Relativism Reposted

"Simply put: two different people see the same event differently. And both views of that event are correct.  Atheism has no relationship with relativity in general.  You need to stop trying to attack relativity in general because it makes you appear ignorant. For someone who likes to portray himself as "thinking about things", on this subject, you appear to have stopped." Whateverman

That's not the point of what I was trying to depict.  Here goes:

The laws of logic have some originality.  Either they always existed with God (as Christians believe), or they were developed by human perception on the subjective level (as atheists must believe -- at least that would be the result of no God).  One way is objective; while the other is subjective.

If something is subjective, it's based on opinion.  Opinion is often true; but isn't always fact.  If everything is subjective, a result of atheistic thinking, everything is based on opinions.  If everything is based on opinions -- everything is relative!

That was the point of the post!

So (let the redeemed of the Lord say "so" -- joking), hopefully I made more sense in this post than the last.

The atheistic view of the world is really arbitrary.  It isn't based on reason and fact; rather, it is subject to opinion -- relativism.  I hope I make that clear; because if an atheist agrees with me, it would be hard for him to judge who's right or wrong -- or whatever.  If there are no absolutes (that, by the way, is an absolute statement) there's no point, reason, or direction is debating (or blogging for that matter).

So please (there goes that word again), if you're an atheist and you don't agree with this post, state why -- that way I can respond easier.  I would like to know if you believe everything is relative, and how you can believe your belief is correct; when your belief is itself relative -- just wondering.

Coolest Commercial Ever!

This is funny!

Well, mostly because I know the little kid in the karate uniform -- he goes to my church.  My dad pastors a small church in Lake Elsinore, and and the kid often plays the electric guitar.  He's a cool little kid -- really funny.

Anyway, just thought that was cool.  He was chosen for the commercial out of a lot of kids.  Oh yea, the medicine actually works pretty good, I've been sick and have been using it.

That's all...

Questions and Answers

"Why I'm a critic"
1. Why do you argue from incredulity against observed phenomena?

"Only God"
2. Can you provide a working definition of kind?
3. How could every kind live on an ark?
4. Do you agree that Carolus Linneaus was pressured to separate humans and chimps?

"Why I'm a Critic? Part 2"
5. If the eye was designed why do we need glasses?
6. How do our eyes compare to other animals?
7. How is design intuitively obvious?
8. Do you understand emergence?

"Questions"
"Grammar help, please.."
"The Eye... Bad Design?"
10. Do you think the human eye is badly designed?
11. Can you support the assertion that the eye is designed?
12. Do you understand why not being able to easy define a species supports evolution?
13. How could several types of wolves, foxes and dogs evolve into their current forms in 6000 years?
14. Given your purported rapid evolution of canines why is it so improbably humans evolved from a common ancestor with apes?

"Mormon's -- Funny Vid!"
"Problems with Health Care"
"Design"
15. Why do you quote a moonie when questioning evolution?
16. Can you define design?
17. What about your god doesn't match your definition from question 16?
"Just Curious"
"Information in DNA"
18. How does information, in and of itself, support design?

"Cosmological Blog Post"
19. What about the big bang's cause implies a god?
20. Why do you parody Dawkins in a post on physics?
21. How do you measure time?
22. If you don't know how to measure time without the sun, why do you make an assertion that an eternity of time is absurd?

"Math and Infinity"
23. Why did you quote mine?
24. Do you understand the David Hilbert quote in its entirety?

"Atheistic Relativism -- Real?"
25. Do you understand the diference between general relativity and moral relativity?
26. What about Christian morality is objective?
27. Considering the previous 27 ignored questions, how are you any better than the Mormons in your video? Vagon

My answers:

1.  The eyes that are doing the observing are in itself an incredulity.

2.  Animals that bring forth after their kinds.  Also, I did respond, I said that unless I get a working definition of 'species' I wouldn't define kind.

3.  The ark was big, he didn't bring every species, bugs, birds, or fish -- only mammal kinds.

4.  Possibly, not sure--but he was a Christian.

5.  Fallen creation--are lenses get old.

6.  I couldn't compare our eyes to ALL the other animals; nevertheless, they're different than most other animals.  Maybe I'll write a longer post on this later.

7.  When you see a building...

8.  Things must have a cause.

10.  No.

11.  Yes, and I will in later posts.

12.  No, but I suppose it does; taking into account all the interbreeding and mutations over "millions" of years.

13.  Interbreeding and environment

14.  That's given my assertion is true -- I'm not sure.

15.  Was just showing that I'm not the only one saying it.

16.  "Purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is though to exist behind an action, fact, or material object"

17.  God, smart and powerful ect, is a simple Spirit--an immaterial, unen-bodied Spirit.  Besides that, He's eternal.

18.  Information requires an informer.  It only makes sense.

19.  The big bang requires a beginning, a beginning requires a beginner.

20.  Because, even though he's a biologist, he talks about physics and other topics he should stay away from.

21.  I don't understand the question.

22.  Time is a dimension, does eternity live with time?

23.  I didn't.

24.  I don't know it in entirety, I read it somewhere--do you know it.

25.  Yes, two different topics.

26.  God is absolute, His laws are absolute.

27.  Good thesis, on your part.

Sorry for the short answers... not much time.

