE: But that is an argument from authority!

ACHILLES: No less so than the authority of scientists who invent scientific consensus, I say. Besides, they’re not gods. I am.

TORTOISE: Science is not based on authority though. It’s based on consensus!

ACHILLES: Consensus is itself an authority, isn’t it?

TORTOISE: No, not at all. You’ve got it all backwards. No one person can know whether he or she is right or not. You have to have agreement between more than one person. There is no “authority” involved, because anyone can disagree with anyone else.

ACHILLES: But if they disagree with the consensus, their disagreement is by definition unscientific, isn’t it? And that means it doesn’t “count” so in what manner are they able to disagree?

TORTOISE: Look, you’re trying to make this too complicated.

ACHILLES: It is complicated. My view is much simpler, and one of the rules of science is to do that which is simplest. In my case: I said it, ergo, it’s so. You can’t get any more parsimonious than that!

TORTOISE: Egad! (Realizes what he just said) You made me use one of your words!

ACHILLES: It’s a good word.

TORTOISE: That’s irrelevant. What’s relevant is this: Each individual person has the potential to be wrong, right?

ACHILLES: “Wrong, right” has a nice ring to it.

TORTOISE: Now you’re being obtuse.

ACHILLES: It’s more fun than being abstruse.

TORTOISE: Argh, silly Greek pseudo-god. Do you agree that each individual person has the potential to be wrong?

ACHILLES: Of course. You are, ahem…”wrong right” now. See?

TORTOISE: (Ignoring the comment) If an individual person is wrong, couldn’t that error be pointed out by another person?

ACHILLES: I suppose, so long as the other person wasn’t wrong too. In that case, they would just be reinforcing the error.

TORTOISE: But isn’t it more likely that a group of people will be able to point out the errors in other people’s positions than single people working alone?

ACHILLES: “Single people”? Are you saying scientists have to be married now?

TORTOISE: Argh! You aren’t listening at all!

ACHILLES: Only because you’re not making any sense.

TORTOISE: (Fed up). Look. When you have a group of people, on the whole, the group becomes corrective. Can’t you see that a group consensus is more likely to be right than any individual’s authoritative decree?

ACHILLES: Fine. What you are saying is that you have to listen to everyone else in order to make a valid decision because you might be wrong by yourself.

TORTOISE: That’s close enough.

ACHILLES: Look around the room then. Who is in here?

TORTOISE: (Confused) Me and you. Why?

ACHILLES: You are you, and I am everyone else. Therefore, you have to listen to me.

TORTOISE: Bah, this experiment isn’t getting anywhere now.

ACHILLES: Perhaps it is because it lacks proper method?

TORTOISE glares at ACHILLES for a moment and then leaves. ACHILLES puts his WalkGod back on and presses the Play button.

WALKGOD CD PLAYER: (Singing) I am the apeman, they are the apemen, I am the walnut.

Inasmuch as it has become apparent that style trumps substance in the eyes of the world Arminians who hate us with such passion, I offer evidence that the cold-blooded Triabloggers could, if need be, surrender substance for the sake of style. Thus I extend my hand toward all who were ever offended by anything I ever said by showing you this picture again:

Yes, you evil, hypocritical pseudo-Christian scum bags who have nothing better to do than denigrate Triabloggers—I love you. How much do I love you? Imagine someone who loves you as much as I do. I love you more than that, you spiteful rash-prone troglodytes.

True, it is mainly because I am such a better Christian than you that I can love someone as lowly as you are and keep this discussion so irenic; surely, all must be impressed with my awesome display of Christ’s infinite love. For, as a Calvinist, I would not be above burning you at the stake for the simple reason that you are a heretic causing harm to God’s people, but instead I find myself full of warm fuzzy feelings and cannot but admit that I love obnoxious fools who kick against the goads. Almost against my will do I love thee.

Now I’ll be the first to admit that not every single Arminian is a backstabbing strumpet posing her wares on the side of the road like the wild donkeys of old; some are high class debutants fully capable of earning a livable wage plying their trade. But they are admittedly few and far between—a natural psychological response to those who would succumb to the doctrines of Arminius is a lack of temperance in such urges.

Despite all that, nary a day goes by when I do not wake and thank God He has enabled me to love such as these. For truly, I do not think I would know how to act in public were it not for their constant barrage of meaningless ad hominem disguised as a concern that others not be offended. It is astonishing how far out of the way people will travel in order to ensure they’ve been slighted by the most trivial comment. Indeed, it is obvious they have no need for a savior; their indignation at perceived slight is so righteous it merits salvation for them!

