Real Talk with God

    The following is a dramatized retelling of a prayer I prayed today. It started with a conversation about the weather, and began more more philosophical as time passed. I don't know what it is, but all of my conversations tend to get deeper and more intense as they drag on. Anyways, enjoy.

***

    Me: "Hey God, what's up? So I know I haven't really been in constant communication with you, and I'm sorry about that. I just get so busy, you know? It just sorta slips my mind..."

    God: "You know I've heard that one before literally trillions of times, right? But you know what, it's all forgiven. What'd you need?"

    Me: "What makes You think I need anything? I could just be trying to chat."

    God: "I've known all things since before time and space existed, remember?"

    Me: "Riiiiiiiiight...sorry. So, yeah, could You do something about that then?"

    God: "About what?"

    Me: "You know. You just said that You know!"

    God: "Yeah, but I like to hear you say it. What kind of a relationship would we have if you never ask Me for anything and just expect Me to make everything magically wonderful all the time? I'm an spaceless, timeless, all powerful, all knowing, unembodied consciousness, not you maid."

    Me: "Sorry, sorry. Well, it's just that it's really ridiculously hot and humid today, and I'm about to start a seven hour shift, and I see that there's some clouds up there, and I was wondering if You could make it rain until the evening so that I can stay cool."

    God: "I'll see what I can do."

    Me: "Thank you God! You truly are a loving and merciful Father."

    A few minutes later, it began to rain. It was still fairly hot outside, but the water was cool and refreshing to the touch. I smiled and went back to work, foolishly thinking I wouldn't be needing to talk with God anymore that day.

HALF AN HOUR LATER

    Me: "Hey God! What's Your problem? You stopped the rain, and now the sun is out from behind the clouds, and it's even hotter and more humid that before! It's so humid I'm going to have to take a shower to dry off! This is ridiculous!"

    God: "What's My problem? Excuse Me if I don't intervene in the weather schedule just because one person is going to have a more uncomfortable day than usual. There's hundreds of thousands of other humans experiencing the exact same weather as you right now, and your one of the whiniest one at the moment. Don't take it personally."

    Me: "Don't take it personally? If You have the power to change something, and You don't, that means You caused it!"

    God: "I'm not sure I follow your logic. Your sounding like an atheist, saying, 'If God exists, then he is responsible for all the pain and suffering in the world.' You know that there are starving children in Africa, right?"

    Me: "Yeah, obviously. But..."

    God: "Don't interrupt. You are capable of giving one of them all of the money you make at this job, right? Of course you are. There's lots of ways you could do that. You could save a dozen lives with the money you've made this month. But you don't, do you? Does that mean you're killing them?"

    Me: "No. You're right. I'm sorry."

    God: "All is forgiven. My plans are not your plans. My rain schedule may not be convenient or pleasing to you, but you're still my beloved child and things will work out."

    I took that to heart, and let that be an uplifting thought to motivate me. The motivation lasted about an hour. Then I started complaining again.

    Me: "God, come on! I know I have no right to ask You this, but could You pleeeeeeeeeeease lower the temperature just a tad? I'm dying out here!"

    God: "Go hard or go home."

    Me: "I'm serious! I thought You never gave anyone more than they can handle."

    God: "Who told you that?"

    Me: "People..."

    God: "Well, people are wrong. I've been known to, on occasion, let people fall into situations that they cannot hope to get a handle on. But through it all I remain with them, and I guide them out. I place people in their lives that help them through it. It's all to bring Me glory."

    Me: "You do sort of have a flair for the dramatic, don't You?"

    God: "It's just who I Am. And besides, you can totally handle a bit of humidity."

    Me: "I suppose. But again, and I'm sorry if I'm sounding like a broken record here-"

    God: "It's fine. I've got all day."

    Me: "-what if I couldn't? What if the weather was so unbearably hot that I just passed out, right in the parking lot, and nobody found me, and I died? Wouldn't that be Your fault? I mean, I begged You to cool it down out there, and you didn't. That's the moral equivalent of standing over a man dying of thirst with a full water bottle, having him beg You for water, and not giving him any."

    God: "Okay, first off, you aren't going to die. Believe Me. I know things. Suck it up. Second, your analogy is flawed, because you have ready access to a drinking fountain. If you died out there in the parking lot it would be the moral equivalent of a Me standing over a man dying of thirst holding a full water bottle, but he is lying mere inches from a deep pool of clean, fresh water. I could give him water, but I don't have to. If he dies, it's his own stupid fault. 

    

    "See, people are always blaming Me for things that could have been avoided by them. Sure, I could have stopped them, but that doesn't mean I should have or needed to."

    Me: "But if You're truly a benevolent and loving creator, wouldn't you hate to see us suffering and stop it? Why not just stop evil all together?"

    God: "I intend to, but not yet. I know when that will happen, but not even Jesus himself knows. It's My little secret. If there is nothing wrong in the world, why would people need Me? They wouldn't need saving, and I love getting to save people. It's kind of a personal hobby of Mine."

    Me: "So basically You allow suffering to exist because you like saving people? So your like a super villain, who causes destruction just so he can swoop in and save people and feel like a hero? That's messed up."

    God: "That's insulting. Remember who you're talking to here. Remember, there's also the issue of free will. I gave Adam and Eve free will, just like everyone else, and the consequences of that are not to be altered. Am I happy about all the suffering and pain and death and destruction? No, of course not. I'm making the best of a bad situation here."

    Me: "Okay, I get that. But obviously there's stuff that you could make better without, you know, choosing how someone's life works out."

    God: "Now how do you know that? Do you have an eternal and transcendent view of all of history, from the great events to the hum-drum of each individual life? Can you instinctively comprehend how every single action made, both by man and by nature, throughout the history of the universe, effects every other person and object in the time-space continuum?"

    Me: "Well..."

    God: "I thought not. Now go push carts. You don't have the brainpower to dedicate to both doing physical activity and having theological debates with the Most High. You're far too exhausted for that!"

    Me: "Which I still think is Your fault."

