Speed Painting

Just finished this up, a tribute to the greatest cartoon series ever.
let me know what you think
Note: If you click on the video it will take you to the vimeo page where it’s in HD.

Youtube Link
High Res Image

Disproving a Negative

I seem to be hearing a lot of talk about it being impossible to prove the nonexistence of something. It seems to me that their are multiple ways to prove the nonexistence of non existent objects/beings. For example if any object/being is contradictory by virtue of its existence (married bachelor, or circular square) it is proof of its nonexistence. Also why can’t I prove that (for example) no 10 year old US senators exist? If it is possible to prove that certain objects or beings do not exist shouldn’t it then be possible (albeit difficult) to prove that god does not exist.

Just a random thought.

Epistemology and Descartes’ Meditations

Epistemology is a branch of philosophy which deals with the nature of knowledge. What does that mean? well epistemology basically asks questions about knowledge. What is it? Is it possible to acquire it? What types of things can I know? How do I know what I know? and so on. These questions might sound trivial, but deep thinking is required if we are to soundly answer any of them.

Knowledge is in its most basic form justified true belief, and like everyone else Descartes was just your ordinary philosopher/mathematician/genius trying to show that he was justified in believing what he did. Descartes was not satisfied with dogma, or common beliefs; instead, Descartes wanted 100% certainty that what he believed was justified. To do this he developed a systematic method by which he could doubt everything. If there were beliefs which could not be doubted, then they could serve as a foundation for more beliefs until everything that was true, was justified. The Cartesian Method of Doubt relies heavily on the epistemic closure principle which states that I know that X happens, and I know that X happening entails Y happening, then I know that Y happens. By using this principle Descartes makes what was a pretty profound argument for skepticism. In his first meditation descartes states that: P1. If I know that the external world exists than I know I am not dreaming. P2. I do not know that I am not dreaming. C. I do not know that the external world exists. (side note: Descartes is not arguing that the external world does not exist, he is merely pointing out that we can doubt its existence.) Now you can substitute many things for his example of dreaming. In fact, Descartes himself gives similar arguments using different examples (the Evil Demon, Distorted perception ect.). Basically to understand his argument all you need to do is understand that since we do not know that we are not dreaming, how can we know the world around us is real? Life could be illusory and we would never know it. Since dreams distort our perceptions and senses why couldn’t our perception of the external world be a false reality? Using the example of the evil demon: maybe our minds are simply being controlled by a malevolent demon who cruelly decided to give us a false sense of reality. Since we do not know that this is not the case, we do not know that our perception of the external world falls in line with reality.

After he figured out things we cannot know (according to his view of justified true beliefs). Descartes continued his quest for justified belief in his second meditation by finding that in which we can know, and cannot doubt. This is where Descartes uses the famous phrase “cogito ergo sum” roughly translated “I think, therefore I exist” to demonstrate his main point. Descartes cannot rationally doubt his own existence. For if there is doubting, then their is one doing this doubting. He does not try prove that he exists, only that it is irrational to doubt his existence. If he does not exist, than their is nothing doing the doubting ect.

Now that he had this foundational belief which could not be rationally doubted, Descartes set out to build on this foundation. Most philosophers agree that he was unsuccessful in his later meditations, trying in one to prove that God exists, and that this God (being omni-benevolent) would not give us a false sense of reality. Regardless of the soundness of his later works Descartes’ work serves as a great foundation for skepticism, and epistomology in general.

Reilly and Lecrae

Went to a fantastic concert last night at the University.

Reilly, an alternative rock band  had a unique sound which was partly due to the fact that they incorporated violin into their songs which made their music  almost symphonic. They have some amazing talent and well thought out lyrics.

You can visit them online at their website here 

Here is their newest music video, a great song called Sunlight

 

Next Lecrae got up and knocked the concert out of the park. 

Lecrae’s songs are sermons put to music. Well, not really, but they are very sound as far as doctrine is concerned, and his beats are out of this world. He gave his testimony and shared the gospel at the end which was really awesome to hear. The guy has serious talent and he stays so humble. He gives God the full credit for all that he does which was really cool to see. 

Here is his latest video “Dont Waste Your Life” based off of on of John Pipers books.

