BLAME the DEMOCRATS

I -usually- am not a big political guy. However, this election has been driving me crazy! Thus, I can no longer be silent. I have been listening to much of what has been said on the news, and when it replays the democrats lines or statements about the current presidential election, all i hear is how “this” (the Bush Administration) has failed. And that all the “trouble” we are in is due to him, and “his” war. Is this true? Is it really the case that the Bush Administration has created these problems? Is Obama and all the other liberals right? Perhaps, but let us examine the facts and see if that is the case.

Let us start our examination systmeatically with what problems are considered the biggest, namely the economy. 

1. The current economic structure is crumbling.

- the democrates feel that this is due to failed policy, but is it? They also hold that this is due to “relaxed regulations of the admistration on the market.”

All I am going to say to the former is bull crap! This is pure political spin. Let us look at the facts…            - In 1977 the democrats passed the “Community Reinvestment  Act.” This act gave more power to governement to insure certain financeing for “low income” individuals to buy homes.                                     - In 1995 President Bill Clinton gave this act much more strength by “Obligating” or requiring banks to process “sub-prime loans” for “disadvantaged individuals.” This obligation on banks was obviously government intervention that had the focus of establishing equality.

-Many of the “sub-prime” loans were high risk, and the government allowed the gov-backed institution of Fannie-mae, and Freddie-mac to purchase these loans. Many of the government appointed board members of these companies were democrats.  

- the REPUBLICANS, in 1995, tried to enforce more oversight of Fannie-mae, but it was blocked by Sen. Reid and many democratic members of the house and senate. (I think it is important to point out that Sen. McCain predicted financial turmoil if there was not something done to put more oversight on companies like this).

-2004 the bush administration sought caps on the loans that Fannie-mae and Freddie-mac could process and purchase. They also sought caps on certain sub-prime loans. This was blocked by many house democrats that claimed “ Fannie-mae was sound.”

In is even more interesting that the senators that blocked these caps and oversight of Fannie-mae and other institutions was principally: Sen. Dodd, Sen. Obama, and House Rep. Polosi. They have recived   also the HIGHEST campaign-donations that have ever been given by Fannie-mae.

Another problem that worries me about the demoncatic-controlled congress is that I think that they have intended for some time to allow the current market crash by “hedge funding and shorting” fannie-mae. The timeing of the colapse of the market is perfect. Just durring a new election with one of their own to lead the way, Barrack Obama.  This is interesting since 95% of the market is still paying on their debt just fine!

Take a look at this: http://usawakeup.org/USSA.htm

DEREGULATION WAS NOT THE PROBLEM HERE! IT WAS PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION THAT CAUSED SUCH CORRUPTION. BARRACK OBAMA wants more of this “control” so he can destroy things even more.

Is The “BAILOUT” Permissible

I guess you could suppose that this post is for all you economics freaks out there, and also all you philosophy nerds. The questions that I would like to take into consideration are: 1) is the purposed bailout morally permissible? 2) is it really going to create a long-term solution? 3) is this really a move toward “socialism?”

Is the bailout morally permissible? I think that before I propose to explain why it is or is not, let me first provide some back-ground about the bill itself and what it is supposed to “do.”

The bill (summarized version) is as follows, or you can see it at: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/09/20/treasurys-financial-bailout-proposal-to-congress/

-Authority to Purchase.–The Secretary is authorized to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, on such terms and conditions as determined by the Secretary, mortgage-related assets from any financial institution having its headquarters in the United States.

-he Secretary’s authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time

The objective of the bill is to aid financial institutions in freeing up their capital and allow for resumed lending by taking off the books of these institutions their failing sub-prime [and other] mortgages. By allowing these institutions to renew lending, it is hypothetically supposed that 1) Lending institutions will be able to lend more freely, 2) If (1), then people can take out more debt, 3) if (2), then banks make money, and the economy improves. I recognize that 1-3 are very simplified, but -from what I have gathered- that is the main point of the bill. I suppose that Paulson and Ben are correct in this, and that by injecting more money into the financial markets, you allow for renewed lending. However, is that what America needs? 

The problem of “the credit crisis” is not that difficult to understand. In simple terms, we can describe it as the occurrence of numerous foreclosures in the housing market that caused a chain reaction that brought down thrifts, holding, and investment companies. However, it is much more difficult to detect the cause of this crisis; perhaps, it is president Bush, and the so-called “ruined economic policy,” but that seems to be ad hoc. There, for it to be this big, must be something more; maybe a cluster of events and problems both in government and wall-street. However, I feel that we can start somewhere… In 1995 President Bill Clinton signed legislation making it easier for minorities to purchase homes. This idea was principally perpetuated by his had his Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, who -thanks to the legislation- rewrote the lending rules for the Community Reinvestment Act, opening the flood gates of mortgage lending to unqualified borrowers. These borrower were minorities and even at times illegal immigrants who had never been adequately qualified to purchase a home because the CR Act required lenders to “push them.” The final occurrence is that as energy-prices and instability in certain real-estate markets -and due to the IRRESPONSIBILITY of americans- caused augmenting number of foreclosures, and now, we run into the current situation. The problem was the initial flooding of sub-prime mortgages by the demand of the Clinton administration. Nevertheless, nor are therepublicans free from the blood of the people hurt by this crisis. They also engaged in erroneous ties with mortgage companies as the big-wigs of wall-street participated in their money orgy with the democrats -to prove that it was a “money orgy with the demarcates” just look at FNM and FRM (Fannie Mae, and Freddy Mac) and do some research as to who the board, CEO, and other governmental affiliates were. So, I suppose it is safe to conclude that:

1) certain parties [i.e Democratic] were the main perpetuator of the problem at hand.

2) republicans did nothing to stop it. 

3) Wall-street was greedy

4) Americans are irresponsible with their money and equity. 

So, is it morally permissible? 

NO! I don’t think it is even close to being such. This bill will bail-out these institutions [if it passes] and it will cause the market to BOOM in relief that the Fed has saved the day (which is actually you). Regulations on lending will be half-heartedly addressed and fixed, the CR act will not be adjusted promptly as to sufficiently stop the same mess from re-occurring. Additionally, it causes one bad thing -morally- and that is it will not install any sense of responsibility into the american people or the “business world” of america. By bailing out some one and hence not teaching them, and us, a lesson, we are limiting their ability to self-improve or at least “learn from ones mistakes.” We could -possibly- be hurt by the lack of accountability that we still have because we know that the fed is there with its check book. 

Is it economically sound?

There is much debate here, so I shall leave this as an open question for you to consider.

Contra Obama

With the plethora of political ransacking and battling out-there, I have decided that I too shall join in the mud-slinging. While I have no direct officiation with any particular political party, I have decided to vote for John Mccain. The reason I have decided to do this is because I don’t agree with Obama’s positions; sure, he speaks eloquently and is a sharp as can be, but he just doesn’t cut it once you examine and scrutinize his political, economic, and ethical positions. Let me go though them - remember to keep an open mind to the real issues here and not some bangwagon-seeded emotions that you may possess.

1) Minimum wage

Obama favored the increase in the federal minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25, and he voted to end the filibuster against a bill to accomplish that.