    God: "You can think whatever you like, that doesn't make it true. Oh, and by the way, this would make for a decent blog post. You're always complaining about how you never feel inspired to write anything. I just placed a solid gold post concept straight into your cranium. I'll be wanting a royalty off of all the revenue it's sure to pull in. How does ten percent sound?"

    Me: "Yeah, I love You too. There's no need to be sarcastic with me."

    God: "Go push carts."

Break Time Contemplations: The Beauty of the Sunset

    I work in an area of the city where there are no hills or tall buildings or tall trees for miles around, so I have a wonderful view of the sky. Every time I close, I spend my last ten minute break outside watching the sun set.

    A few evenings ago, the sky was particularly gorgeous. Betwixt two massive purple-grey clouds, there was a chunk of orange sky, with tiny, fluffy clouds that were different shades of yellow. In either direction, the massive dark clouds reminded me that night was coming, but if I focused on the bright area, I couldn't help but think of those people thousands of miles from me who were seeing the same sight early in the morning. At times, it looked as if God had just thrown some water-color paint at a canvas and said, "That looks good. I'll keep it."

    It was so freaking beautiful! Beautiful things put me in a contemplative mood. So I got to thinking: What makes something beautiful?

    Is anything objectively beautiful? Does anything objectively have worth? No. For something to be beautiful, someone must be declare it beautiful.

    Basically, beauty requires recognition. So, if no sentient life existed to see that sublime setting sun, then it would not, in fact, be sublime, would it? It would simply be one of the trillions of natural occurrences or formations that exist every day in our galaxy that have the potential to be beautiful, but go unseen.

    Or do they? If there is no God, then the unobserved universe is not truly beautiful. It is just a collection of atoms that has coalesced in various patterns. Whoop dee doo.

    And don't give me any of that, "The fact that it did that on it's own makes it more beautiful!" crap. The unobserved parts of the universe are not beautiful if they have not been observed. The insignificant sliver of space-time that we have experienced from afar may often times look pretty, but less than 100 years ago, those massive swirling nebulae and massive collection of stars and planets called galaxies would have gone unseen.

    Now, are stars beautiful as viewed from Earth? Yes. Leaving the city and staring at the night sky is mesmerizing for me. But the twinkles in the sky do not even come close to what the celestial bodies really look like.

   So, without someone to observe it all, the vastness of the cosmos is just stuff, with no inherent beauty to it. And that's sad. BUT, I don't think that any single part of the universe is unobserved. It was brought into existence in intricate detail by a God who loves to create. He made it, and He made it, and me made it beautifully.

    And because He thought it was so awesome that it just had to be shared, He made us. He wanted us to learn and be able to constantly find new things to wonder at, so He didn't just give us the tools to go explore the universe right off the bat.

    Instead, He gave us beautiful things to marvel at right here on Earth. The Grand Canyon. The Cliffs of Moher. The ocean. The forests. A lover. A newborn baby. The night sky. The sunset.

    I firmly believe that the universe will be seen in it's entirety. For me, that's what I want heaven to be. The same vast expanse of space, but literally infinite, and a spaceship. And pizzas. God will say, "Go out. Look at all of the beautiful things I made for you to marvel at. And if you want me to explain something, I'll be here to help you out. Have fun in My creation."

    Until then, I'll settle for the sunsets.

image: me (this is from Africa, not Minnesota)

***

    I thought all that, and then looked at the time, and raced back inside. I clocked in two minutes late from my break, but no one noticed. Oh well. It was a really nice sunset.

What To Do If You're Secretly A Jerk

    

    Forward, photos, captions, and blog by Chris Hickey. Actual article by the brilliant and lovely Kyleen Russell. 

***

    Do you ever think condescending thoughts about people when they're trying their hardest at something? Do you assume mental superiority over someone because of what they wear, listen to, or do for fun? Do you continually find yourself wishing people would just shut up and do it your (clearly superior) way? If you've answered yes to any or all of these questions, than you, dear reader, are probably an asshole jerk.

    Just kidding. What it really means is that you are a sinful human being (or, if you're not religious, it just means you're human and therefore not perfect), and at least you're keeping it to yourself. I hope.

                                                                                                image: timberry.bplans.com

"I AM BETTER THAN ALL OF YOU! WEIRDOS"

"..."
"I meant, 'You're all really unique in ways that are different than me, and I appreciate that about all of you.'"

    But how do we change, or at least control, these negative thoughts and emotions? How do we stop being secretly horrible people? Or, if we can't and a bad thought slips out for everyone to hear, what can disguise our obviously abhorrent inner attitude?

    I have no idea. Originally, I wrote a list of silly, obviously fake tips on how to be a less horrible person, concluding with the message, "Don't try to fake it; just focus on being better.". However, after reading and rereading what Kyleen wrote, I decided it would be better for her chunk of our coauthored masterpiece to be the main focus, because not only is it wonderfully written, but it also takes a much more contemplative approach to the topic of our inner demons of pride and vulgar frames of mind.

    So, without further ado...

***

    Imagine if your thoughts were amplified for the world to hear.

    How majorly would that suck, right? Oh, how we fear transparency.

    We scramble through the labyrinth that is social tact, pining to appear likable and nice—but let’s face it. Half the time, we say nice things while actually thinking rude, degrading thoughts.

    Externally, you could be the sweetest, most gracious person on the planet, but explore the inner neighborhood of your body, locate the address of your soul and ring the doorbell—you’ll probably be greeted by a chauvinistic smart-ass. Why? Because even the “nicest” people are often mean and rude…at least in the privacy of their head. Even Mother Teresa was probably a bitch.

                                                                                                            image: time.com

Pharisee.

    Wait, what?

    It boils down to human nature; we have rudeness ingrained in our DNA. However, I am in no way condoning this. It would be absurd to nonchalantly accept and be content with all terrible things simply because they’re inherently human. That’s such a cop-out. Like, “Mass genocide and female-genital-mutilation and rape and nuclear wars really suck. But, hey, it’s human nature! We can’t do anything about it. Oh well!”

    But anyways, what is the point of saying something if our thoughts don’t truly align with it? We have grown complacent with our external, insincere kindness and internal rudeness.