Atheistic Relativism -- Real?

I've posted before on the subject of atheistic relativism. Although someone on this blog, I forget who, asked about relativism. Take note, in this post I'm not talking about moral relativism (particularly); but relativism in general.

Relativism would be true if atheism were true because atheism isn't based on anything absolute. Without an absolute standard to judge day to day occurrences, there can be nothing objective. Atheists often use logic (the laws of logic) to debate christians. The very thing atheists use to debate, is the very thing that disproves the atheist worldview.

Atheists believe the laws of logic were developed through perception. Because atheists don't believe in any soul, the laws of logic would have to be developed by human senses only. They therefore, wouldn't be absolute.

Thus, everything would be relative.

Also, if atheism is true, to make the statement that everything is relative is a contradiction in itself. Well, any statement would contradict the atheists belief. Not that all atheists believe this -- only the ignorant ones don't know what they believe -- not trying to sound stark...

What's the point? First, someone asked me to post on it (possibly Nohm). Second, it shows how relative the atheist worldview would be if true; consequently, how absurd it would be. We would live in a world that made no sense if atheism were true; albeit, there's no way that kind of world could exist!...

Math and Infinity

"The absurdities of infinity, prove infinity doesn't exist" (I wrote this)
As every mathematician suddenly says, "ohhh... reallly now?"
AJ, is it possible that you don't understand infinity?" Nohm


I may not know anything about math other than what I've learned in school, but I'm not claiming to know a lot about math.  It wouldn't matter either way, my statement stands true.

David Hilbert, possibly one of the greatest mathematician's of the twentieth century said: "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea."

Cosmological Blog Post

I want to give an interesting twist on the cosmological argument for God's existence. So in this post, I'm going to try to illustrate the argument. Jesus did this many times; He often used parables to illustrate facts. Here's my attempt...

This blog post isn't eternal. It began to exist sometime in the finite past -- don't believe me? -- here's a simple three step argument:

1. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.
2. This blog post began to exist.
3. Therefore, this blog post has a cause.

If the first two steps are true, it logically follows that this blog post has a cause. Now, let's look at several objections to these premises.

1. Some people might suggest that things can begin to exist without a cause; however, three good reasons say otherwise. Reason one: there's no empirical evidence to show this has happened. No one has ever seen anything come into existence without a cause. Reason two: matter can't be created or destroyed. If matter can't be "created"; in other words, pop into existence out of nothing, why would someone suggest it can. Reason three: it's intuitively obvious that something doesn't come from nothing.

2. Others might suggest that this post is eternal and never began to exist. Of-course you can see the absurdity of this response. Before this post was created (at about 10:00 a.m.) it didn't exist! Therefore it began to exist.

Upon these two premises the conclusion follows that someone (someone smart) created this blog post. And wouldn't you know it; I did! -- I told you it was someone smart.

"But wait," Dawkins says, "this post wasn't designed; or else, who designed the designer? You can't expect me to believe in a design with a designer. No! This post came about by a long undirected process -- everything must come about by Darwinian means."

Sorry for the satire, I couldn't resist.

Anyway, I'm sure you can see the analogy. Here's the real argument:

1. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

In regards to the first premise -- I'm sure everyone here agrees. The second premise seems to be the debated one. The simplest evidence I find for the second premise is this: if the universe is eternal -- there would be an eternity's time of past events -- which would be absurd (it wouldn't make sense). It's easy to think of eternal absurdities. An eternally long bridge, an eternally long train, an infinite amount of clothing. It doesn't make sense!

The absurdities of infinity, prove infinity doesn't exist; therefore, the universe isn't eternal and must have a cause.

ExpatMatt: Notice I didn't talk about the science of the universe's beginnings, just the philosophy of it.

Disclaimer: Richard Dawkins didn't really say what I put in quotation marks (I'm sure you already knew).

Information in DNA

"Without sounding like I'm challenging you on this, AJ, can you give me an example of how "information" helps us determine whether something was designed or not? I understand that the ID crowd have begun using terms associated with information theory. But to date, these terms still don't help us figure out whether something was designed or not." Whateverman

Being the evolutionist you are, I'm sure you're familiar with uniformitarianism. To be sure we're on the right page, here's an excerpt from Wikipedia:

Uniformitarianism, in the philosophy of science, assumes that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. Its methodology is frequently summarized as "the present is the key to the past," because it holds that all things continue as they were from the beginning of the world.[1]

So, if the present is the key to the past: what do we know today about information that can teach us about ID?  We know that information only comes from an informer.  You can't find website markup, a book, or a computer without a designer -- all these things contain information.

In the same way, our dna contains information. It can be replicated, read, and even examined for mistakes. Here's a short presentation on the topic:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fiJupfbSpg

Therefore, the information in our dna proves that an informer put it there sometime in the past.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism_(science)