Sharia Law in the United States?

Sometimes we can be tempted to believe the cult of Islam is innocent, legitimate, or mainstream.

Don’t…

Harry G. Frankfurt’s Observations on the Paradox of the Stone

As a Christian apologist, from time to time I’ll encounter the Paradox of the Stone.

It is intended to demonstrate the impossibility of an omnipotent being and can be logically stated thus:

1. Either God can create a stone which He cannot lift, or He cannot create a stone which He cannot lift.

2. If God can create a stone which He cannot lift, then He is not omnipotent (since He cannot lift the stone in question.)

3. If God cannot create a stone which He cannot lift, then He is not omnipotent (since He cannot create the stone in question.)

Conclusion:  God is not omnipotent.

This question sometimes catches younger Christians by surprise and sends them running to their pastor or parents for relief.  They may often be met with pat answers that fail to satisfy them and eventually fall away from the faith.  This is unfortunately the result of a lack of theological education on basic levels in the contemporary church.

While this question has been addressed in very sophisticated ways by many people…the orthodox Christian solution to it is not really complicated and can be taught to Christian high-schoolers.

I will not be presenting a Christian answer to this particular “paradox” in this blog.  Sorry.  If you’re interested, ask me in an email, and I’ll talk with you about it.

While reading through Baruch Brody’s book “Philosophy of Religion: An analytical approach” I came across an essay by secular epistemologist Harry G. Frankfurt.  (I did a review of his book “On Truth” awhile back:  http://shotgunwildatheart.wordpress.com/2008/08/25/book-review-harry-frankfurts-on-truth/ )  Frankfurt makes some very interesting comments on the omnipotence debate.

As it has evolved, the debate has siderailed on a few issues that Mr. Frankfurt seeks to avoid.  (He cites George Mavrodes’ attempt to solve the problem by alluding to certain self-evident truths about the nature of God.)  Mr. Frankfurt provides us with an analysis of the Paradox in the Stone that avoides the mistakes made by Mavrodes.

In the end…this argument is meant to demonstrate the irrationality of an omnipotent being.  Frankfurt writes:

“Suppose, then, that God’s omnipotence enables Him to do even what is logically impossible and that He actually creates a stone too heavyfor Him to lift.  The critic of the notion of divine omnipotence is quite mistaken if he thinks that this supposition plays into his hands.  What the critic wishes to claim, of course, is that when God has created a stone which He cannot lift He is then faced with a task beyond His ability and is therefore seen to be limited in power.  But this claim is not justified.”

Why is this claim not justifed?  It’s really quite simple…

“For why should God not be able to perform the task in question?  To be sure, it is a task – the task of lifting a stone which even He cannot lift – whose description is self-contradictory.  But if God is supposed capable of performing one task whose description is self-contradictory – that of creating the problematic stone in the first place – why should He not be supposed capable of performing another – that of lifting the stone?  Afterall, is there any greater trick in performing two logically impossible tasks than there is in performing one?

If an omnipotent being can contradict Himself by creating something that He cannot lift…then why can’t He contradict Himself again, and lift it?

This is a fatal flaw in the argument…and it’s a so simple that it requires a good “head-slap” for not realizing it sooner.  Frankfurt concludes:

“If an omnipotent being can do what is logically impossible, then he can not only create situations which he cannot handle but also, since he is not bound by the limits of consistency, he can handle situations which he cannot handle.” - H. G. Frankfurt.  The Logic of Omnipotence

An Update on The Brave Patriot Bierfeldt

Awhile back, I wrote a blog about this:  http://shotgunwildatheart.wordpress.com/2009/04/07/another-american-victimized-by-orwellian-police/

Campaign for Liberty sent out an email updating everyone on the story. From the email:

You may remember Steve Bierfeldt’s story. A few months ago he went through a harrowing ordeal at the St. Louis Airport.

He was unconstitutionally searched, held against his rights, verbally harassed — and he recorded the whole thing on his cellular phone.

Steve’s bravery in defense of his rights made him a cult celebrity in liberty circles.

And now his heroism is going mainstream.

You see, Steve has filed a lawsuit against the TSA, and CNN recently picked up the story.

Edenton Through the Shaky Lens of Shotgun’s New Camera

I recently bought a new digital camera that I’m able to carry around in my pocket. It’s got a lot of good features including the ability to take motion shots. These days, that’s not really impressive, however…I like knowing that at anytime I can record my surroundings and post them to the world. (This may come in handy in cases of observed police brutalities or possible crime scene investigation.)

I love the small, family-oriented town of Edenton (where I grew up.) So, while I was home recently for a visit…I put my new camera to work. It’s hard to take steady video, so I apologize if anyone gets sick from watching this…

By the way…I’m not the greatest dulcimer player in the world either…so take it easy on me. (I’m playing a dulcimer my dad built!)