However, none of them has ever posted an I-love-you bear like I have. My love is manifestly evident to all whereas all they can do is claim to love others. This is the most loving post they’ve ever read, and a real Christian would hang his head in shame that he didn’t think of it first.

P.S. I love you, Arminians.

NEWS FLASH ALERT!

Michael Jackson’s condition remains stable and unchanged this week.

Police state football genius Steve McNair was murdered by the woman he was cheating with over fears that he was cheating on her.

Good news! Unemployment not as bad as feared, despite htiting record high since the Labor Department began keeping statistics in 1967! Huzzah!

Protests chanting in weird foreign language get murdered in Iran over something inconsequential and hardly worth mentioning.

New poll confirms: Michael Jackson cool!

Given the amazingly poor lack of comprehension displayed by many a commenter, it has become apparent that there are a lot of people who are reading Triablogue for the first time, and some of them just happen to have the same names as people who’ve been here for a long time. How else can we explain the fact that we’ve repeatedly made arguments in the past against positions they continue to hold as if said position has never been refuted?

Be that as it may, I feel it but my public duty this time to write the obligatory “Triablogue Is Full of Big Meanies” post for the new initiates to this blog. If there is one thing that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, New Agers, 9/11 Truthers, agnostics, Wiccans, atheists, and Arminians agree upon, it is that T-Bloggers are nothing but a bunch of Big Meanies.

This must be true, because every interaction that we’ve ever had with anyone holding those various heretic positions has eventually come down to “You don’t show the love of Christ” claims. While it is well known that the reason for this is because there remain no actual arguments against our positions on these matters, it is apparently believed by some that screaming like a harpy or crying in the corner that your opponent is a Big Meanie will somehow shame those who’ve behaved justly and correctly into some kind of compassionate, tender hearted pat on the shoulder and a “there, there, the sun will come up in the morning” round of self-help blather. I am here to break the unfortunate news that all such behavior gets is a run-on sentence describing it.

I remain dumbstruck, however, that people who come into the T-blog arena like a cocky junior high hockey team facing the satanic Red Wings are somehow shocked to discover that they’re involved in a full contact sport. It does little good to complain that T-bloggers are a bunch of Big Meanies when you’ve spent the past week offering brilliant arguments like “Only a delusion could cause someone to think that” and responding with the nuclear “Nope, actually it’s not. So sorry” defense. Nor does it help you plead your case when your wit consists of: “How many logical fallacies can we count in these responses? Let’s see, one, two, three……..” And: “Wah wah waaaaah.”

And when you label someone’s statement as “dumbness” and then are aghast to be told “the only reason I’m not deleting [your post] now is so that all can see how stupid you are and that I did not invent your idiotic quotation” one really must question why your parents ever let you out of their basement.

Ironically, however, it is not these people who generally take up the Whining Like A Sissy Girl Mantle. No, it is their enablers. Some of whom will even claim to be on the side of the T-Bloggers. “I believe what you do,” they say, “but I think you’re a Big Meanie.” This is done to score them cred points with the opposition. I imagine the behind-the-scenes commentary goes something like this: “You called them stupid and said their mama’s dressed ‘em funny, and they said if you kept it up they’d delete your posts?! HOW DARE THOSE EVIL T-BLOGGERS PICK ON INNOCENT PEOPLE SUCH AS YOU! I mean, I asked John Calvin in my heart, just like they did, BUT THIS IS TOO FAR!”

They then ask The Question™. The Question that can only ever be asked of the T-Bloggers. “How does this show the love of Christ?” Some even go so far as to say, “Why, I’ve never seen Christians behave in this manner toward each other!”

This shows a dangerous level of naivety, one that proves said person has never been to AWANA. Nor, apparently, have they ever read the term Filioque.

Sigh.

Yes. It is true. We are all a bunch of Big Meanies. If you tread into these dangerous Triablogian waters, you are at least now forewarned. Here there be Big Meanies. Big Brained Big Meanies, but Big Meanines nevertheless.

Now give me a lawn so I can yell at you to get off it.

The following couplet is brought to you by Pelagian-Off. When you’re drifting toward the shore of Pelagia, shove off™.

God has an image problem. When you look for Him, you can’t see Him. Yes, we know that He’s everywhere, but He’s invisible. In this regard, He’s almost, but not quiet, completely unlike Barry’s role in GM.

But I digress.

If our recent spate of Arminian commenters are to be believed, God wants to save everyone. I mean, He really, really, really wants to save every single man, woman, and child (even Britney!) who has ever walked the face of the planet, be it past, present, or even future. How much does He really, really, really want to do this? Spread your arms wide. See how far they go? God’s want goes farther.

