Hobby Lobby and Entitlement

Introduction

I'm sure by now we're all familiar with the SCOTUS decision about Hobby Lobby, and by extension, other closely held companies. Some people, like Wil Wheaton (@wilw), have fantasies about Rastafarians, as seen by his retweet of a @JohnFugelsang. Or to better illustrate, Wheaton's nearly concurrent tweet says that "women need to incorporate, if they want to have things like 'rights' and 'freedom'" No educated individual should conflate such things as "freedom" with "you aren't entitled to a company giving you what you want."

Making an Example

Wil makes the following mistakes: strawman (attacking the ideas of rights and freedom rather than addressing the ruling); makes a red herring (he might have a point, but it's irrelevant to the case and how it was decided), loads the question (or implication, as if women have no rights or freedom at all unless they incorporate); and perhaps some appeal to fear or emotion. In a single tweet, especially with the tone of the other tweet mentioned, Wil Wheaton not only makes a complete ass of himself, but he shows the sense of entitlement I often see in social media.

Perhaps some reductio ad absurdum is in order. Let's say I'm working for a warehouse, as I did a few summers ago. I had no benefits. Likewise, in this pretend example, I sue the company, not only for not having benefits, but because I'm not being provided contraception, let alone something that is an abortifacient. Odds of success: 0%. Odds may increase if I was a woman. I feel dumber just for typing this. Women and men alike can work elsewhere if they don't like what Hobby Lobby or any company does or doesn't offer, including but not limited to,  pay, benefits, time off, and promotions. I am no more entitled to benefits at the warehouse than others are entitled to contraception. Note that this is not a legal argument, but a moral one.

Closing

A great irritant to me is celebrities who do stupid things like Wil Wheaton did. They step out of what they're good at, influence the masses, and are usually much less informed then they think they are. The issue isn't "women's rights." It's that people aren't allowed to follow their conscience. If you'll excuse me, I need to order a cake from a Muslim Bakery with a hot lady on it. After all, I'm entitled to it.

Consistency

Introduction

Logic must be consistent. Sometimes it's easy to refute a string of thought, sometimes it's harder, and sometimes it's impossible. As Hikmat Hanna said, logic can even be used legitimately to get to an evil conclusion. I agree. Still, logic can be useful for good and either way it must be consistent, for better or worse.

More important is Biblical consistency, an oft-made point of unbelievers. Biblical Consistency by Joseph Cook is good for answering those questions and as a support material for believers. He also brings up some good points: is consistency faith-breaking in (whatever case)? This is a good point. If there's a small error in name, does it matter? Even if a connection is made that two historical figures probably shared different names between cultures, is it truly important that it's not 100% sure? The overarching idea is that many points are just a smokescreen for unbelievers; it's easy to tell who wants answers and who wants arguments.

Finally, there's consistency in faith. There are a lot of angles that can be discussed here, but I'll narrow my focus to Christianity and CINOs, that being Christians In Name Only. Let's see what the Bible says about consistency:

Revelation and Consistency

John the Apostle is called to write in Revelation to seven churches. To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: "The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Originator of God's creations says: I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I am going to spit you out of My Mouth."  Rev 3:14-16

Looks like the church of Laodicea was consistent at being middling! Likened to water, God would spit Laodicea out. As verse 22 says "Anyone who has an ear should listen to what the Spirit says to the churches." Looks like the church wasn't too keen on going "by the Book," pun intended.

Ephesians 5:15-17 echoes this as well as our world today: Pay careful attention, then, to how you walk -not as unwise people but as wise- making the most of time, because the days are evil. So don't be foolish, but understand what the Lord's will is.

Christians who adopt the ways of the world are not walking in accord with God's will. As much as anyone else, I have difficulty with this. The consistency I want to hit on is when people actively, continuously go against God but claiming fellowship with Him. They've deluded themselves and while much less important, they've given compassionate Christians a bad public image. I'm not so concerned with my image, it's that it affects our ability to reach people.