    How many times do we give a hollow compliment, simply in hopes of being perceived as a kind person?

    External: “Oh my gosh, you look so great! Where did you get that outfit? It’s terrific!”

    Internal: “Oh my god, is Hellen Keller your stylist? I would never wear that in a million years.

 
    Giving dishonest compliments for the sake of appearing “nice” is…well, not nice.

 
    (And it’s not better to say the offensive thing you’re thinking just for honesty’s sake. The goal is to transform your offensive thought into a genuinely kind thought.)

                                                                                                       image: fit.webmd.com

"Hey dweeb! I like your sweater! It counteracts your lameness!"

Eh...good try.

    How often do we feign concern/sympathy for people and their struggles—simply scraping together some cliché advice and perhaps adding “I’ll totally be praying for you” for good measure—when REALLY we think, “Well, it’s not my fault they’re in this mess. Maybe if they weren't such a retarded crackhead whore they wouldn't have so many issues. Besides, I can’t really do anything to help” and then fail to ACTUALLY pray for them?

    So why do we pretend to be kind? How can we be GENUINE? How can we say loving things and actually mean them sans any hidden rude thoughts?

    Or does the inherent hypocrisy, rudeness, and passive-aggression of mankind conquer everyone—even the people who are seemingly sweet and sincere? Is there a way to synchronize one’s thoughts and words?

                                                                                       image: wannabehacks.co.uk

 
    For people who don’t possess the power of the Holy Spirit, probably not. They can try and try and try and try (times infinity) to overcome their corrupt mind, but they will fail. They can gargle the mantra: “I will not think bad thoughts. I will not think bad thoughts” in their mouths forever, but they will fail.

    It cannot be accomplished by human strength. However, if we DO know the Holy Spirit, there is a solution; there is hope. Only through the Holy Spirit’s power can we genuinely be kind and rid ourselves of offensive, hypocritical thoughts.

    The Bible tells us to take every thought captive: “We break down every thought and proud thing that puts itself up against the wisdom of God. We take hold of every thought and make it obey Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10: 5 NLV)

    The Bible commands us to think on things that are true, right, and pure. (Philippians 4:8)

    The Bible commands us to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. (Romans 12: 1)

    So, I am not writing this to encourage distrust of people who compliment you or listen to your problems. That’s not the point. There are plenty of people who daily, moment-by-moment, ask the Holy Spirit to purify their thoughts and, as a result of that, actually mean the kind things they say. I just want to be one of those people, and you probably do too. Please. Understand that I am NOT promoting cynicism.

    I am simply discussing this because I know for a fact everyone struggles with it, and I want to remind/challenge people to surrender their thoughts to God. The mind is so freaking important.

    Basically, hypocrisy blows.

 
    Perhaps we should try to be genuinely kind.

                                                                                                                              image: farm5.staticflickr.com

Or, if that's too hard, you can always just live as a nomad. If there's no people around, how can you be mean to anyone?
Oh, who am I kidding. You're human. You'll find a way.

What's the Deal With Mormons, Anyway?

    My goal with this article is not to insult Mormonism, but to show why I would never believe it, and why maybe - just maybe - Christianity is preferable.

***

    

    Are Mormons Christians? They say they are! So why shouldn't they be? They believe in Jesus, and that he  is the son of God, and that he died for our sins...and that he came to North America after he was resurrected? What? 

                                       image: theflagpole.com

It looked exactly like this.

    Mormons are people. Usually, they are wonderful people. They are kind, loving, and according to their commercials, they do many things that other humans do like art and ride bikes to work and tell jokes. One of my very favorite musicians of all time is a Mormon. The United States almost had a Mormon President! 

    The one thing that I've yet to hear a Mormon admit in any one of their public appearances or commercials is that they are aware of and accept the many contradictions between their core beliefs and history. 

     The New Testament is the most historically reliable collection of ancient texts that exists. It contains hundreds, possibly thousands verified eyewitness accounts of the events it describes. It is all written by either first or second generation storytellers and shows no evidence of legendary development, and because it is written so early, it is nearly inconceivable that any legendary development could have occurred. It contains numerous references to historically known people and places, and there are numerous other ancient works which confirm the existence of the people and places within (there are just as many secular ancient authors who reference Jesus as there are secular ancient authors who mention Tiberius Caesar, the Roman Emperor at the time of Jesus).

    Also, we have thousands of fragments that add up to many whole New Testaments that date back to within a few hundred years of the original manuscripts. These fragments come from multiple places across the Middle East (one of the earliest writings was found in Egypt). They have all been copied with immense precision, with almost no errors to be found anywhere, including things like spelling and punctuation. This is very important, because we know the Bible exists.

                                                                                                              image: seanmcdaniel100.wordpress.com

    The Book of Mormon is said to have been translated from Revised Egyptian (a language that shows no evidence of having ever existed) by one man, Joseph Smith. He is said to have found it on some golden plates in a hill near his home in New York after being led to them by the angel Moroni (who took them back to heaven with him when Joseph was done translating, because of course he did). There were exactly 11 witnesses that said that the plates existed, the Three Witnesses and the Eight Witnesses (all of the first three took back their affirmation during Joseph's lifetime, although two did claim to go back to Mormonism before they died). There are no outside sources, or archaeological evidence, to confirm any of the people or places in the Book of Mormon that are not from the Bible. 

    Not to mention the numerous and somewhat massive incongruities between the Bible and the Book of Mormon. The style of writing is much more similar to Renaissance or even 18th/19th century literature. It references animals and technologies that did not exist in America at the time. Even though most in the LDS church would view the Book of Mormon as a history of the Native Americans, all genetic evidence points to most Native American peoples having originated somewhere in Russia, not the Middle East. 

                                                                   image: twincities.com

But look at how nice and well dressed he is! Surely he speaks truth!

    I've tried to read the Book of Mormon multiple times, and it always give me a headache. Literally. I actually get headaches from reading it. It's like a bad fan fiction of the Bible! Everything is kinda similar, but it's written so horribly that it is clear to me that God would not let it be his representation of Himself to humanity.