-It appears to be a good thing that we -as a nation- should increase minimum wage. It seems to be something that is necessary especially when examining the current inflation and cost of living. However, is it really necessary? In free-market/capital system, the competition in the market aims at obtaining scarce resources, which includes: basic materials, land, energy, WORKERS, and consumers/clients. If the economy and government are functioning as they are intended, the minimum wage should be adjusted as the demand for workers increases. The problem is not raise the minimum wage as per law (especially since most people make more than 7.25/hr), but rather, industrialize and create more local jobs. So, we should not even have to talk about this any further as per it seems clear that the issue of “minimum wage” is not so much the “law” but rather the operation of the economy of the USA.

2) Education

In a July 2007 address to the National Education Association, Obama supported merit pay for teachers, to be based on standards to be developed “with teachers.”^[15] Obama also called for higher pay for teachers.^[15] Obama’s plan is estimated to cost $18 billion annually and was originally planned to be partially funded by delaying NASA’s Constellation program for five years^[16] but he has since reconsidered and stated that he will look for “an entirely different offset”^[17]. “We owe it to our children to invest in early-childhood education; and recruit an army of new teachers and give them better pay and more support; and finally decide that, in this global economy, the chance to get a college education should not be a privilege for the few, but a birthright of every American.” ^[18] He also opposes the teaching of intelligent design.

-I think that that education is perhaps one of the most important thing for the economy and for the future progression of the human race. I don’t disagree -flagrantly- with Obama here, but I do not fully support the former view. I think that we do need to raise teacher’s salaries but we need to do that in conjunction with improving HOW we educate our children. Obama has no vision on how that is to be achieved, he merely feels that we should, ” invest in their education” and then never mentions how, in what way, and when. Just pumping more money is not going to improve the education of our youth on a macro scale, we need to demand improved systems and verifications of actual progress; and if children are not desirous to progress, then we should insure correct action to aid them in this issue. Moreover, how can a nation with such debt problems obtain funding to do what Obama does? The answer -which he never blatantly admits to- is: property tax! So, by taking my right to private property ownership can be further risked by liens and imposition by the federal government! 

3) Energy policy

In his New Energy for America plan, Obama proposes to reduce overall U.S. oil consumption by at least 35%, or 10 million barrels per day, by 2030 in order to offset imports from OPEC nations.^[20][21]

Obama voted in favor of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which provided incentives (chiefly tax breaks) to reduce national consumption of energy and to encourage a wide range of alternative energy sources. It also resulted in a net tax increase on oil companies.^[24]

Obama and other Senators introduced the BioFuels Security Act in 2006. “It’s time for Congress to realize what farmers in America’s heartland have known all along - that we have the capacity and ingenuity to decrease our dependence on foreign oil by growing our own fuel,” Obama said.^[25] In a May 2006 letter to President George W. Bush, he joined four other midwest farming state Senators in calling for the preservation of a $0.54-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol.^[26]

In an interview with NBC’s Tim Russert on May 4, 2008, Obama said, “…we’ve got a serious food problem around the world. We, we’ve got rising food prices here in the United States.” “There’s no doubt that biofuelsmay be contributing to it. And what I’ve said is, my top priority is making sure that people are able to get enough to eat. And if it turns out that we’ve got to make changes in our ethanol policy to help people get something to eat, then that’s got to be the step we take.”^[27]

Regarding the domestic use of nuclear power, about McCain´s plans for 45 new plants, Obama said that it’s not serious, it’s not new, it’s not the kind of energy policy that will give families the relief they need.  Obama declared himself flatly opposed to building the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada.

Obama and other Senators introduced a bill in 2007 to promote the development of commercially viable plug-in hybrids and other electric-drive vehicles in order to shift away from petroleum fuels and “toward much cleaner – and cheaper – electricity for transportation”. Similar legislation is now in effect in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Obama proposes that the U.S. Government invest in such developments using revenue generated from an auction-based cap-and-trade or emissions trading program to reducegreenhouse gas emissions.

Obama stresses innovation as a means to improve energy efficiency, calling for a 50% improvement by 2030. He has called for a 50 mpg–U.S. (4.7 L/100 km / 60.1 mpg–imp) rule, proposing tax credits to automakers in order to ease the transition.

He opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

-To adequately respond to such a complicated subject like energy, I will proceed to address Obama’s points; and in doing so, I shall provide some counter-examples. First, Obama wishes to offset US oil consumption by employing systems of alternative fuel, so as to rid our dependency on foreign oil. I think that all americans wish to rid dependency, but is Bio-fuel the key? I don’t think so, studies show the with current infrastructure, growth seasons, land dispensability, and ability for mass-production equivalent to 30+% is doubtful. So, even with our best efforts to employ bio-fuel solutions, we would never be able to “weaned” of exterior oil imports. We need to employ a local combination of solutions which means DRILLING FOR OUR OWN OIL - AND REFINING IT, and using what systems of alternative energy that we can to alleviate the demand on our own oil structure.  This view, however, creates a problem for Obama. The answer to the oil problem is not to take a hard left approach, but rather, employ all views and means so as to cut the umbilical cord of dependency to foreign oil.  Moreover, we should invest more money in research and development of alternative systems of energy rather than try and exploit additional resources like plant-produced bio-fule.

Health care

On January 24, 2007 Obama spoke about his position on health care at Families USA, a health care advocacy group. Obama said, “The time has come for universal health care in America [...] I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country.” Obama went on to say that he believed that it was wrong that forty-seven million Americans are uninsured, noting that taxpayers already pay over $15 billion annually to care for the uninsured. Obama cites cost as the reason so many Americans are without health insurance. Obama’s health care plan includes implementing guaranteed eligibility for affordable health care for all Americans, paid for by insurance reform, reducing costs, removing patentprotection for pharmaceuticals, and required employer contributions.^[42] He would provide for mandatory health care insurance for children.

In July 2008 The New York Times reported that Senator Obama has promised to “bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family.” His advisers have said that the $2,500 premium reduction includes, in addition to direct premium savings, the average family’s share of the reduction in employer paid health insurance premiums and the reduction in the cost of government health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. 

The Associated Press reported in September of 2008 that Senator Obama was proposing a National Health Insurance Exchange that would include both private insurance plans and a Medicare-like government run option. Coverage would be guaranteed regardless of health status, and premiums would not vary based on health status either. The campaign estimates the cost of the program at $60 billion annually. The plan requires that parents cover their children, but does not require adults to buy insurance.

-This is a very simple point to debunk. Barrack has claimed that americans pay 15 Billion to insure or aid the uninsured. However, he “new” and “genius” plan of health care reform would cost 60 billion annually! that is 45 Billion more annually. 

These are just a few of what I perceive as incomplete and inaccurate.

5 Reasons why you DO NOT need a Realtor!

From a professional perspective, you could say I am very familiar with the Realtor Association and Real Estate. I also, have had the opportunity to learn what is required to participate successfully in the world of Real Estate. However, I have never been able to agree with the value of a real-estate agent being a “Relator.” The best reason the NAR (National Association of Realtors) gives for the former is found here. These “reasons” are numbered 1-5 and are as follows, 

1. A real estate transaction is complicated. In most cases, buying or selling a home requires disclosure forms, inspection reports, mortgage documents, insurance policies, deeds, and multi-page government-mandated settlement statements. A knowledgeable guide through this complexity can help you avoid delays or costly mistakes.

