Category: Uncategorized

To a certain extent, anyhow. I’ll provide my own answer, but Joe Carter’s is too funny to not highlight:

1. Tummy aches are a form of harm being done to the physical and/or psychological well-being of a sentient creature.
2. Harm is evil.
3. God–an omniscient, wholly good being–would prevent evil.
4. God did not prevent my tummy ache
5. Ergo, there is no god.

This argument is a type known as the evidential problem of evil, the primary remaining form since the logical problem of evil has been solved.*

As I’ve noted on numerous occasions, I find the entire concept of theodicy to be completely ridiculous. Since I reject the concept of omniderigence, I have very serious doubts about the non-Biblical concept of omniscience, and I believe in the existence of free will, the “problem” of evil as related to God’s existence and/or character is nonexistent. And it’s ironic that it continues to arise, considering that its the materialists of all stripes who face a far more serious problem of evil in their own right.

Now, Bearded Spock describes his argument thusly:

My argument was that Job’s god is so different from the New Testament God, that they cannot both be the same…. Job’s god is as different from the NT God as Allah is.

This is logically fallacious. Job’s god and the New Testament God are both described as beyond human comprehension and human judgment. Therefore, even any apparent dichotomies – I do not admit to them, but I do invite Bearded Spock to delineate them – cannot be given any significant import because they do not provide a sufficiently comprehensive understanding of the deity’s/deities’ character(s). I don’t see two descriptions as being very different at all, but then, I take serious exception to the “god of personal love for everyone” that Spock appears to be imputing to the New Testament god. However, that’s a pretty big tangent, so let’s leave it alone for now.

My further argument that neither the Book of Job nor the NT are legitimately authoritative is secondary.

Fine, then we can leave it for now. I merely note that no one who describes the Bible as “hearsay evidence” with a straight face has a sufficient grasp of either the rules of evidence or archeology for their opinion about legitimate authority to be of any import whatsoever.

IF YOU ATTEMPT TO DEFEND GOD BY REDEFINING EVIL, THEN YOU ARE REALLY DEFENDING EVIL.

Spock appears to be forgetting that he is the one redefining evil; the cited Biblical definition of evil long precedes him. I have no qualms about defending much of what Spock and others call “evil”, be they tummy aches or tsunami; they are in fact nothing of the kind. Now, I don’t know if Spock is an extreme rational materialist or not, but if he is, then he has no logical claim to even make use the word evil, much less quibble over definitions outside of his realm of competence. Spock’s failure here is to understand that God alone is the yardstick; only the creator has the right to define what is good and what is evil according to the rules of his game. In His case, and in His case alone, might does quite literally MAKE right. But this holds only in that might was (presumably) required in order to create; the mere possession of might does not suffice in itself.

Spock shows the inherent danger of arguing by aphorism; when one does not think the matter sufficiently through, one frequently errs by improperly applying the pithy quote.

Why are we supposed to be shocked or upset by this? Why are we even supposed to be surprised by this? The American and European rape epidemics are the direct and predictable result of the West’s open door policy towards Third World migration; migration always changes the culture of the territory more dramatically than it changes the character of the migrants. The theoretical arguments of the equality crowd are being blown away in real-time by the rapidly accumulating empirical evidence.

It is an indignant, heartbroken, outraged father who speaks with us. “My daughter was raped at the Midi Station. In Brussels. Capital of Europe. In complete impunity.”

It was June 12th. “My daughter came back from Waterloo station. It was 9 PM. Upon exiting the train, she walked to the Bancontact.” A transit place. And it was there, of all places, that the drama unfolded.

“In the midst of a train station. How is this possible?” continues the father of Lola, 21 years old. “Two man reproached her for not wearing the veil. My girl is pretty. She’s blonde and has blue eyes.”

Everything then happened very fast. “One of the aggressors took out a knife. My daughter was forcibly put against a wall in Bancontact. Knife under the throat, one of the guys raped her. The other one watched.”