    I don't believe the Bible because I'm a Christian; I'm a Christian because I believe the Bible. That's the key difference between blindly following and intrinsically understanding. If anyone can show me a way to reconcile the incongruities between the two texts, then give me a reason to believe that the Book of Mormon is necessary as apposed to just believing the Bible, and show me historical evidence for the narrative told in the Book of Mormon, then they will be the person who has a chance of converting me to their religion. 

                                                                   image: twincities.com

And they won't get to me through this guy.

    And yes, Mormonism IS a different religion. There is no getting around that. Mormonism has many doctrinal differences that set it apart, such as...

    - They reject the Holy Trinity; God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are three separate "spirit beings" who are "one in purpose".

    

    - They believe we were all once "spirit beings", and that when we die we go to the spirit world until the Resurrection, where we will be reunited with our bodies.

    - They believe that all receive a second chance after death, during a period of  "learning and preparation", and that even most people do not go to Hell forever, but only for a short time.

    - They believe in Baptism of the dead (some 300,000 Holocaust victims were baptized into Mormonism before a public outcry from the Jewish community put a stop to it).

    - They deny original sin.

    - They believe God has a physical body, as do all spirit beings.

    ...and many more. Put quite simply, Mormonism is an offshoot of Christianity, much in the same way Christianity was an offshoot of Judaism. However, one main difference in the way they spread is that Christianity spread because of persecution, and Mormonism fled because of persecution. 

    The early Mormons removed themselves from society, and when Joseph Smith was killed by a militia in Illinois, the small group of believers elected Brigham Young as their leader, and he led them to Utah, where they grew on their own for some time before moving out and preaching their gospel.

                                                                                       image: whitworthfamily.org

Also, this. 

    The early Christians boldly preached to anyone and everyone who would listen, and even though they were killed by the hundreds, their numbers increased exponentially. Thousands were killed or tortured for their faith just today, yet Christianity is spreading fastest in countries where it is dangerous to be a Christian. 

    I'm not intending to make Mormons sound cowardly, I'm simply making a comparison. And you have to wonder: Why would Christianity spread in the face of persecution, unless it was true? 

    No one will die for a lie that he knows to be a lie. Joseph Smith died jumping out of a window, trying to escape his murderers. If he was so sure of his destiny, as the Christian martyrs were and are, then why not face his assailants with pride and hope?

    Yes, there are many LDS martyrs of recent years. There are also thousands of radical Muslim martyrs of late as well. While no one will die for a lie that he knows is a lie, one might die for a lie he believes to be the truth. This is the crucial difference. Just because some religion has martyrs doesn't mean it's true; it just means that they were made to believe it.

    Obviously, a bunch of people think Mormonism is true. There are nearly 15 million Mormons in the world today, and that number is quickly growing. How are they converting so many, if there are this many things apparently wrong with the belief? 

                                                           image: ldsliving.com

Possibly through their nefarious Mormon cookies.

    I'll tell you how: Miscommunication. Many Mormons think they are Christian because they don't know about these things. They become Mormons because they are looking for hope and a knowledge of the nature of God, and some Mormon missionary just gives them the bare bones of their beliefs. 

    The missionary probably doesn't even mention all the weirder stuff like the temple undergarments or the idea that we're all spirits but don't remember it (because that sounds really similar to Scientology). Essentially, they preach them the Christian Gospel, which is a large part of what Mormon beliefs are based off of. As soon as they decide they want to be Mormon, they are repeatedly told that they are actually Christians, but that other Christians don't think that they're Christians, and that counts as persecution, which is a good thing. 

    Or something.

    Honestly, I'm not sure. That's just my theory. All I do know is that if Mormonism were more believable than Christianity, I'd be a Mormon. I'd say the same about Islam. Or Atheism. Or any other religion. I am a Christian because of evidence and logic.

    In my opinion, Mormonism has neither of those things.

I really love this video. And it's relevant (if not somewhat offensive).

A Crash Course in Christian Apologetics Part 1: The Universe, Infinity, and You

    Before I start, I'd like to give a shout out to two men who are inspirations to me. William Lane Craig has authored many books, but one in particular, "On Guard", has inspired me to write this series. Practically everything I'm going to write about is covered in much greater detail in "On Guard", which is probably the single greatest tool a modern Christian apologist can utilize for the defense of his faith. So thank you, Bill Craig, for making this possible. He has a website at http://www.reasonablefaith.org/. You should check it out.

                                                  image: reasonablefaith.org

Also, you should check out his winning smile. 

    The other man is one I know personally, and is one of the wisest, wittiest, and most wonderful men I know. He's been a guide to me for the better part of three years, and is a man I'm proud to call my friend. I choose not to name him because right now I haven't asked his permission, but he knows who he is. He was one of my teachers at my high school, Concordia Academy. He became aware of my interest in apologetics, and gave me a new copy of "On Guard", which I proceeded to devour (not literally) and I am much the wiser for having done so. So thank you.
   

***

    What is apologetics? Why should I, a Christian, apologize for my faith? That seems really stupid and somewhat hypocritical, does it not? If I need to apologize for my faith, why should I believe it in the first place. Apologizing implies you believe a wrong has been committed, doesn't it?

    Well, although Christians should apologize for some folks who claim to be Christian (*cough* WBC!!! *cough cough*), we should not apologize in the sense of saying, "Sorry that I'm a Christian. I know it's not politically correct to acknowledge my faith, but I'm supposed to now and again, so I'm sorry."

    That's bull. Be PROUD of your faith. Stand up for it. Preach it everywhere, because you are commanded to by God.

    The term "apologitics" that I speak of actually comes closer to the original meaning of the Greek word apologia than the the way the word "apologize" is used in today's vernacular. It means "Defense", as in a court of law. Apologetics is, put simply, the defense of a belief.

    Alright, so this is where the actual apologizing part begins. Fasten your seat belts, you're in for a potentially mind numbing learning experience. I've discovered that people are either fascinated by these topics or bored by them. So, without further ado, here it goes. My first real attempt at defending the Christian faith. Oh boy.

    The Universe: Why, and how, is it here?
 