2. Selling or buying a home is time consuming. Even in a strong market, homes in our area stay on the market for an average of  X days. And it usually takes another 60 days or so for the transaction to close after an offer is accepted.

3. Real estate has its own language. If you don’t know a CMA from a PUD, you can understand why it’s important to work with someone who speaks that language.

4. REALTORS® have done it before. Most people buy and sell only a few homes in a lifetime, usually with quite a few years in between each purchase. And even if you’ve done it before, laws and regulations change. That’s why having an expert on your side is critical.

5. REALTORS® provide objectivity. Since a home often symbolizes family, rest, and security, not just four walls and roof, home selling or buying is often a very emotional undertaking. And for most people, a home is the biggest purchase they’ll every make. Having a concerned, but objective, third party helps you keep focused on both the business and emotional issues most important to you. 

I would like to show all those who read this post that the previous reasons are not very good ones. For example, #1. In number 1, we find a certain explicative statement that intends to intimidate the reader. Its objective is to make the reader not feel qualified or able to close a real-estate transaction. However, there are many sources that are able to help a person close virtually any real-estate transaction with ease. One thing that helps the former is the fact that most -if not all- purchase agreements and similar contracts are all online. Additionally, the method to closing a deal is located on most state’s Department of Commerce or Division of Real-estate web pages. Also there is a valuable source of aid for the average home-buyer that does wish to sell his[er] home, that is a TITLE COMPANY… In fact, if you were to investigate and penetrate the “exclusivity” of what realtors do, you will quickly find that the title company does the majority of the actual sales logistics and paperwork (actually, many Realtors and sales agents don’t even know how to fill out HUDs or any other closing work). 

Moving on to number 2… Selling or buying a home is time consuming. This is something that appeals to the “inconvenience” of time requirements placed upon the buyer or seller of a home. 2’s objective is to dissuade you from trying to do it  yourself because you are so occupied. However, even though selling or buying a home requires time -just as anything does- it is not an all-consuming endeavor. Actually, with the invent of title companies, online-sales brokerages, and the internet, that time can be worth it (especially, if you plan on saving 3-6% )

I don’t even feel like addressing 3. I think that anyone who falls for this one should be hit on the head with a tack hammer, or become a slave and do as you are told. 

Number 4 is almost overly humorous. I agree that if you are attempting to acquire a multi-million dollar property or a huge development/investment, it is probably good that you consult a lawyer and not a Realtor about what the laws are; but, if you are just looking to buy or sell a personal dwelling, investment property, or a piece of land, the resources are there to help you fulfill that.

Number 5 is a joke. The objectivity that a Realtor provides should not matter -[s]he is not buying the home you are. The importance of owning your own home is based upon the collective taste of your family and not the individual Realtor (especially when they want the most expensive home that you can afford; talk about conflict of interest). 

The Realtor Association is attempting to manipulate you, so they can expand the influence that they have over the local agents of the industry -which, in turn, aids them in facilitating their lobbying objectives. Moreover, most agents/Realtors don’t have your best interest at heart, they are more worried -deep down- about the money that you are going to give them. Having said that, I think that one, with some study, could show that the influence incompetent and dishonest Realtors have had on innocent and naive home owners, has contributed to the current situation in our housing market.

If you want to sell your home, put a sign outside. Place it on the internet, send some flyers to local mortgage brokers and banks. Post some information in public areas and on some particular web pages. Also, you can pay some marketing companies and “real-estate magazines” a fee and market your property just as well as a Realtor and not pay the staggering 4-8%!

Is faith an absolute necessity in order to beleve that God exists?

Consider this quote: ¨A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.¨

The pevious quote is the work of Nietzsche, and, as usual, he makes it known what he wants us to know. I dont know if this quote is even that necessary -or even hold any form of truth.  I rarely walk the ground of epistemilogical concepts, but I will make an exception for this one subject. Let us suppose that I beleve or hold some type of idea that is undersupported and completly speculative about X. I assume that X holds properties of which i have no knowledge of. And when asked, ¨why do you feel that X exists and holds P (properties), ¨ I merely respond, ¨I have faith that it does.¨ If thats all faith was, then I agree with Nietzsche. However, having faith and hoping for X  are two diffrent things. Just as the statments_: I feel that X is the case, and I have reason to beleve that X is the… If I have faith about something, there must be a reson for it, but if i have a reason for it then I dont have faith — or at least i dont have faith simpliceter. Now, as are reasons -reguardless if they are self-imposed, or discovered- are established, faith is now impossible for it has been eliminated. So any reason for you beleving that God exists or that X is the case cannot be claimed by faith.

Familial Relativism

I usually do not write about things that I am experiencing (my diary is used for that). However, for the moment I am currently seated in a strange place amid strange people. These people are the many realitives of a girl that I am dating. I noticed that her family is distinct from mine; this observation is obviously not anything except intuitive. Nevertheless, this apparently ‘obvious’ observation demands greater investigation, and even if my girl/ lady friend would not approve of me using her family as a test-subject, I will procceed anyway. I would like to remind you that I am typing this as I sit here - VERY quietly- in a state of observation. I have noticed that every family hold some value that is specific and “relative” to that family. For example, my test-subject holds that a level of open responsivity be actualized in moments of contact or presentatio. This is facinating becuase other families that I am VERY familiar with do not require as a collection such exposure; in seems that such interactions in the test-subject family are developed as a type of convention. However, how are such conventions developed so as to allow such and such a family holds as valuble become relativistic values? I think that David Lewis’ theory of convention comes into play here; I suppose that when a family brings about a sloution to a coordination problem, that solution is then established as a tradition and is then valued as a norm. I think that these norms become such that they are passed down and carried out as necessary to be considered part of the social group of - the family. Nevertheless, I shall add to this post latter.

Is Evil Necessary?

Traviling sucks! I am tired, but can’t sleep. So, what I decided to do is write a quick post on my phone ( so if any spelling is inccorect, then forgive me). As many of you know, I have been deeply involved with the Problem of Evil since the creation of this blog. Many of the post on this blog make reference to this problem. Today, I would like to introduce a very simple post to start things off. The most previous post had much to do with evil and modality. I will merely be adding to it - to some extent.
Many philosophers and proponets of the Problem of Evil (Poe) feel that it is impossible - in light of the obvious inconsistency amid God & Evil- that there is a solution. Why, would they conclude this. Not only is such a conclusion hasty, but false! To demonstrate why consider the folllowing:
1) x –> y
2) x
3) ~y
The previous form is false there is an obvious contradiction present by holding that if X then Y, so by affirming X, y must follow. However, we hold that ~Y is the case -this is false. To make the previous consitent all one needs to do is add or discover some proposition(s) that are able be placed so as to “explain” why ~Y is the case. There are many ways in which this is able to be done, but for our present pourposes, let us concern ourselves with the understanding that we are able to preform such a freat. In the case of POE, we find that God is x and ~x exists. ~ x can be understood as evil. So, how can we calm a situatuion of X^~X? Simply, we could insert some proposition Y. Many philosophers contribute freedom as the proposition. However, the question must be asked: why?! No, valid argument in my opinion has been mad for why freedom is of such amazing value that evil is justified. It seems that even if there were 10* Q of evil is actualized via some free action, the would it not be better for God to eliminate that free action? Any ideas?