Closing

That digression aside, I wrote this article because of recent interactions with a friend. I'm not sure he realizes how his worldview is not harmonious within itself, let alone with God. Rather than bring him down, I'd like to use our interactions for this post as an example. Far from attacking him, I want to remind him and those like him that having one's cake and eating it too is a worldly deficit creeping into our lives today. We can't ignore God or tell Him off and then expect His blessing.

All verses are taken from the NASB version, which I recommend. Mine is a Holmans' The Apologetic's Study Bible, courtesy of my wonderful mother. I recommend it because it has many commentaries and food for thought sections inserted throughout. Sadly, yours won't come with the notes my mother wrote. Make your own and pass them on to accomplish this feat.

Love is Love?

Some of my friends on Facebook have posted a picture. You might be familiar with it: on top is a gay couple and it looks like they're getting married; on the bottom is an incredibly malnourished child. It calls anyone against same sex marriage failures if they have a problem with SSM when instead they could be helping starving children.

In logic, this is what we call a false dilemma. I could support starving children (indeed, Freerice is a way I can donate at least a bit despite my low income) and oppose SSM. Someone else might support both, and another might support neither. This is why the dilemma is false.

That said, this reminded me of an oft-quoted phrase, "love is love." At the risk of sounding sarcastic, congratulations,  you just used the reflexive property of equality. My point is that this little phrase means nothing. Say it if you like, I'm not the thought police. It's simply that it has no bearing in an argument.

Need I remind everyone that we don't legislate based on love, let alone act out of love all the time? While my friends want to tell me to accept their version of love and the legislation what it entails, I have no actual rebuttal because there's no argument in the first place. I don't have an issue with people with other worldviews than mine. The issue I have is when an argument becomes about one's viewpoint of love and anyone who disagrees is a bigot. Thanks for sowing seeds of discord, by the way, if you've done such a thing.

Post what you want, but be consistent and don't manipulate children to further your viewpoint that would be exactly the same simply by the cop-out "love is love."

Arguments for God: Part 2

Disclaimer: Before I even continue with my arguments and proofs, there is something that must be made absolutely clear. There can be no question of it. There is a massive difference between acknowledging God or even that He might exist, and actually following Him and putting yourself in the service of Christ. Without reception of the Holy Spirit, there is no change. This is why so-called Christians, yes, even if Hitler said he was, are not indicative of actual Followers of Christ. And such a change must be out of sincerity, the true reconciliation that you know what the Truth is and how to correct your fallen condition. As such, these proofs are not fool-proof. No matter how air-tight my cases, they will not suddenly make someone hard of heart into a believer as suddenly if they had been exposed to a frosty wind. Let us continue.

This second argument starts where the first left off. From my first argument we see that is logically necessary for a Creating Force. This proof used to be much longer being a list of deductions from non-Christian faiths. However, I have condensed it and changed partially to a proof by induction.

Premise 1: The Force must exist outside of creation, otherwise it presents a paradox.
Premise 2: The Force must be able to create the universe as we know it (logically, orderly, etc).

Point 1: The Force must be self-sufficient and uncreated. Thus we can discount the following:

Aboriginal "Dreamtime" and other "guiding ancestor" types can be discounted because it does not speak of creation's ultimate beginnings. The Force, Baiame, is not sufficient to create and rather teaches man through the use of ancestors.

Taoist use of yin and yang, because they are created (as are other things)  are without logical explanation. The elements that would form the universe already existed without explanation.

Hinduism fails because it describes the universe as eternal or an illusion. Since we have already seen that the universe cannot be eternal, it must be an illusion. If the universe is an illusion, then it cannot be eternal but only appear to be eternal. Thus, the universe cannot be eternal or an illusion.

Islam fails due to logical inconsistencies in the Quran See here for examples. Thus the Force, Allah, is either mistaken in his book or is not logical.