    The Universe exists. This is a fact that we must all accept. Sure, you can say that the universe is a dream we all share, and that when we wake up, we'll die. Or you could stop taking LSD and start thinking rationally.

    You might say, "How can you know that for sure? There is no real truth, after all, truth is relative!" To you I say, with no small amount of exasperation, "Is that true?"

                                                              Image: My camera

This is Mr. Bugs. His brain is working better than yours, and it is literally non-existent. 

    For you to accept any of the arguments I'm going to put forth, you must first be a rational, logically thinking person. The argument I will present will be in propositional form, or modus tollens,  that is to say that they will be a series of premises followed by a conclusion that, if the premises are proven true, must itself be true as well.

     My main argument is known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I put it in italics so you would pay attention to it. It is incredibly simple, easy to follow and understand, and is therefore quite popular. It goes like this:

     1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
     2. The universe began to exist.
     3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

    I will give evidence to support both premise 1 and premise 2, and if I am successful, than logically, the conclusion, or premise 3, must be true. Also, I will add on an additional argument to the Kalam, which I call The Extended Implications of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. 

                                                              Image: theosophical.wordpress.com

I know, I know. It's not exactly fine poetry.
Stop looking at me like that.

    (I am NOT a professional philosopher, nor am I in any way a master in the school of logic, so it may not be academically sound, but it makes sense to me. Plus, this is not necessarily an academic writing. It's a blog post by a teenager with in interest in philosophy. Cut me some slack.)

    My argument goes something like this:

     1. Time, Space, and a finite amount of energy (or power) are features of the universe.
     2. The universe has a cause.
     3. All causes transcend their effect.
     4. Therefore, the cause of the universe must transcend Time, Space, and have an infinite amount of energy, i.e. be all powerful.

    Read one after another, the premises of the Kalam argument and my own follow in this order:

     1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
     2. The universe began to exist.
     3. Time, Space, and a finite amount of energy (or power) are all features of this universe.
     4. Given premise 1 and 2, the universe has a cause.
     5. All causes transcend their effect.
     6. Given premises 3 and 5, the cause stated in premise 4 must transcend Time, Space, and have an infinite amount of energy, i.e.be all powerful.

    You see? Simple stuff.

    Defense of the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument: An argument from self-evidentiality  

    Ex nihilo nihil fit. Nothing comes from nothing.

    The first premise actually is simple stuff. It seems so unbelievably obvious, yet there are those who would deny it. I call these people "irrationals". They are often very nice people, even sometimes very smart people, but this one belief makes them seem slightly crazy to everyone they know who grasps basic logic.

    Try to imagine nothing. You can't, because nothing is literally no thing. Simply by imagining anything at all, you've imagined something. The closest you could probably come to is a vacuum, and a vacuum is not nothing.

Pictured: Not nothing. 

    So, since nothingness has no attributes with which to create, we must therefore assume nothing can come from "it", if we can even call nothingness an it. I doubt very much that anyone who is actually in a search for the truth about the universe will disagree with the apparent self-evidentiality of premise one. If you do, all bets are off.

    Defense of the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument: The defense from infinity, and the defense from the Big Bang

    I'm going to give only 2 defenses for premise 2. The first one is kinda mathy, and the second one is kinda sciencey. Both should be enough, in and of themselves, to prove that the universe began to exist at some point.

    My first argument is the argument from infinity. I've found a way to word it in modus tollens, so I will, because I LOVE this argument layout. It is simplicity itself, yet so potent for proposing ideas. Anyway...

     1. Actually infinite constructs are impossible in reality
     2. The universe is a construct that exists in reality
     3. Therefore, the universe cannot be infinite

    Understanding premise one of this defense requires an understanding of the difference between potential infinity and actual infinity. And, when it comes down to it, the difference is one of brackets. A potentially infinite sequence would be this: 1, 2, 3, 4,...

    That sequence is infinite, because there is no real end to how for you could go. You can take the highest number you can think of, add 1, and boom! An even higher number comes into existence. You can do that to infinity.

    Conversely, you can remove any one of those numbers from anywhere on the list, and it will still be infinite. Say you remove the number 164,284,645,347,343,782. You still have an infinity of other numbers in the list.You could remove every even number from the list, from two onward, and still have an infinite amount of odd numbers.

    That's all cool stuff as a hypothetical practice, but as an actual, physical reality, infinity is obviously impossible. Take those same numbers, and place them in a set {1, 2, 3, 4,...}. This set is impossible. Why? Because we have just shown that the sequence 1, 2, 3, 4,.... goes on forever, and therefore cannot be contained in a set. It is an actual impossibility to place a second bracket on the end, because the end cannot exist.

    Placing bookends on any infinite set removes its infinite status. Now imagine those brackets as the constraints of time or matter. The observable universe has an estimated 10 to the 80th atoms. Remove one atom, and how many do you have? You have 10 to the 80th minus one. No matter how many atoms you have, if you subtract from that number, you will have less than before.

    "But matter cannot be created or destroyed, so your example is invalid!" Fine. I'll use a classical example to prove the logical incoherency of actual infinity. It's a classic thought experiment called Hilbert's Hotel, developed by David Hilbert, the German mathematician.

    Imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, and every one is full. Someone comes to the front desk and says, "Hey, I'd like to rent a room for the night." The man at the desk says, "Actually, we're full. But if you wait a moment, I can free up a spot for you. I'll let you move into room one, and have everyone else move one room over."

                                                                                image: englishcentral.com

Yes? No, wait...yes. NO! Is this a trick question? 

    You could conceivably do this even when adding another infinite number of guests. No, I'm serious. Hear me out. If the people in room two move to room four, and the people in room three move to room six, and the people in four move to room eight, and so on into infinity, then every guest would be in an even numbered room, leaving an infinite number of odd rooms for the new group of infinite guests to move into. 

    So far, it seems fine, right? As confusing as it is, it all makes a certain kind of sense. Until everyone accept the people in rooms one and two move out. Then you have subtracted infinity from infinity and gotten two. In case you were wondering, THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE! If a mathematician tried to subtract two identical quantities and come up with nonidentical results, he'd simply be wrong. Not because of some arbitrary rules imposed by "the man", but because that's how the universe works.