BOLIVIA -The Establishment of “Equality” vs. The Search for Freedom

Many of you who read this post may, or may not, know what is currently happening in Bolivia. Bolivia is a small country about three times the size of Montana; it is located in the very center of South America -you can’t miss it. In this country about 70% or so, are indigenous people; the various “types” of indigenous groups vary, but the major are placed into two classes, the Quechua and Aymara. This country has had quite the flamboyant history (like many South American countries). It has dealt with uprisings, revolutions, resistances, constitutional changes, etc… Currently this country faces some crucial decisions. From what I understand, the current president/government is attempting to institute the following changes: 1) Distribute the wealth of the country (mainly the wealth located in the eastern province of Santa Cruzs) 2) bring about political equality 3) attempt to remedy the ethnic tensions 4) nationalize the energy, communication, and general utilities sectors. 4) control the “spread” of “US capitalism.” The previous list is only based on what I know the government is trying to do. Continuing…. the response to these attempts to socialize the nation, the Eastern province of Santa Cruz de la Sierra, has, by way of retort, made the advance to declare autonomy from the central leftist government. Santa Cruz will vote on this autonomy referendum tomorrow (in 2 hr Santa Cruz time), and from what I am able to induct, I wish them well.

The reason why I ‘wish’ Santa Cruz luck is because the attempts of the leftist government and President Evo Morales have, for lack of better vocabulary, erred in their attempts to create what they call, “equality.”

I would like, for the remainder of the post, to examine what that word means, and if it should be established at the cost of freedom and civil rights.

If you were to ever go to Santa Cruz, you would find a beautiful city nestled at the base of the Andes Mountains, and located next to a torrent river, El Rio Pirai. The people there are very kind, humble, industrious, and loving. I have experienced the various elements of this city many time (i have lived there for over 3.5 years and visit often). This city is the most wealthy and progressive of Bolivia, it houses the most industry, agriculture, eduction, and technological advances. Due to the advances that this city has made in the last 60 years, it has become the beacon of rationality; the people there are more educated, more happy, and more successful that any other part of Bolivia. It is undeniable that this type of ‘advancement’ is due, partially, to the economical success of the free market located in that city. However, this ‘market’ is under attack. Evo Morales has attempted to “equalise” the rich elitist of Santa Cruz with the indigenous population (approx. 30% to 70%). The problem with his movement is that he has decided that it is necessary to take some of the economical freedoms away from the people of Santa Cruz, and then give the Indians an increased amount of rights. The question that we now are confronted with is: is this justifiable, or necessary? To better approach this question, let us lay it out as a proposition:

1) To bring about equality one must take right from those who have more and give them to those who have less.

The problem with (1) is how can one person have more rights than another? For the natural law theorist, it follows that (1) is false; people all are endowed with the same rights as others. However, this view for institutionalism, and governmental proponents would feel that if a group of people is discriminated against, then they have less opportunity and thus their rights have been “lessened.” It is not obvious that discrimination limits right, but rather infringes upon them. For example, I have the right to free speech. But in a country where I am a sever minority, I might be threatened to not say certain things…I could say them, but I might be beaten or killed if I do, so I don’t.  But the law in that country says I can say what I like, thus, I haven’t lost that right, it has just been infringed upon. So, Evo’s claim is false. But to be fair, and for the purpose of discussion, let us reformulate his claim so as to make it more proficient:

1A) To bring about equality one must infring upon the rights of the infringers. And free the infringed from the infringers.

So, in (1a) we come to what Evo and his government are attempting to do. They are bringing this about by distributing property of the rich to the poor, they are giving more freedoms to the poor, and also destroying certain capitals that dominate the industry.  Is this right? Should a government dictate who should be equal, and how that should be brought about? Should a government say, “you are poor, so we will give you stuff so you are not poor” and additionally, “you are poor because of those people, so we will take from them and give to you.” This seems to be a type of robin hood government. Evo Morales justifies his movement on the idea that the people of Santa Cruz have “enslaved” the Indians!!! This is preposterous, i have worked for several humanitarian companies and lived amongst the Indians and the people of Santa Cruz. I must say one thing, the Indians are poor, because they choose not to progress. They are “traditionalist” they follow the “traditions” ignorantly of their for fathers. I know Indians or people of Indian decent that are very wealthy because of their choice to be that way. Evo, should not try and fix it by treading upon the rights of the people of Santa Cruz, but rather educate the indigenous population and empower their minds. Santa C. has exercised its FREEDOM to think, to act, to create business, to learn, to work, and to progress. It is sad that the Indians are poor, I hate it! But I notice when i am down there in Bolivia that the only beggars are the poor Indians, and the poor citizens of Santa Cruz (non-indigenous) work and don’t beg. The focus should be to have more freedom via more rational thought…Mr. Morals is utterly missed the mark here.

Thus, I support Santa Cruz. They have what they have as a result of the long won deposit of their efforts and toils.

The Eventual Death of The Problem of Evil

As many of you know, I have been involved in the study and analisis of the Problem of Evil for about a year. I have been assisted by Dr. Ulatowski (formally of Weber State University) in many of my pursuits. I would first like to give thanks to his patients with my arguments (that many times were wrong) and with my lack of clear thought. Nonetheless, I have finally attepted to provide a solution to -the vexing- Problem of Evil. I dont think that the solution that I have formulated is full -proof, at least not yet. However, I am anticipating that very shortly (with some more studying and work) I can eliminate the Problem of Evil. I know that this is a tall order, but I think it is a worthy pursuit. I will be posting l, some possible arguments that I feel are able to aid us in solving it….However, I will not be posting my specific argument untill I have further refined it, sorry.

The first argument that I would like to examin is the famous “Free will argument.” This argument can be unsrstood as:

1) X is free to perform or refrain from a choice Y.

2) X choses to commit Y

3. Y produces evil (E).

4. Thus, E is the result of X choosing Y and not because of God.

This argument is, however, not sufficient to refute the POE (problem of evil). The problem that is the result of inferring that X has some ability that an omnipotent God cant control is to, 1) limit the power of God. 2) demands and argument that god must have reason, or cannot stop X from doing Y; 3) is able to be proven false by counter example/ reductio. The previous 1-3 is exactly what J.L Mackie did in his work “Evil and Omnipotence.” As, we have discussed, Alvin Plantinga attempts to refute some of Makie’s objections, which I believe he does with great skill. However, there is a problem even with Plantinga’s claims…but before going there, let us list Plantinga’s argument.

1) God cant do the logically impossible

2) God cant actualize a possible world that possesses agents who are capable of moral good without making those agents capable of moral evil.

3) Thus, if God creates agent capable of moral good, then he must create those agents capable of moral evil. (1-2).

—So what follows is that if God allows agents to be able to bring about certain moral goods, then it must be the case that those agents must be able to bring about evils….This conditional rest upon the claim that such agents must be free in order to bring about certain moral good, because it is morally praisworthy to bring about a moral good without being compelled. The problem here is that do we have any reason to accept freedom as something that is NECESSARY. Perhaps, God should have just made agents not free, and thus, he would have not had to allow any evil at all….

