Proof of God

I have read my first philosophical proof of god and I have found it very compelling. Several times in this proof, the arguments of a man named St. Thomas Aquinas was referenced. His writings are vital to this proof. Fortunately I have a copy of his book that feature the referenced arguments. So please read this post carefully as it is a complex argument. The entire post/proof is not posted here. Although I will post a link to the rest of it. I cut it short at the point where I feel there is a questionable argument. The rest of the proof is dependent on this particular point. So I will interject some my own questions and thoughts in regard to this point. Hopefully you will have some thoughts to share as well!


Here is the post copied fromwww.Catholic.com

The First Vatican Council taught that the existence of God can be proven by our reason alone:

God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason, through the things that he created. (Dei Filius 2)

But the Church has never offered an actual proof of God; it has left that to the philosophers. Although many have attempted to prove God’s existence, what they end up with is mere arguments. They may be quite persuasive, but they lack the metaphysical certitude of a mathematical proof. They may presuppose some bit of knowledge, or they may leave room for possible doubt.But the medieval understanding of God, which St. Thomas Aquinas espoused, does not allow for doubting his existence. The proof that follows is a paraphrasing of the Angelic Doctor’s many writings that dealt with this subject. It proves the existence of a being that is one, immutable, eternal, infinite, omniscient, and omnipotent.

In fact, you can be more certain that God exists than that you are reading this article right now.

A Brain in a Vat
Let’s start by taking a position of radical doubt. Suppose for a moment that you are not really a human being with an actual body. In reality, you are nothing more than a brain floating in a vat of fluids, with electrodes attached to various parts of your exterior that allow evil scientists to manipulate you into thinking that what you perceive is actually there, when in fact it is nothing more than an imaginary world constructed by the scientists. Right now, they are making you think that you are reading this article when in fact you are not.From this point of extreme skepticism, we will prove beyond all possible doubt that God exists.

1. One cannot deny one’s own existence. Cogito, ergo sum. Even if you’re just a brain in a vat, your own existence can be verified simply by the fact that you perceive—that is, you see, hear, smell, taste and touch things. Whether or not your perceptions are accurate is another question, but even if you doubt your own existence, you must exist, for it is impossible for a non-existent thing to doubt. In fact, the very act of doubting proves that you exist. Therefore, denying your own existence is a contradiction in terms. I can deny yours and you can deny mine, but I can’t doubt mine, nor can you doubt yours.

2. There is at least one thing that exists. It is possible for you to be deceived in your perception. In fact, it’s conceivable that every one of your perceptions is a delusion. But even if that is the case—even if nothing you think exists actually exists—you still must exist.Entity is the word we have for anything that exists. You exist, so you are an entity.

3. There is such a thing as existence. You can know with certainty that there is at least one entity, at least one thing of which the term existence can be predicated. If there were no such thing as existence, nothing would exist, not even you. But, as we have seen already, that is impossible.
As Aquinas would say, there must be an "act of being" in which all entities participate. This act of being must itself exist; it must be an entity. Thomas calls this entity esse, which is Latin for "to be" or "to exist."

4. The nature of esse is actuality. Now that we have established that esse is an entity, we must ask: What is the nature of this entity? What is its definition?To answer these questions, we must consider existence by itself, apart from everything else.What do we mean when we say that something exists? We mean that it is actual. For example, an acorn is actually an acorn and potentially a tree. A tree is actually a tree and potentially lumber. Lumber is actually lumber and potentially a desk. A desk is actually a desk and potentially firewood. Firewood is actually firewood and potentially ashes..........

The rest of the proof is located here:http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0605uan.asp

O.k, so here is the summary of this argument so far, as i understand.
1. You must exist, you can doubt every other aspect of reality, but you must admit that you exist.
2. The second part of this argument is divided into three sections by the author, There is at least one thing that exist, There is such a thing as existence, The nature of esse is actuality.

All of these topics are derived from St Aquinas's writing. Here is the quote on this subject taken from the Third Article in The Existence of God.

God’s existence can be proved in five ways. The first and clearest proof is the argument from motion. It is certain, and in accordance with sense experience, that some things in this world are moved. Now everything that is moved is moved by something else, since nothing is moved unless it is potentially that to which it is moved, whereas that which moves is actual. To move is nothing other than to bring something from potentiality to actuality, and a thing can be brought from potentiality to actuality only by something which is actual. Thus a fire, which is actually hot, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, so moving and altering it. Now it is impossible for the same thing to be both actual and potential in the same respect, although it may be so in different respects. What is actually hot cannot at the same time be potentially hot, although it is potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that, in the same respect and in the same way, anything should be both mover and moved, or that it should move itself. Whatever is moved must therefore be moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved is itself moved, this also must be moved by something else, and this in turn by something else again. But this cannot go on for ever, since there would then be no first mover, and consequently no other mover, because secondary movers cannot move unless moved by a first mover, as a staff cannot move unless it is moved by the hand. We are therefore bound to arrive at a first mover which is not moved by anything, and all men understand that this is God.