 

Euthyphros “False” Dilemma

One objection that has been raised regarding a theistic view of morality as absolute and objective is that of Euthyphro’s Dilemma. The dilemma was posed by the philosopher Socrates to a religious scholar named Euthyphro, since then it has been reformulated for a monotheistic God. The dilemma simply poses the question: Does God will certain acts because they are moral, or are certain acts moral because they are willed by God?” In this paper I will argue a solution that seems not only possible, but necessary given the theists definition of God.
The theist has been trapped into a corner with two seemingly impossible solutions. The first horn asserts that God merely recognizes morality. The obvious problem with arguing for this option is that there is some standard that is above God, a standard which God must conform to. If God is moral in the sense that he fits the mold of an external moral law morality is independent of God, which is exactly the opposite of what the theist is attempting to prove. The second horn poses a different problem, for if morality is whatever God decides, than morality is arbitrary. God might have decided that rape and murder were moral actions. As Bertrand Russell once said, “If the only basis for morality is God’s decrees, it follows that they might just as well have been the opposite of what they are” (pg. 48). If morality is whatever God decides it to be, morality loses all authority and becomes subjective which is precisely what the theist is trying to argue against.
For a solution to be viable for the theist it must meet two requirements. First the alleged solution must make morality objective. And second the alleged solution must make God the foundation for this objective morality. My proposed argument goes as follows:

P1: It is greater to be the standard of morality than to conform to it
P2: If God is the greatest conceivable being then he must be the standard of morality.
P3: If God is the standard of morality His nature is necessarily morally perfect.
C: Therefore since His nature is necessarily perfect, God can serve as a foundation for objective moral truths.

P2 must be accepted by the one posing the dilemma as discussion can only occur when the poser evaluates a certain view of God and His relation to morality. The burden of proof is on the one posing the dilemma to find a flaw in a proposed solution, as the dilemma is a positive assertion.
P1 is philosophically solid as it is a greater thing to be the paradigm of goodness than to conform to an external standard, for if one conforms to an external standard that one is subject to a thing greater than itself. Since P2 defines God as the greatest conceivable being, by the theist’s own definition this God is necessarily the standard of morality. Since he is the standard of morality there is no other standard by which he can be judged making his nature necessarily morally perfect. The moral nature of God is an essential property of Gods meaning that there is no possible world in which God according to the theist’s definition could have existed and yet lacked that property. This must not be confused with accepting the second horn of the dilemma, for if God was not necessarily morally perfect then morality is subjective. Since God is necessarily morally perfect according to the theist’s definition the theist sees no problem is claiming that this deity can serve as a foundation for objective values. God is moral neither because of the way He happens to be nor because of His fitness with reference to an external standard of morality, His moral nature is an essential quality of His which if existing according to the theistic definition must make him the moral standard.
The solution proposed is not without its objections. One common objection is that if goodness is what God must be, why call bother calling Him good? Calling God good is merely saying that God is consistent with his nature. Regardless of its truth, this argument is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, for to argue this would be to confuse moral ontology with moral semantics. Christian philosopher William Lane Craig states that “The claim that moral values and duties are rooted in God is a meta-ethical claim about moral ontology, not moral semantics […] It is fundamentally a claim about the metaphysical status of moral properties, not a claim about the meaning of moral sentences” (pg. 212). In addition most theists see no problem in accepting that goodness and morality are merely words used to describe God.
Another objection might be that the theist is begging the question when he or she assumes P2. Since God’s perfect goodness is part of his greatness, the theist is assuming that God is the standard for objective morality before the argument is made. It must be reiterated that all the theist is attempting to accomplish is show a possible state in which God can serve as a possible standard for objective moral truths. All the theist must do to solve the dilemma is to offer a view of God who is the perfect standard of absolute morality by virtue of His existence. If any being is perfect by definition, then if that being exists it has the power to be a standard by which others can be measured to. The theist can simply say that they believe God to be necessarily perfect in every regard, which would render the dilemma useless against this particular definition of God. God, described as the greatest conceivable being, if existing is the standard for objective morality by very definition. The solution is not stating that God is the objective moral standard because theists believe God to be the objective moral standard, for this would be tautology and circular reasoning; rather the argument is that God can be the standard for objective morality because of Gods necessary moral perfection.
While this dilemma posed a formidable problem for the polytheist who like Euthyphro believed the gods to be a group of limited individuals, the modern day monotheist can avoid this dilemma by using the modern day concept of God as a maximally great being. To answer the dilemma the theist can offer a third solution rendering it a false dilemma, and state that acts are deemed either moral or immoral based upon their conformity or lack thereof to Gods moral nature, which is essential to His being.

Craig, L William “Philosophy of Religion”
Rutgers University Press (2002)

Russell, Bertrand “Why I am not a Christian”
Taken from a lecture given on March 6, 1927 to the National Secular Society.

Two Wallpapers

Tommorow is Easter and I thought I would create a wallpaper today using typography, The first one I made today and the second was made a little while ago.

 

Enjoy and have a great Easter!

Though life beats me down, I shall be renewed.

I probably should be working on my Com Sci project, but I havn’t been keeping up to date with my blogging so I thought I would write a bit about how life has been going.

