Home of the Little-Known Blogger
"The society which separates its scholars from its warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools."–Thucydides
Here is some infomation that really needs to be mainstreamed.
Along with our friend Dr. Ed Calabrese, who exposed the misconduct of Muller on radiation effects, and the lies that started linear no threshold tox, Dr. Cuttler talks sense.
View original post 20 more words
Me: What is the primary attribute of God?
Her: Non-existence!
Me: Thank you for that illustration.
Her: What?
Me: Had I asked for the primary attribute of an unicorn, you would have said, “It has one horn.” For a vampire, you would have said, “it drinks blood.” But for God, you claim “non-existence” as the primary attribute–even though, categorically, this is never attributed to God by any source. This demonstrates that your belief in an irrational universe is not something that you truly accept, but something you willfully enforce upon yourself.
Her: Whatever.
Me: Perfection. The primary attribute of God is perfection.
———-
So, what does it mean that the primary attribute of God is “perfection?” For those lacking a classical education, this definition is problematic; most modern dictionaries define perfection as a state of excellence. But even a moment’s thought should reveal to the diligent student that no amount of “excellence” makes “perfection”. In fact, the English word ‘perfection’ comes from the Latin ‘perfectio, perficere’, which means ‘to complete.’ To be perfect, then, means to be complete; to lack nothing nor have any incomplete attribute.
What does that even mean, and how does it impact theology?
Let us illustrate this topic with an ontological point I often find myself having to make: the difference between God and ‘gods’. There is understandable confusion on this point, not only because of the language used (differing only by a capitalization), but because of the incorporation of God into various mythological stories–at which point God effectively functions as ‘a god’. But let us look at how the attribute of perfection can clearly distinguish the differences between these two categories of being.
– Existence. The first and most obvious consequence of perfection is existence, and this has been covered before. A ‘god’ is simply an anthropomorphization of a natural phenomenon. Lightning exists empirically; however, we can only say “Thor exists” by personifying and anthropomorphizing the behavior of lightning. Contrarily, God (being defined as perfect) contains all things which have been, are, will be, could be, and could not be. God exists by necessity of definition.
– Knowledge. Gods are often described as ‘wise’ or even ‘all-knowing’. The modern student of course, will point to quantum-mechanical uncertainty to demonstrate the folly of omniscience, and will be correct in doing so. If gods existed, they would be personal beings, with limited points-of-view, subject to the same quantum observer-effect as any other limited consciousness. God, however, is perfect: God has neither a personal point-of-view nor an impersonal point-of-view, and therefore cannot be subject to the observations which we, at our current level of understanding, consider ‘paradoxical’ in quantum mechanics. Just as a photograph showing an orange circle and a photograph showing an orange triangle may be understood to represent the object (once we understand that it is the three-dimension figure of a traffic cone), the apparent paradoxes of quantum mechanics would disappear once the limitation of personal perspective is removed.
That there is more to understand about quantum mechanics than we currently do is proved by its inability to be reconciled with general relativity.
– Morality. Many modern Christians view God as the source of all good, and ‘the Devil’ as the source of all evil. However, this theology is actually borrowed from other middle-eastern religions, notably Zoroastrianism: God has been reduced to the role of Ahura Mazda, and a ‘Devil’ has been constructed from Sathaniel (the Angel of Temptation) and a few other references (such as ‘Lucifer/Light-Bringer’; actually a title of the King of Babylon) to take the place of Ahriman.
Original Hebrew theology was both simpler and more profound. Good and evil are not opposite attributes, but a continuous scale. Just as something which contains less kinetic energy than another object many be said to be ‘cold’ relative to that other object, good and evil are simply measures of how in accordance with God a thought or action may be. Separation from the nature of God is possible for us, because we have free will. This attribute of having free will, of being causative agents in our own right, is what is called “being made in the image of God.”
– Action. Gods act. It is necessary for them in order to fulfill their role in mythology, to demonstrate the values of the cultures which produced them, that they take action. This is also where the greatest confusion lies in differentiating between ‘God’ and ‘a god’—we are used to referring to God in the context of mythology (such as the two Genesis accounts, where God is portrayed talking and walking in a garden). This leads to practices such as intercessory prayer, in which we ask God to take action on our behalf.
But let us examine for a moment the consequence of God taking action. During the course of the action, no matter how swiftly completed, the action would be incomplete. As the author of an incomplete action, God would be incomplete; that is to say, God would be imperfect. God would not be God. God, therefore, does not act. God causes. Prayer, then, is meant to bring us into communion with the nature of God—not to use God as a magic wishing-well.