It was 9 PM. It was still light out and the station was far from being empty.

This is but a harbinger of the crime-ridden society that the liberals, left-wingers, and multiculturalists of the West have chosen. They shouldn’t complain about the unintended consequences, but rather, take the famous advice of Bobby Knight, relax, and enjoy it. Those who rejected the civilized traditional culture of Western Christendom in favor of a mythical “equality” of one sort or another – socialism, feminism, and multiculturalism all stem from that basic premise – merit the full fruits of that rejection. It’s a mark of the spineless secular suicide of the modern West that the proposed response to a violent attack on a strong, independent woman is… more cameras at the train station.

BH sees more silver lining than cloud in the Heller decision. Or, at the very least, the potential for it:

I read with interest your assessment of the recent Heller decision, and the careful language of Scalia in the majority opinion. I was concerned with the dicta you cited, as well as Scalia’s assertion that there existed “sensitive places” where the lawful carrying of arms could be prohibited.

The reality is, dicta notwithstanding (because while dicta informs, it does not set precedent), that the Court was only considering a very narrow issue, that of the possession of functional, readily available arms within the home. The dicta touched upon keeping and bearing consolidating into a single right, but the holding did not address the lawful carrying of arms outside the home. As you know, SCOTUS does this all the time, allowing the gov’t to cling to unaddressed ultra vires behavior as long as possible. There is a hole in this holding, however, into which a wedge can be driven in our favor, regarding the People’s progenetive right to alter or abolish tyrannical gov’t enumerated in the DoI. Scalia addressed the Miller holding, only partially stating what it really meant. While his language regarding Miller eviscerates the “collective right” absurdity advanced by statists, it seeks to eliminate military pattern small arms from the designation “in common use” intimating that sporting and hunting arms (there were no such distinctions at the writing of the BoR, as you rightly noted) are those to which Miller referred. I submit (as should any competent lawyer) that military pattern semi-automatic firearms, both pistols and rifles, are contemporarily “in common use”, and could be brought into service if needed in any militia activity, because their ownership and lawful use is widespread (i.e. “common”), and the only reason they aren’t more common is inane federal, state and local restrictions preventing them from being so.

So, while I understand and agree with your skepticism, I see light at the end of the tunnel. As you are well aware, these issues must be pursued one a time, carefully and skillfully – such is the state of our jurisprudence. However, Scalia, in seeking to limit the type of arms the keeping and bearing of which are protected, by placing heavy emphasis on the “common use” language in Miller, has actually opened the door. Now, all we have to do is to stick our foot in it to keep it from closing.

I certainly hope he’s right. World events don’t always go as poorly as one expects; the recent nationalistic intransigence in Ireland, Poland, and even Germany demonstrate that. But, I’m not as convinced as most conservatives that Scalia is as ferocious a defender of gun rights as he’s been painted, and considering the narrow majority that even subscribe to the individual rights “interpretation”, I don’t see how the worms will fail to come out of the opened can that is Heller or that a mere foot in the door will be enough.

Derb quotes a reader:

Herding a bunch of kids together against their will to try to teach them the same thing at the same time is one of the dumbest ideas the human race has ever come up with. I say it’s collectivism, and I say to hell with it.

A succinct and accurate summary.

Poland refuses to sign onto the sham:

As France assumed the rotating presidency of the European Union on Tuesday, the bloc’s wounded plans for reform took another hit , this time from Poland whose president said he would not sign the Lisbon Treaty that was intended to revitalize the EU’s institutions.

Apparently “revitalize” is New York Timespeak for “sign over national sovereignty to”. But it’s good news about the tide turning; it shouldn’t be too long before countries are demanding their way out of the joint national suicide pact. And to no one’s surprise, the Eurofascists demonstrate just why Europeans are foolish to put any faith in them or their revival of the Bonaparte-Hitler scheme.

“The officials made it clear that they would seek to reverse the recent no vote by Ireland in a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and to overcome reluctance in the Czech Republic to approve the pact.”