Classes right now seem overwhelmingly difficult, it seems as though I am working 4x as hard and getting worse grades than last semester. I had some recent good fortune with a math and philosophy exam, That aside my bio insect and com sci classes are ridiculously hard. I was feeling uber stressed anxious and worried about my future which has been why I have been working (almost non stop) the last week. I am stressed to keep I came across these verses last night which were encouraging.

Come to me all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your soul. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.

Matthew 11:28-30 

 

So do not worry about tomorrow; 
for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.
Matthew 6:34 

 

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
Psalm 23:4 

I lift up my eyes to the hills
where does my help come from?
My help comes from the LORD,
the Maker of heaven and earth.
Psalm 121:1-2 

 

Trust in the Lord with all your heart;
do not depend on your own understanding.
Seek his will in all you do,
and he will show you which path to take.
Proverbs 3:5-6 

 

An anxious heart weighs a man down….
Proverbs 12:25 

Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is life not more important than food and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life.
Matthew 6:25-27 

 

Trust in him at all times, O people; pour out your hearts to him, for God is our refuge.
Psalm 62:8 

 

Cast your cares on the LORD and he will sustain you;
he will never let the righteous fall.
Psalm 55:22 

 

God is our refuge and strength,
an ever-present help in trouble.
Psalm 46:1

 ”Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God”

John 14:1 

 Surely God is my salvation;

I will trust and not be afraid.
The LORD, the LORD, is my strength and my song;
he has become my salvation.
Isaiah 12:2 

 

whether it be work, school, relationships, or life in general, what do you guys do when you feel overwhelmed?

comment and let me know

Confession and the Forgiveness of sins: A look at 1st John 1:5-2:2

I remember interpreting this passage a bit back for a class, and came across it again recently, so I thought I would share a few thoughts for you to ponder.

The passage I’m writing  on is 1 John 1:5-2:2 5

“Now this is the gospel message we have heard from him and announce to you: God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we say we have fellowship with him and yet walk in  darkness, we are lying and not practicing the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say we do not sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 But if we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous, forgiving us our sins and cleansing us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar and his word is not in us.

1 John 2:1-2 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous One, 2 and he himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not only for our sins but also for the whole world.”

First things first…we need to address two important factors in our interpretation of the passage.

1) The Audience and Purpose of 1st John

The audience plays an important role in determining the context of which John is making his argument. John’s Audience although believed to be a group of Christians that are unsure about their faith and that are thinking about following early gnostic and protognostic teachings. Their are many false teachers in the community who are causing controversy about fundamental Christian doctrines (The Humanity of Christ ect.)

2:18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.2:19 They went out from us, but they did not belong to us; for if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. However, they went out so that it might be made clear that none of them belongs to us.

The writer addresses the audience as his “children” a phrase ofter used my John to refer to believers. The antichrists or false teachers that John is warning about are causing believers to question their faith.Many of John’s audience lack assurance of where they stand spiritually, whether or not they have eternal life or not. Then there are contemplating departing John is basically writing an outline for what a believer will look like, what seprates the genuine from the counterfiet.

**side note: the “if we say” statements in our text are most likely epistolary plurals which should be translated “If anyone should say”.  John would never claim to have no sin ect.**

1 John 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life

He is writing this so that his audience can know if someone is of God (Believer) or a fraud/phony (non-believer), but also to the group who might be confused about the false teachers and are contemplating leaving the church. John seems to state that if a a Christian is genuine, he will (not must) remain in the faith, and likewise those who are counterfiet will depart from it. 

2) The meaning of the word “Fellowship” (Koinonia)

Koinonia (the Greek word for Fellowship) is used 20 times in the NT, and since 4 of these 20 times occur in our passage it shouldn’t be surprising to discover that the word plays a vital role in our understanding of the passage. Important questions arise regarding the word such as “What does it mean to have fellowship with God?” and “Can this fellowship be broken?”  These questions bring up bigger topics such as the “Perseverance of the Saint” point on Calvin’s TULIP and the issue of confessing sins and asking God for forgiveness.Greek Lexicons such as louw nida define Koinonia as a mutual relationship smiler to communion. ISBE (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia) writes that Christ is at once the center of this unity and the origin of every expression of fellowship. Sometimes the fellowship is essentially an experience and as such it is scarcely susceptible of definition. It may rather be regarded as a mystical union in Christ. In other instances the fellowship approaches or includes the idea of intercourse. In some passages it is represented as a participation or partnership and commonly refers to a binding marriage contract. “

This “mystical union in Christ”  that believers share is represented in Gods plan for Marriage. Their is no dictionary or lexicon that states or implies that this mystical union can ever be broken. 