The second way is from the nature of an efficient cause. We find that there is a sequence of efficient causes in sensible things. But we do not find that anything is the efficient cause of itself. Nor is this possible, for the thing would then be prior to itself, which is impossible. But neither can the sequence of efficient causes be infinite, for in every sequence the first efficient cause is the cause of an intermediate cause, and an intermediate cause is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate causes be many, or only one. Now if a cause is removed, its effect is removed. Hence if there were no first efficient cause, there would be no ultimate cause, and no intermediate cause. But if the regress of efficient causes were infinite, there would be no first efficient cause. There would consequently be no ultimate effect, and no intermediate causes. But this is plainly false. We are therefore bound to suppose that there is a first efficient cause. And all men call this God.

These two proofs have been selected for examination here because they are the most accurate proofs I have read. They are also the foundation of the argument referenced in first quote from http://www.catholic.com/

IF you wish to read the 3 additional proofs visit http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/nature_grace.vi.ii.iii.html

In both arguments, there is a key point made. One statement that is the philosophical glue that holds it together. It is this "glue" that I have been struggling to grasp and understand.
I accept that nothing can be the cause of itself. That makes perfect sense to me. This brings us to the "glue", an infinite string of causes.

"Whatever is moved must therefore be moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved is itself moved, this also must be moved by something else, and this in turn by something else again. But this cannot go on for ever, since there would then be no first mover, and consequently no other mover, because secondary movers cannot move unless moved by a first mover....."

According to Thomas Aquinas, an infinite string of causes is impossible, I fail to understand why. A friend of mind once illustrated this concept. He asked me to count numbers, he said "Start at infinity and count down to one." This is of course impossible. I feel that this is a similar to what Aquinas is referencing. If you did not have a starting point for your journey you could never arrive at an ending point. That makes sense to me as well.

However if you could count numbers infinitely in both directions, (positive and negative) you could still have a middle, as well as other points that are defined along the way. (This could be and analogy for time: having to beginning and no end) Although you could not locate these points by referencing the end, or the beginning. For example you could not say this number is located ten numbers after the beginning. You could say this number is located ten numbers before the middle.

The question is this: IF there was never an initial cause of events, does that mean that a middle effect could never occur along the way. This implies some very heavy things that I'm not sure are comprehensible by me. I know that time is relative, according to Einsteins Special Relativity Theory Which means the past for me can be the present for you. So i wonder, is it possible that time is traveling backwards and forwards?

Some claim that a thing just is. This is also a hard concept to grasp, for example subatomic particles were supposed to be the smallest building blocks of matter. Now we theorize that Subatomic particles are made of superstrings, which now are the smallest. If anyone asked "What are superstings made of?" We would say, nothing, they just are. The superstring just Is. And so we arrive at the original cause of matter.

Again, before the argument can continue we must answer: Is it possible to have an infinite line of causes?

I understand that there are a lot of questions as well as a lot of opinion on this subject, but for the sake of this argument, lets limit the discussion to the possibility of an infinite string of causes. IF your comment is not in that context please refrain.

Definition of religious terms

Many times here on The Revolution, we engage in a religious debate of some type. Often there has been confusion caused by a lack of common labels for this or that belief. So for the sake of discussion here on this blog, i will define the existing terms and propose new names for beliefs that aren't clearly defined.

Passive Religious One who believes in a specific god(s) yet does not feel the need to act in accordance with the specific requirements of their religious doctrine.

Religious One who believes in a god(s) believes in a specific doctrine, and acts in accordance with said doctrine.

Radical Religious One who believes in a god(s) believes in a specific doctrine, acts in accordance with said doctrine, takes doctrine beyond reason, denounces other beliefs, tries to convert others follow their beliefs, willing to subject oneself to pain, torture, martyrdom, unusual behavior in the name of said religion.

passive atheist One who does not participate in religion, doesn't believe in god(s).

Atheist One who does not participate in religion, believes that everything exist due to natural origin, believes that there are no supernatural forces or gods in existence.

Radical Atheist One who does not participate in religion, believes that everything exist due to natural origin, believes that there are no supernatural forces or gods in existence. One who believes that no one should have religious beliefs. One who tries to convince another that religious beliefs are false,wrong, or irrational.

Agnostic One who does not support the belief that god(s) exist or the belief that god(s) do not exist, one who feels that such knowledge about god(s) existence is not known.