    If infinity is impossible in actuality, then that means time cannot be infinite. Time is an actual thing. It must have started somewhere. After all, if the universe began at a time infinitely in the past, we wouldn't be in the time we are currently in. Why? Well, we wouldn't be here yet because there would still be an infinite amount of time between the past and the present. 

    Besides, we have solid scientific evidence that all of space and time began with a singularity somewhere around 13.7 billion years ago. There's cosmic background radiation, the cosmic red-shift in stars, and then there is the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. 

    This last theorem comes up a lot when discussing the idea of a finite past. I looked it up; most of it is beyond me. However, in essence what it says is that ANY universe (or collection of universes for those of you who hold to M-Theory or the many worlds hypothesis) that is expanding must have a finite past. 

    (Oh, and by the way, the concept of space expanding from the Big Bang is definitely more complicated than it sounds. Space did not expand outward into nothingness. Instead, there was nothing, and then there was everything, and then everything itself expanded itself. Think of galaxies and all other stuff in space as little dots on the outside of an expanding balloon. They will appear to be moving apart, when in fact it is the area around them expanding...)

Sorry. 

    The implications of the funny sounding theorem from before is that no matter what, the universe had a beginning. That is, given it's correct. It's a highly contested and controversial theorem, but the same could be said about literally every single theory put forth in an attempt to explain the origins of the universe. 

    Which is why, as I wind up these arguments, I'd ask you to do more research into these topics yourself. All I've done here is present the best evidence I have found for the argument for existence that seems to make the most sense. It's up to you to decide for yourself where you think the truth lies. 

    But remember, there is only ONE truth...you either know it or you know a lie. Truth is constant, how we interpret it is subjective.

    Summary: Premise One and Premise Two are valid...

    ....so therefore, the universe had a cause.

    My own individual points seem to be as self evident as premise one. If our universe does in fact have a cause, this cause must have qualities that transcend those of the universe. If this were not true, then you could just say the universe created itself. 

    Does this prove Christianity? Certainly not. It does support intelligent design, that is to say, the theory that "Some features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected force such as natural selection. 

    Of course, nothing I've spoken of here touches on natural selection. That is a completely unrelated, yet highly contentious topic. Which is why you should join me next time for...

    A Crash Course in Christian Apologetics Part 2: Is Evolution Believable, and What Does it Mean in Relation to Christianity? 

    

5 Things Atheists Do That Give Atheists A Bad Name (And Piss Me Off)

    Please, before you pass any judgement on what I say here, read my other article, "5 Things Christians Do That Annoy Non-Christians (And Me)." It will help clear things up a bit. 

    I wasn't going to going to even write this at first, but I realized that if I'm going to piss people off, I should piss off people from as many belief systems as possible. Next week I'll do "5 Things About Muslims That Make Me Think They're All Terrorists", followed by "5 Ways You Can Piss Off Mormons (In Public!)." 

                                                                              Image:  Spreadshirt.com

Also, something about Scientology and Hindus. Anything I missed?

    
     It then dawned on me that there are quite a few more things that annoy me about atheists than about Christians. Now, clearly I have a bias towards Christians, and I know way more Christians than atheists, but most of the atheists I know personally are just as kind and intelligent than many of my Christian friends. 
    
    Please try to remember, just as I was not implying in my last article that all Christians do those things, I am in no way saying that all atheists act in these ways either. 

    So, since most people just skip past these introduction parts anyway (I know I would), I'll get right to the heart of the issue: Things that atheists do that give other atheists a bad name, such as...

Number 5: "If Christians had their way, we'd be rounding up all the gays and putting them in concentration camps!"
    
    You may have heard of Pastor Charles L. Worley of North Carolina had to say about the homosexual community. Here's a video of him saying that we should put all the lesbians inside a giant fence, and all the "queers" in another. 

    By his logic, they would not be able to reproduce, and after awhile, they'd all die off! Oh happy day! Clearly, he believes that all the current lesbians and gays come from parents who are lesbian and gay, and have sex for no other reason than to pass on their homosexuality to the next generation. It's all part of the evil gay agenda. 
    
    You may have also heard of the Westboro Baptist Church, or WBC for short. You can visit their website here, but you probably don't want to. I did for all of one minute before I felt the urge to throw up. 

                                                                                          Image: Npr.org

Their PR guy killed himself after 3 days on the job.   

    Their slogan with which they gain the attention of the world is "God Hates Fags".  They believe America is doomed because it supports homosexuals. They picket military funerals because they believe that our soldiers died protecting a corrupt nation

    Yes, these guys are religious. No, they are not an example of what Christians are supposed to be like. Real Christians are loving and respectful, not hateful bigots. 

    "But Christians are usually the only ones apposed to gay marriage rights!" you might say. I suppose that's probably true, although I've never seen a poll to confirm or deny that fact. However, there's a crucial difference here that you have to understand.

    There is a difference between apposition and hatred. I appose gay mariage because I think the definition of marriage we have now works just fine, thank you very much. 

    However, I am not apposed to gay couples having the same legal status as a married straight couple. When it comes to taxes and property ownership and everything else, they should be treated the same. Just...don't call it marriage, because it isn't a marriage.

    If a large group of people wanted to change the definition of a kilogram from the mass of 1 cubic centimeter of water at 4 degrees Celsius to the mass of 1.25437 cubic centimeters of water at 5 degrees Celsius, we wouldn't throw out the International Prototype of the Kilogram and make a new one to accommodate  Nor would we even try to find a middle ground where everyone can have the same, slightly different kilogram.

                                            Photo: Wiki

Just look at the intolerance

    As far as Christians (and other proponents of one man, one woman marriages) are concerned, the definition of marriage that we have is as set in stone as the definition of the kilogram is set in 90% platinum and 10% iridium. There is no practical or moral basis for reworking the definition. 

    So please, atheists, don't try to get on your moral high horses because you support gay rights and those hateful Christians don't. We don't hate, we just disagree. If you consider everyone who disagrees to be a "hater", then you're probably a 12 year old who thinks he's a gangsta. Or you're an idiot. 