1 Corinthians 1:8-9  He will also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.  9 God is faithful; by Him you were called into fellowship (koinonia) with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. 

 

So then, what does this have to do with confession and the forgiveness of sins? 

Many times Christians including my self get caught up in the idea that our forgiveness is dependent on our faithfulness when in fact it has nothing to do with us. Our forgiveness is dependent on Gods faithfulness. We many times picture God as some sort of fickle parent who sits in heaven and treats us according to whether or not you’ve made him happy today. We somehow think that we need to earn Gods favor and so many times we try to beat ourselves up, and feel guilty when God already paid the penalty for guilt and shame. Why? because we think we have lost our union with Christ and to gain it back we must appease him somehow. When we sin we so often feel as though we are alienated from God and the only way I can get back to him is to ask for forgiveness and confess our sins so we come to Him and ask him to forgive us of something he has already forgiven us for. Does god ask that we go through a  continual confession process or does he ask us to repent and turn away from sin? Is he that concerned with the routine of asking him to do what he already done or is he concerned that we cease sinning? It’s interesting to note that in 1 john 2:2  John says  if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous One, instead of claiming that if anyone should sin they should confess and ask God to forgive those sins. 

Well, why then in verse 9 does he state that if one confesses their sins, than that person will have his sins forgiven? If I can backtrack for a second I claimed that John was writing the book of John to those who were either unsure of their salvation of considering departing from the church. John isn’t asking Christians to confess their sins to God, rather he is stating that if when one confesses his/her sins at the point of salvation he or she is completely forgiven of all sins and iniquities. When one asks sincerely asks God to forgive them of sins (i.e. becomes a Christian) that person has an advocate with Jesus Christ who has taken all guilt and shame and who has forgiven all past, present and future sins. If our forgiveness depended on our faithfulness we would live in fear of whether or not we were in “fellowship” with God.

Hebrews  10:22-23

Let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful.

Obviously, this was a brief defense of a claim, which will hopefully be challenged. I have not completely made up my mind on the issue and encourage those with differing viewpoints to offer reasons why they disagree. I realize this might be a unorthdox view but it makes sense and seems to be in line with scripture, let me know what you think.

One could use for example the Lords prayer as reason to disagree, “forgive us our trespasses” ect.  although I think it’s weak evidence as the prayer was given as a model of prayer before Christs death and resurection, when continual forgiveness was needed. I can see that I’m going off on tangents so I will force myself to stop writing.

Four Responses to the End of the Slave Trade

 When Wilberforce helped pass the Slave Trade Law in 1807 a new era in the way slaves were treated and looked upon by African societies began to dawn. Soon after in 1815 the British enforced this law to anyone north of the equator, changing the way African societies functioned. Slavery was a large part of the African economy and because of this many African groups had to adapt to these changes. Four particular responses were that of the Benguela people, the Chokwe, the Segu and the people of Madagascar. Each of these people groups had to find new ways to adapt and all adapted differently. The Benguela who lived on the south western coast of africa in Angola, decided to redirect their shipment of slaves from the “New World” to Cuba and Brazil. This redirection to the southern hemisphere was responsible for the shipment of 320,000 slaves. The Chokwe were a people group living in the south central region of Africa, namly the Lunda region. Instead of continuing their involvement the Chokwe bought slaves and then freed them, giving them “Chokwe Identity”. This incorporation of slaves made the Chokwe a very powerful empire of central Africa. The Segu people who lived in the North Western area of Africa also incorporated slaves into their kingdom; however, unlike the Chokwe did not give these slaves “Segu Identity” the Slaves or Jonw as they were referred to were seen as slaves or lower beings even though they were free to do as they pleased. The ruler of madagascar, a king by the name of Ramada, used the slave trade as a way to gain favor with the British. Ramada was rewarded by the british for his “Protection” of slaves. Ramada decreed that former slaves and those from Madagascar all take part in the unifying tradition of “rewrapping the dead” roughly the equivilint of our 4th of July. This tradtion brought the people of Madagascar together every year and gave the former slaves an identity to connect with. They were now Madagascarian, or they saw at least saw themselves as part of the madagascarian identity. 

Just a bit of my history class :]

Spring Break is Here

It’s about time, classes are really stressing me out.

I felt the urge to create a header for a website and then realized I had no website to place it on, so I decided why not revisit  the ol blog? I made it in CS3 so make sure to let me know what you think.

I’m going to try and start using this blog more (I mean it this time) and will try and put up around 3 posts a week. 

I would put one up now but its 2:00am and I am pretty wiped, I’ll fill the 8 of you who are still subscribed in on what i’ve been up to the last 3 months tomm…er.. later today.

Good Night!