Unfortunately, it has been too many years since I’ve seen one live and up-close. Can anybody still in the USMC/Navy tell me if this looks like J-hook style sling used in rifle qualification? I’m getting tired of the Army-style sling and I want to put my own on the next time I qualify:
http://www.charleyssurplus.com/army_military_field_gear/slings/M16A2%20SLING
The nascent poem denies its birth.
It shrieks ennui behind my eyes;
While wailing angels weigh my worth
As silence sweeps the shadowed skies.
But as the dark descends, I rise
And grit my teeth against the tears!
I will not cease, though all hope dies,
To stand my watch unnumbered years–
I am the thing the Darkness fears.
–Jason Diederich, 2014
All rights reserved
So, I came across a screenshot of one “Charles Johnson” of Little Green Footballs asking the question “I wonder if conservatives worried about Ebola becoming airborne realize that they are now supporting evolution?” I went to LGF to see if I could source the quote–and ask if he actually knew what any of the words in that sentence meant (I’m guessing ‘no’).
I never did find that article, but I did find this one:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/43932_How_to_Survive_in_an_Age_of_Ebola_and_Right_Wing_Panic
I’m not even going to bother trying to correct ‘lawhawk’s’ obvious misuse of the term ‘right-wing’. Let’s just look at some of the ideas he’s throwing out:
(The possibility of someone bringing Ebola into the United States is) fertile ground with the right wing already predisposed to being anti-science, and hits all the right’s notes with xenophobia and racism.
Because why lead with fact, when you can lead with ad hominems? Not one, mind you, but three in a single sentence. I’m particularly impressed with accusations of ‘anti-science’ by someone who had to have explained to him that bubonic plague isn’t spread by ticks. And the apparent suggestion that Ebola is a… ‘race’?
I’ve posted about right wing hysterics from the likes of Matt Drudge, touting baseless claims that illegal aliens are bringing in diseases (like Enterovirus D68, which was first identified in the US in 1962).
How does the fact that communicable disease has previously been identified in the United States, mitigate the fact that people entering the United States from Mexico without passing through any sort of screening, might bring a completely different disease with them? Or hell, how would it mitigate a new Enterovirus outbreak? It’s not like U.S. citizens were all magically made immune to it because it was “identified”.
Never mind that the second tweet is so easily debunked; there hasn’t been any second case of confirmed Ebola in the US. Duncan was the only case so far…
Enterovirus D68 has sent more people to the hospital and killed more people in the US than the single case of Ebola.
What the Hell does that have to do with anything? So, we should take no precautions against Ebola until it’s killed more people than some other, arbitrary disease? Unfortunately, containing horrifying infectious diseases doesn’t work like that. It’s too bad ‘lawhawk’ doesn’t apply that ‘logic’ where it would actually be logical: for example, by decrying attempts to remove citizens’ Constitutional right to bear arms, by pointing out the fact that rifles are used in fewer murders per annum than hammers.
Influenza has killed more people in the US (and more pediatric deaths for the 2013-2014 season) and poses a much greater risk to everyone in the country than Ebola.
Again, what relevance does ‘death-toll to date’ have? And how does influenza ‘pose a greater threat to everyone in the US’? Is there some new, untreatable strain breaking out, of which I am unaware? The actual threat of an actual disease is by definition greater that the potential threat of an hypothetical disease.
Ebola isn’t easy to get, and it is impossible to get if you haven’t come in contact with someone showing the active symptoms.
Well, I think that the current situation in West Africa somewhat undermines the “isn’t easy to get” statement. But if we can agree that Ebola is currently only transmitted by coming in contact with someone actively exhibiting symptoms, then why are we sending U.S. citizens to West Africa for the explicit purpose of coming in contact with people actively exhibiting symptoms? Citizens who might like to return home someday?
Meanwhile, as to the right wing talking points about the ease with which illegal aliens or ISIS could cross the border and infect people, the CDC has 20 sites around the country in high volume ports of call to operate quarantines. These quarantine centers are public knowledge and are fully staffed at all times.
Because, of course, it is well known that the first step of anyone feloniously entering the United States–whether those wonderful migrant farmers and maids that the TV networks like to write into their shows, or the MS13 enforcers who are ACTUALLY coming in–is to check in with the closest Federal authority. Kind of puts the lie to the pseudo-liberal claim that we have to pass an amnesty act for illegals because they are afraid to seek health-care, and so might start a new epidemic… Yes?