Other religions, particularly polytheist ones, rely on various deities that exist within creation and cannot account for each other. There is no order, even among those with the power, let alone the paradox of existing in creation. This is essentially the same as  the guiding ancestor type.

Point 2: By previous result, we know that the universe requires a creator. By previous result, we have deduced the potential list. By induction, we see that God, in Christianity, fits the requirements. He exists outside of creation, He has the capacity to create(unlike other deities) and He is orderly thus creating the universe in a certain way with certain laws for its function.

Conclusion:  This proof and the first show that God is able to, by definition, be the Creator. However, just because He does, doesn't suddenly mean people will change their hearts. This logic only serves to show that the conclusion is logical. In other words, this is a tool for those at a certain point in their journey.  Please do not use this or my other posts as a beating stick.

The Big Question

Introduction

While taking lunch today, I was reminded of an oft-cited explanation by evolutionists about evolution. It usually goes something like "What you learn in the textbooks isn't evolution/the whole story/what actually goes on," or "Researchers know what it is, even if you don't." There are other variations. This is almost nearly in response to, when used seriously, the question "How did DNA, proteins, and such get more and more complex, as in length, number of pairs, etc?"

The question is within the Theory of Evolution itself. I aim to use ToE only in its own terms to show why such claims fall flat, namely that which I posed above. The answer I usually get is "Copying errors mutate into beneficial things to pass on." This seems a decent explanation at first. Let's ignore copying rate and mutation rate for a moment. Even if this idea is true, let alone demonstrable, there's a huge issue. This series of copy and mutate must happen enough over a course of billions of years to what we see today. Let me explain further.

The Example

Say we have some primitive form of life, whatever the in-thing is now for ToE to work off of after assuming first life. Let's say it gets these copying and mutation errors that end up making it something more advanced. The job is not yet finished! If this lifeform dies, the same series, or at least same sort of series of events must happen to the same kind of primitive lifeform there or elsewhere in a beneficial way. This is to say nothing of how multiple sexes formed or how those different sexes must then survive and pass on enough mutations.This then must repeat, going up Evolution's Tree of Life, which brings me to another point.

The Division

In the ToE, there are two thought camps: one that Evolution is progressive, working towards a goal; the other says it's simply random and we're here. Both fail logically. The latter shows by my example above that the explanation is already ad hoc. We're here, so this sort of thing must have happened numerous times. If Evolution is Progressive, this embodies it with certain qualities of intelligence, a sort of transcendence if you will. Evolution can no more work actively towards a goal any more than Democracy. Those things themselves are labels for a process; they describe, but do not guide how those things act. True, both are things done actively, but they do not work as themselves; they are not autonomous. Humans vote to make a democracy happen by electing officials. Evolution adapts organisms for an immediate need. Neither has some crystal ball revealing why those things are being done in terms of the future. (In the case of democracy, humans rationalize their vote, thus guiding it; Evolution has no such backing).

Conclusion

This is the part where I ask "How is it really supposed to work?" What are people like me missing? Even within its own system, Evolution begs the question "How did we get here?" This isn't some knockout punch. If anything, it reveals that ToE and Creationism are both philosophies and have no place in the classroom. But that's a whole other kettle of fish.

Arguments for the Existence of God

Here is argument one:

Argument 1
Given: Universe cannot be eternal by 2nd law of thermodynamics
Given: Each created thing has an creator by Law of Sufficient Cause (3rd law of logic)
Given: Design requires intelligence (observation)
Given: Universe cannot create itself because of Fallacy of Infinite Regress and LoSC
Conclusion 1: Universe was created because it cannot be eternal; also, creating agent must be external
Conclusion 2: Universe was created by an uncaused force because of Law of Sufficient Reason
Conclusion 3: Universe was created by some intelligent, uncaused force
Synthesis: The universe was created and designed by some uncaused, external, intelligent force

As can be seen, this is merely a deist argument. Still, it is logically impossible to be an atheist due to this argument. Argument 2 will be posted in the near future.