Number 4: "Atheists support science, Christians don't. Therefore, Atheists are intellectually superior and Christians are all small minded."

    Nope.

    Seriously, just...no. YOU would have to be incredibly small minded to think that. Which is why a personal hero of mine, Bill Nye, disappointed me so much last year when he said this in an interview with Big Think.

    Big Think is a website that, "is an evolving roadmap to the best thinking on the planet — the ideas that can help you think flexibly and act decisively in a multivariate world." Whatever that means. 

    Don't get me wrong, it's an incredibly interesting site. There are lots of topics that are great for discussion, and some really great ideas put out by celebrities and average folks. However, Bill is convinced that the United States's religious majority is holding us back in the realm of science. 

    "Denial of evolution is unique to the United States." Not true. In every country you will find a portion of the population that does not believe in evolution. 

    "Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology. It's like, it's very much analogous to trying to do geology without believing in tectonic plates." Also not true. There is much more solid evidence for the existence of tectonic plates, namely, that we see their actions every day all around the world. We can track them and predict their movements. 

    "Once in a while I get people that claim they don't believe in evolution. And my response generally is, 'Well, why not? Really, why not? Your world just becomes fantastically complicated when you don't believe in evolution." 

    Really? From what I know, intelligent design (notice I'm not a proponent of Creationism, and if you don't know the difference, you're not qualified to give your opinion on the matter until you do) has much less complicated (read: believable) answers to things like Irreducible Complexity and missing links in evolutionary ancestry.  

    He goes on, as an example of evolution, "Here are different stars that are just like our star, but at a different point in our life cycle. The idea of deep time, of this billions of years, explains so much of the world around us."

    First off, Bill, those concepts and evolution are in no way inextricably linked. The universe is billions of years old, as is the earth, but that in no way makes evolution feasible. The chances of even basic life forming after billions of years is still less than 1 in 10 to the 40,000th, which to contrast, the number of seconds in 30 billion years is 10 to the 18th seconds. 

                                                                       image: aviewfromtheright.com

"So that's, like, a lot of zeroes, right?"

"Right."

    Researcher and mathematician I. L. Cohen says, "Mathematically speaking, based on probability concepts, there is no possibility that Evolution was the mechanism that created the approximately 6,000,000 species of plants and animals we recognize today.”

    So you see, I'm not making this up, or blindly ignoring "facts" because I'm a Christian. There are plenty of Christians who believe in evolution. I would argue that it goes against what they believe about the nature of God, but they're still saved Christians. I don't not believe in evolution because of some religious expectation, I don't believe in it because I don't find it to make logical sense. 

    What I'm asking of atheists is that they don't try and act as though they have a monopoly on science. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive concepts. God is just as valid an explanation as anything else, as long as you don't presuppose Him to be the answer to whatever your searching for.

   So when you hear somebody say that the theory of Intelligent Design is not a legitimate theory, ask them why. If they say, "Because it assumes a God.", you'll know they have it backwards. According to their website, "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

    So there is no presupposition of God at all. Instead, after reviewing the evidence, those who adhere to intelligent design theory have come to the logical conclusion that certain features of the universe lend evidence to there being a creator, but not any one in particular. 

    The theory gives no preference to Christianity, or Islam, or Judaism, or any other belief system. It's just science. 

                                                                                    Image: getoffmyinter.net

Like this, but with more math. Probably. 

    One last Bill Nye quote, the one that really grinds my gears. "And I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world that's completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that's fine, but don't make your kids do it, because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems."

    Ok...what? There is som much wrong in so few sentences. Here we go...

    1. I don't disbelieve in evolution because of what my parents told me. I rejected everything I'd been told, but came back to it after doing quite a bit of searching. 

    I refused to be an indoctrinated child, simply spouting whatever adults told me to spout. I was 15. Many Christian kids reach their rebellious stage and become atheist. My rebellious stage made my faith stronger and made me a more knowledgeable person. 

    2. Scientifically literate voters and taxpayers? We have millions of voters and taxpayers who are hardly even regular literate! They vote based off of skin color or political party or best commercial. They should be more worrisome than some people who disagree on with you on an obviously controversial theory that has ultimately has no bearing on who they will elect or if they pay their taxes on time.

    3. Engineering has nothing to do with evolution, dipstick. Do you honestly think that everyone who doen't believe in evolution assumes that everything around them is made by God Himself. That they are so severely indoctrinated that they incapable of learning completely unrelated concepts like how a fulcrum works or geometry or a thousand other things required for engineering that don't involve evolution. 

    Christians are not idiots. We know how the world works. What is different between us and atheists is that we have a different understanding of eternity and morality and the origin of the universe and a few other things. None of these will hamper the progress of the nation in any way, I promise you.

                                                                                 image: us.123rf.com

"Thank you Jesus, for sending your angels to lift my garage door into the air using angel magic. I pray that you keep me safe while driving as you always do, and that you continue to directly influence the wheels to move in the direction I indicate by rotating the steering wheel. That's another really cool trick. Amen"

Number 3: "Imagine no religion." or "All religions are the same."

                                                                      Image: atheistbillboards.com

    This. The levels of ignorance and intolerance displayed in this image are staggering. As if the institution of "religion" had anything to do with the tragedy that occurred here. What it should say is "Imagine No Islam" or "Imagine No Evil", because "religion" was not behind the deaths of thousands. 

    According to Merriam Webster, a "religion" is "A personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices." These acts of terrorism were carried out by individuals who subscribed to a particular religious belief. Their particular religion was what inspired them to do it.

    That does not mean you can simply scoop up all religions and place them in the same basket as radical Islam though. It shows that religious beliefs can be corrupted and can be used for evil, but it says nothing about religion in general. 

    Because in fact, there is no "religion in general", because all religious beliefs are contradictory. That's why I always get a laugh out of the Universalist Church. I myself am an ordained Universalist minister. It takes only a few minutes. 