The CDC can quarantine persons showing symptoms for any of the following diseases…
Sure–but only if the CDC KNOWS THAT THOSE PEOPLE ARE HERE. Which is (one of several very important reasons) why we need to take control of our borders.
Health professionals know what they’re up against here in the US. The concern shouldn’t be about an outbreak of cases here in the US, but rather in other parts of the Third World where the health infrastructure simply can’t handle the strain of this kind of outbreak.
‘This kind of outbreak’? I thought it wasn’t easy to catch? At any rate, the concern should be in preventing the spread of the virus. The big two rules there are, don’t send new people in to get infected, and don’t bring infected people out to uninflected populations. So far, we have deliberately done one, and are on track to do the other.
But the best way to prevent the spread of Ebola beyond West Africa’s borders is to stop the outbreak at the source.
Which is done by quarantining the area (with travel restrictions); NOT by shuttling our own people in and allowing anybody to come out.
Of course, that IS the best way to keep Mohammedan terrorists out of the United States–fighting them on their home ground–but apparently that distinction (mindless virus vs. human ideology) escapes lawhawk.
“(The White House’s Ebola strategy) focuses on Africa because that’s where the outbreak is occurring right now and the best way to stop it from entering the US is to stop it there. It’s called “containment.””
Again, where was the support for this strategy in dealing with Jihadists? Hm. The difference being, of course, that sending troops to fight human beings actually does contain those human beings. Sending troops to contact infectious patients just provides more potential vectors of transmission.
(Paraphrased for brevity and clarity)
Alarmist: The climate denier’s claim that there has been an 18-year pause in Global Warming is false. Look at the anomalies from 1996 to now; the data doesn’t support it.
Me: First, what’s “Global Warming”? I though that was “unscientific”now, and everyone had to use “Global Climate Disruption”. Pick a goalpost.
Second, who’s a “climate denier”? I claim that climate changes by definition; you claim that all observed changes are human driven. I think YOU are denying climate.
Third, what data? If you can post “anomalies”, you can post actual measured temperatures. Why the added complexity, and difficulty finding raw data?
—–
Alarmist: The deniers set the start point at 1996. That’s their cherry-pick, not mine.
Me: Because the claim was made that a 17-year pause would be required to challenge AGW, and we started measuring. But okay, since you insist on measuring in “anomalies”, how do they look if we start from 1050 AD?
Anybody remember the 1/2 Hour News Hour from several years ago? This was one of my favorite sketches:
Him: We can do Chinese for lunch…
Me: There is no Chinese food in Springfield.
Him: Have you tried the restaurant on (x) Street?
Me: No.
Him: Well, their menu is printed in Chinese on one side…
Me: Do they have fish-head stew?
Him: NO!!! Yuck!
Me: Beef-stomach dishes?
Him: I… Don’t think so…
Me: Then they aren’t making Chinese food.
(paraphrased for brevity and clarity)
Me: Intelligent Design Theory only proposes that terrestrial life, and the universe in general, show evidence of… intelligent design.
Creation Scientist: Well, if that’s all it is, then all Creationists are IDr’s!
Me: No. First, because you make an unverifiable (but not implausible) claim about the identity of the intelligence involved. Second, Intelligent Design is an evolutionary theory. Believing that the first human being was formed complete out of a ball of mud, discounts you as an Intelligent Design theorist.
—–
Creation Scientist: All Christians should learn Hebrew? That’s a pretty high bar to set!
Me: Not relatively. Expecting people to accept a story as historical fact, when it flies in the face of reason to do so, is a high bar to set. Knowing what the Old Testament ACTUALLY MEANS, instead of what a biased translator wants you to hear, before you start making those demands of people–not a high bar.
—–
Creation Scientist: The Bible is God’s Word. You must accept it as literal fact, or you might as well be an atheist!
Me: Well, I actually know a bit of Hebrew and Aramaic…
Creation Scientist: Don’t you make an argument from authority at me!
So, we’ve had some cold nasty winters lately. And the story being pushed by the communists–oh, sorry, “scientists”–pushing AGW hypothesis is that warm air is dislocating the cold air from the poles, which is then being driven toward the equator. This cold air then gives us nasty winters… But the EARTH STILL HAS THAT FEVER!!!
There are several issues with this story (besides it being an outright lie); for example, how is the less-dense, altitude-seeking warm air managing to displace the more-dense, ground hugging cold air? What is driving warm air to the poles in the first place?
But more important is this: if warm air really is taking up residence in the poles, then the poles MUST BE GETTING WARMER. This, however, is not true.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/12/coldest-antarctic-june-ever-recorded/
Home of the Little-Known Blogger 