Is God a Moral Objectivist?

This is a concept that I feel the majority of Christianity would consent to. Especailly, considering that God has comanded X and thus we better follow X or we are going to be in a whole lot of hell. If it is true that God has commanded X and that X must be followed by all mandkind, then I think that there is a problem with our conception of God’s omnibenevolance. While, I do agree that God has encated certain comandments that act as “covering commandments” like: Lying, Adultery, Stealing, etc, I do not agree, however, that ALL of God’s commandments are objectively based. The reason I state this is that if God were to demand that all creatures follow X regardless of their values, cultural teachings, mental limitations, or spiritual preparedness, then it follows that God is not acting benevolently. The reason for thins, is that God–being a benevolent God– would not desire that there exist misunderstanding, incomparability, or problems with keeping his commandments do to any relativistic situations. He would, thus, have to command X according to what the person can understand via an individual basis. 

Divine Command Theory

The Divine Command Theory is the concept that God commands X; therefore, X is morally permissible. This concept brings about a series of question; the most prominent of which is the dialog found in the Euthyphro which states: “Is the pios loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” In monotheistic terms it would be transcribed as follows “Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?” For the theist this presents a dilemmas that requires an explanation of why all moral things are moral and why that would cause God to look upon them with such favor. Conversely, it also requires an explanation of why God would command something that seems to have no moral truth.

The atheist may utilize the previous dilemma as an argument against the theist. This could be done as follows:
1. X is moral.
2. Thus, God must command X.
This causes God’s omnipotence and omniscience to be severely limited. This is due to 1,2 because God could not command Y which is not moral instead of X because he would be commanding something beside what is moral (pious). Thus, his omnipotence is limited to choosing only X and not Y. Furthermore, his omniscience is limited; this is due to the fact that the knowledge that God possesses about moral concepts etc. is limited to the obvious qualities that X or Y hold. Now if one simply responds by saying whatever an omnipotent/omniscient being says is good must surly be good already and must become good due to God’s power making it so. This beings about some further logical problems. For example, one could say that God could then create world A that holds as virtues murder, rape, incest, genocide, hate, racism, and things such as: love, charity, etc are held as vices.

St. Thomas Aquinas stated that the dilemma is false: yes, God commands something because it is good, but the reason it is good is that “good is an essential part of God’s nature”. So goodness is grounded in God’s character and merely expressed in moral commands. Therefore whatever a good God commands will always be good.
I personally think that Aquinas has made a valid point. However, I would like to propose my own solution to the dilemma present in the Euthyphro. It is a follows: If God is omniscient/omni benevolent, then God must know weather X is moral or not moral, and weather X is beneficial or not beneficial to the state of men. I feel that there are certain truths and laws that exist that are eternal and exhibit qualities/properties that make them moral or not. So, if God is characteristically good, then God could only command that which is good. Therefore, that which he commands must exhibit properties that are good. This idea that God commands men to follow that which is good does not make God limited or = to man’s ability to make moral decisions; actually, it demonstrates God’s omniscient qualities because he possesses the ability and goodness to help man know what concept/truth/law possesses the desired properties that improve man’s existence.

Jehova is Christ.

It is commonly considered among many sects that Jehovah, God of the Old Testament, is Christ. However, we find among the many of sects a hand-full (i.e Jehovah Witnesses) that believe Jehovah is the father of Christ. This doctrine is scripturally false.

I do not have sufficient time to post all the scriptures that support my viewpoint. However, I will proceed to list three scriptures/objections that seem to be adequate. We shall proceed beleow:

1. Zacharias 12:10. “And I (Jehovah)  will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced and they shall morn for him, as one morn for his only son. 

    - It is important to realize that Jehovah is speaking about himself in this verse. Now, to further fortify my theory we must now skip to John 19:37. It reads: ” And again another scripture saith, they shall look on him who they pierced“‘

2. Hosea 13:4 “Yet I am the lord thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt have no other god but me: for there is no savior besides me“

- Acts 4:12 “Neither is there salvation in any other : for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”This passage is referring to Christ where as the previous is referring to Jehovah, yet there seems to be a similarity among the two. Now we know that God is not malevolent, thus, God would not want to confuse men. If that is true the these scriptures must be referring to the same personage (i.e Jehovah).

3. Many scriptures in the Old Testament refer to God (Jehovah) as “Alfa and Omega.” That same title appears in the New Testement see: Rev 1: 8, 11 and Rev 22:13.

Freedom

Is it possible that too much freedom can bring about a degree of bondage and oppression? All sentient beings have the ability to freely choose X or Y. However, it appears that if one choses X and X brings about consequence Z, then consequence Z could bring about any possible situation that could positively or negatively affect the acting sentient. The sentient’s choice of Z via the act of choesing X, could cause the sentient to become subject to his choice of Z. An example of this could be staged in the following analogy:

Tim walks down the street and sees a girl playing with a doll outside of a house in his neighborhood. Due to the fact that Tim is financially lacking, and that the girl’s parents are rich, Tim thinks about kidnapping the girl to ask a ransom. (Here Tim has a choice either X -kidnap girl, or Y -Don’t kidnap.) So, Tim decides to act on his urge, so he takes the girl away to his cabin in the mountains. He asks for a ransom, and obviously the police are involved. He is arrested in a grocery store in the city a few days after the initial ransom letter. The girl tried to escape and dies in the forest from falling down a cliff at night. Thus, he is accused for the murder of the girl. He is sentenced to life in jail.

Tim’s actions that were made available via his ability to freely chose, subjected him to bondage and oppression. It seems that freedom is like a double bladed sword, and by that, we can either chose to be or to not be.

john

The Greatest possible Good part 2

Contained within the concepts and doctrinal bounds of mainstream Christianity is the idea of “The Greatest Good” this idea is not a teaching per se, but rather a common belief held by most western religions. The ‘greatest good’ is considered to be heaven –a state of absolute peace, tranquility, and happiness in the presence of God. This paradisiacal state of happiness and peace qualifies as the greatest good due to its immunity to pride and lack of evil situations, and the fact that God the father is present along with our savior Christ would further the happiness and joy that makes ‘heaven’ the ‘greatest good.’ This doctrine seems to have some validity as a possible greatest good, yet it contains a disturbing premise. That premise is inferred by the state of men in heaven. We, as held by almost all-Christian religion, exist in heaven as resurrected spiritual children of God free from all vice, and there, we will be in the act of praising our God. However, can man’s existence as a mere child in God’s presence make heaven the “greatest possible good?” The problem with attempting to answer that question is you must first consider God’s state in heaven, which is a state of omnipotence, omniscience, and omni benevolence. With that consideration you must then consider the state of men, which is a state of limited ability. Men will, according to mainstream Christianity, not be in a state like unto God, and thus, men will not be omnipotent, omniscient, or omni benevolent. If men cannot possess the greater qualities that God the father possesses, then men have a lesser good than God. Thus, heaven, for men, is not the greatest possible good.
Many theologist might attempt to refute this idea with a misconceived notion that men are fallen children of God due to the state of mortality, and that such sin has brought about unworthiness. This unworthiness is done away with by Christ, and due to that, men can only achieve a state of paradisiacal rest and tranquility, and due to there need for a savior they must remain in such a state because it is the best that a man could possibly obtain.
This refutation, apart from being confusing, it ignores an important fact –God’s omni benevolence. If God is omni benevolent, then God desires that men obtain the greatest possible good. God is omni benevolent. God must hold the greatest possible good. Ergo, God must allow men to obtain a state equal to that that he possesses.
To simplify the previous, one could say: God is all loving. Therefore, he wants men to achieve the best possible stuff. God is perfect. Therefore, he has the best possible stuff. If men are to obtain the best possible stuff, then they must obtain what God has.
To conclude, men must one day be equal to God, or at least obtain the qualities and powers that he obtains in order for men to truly obtain a greater good. Furthermore, it seems to bring into question God’s omni benevolence if men cannot obtain what he has. This is because if God wishes that men have not what he has, then God is acting selfish or prideful –making God malevolent.