    The reason Universalism, specifically Unitarian Universalism, is so funny is because it  tries to reconcile completely irreconcilable beliefs, and makes them all seem equal. However, all religions cannot be true.

    Why? Because there can only be one truth. Whatever isn't the truth is false, it's as simple as that. And all religions claim to have the truth. So which is it? Do we follow the teachings of the Bible, or of the Koran? Are we really spirits that will one day become gods of our own little planet as the Mormons believe, or are we spirits who have forgotten we are spirits and need to use Scientology to remember who they really are?

                                                               Image: digitallife.gr

Or maybe you are a follower of Kifflom 

    Also, religious people have done way more good than harm. In fact, I'd go so far as to say religious institutions have done more good than harm. 

    I know, it's popular to be down on religion right now. Even among young Christians, it seems everyone is denouncing organized religion and they're all about having their own personal relationship with God. 

    What I don't get is why people think that any denomination or church building is bad. Instead of blaming any organization or any one belief system, people should blame those within the system for using it for evil. 

    Organizations cannot be evil. Groups cannot be evil. Evil comes from the people within them. Even the Taliban wasn't always evil. The Taliban started as a resistance group against the Russians when they invaded Afghanistan. However, evil people corrupted it, and now the entire system has become a tool of hate and disgusting morals.

    My guess is that most people who lash out at religion in general are people who were once in a religious system in which they were wronged. Maybe they didn't fully understand it, or they were used by someone in the system, so they blame religion. Or God. Because if someone who claims to follow Jesus turns out to be a liar or a scoundrel, that means that God is dead and life is ultimately meaningless. Right?

    Not all religions are the same, and no religion is inherently bad. They're just wrong. Some, like Islam, have evil worked into them. However, there are millions of peaceful Muslims, meaning that it's not Islam we should despise, but those who use Islam as an excuse for the evil they practice. 

    You see, there can only be one ultimate truth about the universe. And that is what religion comes down to: A search for truth. Just like atheism, actually. Which is why my number two is...

Number 2: "Atheism is not a religion! It's an absence of religion."

    I have heard people say, "Atheism means 'non-religion.'" This of course is nonsense.

    Let's break apart the word, shall we? The prefix "A", meaning "not" or "against", followed by the word "theism", meaning a belief in a god. So atheism is...the belief that a god does not exist. 

    Atheism is the religious belief that there is no higher power in the universe, and that we must order our lives in such a way so that we get what we want out of our short time in life. Kinda depressing, but I can see it. If you earnestly believe there is no higher power governing your life, you can live life however you want. 

    You could choose to life for your legacy, with the goal of having your name and life remembered by others long after you're gone. You could live your life simply trying to find as much enjoyment as possible, by studying what you find fascinating and participating in what you find exciting. These are all fine goals.

    You could also make your one goal in life to make sure that all other religions know how stupid they are being by believing what they believe, because you are one of the lucky few who have been granted the infinite wisdom and knowledge to comprehend what the small minded religious majority cannot: That life is ultimately meaningless and that eventually the universe will collapse in upon itself and then everything ends. 

                                                                                      Image: commons.wikimedia.org

Nothing cheers folks up quite like the thought that after a few decades of hard existence, it won't matter, because they'll be dead and they have no soul to carry on. That's what gets me through the day.

    Richard Dawkins, who is kinda the atheistic Gandhi, says that atheists should mock religious people with contempt, which, as we all know, is the greatest way to get people to agree with you. 

     This kind of militant atheism is exactly why I think atheism must be considered a religion. Remember, a religion does not necessarily involve a god in any way. A religion is "A personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices." 

    Atheism is an institution dedicated to the social dismissal of all other religions, for what atheists believe would be the betterment of society. Most atheists don't have a problem with other people practicing their religions except for when it hampers progress, or what they see as progress.  

    Unfortunately, the atheist's version of progress, specifically social and scientific progress, often differs from that of a Christian. An atheist would see the legalization of gay marriage as progress, while a Christian (most of them, anyway) would not.  An atheist would see creationism and intelligent design theory being dismissed as progress, while a Christian most likely would not.

    This is the important part: We can have differences of opinion on these issues and still have progress. All it takes is some reasonable discussion, an open mind, and the ability to occasionally comprimise. We're not at war. We all want what is best for the world. 

                                                                                          Image: toddbigelow.photoshelter.com

Besides, trying to argue with these people would be about as conductive to your cause as trying to teach cows evolutionary theory.

    Whether you are an atheist or a person of faith, remember that the truth of what you believe is always up to debate. Truth is solid, there is always only one truth; however, interpretations of truth are malleable. 

Number 1: "Hitler Was a Christian."

    SO. It's gonna be one of those arguments, huh?

                                                                                                      image: rexwordpuzzle.blogspot.com

"Please. I can't...I mean, I don't...I mean...I just...no."

    If you're on the Internet enough, you've encountered Godwin's Law. You may not know, however, of the lesser known corollary of the law that states that if you resort to comparing anything to Hitler or the Nazi's, you automatically lose the debate.

    Don't go there. You'll let down your fellow atheists.

    In all seriousness though, this is ridiculous, unfounded, and low. Hitler used God's name to help ensure the respect of a mostly Christian people group. He most likely was not actually Christian in anything other than name. If he was, he was delusional as well as many other things, because no one in their right mind would think the Christian God would condone what he did.

    Pointing out the bad eggs who claimed to have practiced Christianity doesn't lend any credence to saying that Christianity itself is flawed in any way. Evil can be committed in the name of anyone or anything. Atheists hate it when it's pointed out that Stalin committed atrocities in the name of spreading the doctrine of the Communist party, which is as closely linked with atheism as people tend to think the Republican party is with Christianity.

    I guess trying to force this point is irrelevant anyway, because those that can see the irony of equating Hitler and Christianity while ignoring  Stalin and atheism, those are the folks who would never use this argument in the first place. Oh, and for the record? Hitler was not a Christian, even if he may have publicly used God's name to try and rally support. There's simply no evidence that he was.



    So please, if you're an atheist, try to use this advice to be civil around your Christian friends and family, because Lord knows thy are trying very hard to be civil around you.