Enjoy a small taste of Edenton NC:

Observations from a Sitting Duck

“Duck…Duck…Duck…”

The tension mounted with every word! Brandon, (with an evil grin) strolled around the circle of children patting each on the head as he passed by. “Duck…Duck…Duck…” He was a master of suspense! The power was in his tiny hands! For a brief moment, little Brandon had the power to change the nature of his classmates, and ohh how he reveled in it! Who would he choose?

Just when we couldnt’ take it anymore…a fierce declaration poured from his lips and echoed across the school-yard…GOOSE!!! Immediantly Summer’s inner nature changed…(according to the rules of the game!) She felt compelled to capture her tormentor…to re-tag him lest she be forced to take his place!

No longer a sitting duck, her entire position in the game had changed! Through no choice of her own she was a new player…with a new destiny and new motivations…yet she was still the same blonde headed little Summer. She was still responsible for playing the game.

Brandon quickly slid into Summer’s old spot, leaving Summer as the outsider…tasked with choosing the next goose. As she began her mantra, I pondered the nature of the game. Suppose the rules allowed us to simply choose not to become a Goose? Or suppose we decided on a whim to act the part of the Goose, and the rules would allow for it? How could there be a game at all then?

Brandon leaned over and whispered in my ear. “She LIKES youuuuu” (drawing out the “you” to fully accentuate the shame…) “Summer couldn’t like ME!” I thought…she always made me the goose for goodness sakes! And, as Brandon and I predicted…Summer tapped me on the head and cried “Goose!”

Now was my chance! I could buck the system! Ruin the game! Throw off the sovereignty of the rules that laid behind the entire system…make the whole of objective truth obsolete….but then I realized how beautiful of a thing it was to be chosen…my nature had been changed. I ran!

Lincoln a Precursor to Hitler?

Thanks to my friend Daniel Ritchie over at Reformed Covenanter for bringing this video to my attention! (see his blog here:  http://reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com/)

I saw Newt Gingrich on the news yesterday giving a speech about how great the Republican party was, and he alluded to the founder of the party Mr. Abraham Lincoln himself.

It’s a shame that so many American Christians buy into these sorts of lies.   Abraham Lincoln had more in common with Hitler than anyone in the Confederacy ever would have had.

We should be proud of our Southern heritage and honor those of our ancestors who fell defending the cause of liberty!

A Quick Discussion of the Cosmological Argument with an Atheist

This is a discussion I recently had with a contentious Atheist:

Tha Mental Cripple says:

(GOD) doesnt exist. A “He” as the Source 2 All of this cant possibly exist….Use that thing between your ears. This is all very basic, not hard 2 understand at all. Now if you wanna talk of “God” being an energy, like consciousness itself which is apart of everything then you might be getting somewhere, but even then theres not really any reason 2 put all this focus on it, “God” that is. Why do you want 2 worship something so bad?, why do you follow tradition so willingly? What does the concept of God really mean 2 you, I mean what does it really do for you. Think about it.

Shotgun replies:

Mr. Mental,

You say that a “source 2 this can’t possibly exist.”

I assume you mean that the Christian concept of metaphysics cannot possibly be true.

As a Christian apologist who spends a lot of time pondering the Christian metaphysical system (as well as various other systems) I’d love to hear the reasons behind your conclusion.

Tha Mental Cripple responds:

Its ****ing  basic buddy, if “He” created the Universe then what created the Creator.

Shotgun Concludes:

Mr. Mental Cripple,

It’s unfortunate that so many Christian apologist would rely on pagan philosophy (specifically the baptized Aristotelianism of Aquinas) to defend the Christian faith.

As a result the so-called “cosmological argument” for the existence of God has wide-spread popularity amongst Christians.  (See the writings of William Lane Craig or R.C. Sproul for instance.)

As you’ve been able to see…this argument is faulty for various reasons.  Bertrand Russell makes short work of it in his essay “Why I’m Not a Christian.”

However, I have to warn you against critiquing colloquial understandings of the argument.  It may be popularly stated at times as: “Everything that exists must have a cause…” This is a faulty and simplistic way to state the Cosmological Argument and if stated like that…your critique:  who then “caused” God?… would be applicable. If everything that exists has a cause…and God exists…then God must have a cause.

The real argument is somewhat more complex however and your simplistic critique doesn’t apply.  Aquinas begins by reasoning that there are no innate ideas.  Somewhat similar to the atheists of today, Aquinas would agree that all knowledge comes through the sense perceptions.  In order to prove God then…he relies on his sense perceptions.  And…one thing Aquinas noticed about the world, is that things are contingent…(they are not necessary.)

This means that no one person necessarily exists any more than another.  Why were you and I (Mr. elppirC and Shotgun) born instead of two completely different people in our place?  We are totally contingent.  There is no physical item in the world that we observe that can be said to “necessarily exist” (according to Aquinas.)  Since all things are contingent, then they all at one time did NOT exist.  Therefore…it’s reasonable to assume then, that at some point nothing at all existed.  But then…if nothing at all existed…then nothing at all could ever exist since “nothingness” cannot produce anything at all.  Therefore, Aquinas concludes that there MUST be some sort of eternally existing, self-fulfilling “first-cause” of all the other contingent facts of our eixistence.