The Greatest Good Is Not Heaven

I have been thinking about this most of the day, and I have come to the conclusion that heaven (i.e. eternal felicity in the presence of God) is not the greatest good that is attainable for men.
Lets examine why. This would consist of good and evil. Evil is any event that causes pain and suffering to mankind; this pain and suffering is not limited to purely physical pain and suffering, but also spiritual via breaking eternal laws (i.e. commandments) resulting in sin. Good is any situation that brings about happiness and pleasure; good is the result of any positive situation that respects eternal laws and avoids pain / suffering. Having said that, it is important to note that within the limits of good and evil, there exist levels of both. As Pike, J.L Mackie and others have stated, there exist 1st degree evils–1st degree goods, and 2nd degree evils–2dgree goods. Now, if God is absolutely perfect and immutable (i.e. omnipotent, omniscient, and omni benevolent), then God has reached a level of Good absolutely impossible to imagine. If that is true, then since God is wholly-good he would want us to achieve a good equal to him.
However, heaven is not nearly equal to him. In heaven we are merely (according to mainstream Christianity) angels in his presence. Thus, we are inferior. This seems inconstant with God’s characteristics.
So, what is the greater good?
I propose the following
1. If God is wholly good, then God desires that his children obtain the greatest good.
2. The greatest good must be such that God himself possesses it.
3. God possesses a state of perfection.
4. Therefore, God must desire that men obtain a state of perfection.
Thus, we see that a state of happiness with God cannot be a state of absolute good. I would like to point out that if God were to not allow his creations the ability of obtaining this ’state of perfection,’ then god is not wholly good. This is because by withholding such a good, then god is not wholly good, for he is not allowing men to achieve the best possible good.

By Preventing Evil, God Prevents Free Will

Evil is any condition, moral or natural, which consist of situations of pain and suffering that are experience by agents. This world is obviously filled with instances of evil, and many people view evil as incompatible with the existence of an omni benevolent God. Form that view pessimistic statements and thoughts are formed like: “why doesn’t God just stop evil,” “There is obviously too much evil in the world so God cannot exist,” “If God existed he would at least stop murderers,” or the best of all, “God cannot exist because evil exist.” I think that many of these pessimistic saying have some valid truth to those ignoring the goods that are counterparts to every evil event that occurs. It should be understood, whether you believe in God or not, that evil is the outcome of free actions of men. Lets take the idea of free will and attempt to see why the prevention of evil would cause the freedom of men to also be prevented.
If God is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good, then all things that God actualizes or creates must have good intentions, purpose, and be of moral value.
If God is to create a world containing free and able beings, then God must have a morally significant reason for creating such beings.
God has created free and able beings
Thus, the existence of free will must be morally significant.
What is this morally significant reason that God has to allow the existence of free and able agents? Perhaps, God has created free agents to bring about good and wholesome events (moral good). Furthermore, perhaps the moral good that agents bring about is of more value than moral good brought about by force (determined acts). If the previous is true, then the free will that we all possess is of great value, but it is important to point out that along with the freedom to choose we also have the ability to commit moral evils. This is demonstrated by the following example:
Agent X is free and able to choose between options Y and Z.
Y brings about the events Y1 and Y2 that cause evil to agents X1 and X2.
Z brings about events that cause moral good to agents X1 and X2.
Agent x decides to commit Y, however as described above x1 and x2 in some future occurrence are indirectly effected by Y. X never intended to cause evil to X1 or X2, but it occurred because of indirect chain of events.
This example demonstrates that every event that is brought into existence by a decision or initiated action by any free agent there is a possibility of that event to cause moral evil or moral good depending upon the indirect and associated causal chains that are brought about.
This example becomes useful for our investigation into why evil is required in order to have free agents.
Lets imagine again agent X in a world that every time X chooses to initiate option Y he is stopped and brought to chose only Z or not chose anything. What would be the outcome on a world scale? Lets imagine that every time an agent attempts to choose an evil situation or a decision that will eventually result in harming a corresponding agent, he is stopped or unable to even think of initiating such a decision. If this were to occur in any world that God has crated then the agent therein would not be truly free because the agent’s choice to will Y or Z would be limited to Z. And by willing Z the possible aftermath such as “greater goods” that are brought about by repairing effects caused by evils, would be non-existent. Thus God would have created a world where all acts are determined, greater goods limited, the understanding of evil lost, and the ability to improve because of the desire to find secondary goods would be eliminated. Thus, God would have actually inhibited growth, and other goods.
Thus, we see that to remain as a truly good God, along with the existence of free agents, god must allow evil to occur to bring about the various morally ameliorating qualities that evils cause.

The Pessimistic View of Evil

I have been preparing to write an in-depth philosophical work dealing with the problem of evil. Therefore, I have been thinking a great deal about evil, God, and life. I have noticed that the traditional view of the problem of evil is quite pessimistic. Hume, Mackie, and other proponents of the problem of evil always fall back on the claim that there is “too much evil,” “there is more evil than the is good,” or “the quantity of evil experienced is greater the overall good.” I feel that all these responses are, in lack if better words, hasty, and unable to provide a reason for why the problem of evil should be accepted as a problem. I came to this conclusion while walking in perhaps one of the poorest locations imaginable here in Bolivia. Around me were a humble people that have been inflicted by all types of evils such as: pain, sickness, loss of life, hate, governmental oppression, discrimination, hunger, envies, and the lack of resources for basic necessities. However, amongst all those malevolent cases, those people are perhaps the most happy, joyful, accepting, humble, willing, charitable, and loving that I have ever seen or met in my entire life. I then began to make an association or form a dichotomy per se. You see, the evil that these beautiful people have experienced has in some form or another contributed to the obvious good / moral qualities that they possess, and from that I realized that a theodicy that claims that evil is necessary to bring about the greater good is objectively true. My experience also seems to be 100% in agreement with Plantinga’s view of free will; that God cannot bring about moral good without bringing about the existence of moral evil, and that if that is true he cannot logically actualize such a world without the antecedents.

I think that by agreeing with the previous stamennts of the said philosophers we would have to be denying the objective evidence of the ameliorating effects of evil on men.

To conclude it seems that an omniscient an all-loving God knows that the existence of evil proves no impediment for those who overcome it.