Edit: It has been brought to my attention that Gottfreid Leibniz and William Lane Craig also follow this argument, or one very similar. This post is all work done by me.

On the Laws of Logic and the Laws of Information , Part 1

Introduction

I recently had a pseudo-exchange with a group of angry atheists. Their arguments had many logical fallacies, but I've decided to allot that idea to its own post. Rather, I'll focus today on part one of  the Laws of Information and the Laws of Logic. Anyone who has to deal with poor debating must always know these. In this case, my opponents did not even know these Laws exist. Pointing out various fallacies in a debate, especially one on the internet, will only get you so far. By following these Laws, dear reader, you will be able to construct a better argument and dismantle your opponent's at the same time.

The Laws of Logic

The first law of logic is the Law of Identity. It states that something is what it is. The second is the Law of Contradiction. It states that something cannot be true and false at the same time. The third is the Law of Excluded Middle, which means something either is or it isn't, thus no middle ground. The fourth is the Law of Sufficient Reason. It states that there should be a sufficient cause to all things that happen. I intend to show how these Laws glorify God and support Him as master of the universe.

The first two laws are self-explanatory and are rarely misused. True, there may be equivocation or backpedaling to make a point more or less clear, but this is the deception rather than the rule. That is, rarely is someone foolish enough to say "A cat is a dog," or "That dinosaur is a real fictional character." Oftentimes the Law of Identity suffers due to relativism. For example, when discussing traditional marriage, Progressive will say society makes the rules. Thus the identity of marriage can be changed, circumventing the Law of Identity. By altering the definitions and/or rules, they step farther away from God and His law. For this reason I suggest staying away from "definitions" of marriage and focus on the next Law. Identity as a Law is harder to use and can be misunderstood by those not in the know.

The Law of Excluded Middle is in other words "Black or white, this or that." When liberals tell me something isn't just an either/or decision, I get a funny feeling. An action is either right or wrong. Special circumstances can exist (death by self-defense is a Biblical one) but those are exceptions rather than the rule. When an opponent tells me "Well, 'gay' marriage is only wrong to you," the Excluded Middle is abused. By selecting levels of "rightness" and "wrongness" a middle is created, a spectrum created. Even when the problem of absolute morality is by-passed, atheists and Progressives still cannot avoid breaking the Laws of Logic. As C.S Lewis said in The Problem of Pain, "A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.” This violation of Logic is a violation of God's laws as well. The two are inextricably entwined; Logic is a reflection of God. After all, the next Law shows that even the Laws of Logic require a sufficient reason of their own.

The Law of Sufficient Reason is perhaps my favorite. Examples of this application include the beginning of the universe/life and how you get a sandwich. The latter is easy: you or someone else selected the ingredients and made the sandwich, then you came into possession of it. Perhaps a machine actually made it, or a machine selected the ingredients and a person made it. Regardless, either of these lines of reasoning is sufficient for the cause. The beginning of the universe requires a cause. I will not expand upon this particular point as I cover it in a separate post. The Big Bang "causing itself" let alone existing on its own (or the alternative, the eternal universe) are both violations of this law. Life beginning by abiogenesis is not sufficient because it breaks the Law of Biogenesis. Thus atheists in particular cannot invoke their broken cosmology or faith in Evolution as reasoning for how things exist today. Special creation by God fits this Law perfectly, hardly a coincidence.

Conclusion

As a side note, not knowing the science behind how God created (if we can ever discover/comprehend it) is hardly reason for rejection. Indeed, comprehensive knowledge of a science does not make it any more or less true on its own merit. God does not require science to vindicate Him, though as His own creation it reflects His greatness. Nonetheless, just because we don't know how He created doesn't mean He didn't. Perhaps this reasoning will sound familiar to some.

This ends part one, a great example of Romans 1:20. Next post I will talk about the Laws of Information and how they also support God, the Bible, and His Greatness.