Suicides accounted for 55 percent of the nation’s nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

As usual, logic-challenged liberals think that banning guns will reduce the rate of suicide, but even a cursory look at countries with higher rates of suicide demonstrate the fallaciousness of this thinking. It would be a particularly bad idea in auto-heavy America, since you can be sure that if people weren’t killing themselves with guns, they’d be doing it on the road in their cars.

In fact, the suicide rate in the USA is almost surely higher than reported; a significant percentage of single-car accidents are actually suicides. The empirical evidence supporting this hypothesis is the increase in the number of single-car accidents in the days immmediately following newspaper reports of non-auto related suicides.

The Daily Telegraph has an article about Darwin which points out that his atheism, as with most atheists, derived from very irrational emotion rather than reason. Unlike Job, Darwin could not bear the pain of the tragedy in his life and turned from God; the Book of Job makes it clear that Job is an unusual exemplary in this regard, it is Darwin’s behavior that is the norm. But what I found interesting was the reference to EpictetusEpicurus in the comments, a quote which was occasionally brought up by the more intelligent atheists and which I have seen being aped more and more often by the thoughtless talking points crowd.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

This is correct, however, the underlying assumption that God defines evil in the same sense that we do is baseless and probably incorrect. And sans a definition of evil, the whole argument is irrelevant sans anyhow. Sam Harris, for example, considers inanimate objects to be evil, apparently based on size.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Incorrect four times over. This assumes God’s definition of evil is identical to our own and that evil cannot be turned to a subsequent or ultimate purpose of good. It also assumes a level of interest on God’s part without any basis for doing so. And finally, it assumes that God would value enforcing good behavior over permitting free will that allows the possibility of evil action.

Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

This assumes an absence of free will. Evil comes from the human heart; the Christian definition of evil is not “things that counter our desires”, but rather, our choice to exalt our will over God’s Will.

Is he neither willing, nor able? Then why call him God?

Because He is the Creator. Call him the Dungeon Master or the Game Designer if you prefer. Either way, He is the Rulemaker and Lawgiver.

Now, despite my having provided these critiques for some time now, a few people still insist on claiming that my logical abilities are not as good as advertised. I should very much like to see these critics defend the reasoning of either EpictetusEpicurus or of Socrates in Euthyphro; surely if my logic is weak, it should be no problem to defeat it in with the help of two of the great historical philosophers.

If you’re watching, feel free to discuss here. Nice, hard-working goal by Torres in the 33rd minute; abysmal defending by Lahm. We lost our signal for the first 20 minutes, what is Ballack doing on the field? I thought he was out. If Iniesta would simply use his doggone left foot, this game might be over already; twice he’s broken through, had an open shot and refused to take it because the ball was on his left. I don’t accept that from six year olds, so I imagine that’s probably one of the things the Spanish manager is discussing that at halftime.

UPDATE – It’s Spain for Euro 2008.

Can you even imagine a more annoying group of youth? I’d rather hang out with the Young Pioneers or the Red Guards and listen to them recite Marx than spend five minutes with these smug, would-be rebels. You just know that they’re absolutely insufferable when discussing their musical preferences, much less politics.

Emily Nordling has never met a Muslim, at least not to her knowledge. But this spring, Ms. Nordling, a 19-year-old student from Fort Thomas, Ky., gave herself a new middle name on Facebook.com, mimicking her boyfriend and shocking her father.

“Emily Hussein Nordling,” her entry now reads.

With her decision, she joined a growing band of supporters of Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, who are expressing solidarity with him by informally adopting his middle name.

Ooh, shocking her father with Facebook… radical! I just wish they’d put “Hussein” on their airline tickets as well. Still, I think there is the possibility for a lot of entertainment value in an prospective Obama administration. When you look at the history of democratically elected black leaders, from Atlanta and Detroit to South Africa and Zimbabwe, you have to conclude that there’s a pretty good chance that if HopeChange Hussein takes office, he’s going to drag America to places it never even knew existed.