Why Natural Evils Part 2

Here is an argument that provides a reason why God would possibly allow the existiance of natural evils.
1. Agent (A) exists in a world governed by natural laws (N), which are necessary for the existence of A.
2. N bring about situations of natural evil (NE)
3. A utilizes free will to discover the only possible solution to overcome or prevent NE.
4. By overcoming or preventingNE, agent learns concept Z.
5. Concept Z has morally significant qualities.
6. Thus, it is necessary that NE exists for Z to be obtained by A.

This seems to be the most tight. However, I would love any possible objections…
Thank you
John

Why Natural Evils Are Necessary

My previous post was more or less a conglomerate of thoughts. I have picked out what my mind sees as the best.

1. Natural evil causes event X.
2. Agent utilizes free will to discover a solution to ovecome or prevent X.
3. By solving X, agent learns concept Z
4. Concept Z has morally significant qualities.
5. Thus X is necessary to the obtainment of Z by Agent.

Explication,
1. Natural evil is any situation in which natural laws cause natural phenomena, which bring about situations of pain and suffering on agents. These situations or “causes” range from a common cold to the complete destruction of a city by a hurricane.
2. Agents are any being that is physically created and able to freely choose a particular coarse of action according to his desires. Common events that are considered evil in the life of said “free agents,” are caused by an agent’s interactions with natural laws. These events that are actualized in the life of agents are also overcome by the ability agents have to think logically and freely decide to formulate thought in order to overcome any evil event caused by natural laws.
3. This premise attempts to show a relation between a situation seen as a natural evil, and the solution provided by a free agent as he attempts to diminish the effects of event X.
Solutions created by agents, many times, provide for the development of certain concepts such as: physical sciences, understanding of natural laws, communication, patients, love, and charity –all of which are beneficial to the happiness of men.
4. Many of the solutions fro natural evils that mankind have developed over the span of his existence, has directly influenced his understanding of the world, ethics, and logical thought.
5. Event X then becomes a necessary cause in the acquiring of morally beneficial qualities and knowledge of the world.

The Benefit of Natrural Evil

I recently posted an argument addressing points from the Freewill Defense by: Alvin Plantinga. I disagreed with his argument that natural evil is caused by the free will of non-human / non-physical beings. The principle claim made by Plantinga is that because of Freewill actions, evil exist, and that God cannot actualize a world without ‘freewill.’ I think that Plantinga has a point about the fact that God cannot actualize a world without the existence of evils, for the reason that it would not be logically possible. I assert that Plantinga’s claim can be associated with the existence of Natural Evil, but not in the way in which he stipulates.

I propose that Natural Evil is necessary and valuable in providing agents to use free will, and not only to be free and exercise such, but, more importantly, to also be involved in improving their sole, mind, and understanding. The improvement of agents would consist of obtaining morally ameliorating values (charity, love, understanding, wisdom, mercy, compassion, rational thought, logic, cooperative relationships, and spiritual understanding and growth) via evil and good experiences. These “values,” of which we shall call them, would logically be of great value to any omni benevolent being; thus, because God is such a being, then God must seek that these values be experienced by his creatures.

Natural evils are defined as: any situation that causes an unsatisfied instinctive desire or natural need, or a situation that causes pain and suffering to an agent(s) via natural phenomena. Natural phenomena consist of any natural occurrence that influences the existence of sentient beings. It is important to note that all natural occurrences are brought about due to the existence of natural laws that cause/influence the events of physical worlds. Thus, natural evils are the result of natural laws being enacted in a physical world. Humans are also participants in a physical world, and due to that, humans are subjugated to physical laws and other natural occurrences.

Natural evils and the physical laws behind them bring about situations that cause humans to learn and create ways to overcome or avoid such situations. For example, let us suppose for a moment that there is a group of humans that had just been created by God and placed on a physical world. We know that this world, from what objective knowledge we have, must be physically composed to support such physical creatures. Lets go further to say that the creation of this group of humans is like unto the creation of humans on our world. Thus, they have been placed in a world with randomly occurring natural phenomena. These humans are also free and able to choose and act according to their desires. After some time these humans begin to desire state X ; thus, they proceed to formulate ideas to achieve desired state X. These acts of formulation bring about situations of logical thought and cooperative relationships in order to realize and secure the attainment of X. Now, lets imagine that there were no natural evils that caused a desire to achieve state X. There would be no formulation of ideas in order to achieve state X. Some skeptics would argue that if God were truly omnipotent then he could create a world that is still physical and provides the same learning opportunity without inflicting evil on humans. I would agree that a thought like that seems beneficial, however, it could not be implemented without obliterating the ability to utilize free will; unless God were to create illusions or manipulate the mind into believing that there are natural evils in order to bring about such. However, we know that if God were to create illusions or manipulate our minds into believing that evils exist, we would not truly be free, and God would also be causing deceptions; which would lead one to question the omni benevolence of God.

To better explain my theory, let me revise all that we have previously covered in the following proof.
1. If situations occur that are adverse (cause pain and suffering) to the happiness of free agents, then free agents will logically find, or attempt to find, a solution to the situation. (Premise)
2. A physical world that is governed by natural laws provides situations that are adverse to the happiness of free agents –i.e. natural evil. (Premise)
3. By overcoming natural adverse situations (Natural evil) men learn and grow.
4. Thus, natural evil provides opportunities for agents to learn and growth (experience, knowledge, spiritual growth etc…) 1-4

Consider the simplified version:
1. Natural evil causes event X
2. Agent utilizes free will to learn and discover a solution to X
3. By solving X agent learns concept Z
4. Thus X is necessary to the obtainment of Z by Agent.

The previous argument demonstrates that when a natural event produces evil or some form of adverse situation, an agent has the opportunity to utilize his free will to overcome such a situation. The fact that the agent is free is of great importance. If the agent were not truly free we would run into the problem of if the agent could choose to learn and overcome any evil event. It seems that the very existence of true free will is dependant upon the occurrences of natural events that seem to provided added situations for the exercise of free will. The important result of using free will in a natural world is that agents are able to learn. Most of this learning is the result of experience with a certain stimuli, but many would say that experience dose not provide us with the ability to learn rationalistic things such as: numbers, logic, etc… That is true we don’t physically experience numbers, however, such thought is caused and obtained by our interaction with the natural world. Thing such as distances have been measured to improve human life, navigation techniques using geometry to guide the ship, time measurements, weights, speeds, and other equations that have improved the life of agents and are at many times because of our need to overcome a situation produced by natural phenomena.

This idea could be expounded upon in the form of a theodicy.

If God is truly omni benevolent then God desires the progress of his creations. God knows that agents that are free and act for themselves are of greater value than agents that do not. Thus, God has established a world, which maximizes the possibilities of progress and growth for his creations. These possibilities provide opportunities of growth that are caused by situations of suffering, for it is necessary that humans improve by: gaining wisdom, knowledge, exhibit virtue, love, have relationships, faith, courage, and charity. By gaining such qualities, humans are able to fulfill the purpose for which God has created them. Once they have done so, they are prepared to exist in a world (heaven) that God has created that requires such qualities. Many would attempt to rebuttal by saying that God, since he is all-powerful, must be able to create creatures that have such qualities, and that could exist with him without ever suffering. This would eliminate the ability for agents to have an understanding of good. If God were to create a world in which agents lived that was free from all vice, pain and suffering then God could not have actualized the possibility for those agents to understand virtue, joy, and happiness. Especially if we are to conclude that the existence of good is only due the existence of evil. To understand both spiritually and mentally the immoral and diabolical we must understand the moral and angelic. God could not logically teach us good unless the antecedent existed. Furthermore, God cannot actualize a world that could teach agents good without evil.