When argued thus…you can clearly see why the question “then what caused God?”…would no longer be applicable.  However…there are a host of other problems with this argument.  (One being…it leaves the door open for a possible “first-cause” for EVERY single event we experience.  This certainly would upset the Christian, who is not trying to prove a polytheistic faith.)  Additionally…there is no reason (implicit in the argument) that an infinite chain of causes couldn’t be the case.  (There are other problems as well that I wont get into.)

My point:  The Cosmological Argument does have weaknesses…just not the one you tried critique.

A Christian Refutation of an Atheist Rant

I wrote the following in response to a blog that can be found by clicking here:

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=170921713&blogId=484147304

Perhaps the best refutation of this blog, is the blog itself.

Throughout the blog some sort of secular humanistic value system is presupposed as self-evident and never explicitly stated or argued for.  It is merely considered to be true and then the author contrasts various religious systems and actions with it.

It can be readily granted to the author that a Christian moral system is drastically different than the secular humanistic one presupposed in the blog.  That isn’t any real “news-flash.”

The self-refutation is seen then, not in the contrasting of two different ethical systems…but rather in the conflicting underlying assumptions made by the author.

I find it ironic that Nietzsche was quoted in support of the author’s argument.  More consistent than many non-Christian philosophers, Nietzsche realized the implications of rejecting Christianity.  In a conversation concerning the epistemological foundations of language and the ultimate coherence through change that is necessary for us to make sense out of our experience, he makes this observation:

“I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in language.” - from Twilight of the Idols

The author of this blog presupposes a unity through change that a naturalistic metaphysical view cannot allow.  (He assumes this by the very act of using language to write the blog.)  The author’s statements about the nature of reality would no-doubt make (if carried out consistently) the use of language impossible.  

My observation here is admittedly abstract and doesn’t speak to the direct argument in the blog.  However, the same sort of self-contradictory assumptions are seen in the arbitrary application of this secular humanistic value system to situations in life…(situations like the raising of children, or the various other “bad” things alluded to in the blog.)

In short, if the author assumes a sort of utilitarian ethic (as many humanists are wont to do), then he will have no way to say that any of the actions he has listed are “wrong.”  He certainly wouldnt’ be able to make pronouncements on the ethical position of religion.  Consider this quote by humanist author Jeaneane D. Fowler:

…while humanists differ widley on matters of ethics, generally speaking the matter of ethics is neither presecriptive or absolute, nor relativist.  In fact a certain tension between these two opposites seems to pervade Humanist writing, and while all evade the former, to accept the latter as the other side of the coin would leave Humanism with no positive message at all.” http://books.google.com/books?id=z5k5A0_nFogC&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=humanist+sins&source=bl&ots=8l-kMjBMR_&sig=YFOAGIL3seCh0HfaEF2nMCuCdes&hl=en&ei=HNQnSrWeHd2wtgfxiM21Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPA213,M1 
quote from the chapter on Humanist ethics.

She realizes then that ethics must not be subjective (or as she says relativist.) But neither can the humanist allow an objective moral system to have a foot in the door.  Bertrand Russell realized the ultimate defeat of such a situation.  (See his essay “What I believe” in the chapter on “The Good Life” where he admits that he cannot say his concept of the good life is “true” he just hopes as many people follow it as possible.)

So then, in keeping with Russell’s conclusion concerning the futility of a utilitarian ethic (in regards to truth) it is impossible to say that “religion is wrong” with any authority.

All the author of this blog can do…(along with Russell) is admit that he doesn’t like certain religions, and hopes as many people as possible agree with him.

The fact that the author wants to pronounce all religions as “wrong” belies the fact that…as Nietzsche said…he still has faith in God.

A Corner of Shotgun’s World!

See how many books you can recognize!

Another One Bites the Dust!

Another blasphemous murderer bites the dust!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/01/abortion-opponents-discouraged-doctors-murder/  

Personally,

I’m glad that Hell has another abortion doctor in its ranks, and I’m sure God feels the same way.

I wouldn’t testify against Scott Roeder (the suspect) were I a witness to the crime.

He’s not a criminal, he’s simply a victim of ignorance concerning the proper (God-ordained) method of dealing with this travesty (abortion.)

While I wish him the best and hope he gains his freedom on some technicality, I can’t condone his action in principal.

The true problem is not the doctors, or the legal system that allows such horror…the true problem is the heart of the American people and no amount of dead doctors will change that. Scott’s attitude should have been one of “head-shaking-shame” and “righteous outrage.” Vigilantism and murder are never ordained by God.

In essence, he was violently forcing his will over the doctor (George Tiller) just as the doctor violently forced his will over infants.

We need a dominion religion, not a power religion!

Gary North has an excellent letter to abortion doctor-killer Paul Hill. This letter set my conscience to rest:

http://www.reformed.org/social/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/social/let_2_paul_hill.html