But God happens to be invisible. What is an invisible being to do? I mean, if you were invisible, how would you convince people (other than the IRS, who would tax you even if you didn’t exist) that you exist? This could be troubling. Especially if you can’t touch other people either, or say their name, or interact with objects. You’d be like Sam from Ghost, and who wants that?

But what if you were omnipotent? Why, then not only could you touch people, interact with objects, talk to them…why, you could even make yourself visible!

Today when I went out and picked up my lunch, I was fully convinced the woman at the counter existed. I believed she exists because I saw her there. And my having seen her didn’t violate my Free Will® in any manner, did it? Nope. Not at all.

So really all God would have to do to convince people that He exists is: show up.

You know, when two pagans are making out in the backseat of a car, God could suddenly pop up in the driver’s seat and say, “You kids know you shouldn’t be doing that. By the way, I exist.” I’m fairly certain that would scare the hell out of them. They might even become Methodists.

Come down this path with me now. See that giant white orb in the night sky? There aren’t very many people who look at the moon and say, “That doesn’t exist.” Those who do say that vote multiple times in every election, and are rightly shunned by the rest of society. But they’re a minority. You have to admit, the vast majority of people believe the moon is real (some even believe people walked on it once).

Yeah, I suppose it is possible that someone could see God standing there and still think, “He’s no better than Aunt Wilma, who at least bakes apple pie for Thanksgiving.” But if you said that, couldn’t God bake you an apple pie in response? I mean, what’s stopping Him? And maybe you’d say: “I would like you better if you were four feet tall and green.” What’s to stop God from doing that for you? Whatever you needed God to look like (a giant puppy dog with a rainbow collar and sparkles on his nose) God could be just that! He’s got da power.

Come along further then. How many of you have ever looked at a vending machine and said, “I don’t believe that piece of junk will give me my selection if I put money in it” and then, when you put money in it, you got your selection after all? Would you then say, “I don’t believe that piece of junk will give me my selection if I put money in it” the next time you see it? Perhaps. But suppose you do this a thousand times (because you’re really hungry, see also: rich), and it always gave you your selection. Would you not agree that the machine is reliable and you can trust in it?

Why can’t God do that with atheists? If an atheist says, “God, I want you to jump through hoop A and then I’ll believe” why couldn’t God jump through hoop A? And if the atheist adds more hoops, it’s not like God will get tired (Omnipotence, baby!). And if He can’t acquiesce for logical reasons (suppose the atheist says, “God, if you exist, I want you to raise John McCain from the dead”) He could at least give the reason (“McCain is already undead”).

Now I may be confused, but it seems to me that more people would believe in God if they could see Him and He responded to them then currently believe in Him now when they can’t see Him and He doesn’t seem to respond to them. And the simple action of seeing what’s in front of your eyes is not a violation of Free Will®. Appearing would be a trivially simple task for an omnipotent being, wouldn’t it?

Naturally, in the past I’ve made similar arguments. One response I got was that God’s showing up wouldn’t make any difference. That’s because apparently every time someone shows up we are supposed to automatically assume we are hallucinating.

But the objection continued that it was due to sin that it wouldn’t make any difference. But I thought there was this thing called peeved prevailing prevenient grace, which is kinda like an insurance policy from Progressive: namely, if you have insurance, you can drive your dad’s Yugo. PG is like that, only you get to pick if God will drive or if t3h debil wit t3h houndz of hellx0r will. Which makes me wonder…if PG works, then why would God’s appearing or not appearing have any relevance to what driver you pick to haul down the Interstate is 17.3 mph? I mean, when the insurance agent shows up and says, “You can fill out this card and drive” you don’t say, “You don’t exist” in response.

Oh you do. In that case, I have a voter registration card I need you to fill out. No, no. You can have several.

My mom forwarded this to me today. It was made by a relative of someone she once worked with.

Sums it all up.

Oh. And remember how Obama promised that for 95% of Americans, taxes wouldn’t rise at all. Indeed, the exact quote was:

“What I’ve said is I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans, 95 percent. If you make more — if you make less than a quarter million dollars a year, then you will not see your income tax go up, your capital gains tax go up, your payroll tax. Not one dime.”

Notice the part about “income tax” and notice the part about “not one dime”? Behold this:

The IRS is weighing a proposal to deem one-quarter of employees’ use of work cell phones as personal use and therefore subject to tax as a fringe benefit.

…

Current law already requires that the value of those cell phone services be included in a worker’s gross income, unless the employee keeps detailed records showing that the cell phone is used for work only….

So much for Hope ‘n Change™.

Update: Once again, I have to say that WordPress’s “helpful features” SUCK! When I have to go in and manually update SQL databases because it doesn’t handle it correctly, that means it’s broken. [End venting.]