Thus, in conclusion, we find that the existence of natural evil is necessary for the growth and improvement of men.

-John

Is God Truly Omnipotent?

Lets examine this commonly held belief that God is omnipotent, and, by this we know that the majority of the populous would assume that God is omnipotent to the point that all things are possible. The term “all things” would also include illogical things such as: 2+2=5, 6-6+6, and actualize/alter past events. However, can God really actualize the illogical?

I previously posted an argument that addresses Alvin Plantinga’s views on the existence of natural evil. My argument is as follows:

1. If Satan is a spiritual being (not consisting of anything physical), then he has no influence or effect on physical objects.
2. Satan is spiritual.
3. Therefore he has no influence over physical worlds

I have had a number of valid objections, and I can see why. One objection stated “the argument works against God too. For Satan, fill in “God.” Thus, God has no influence over the physical world.” I agree with this objection superficially. However, I feel that there are some very important points that seem to make one believe that it doesn’t apply to God. If we examine some of the attributes of God when compared with Satan we find some very important differences. First, God is a being that is omnipotent, where as Satan is a being impotent and limited. Due to the fact that God is omnipotent then he would have control over a physical world, where as Satan would not.
With that concluded, an objector might state that God (according to my argument) cannot be non-physical and logically have control over this physical world. This objection brings up a number of possible solutions
1. One could state that God is composed of physical and spiritual parts.
2. State that God is omnipotent and has dominion over the physical world because he created it.
3. State that because he is omniscient and omnipotent he uses spiritual means to effect possible changes and occurrence on the physical world.
By taking any one of the following responses one could attempt to formulate a sufficiently sound argument to thwart the previous objection, yet would it be logically possible according to the previous argument?
I feel that even if one were to use the previous argument one still might run the chance of committing a fallacy or dealing with semantics in order to define God, so it would seem that the argument can’t retain it’s validity.
I think that it is possible, but I think that it is much easier to edit the premises of the current argument:

1. If Satan is an impotent spiritual being (not consisting of anything physical), then he has no influence or effect on physical objects.
2. Satan is a impotent spiritual being.
3. Therefore he has not influence over physical worlds

By changing (1) we have created a much tighter conclusion that God can actualize physical worlds being spiritual because he is omnipotent. This is due to the fact that premise 1 refers to only impotent spiritual beings. Therefore, Alvin Plantinga’s view that natural evil is caused by the free acts of the devil and other malevolent spiritual beings is flawed.
John

An Argument Against The Cosmological Argument

To be sincere, I have done very little study on the Cosmological Argument. Thus, I am quite unqualified to refute, in depth, this argument. However, I have given it a few moment’s thought, and I have decided that it seems erroneous to assume the possible of an uncaused cause.
Below, you will see the argument that I feel refutes the cosmological argument.

1. If an uncaused cause is the result of itself, then nothing else could have existed to cause its existence. (premise)
2. If there was nothing in existence, then it is impossible to have the occurrence of a cause.(Premise)
3. An uncaused cause is a cause. (premise)
4. Therefore, an uncaused cause cannot exist. 1-3

It would seem possible that, despite my limited metaphysical knowledge, that if there exist nothing (nothing meaning: no time, energy, or space), then there are no possible causes to bring about an effect. This is supported by the fact that if God is an uncaused cause, as the cosmological argument proves, then God caused himself out of nothing. I say nothing because that is exactly what had to have happened. You see an uncaused cause has to be free of all possible actions of other causes, which includes time, space, and energy. Therefore, with out the existence of any of the previous how is it possible that an uncaused could have caused it self?

Plantinga and Natural Evil

I have been reviewing Alvin Plantinga’s article The Free Will Defense. I must say it is an amazing philosophical work, but when I reviewed his response to the existence of natural evils, I could not agree with his argument on the whole. Plantinga uses an argument presented by St. Augustine that attributes natural evil to actions of non-human creatures. These non-human creatures are obviously evil spirits, but more specifically, the Devil and his angels. Plantinga uses his argument of free will to support St. Augustine’s argument. He doses this by demonstrating that the free actions of non human beings influence natural occurrences, and these “natural occurrences” are aimed at causing men misery. I think that this argument is valid if we can readily show that these evil spirits have control over nature and other phenomena. If we were to approach this argument using scripture, is has very little support. One may be tempted to use the Book of Job as justification that Satan can in fact control nature. However, if we read in chapter 1 and 2 we find that Satan was unable to curse Job with any natural evils unless God allowed it. Thus, it would seem that Satan has no complete or colossal power over nature, especially in the quantity that we experience, without the permission given from God.

If God were to give Satan such permission without a morally sufficient reason for doing so, then God would obviously appear as malevolent. Furthermore, from a theological point of view, the idea that Satan would want to have power over nature seems somewhat unavailing to his principle purpose. Satan is charged with causing men to sin, so to assume that Satan has power over the elements so that men can sin seems inconsistent with him being the source of sin. Sin has to do with humans not obeying God’s commandments, or following the immoral teachings of the adversary.

From a philosophical view we seem to run into a similar problem. The problem of evil exists because of a contradiction between “God is omnipotent and omni-benevolent” and “evil exist”.
Plantinga’s argument supporting Free Will is amazing, and I feel that it satisfies moral evils and the previous contradiction. However, his argument that Satan is the cause of natural evils because of Satan’s free will seems to provide a response, but how successful is it?
Plantinga’s argument is a theodicy; he is assuming that Satan is free to exercise dominion over the natural world. This seems fallacious because of the following reasons:

1. If Satan is a spiritual being (not consisting of anything physical), then he has no influence or effect on physical objects.
2. Satan is spiritual.
3. Therefore he has not influence over physical worlds.

If the previous is true, then the idea that Satan causes natural evils is false. This is because Satan is a being commonly accepted as a spirit living on this earth, yet in a separate dimension. Now to avoid arguing time and space held dimensions, we shall say that this dimensions in which Satan lives, is purely a spiritual dimension (This is assuming that Satan is not omnipotent, for if he were omnipotent then he would logically have control over the natural world). A spiritual dimension would consist of maxims that are only acted upon spiritually. This is to say that Satan is free to act and do as a sentient being only according to things that are spiritually related. The physical world consist of elements, atoms, and actions that are not necessarily spiritual, thus, it would seem that Satan would not have any control over the natural world.
It dose, however, provide some very interesting insight about the possibility of men, who are spiritual and physical creatures (from a theology view) could be influenced by a evil spirit that is acting freely according to spiritual (non physical) things. Thus, we see that Plantingas’s support of St. Augustine’s argument is not one hundred percent conclusive.

Homosexuality

I. If a species is to survive, then the species must reproduce.
2. In order to survive (naturally) certain biological means must be instituted.
3. Biological means that are necessary for reproduction in humans consist of male and female counterparts.
4. Thus, reproduction must involve sexual relations between males and females.
5. Therefore, any other relationships involving situations other than those consisting of male and females, is biologically unnecessary to the survival to the species.