*Godnostic One who accepts that it is possible that god(s) exist as well as the possibility that god(s) does not exist. Yet believes that a divine entity of some sort is likely to be the cause of existence in some unknown way.

Gnostic One who accepts that it is possible that god(s) exist as well as the possibility that god(s) does not exist. Yet feels that based on scientific evidence, the origin of the universe and all of its contents is most likely not the creation of a supernatural entity.

IF you do not agree with the terms defined please make a suggestion!

*new term

God logic

The existence of God....Every time I visit the blog scene I am amazed at how many individuals feel they can know the nature of god, or think that they have the concept figured out. I think I've read enough self-proclaimed refutations of God to last a lifetime. You name the method, I've read it: Logic, Reductio ad absurdum, Burden of Proof, and of course the most common rebuttal thrown around is the Omnipotence paradox.


I do not claim to know if there is a god, if fact I claim just the opposite: "I do not know if god does or does not exist." I am very skeptical of any one who states that god is impossible, or states that god exist. I really tend to think that these idea's are unknowable. That is not to say that you shouldn't believe whatever you wish, you have that right. Though it is important to remember that there are many possibilities, despite what evidence you provide you cannot prove gods existence. Therefore we must be objective in regard to each others views and opinions, and not claim a superior perspective.

Burden of Proof

The several arguments against God are very subjective. The most unfounded reason for claiming gods non-existence is Burden of Proof, which basically states that one who makes a claim is entitled to prove the claim is true. In this case, the Christian who says God exist, must prove to the atheist that his statement is true, obviously such a claim cannot be proven, and so the advocate of burden of proof says the statement is false. The debate takes on a false until proven true characteristic, were the one who carries the burden is false until he can convince the other that he is true. Here is an example from Way of the Mind :

"Imagine someone accuses you of being an alien disguised as a human. Would you feel that you have an obligation to prove that you’re a real human? Of course not. It’s the other person who has to provide evidence for their claims."

There is a difference between quotes like this and the "God debate", the difference being that the quote (and burden of proof) involves two key features, a known truth and a statement that conflicts with a known truth. You are human (Known Truth) some one claims you are alien (Conflicting statement). In the God debate, there is not a known truth, and therefore each side has a burden to bear if they wish to prove some truth in their side of the debate. If anything, being that belief in god is more common that not, I would say based on the format of quote, the conflicting opinion is that of the atheist, and would therefore become their burden to prove that god does not exist.

For any one who claims that god does not exist due to a lack of supporting evidence please know this: Lack of evidence is not a good reason to abandon the possibility of god. Before any truth was known or proven, there was a point in time when it was lacking evidence. If we gave up at such a point where would we be today? The only reason to abandon the possibility of god is because evidence has proved that god is impossible. Which brings me to my next point.

Omnipotence paradox.

This is the crutch of many non-believers who claim that god is impossible.
The Omnipotence Paradox states that: A being cannot be omnipotent, because the characteristics of omnipotence are self-contradictory. For example if omnipotent being could create anything, could he create a rock that is too heavy for himself to lift? If he could not create a rock that big, then he fails to be omnipotent by proving a limitation, if a rock exist that omnipotence could not lift, again it creates a contradiction and thus we have the Omnipotence Paradox. There are several examples of these types of literary contradictions. Could God deny himself? Could god create a triangle that has angles which did not add up to 180 degrees? All these follow the key assumption that if there is an omnipotent god, he is bound to the logic that he created.

Why does this assumption goes unchecked? Why does a Omnipotent being have to adhere to the same logic that he supposedly created? Descartes wrote:

"[Omnipotence] is not bound in action, as we are in thought by the laws of logic."

In my creationism post i offered a similar analogy:

Imagine yourself a board game designer, the game you set out to create can be as unique and complex as your imagination will allow. You define the rules of game play, how the game pieces can move, the who, what, why, where and when. Now further imagine that the game pieces were given a consciousness and able to reflect on their existence. (...but only as far as the experience was limited to the board game and the rules you created). So now the game pieces begin to argue about the true nature of you the "creator". Some feel that the concept of a creator is contradictory. More than likely the game pieces would assume that you must move in a similar manner as they, that you the creator must draw a card or roll some dice before you could act. If one game piece suggested that the creator could acting without first rolling dice, that would seem as illogical, because it is contrary to the nature of their logic. Therefore according to the game piece logic, they could prove that you are impossible like this.

One cannot act without first rolling dice.

If god created the game and all its contents.

Then god must have created dice,

Yet he could not act prior to the creation of dice.

And therefore could not create.

Perhaps this seems silly, but I say, "It is equally silly to assume that an omnipotent god is inconsistent by logic that he created. There is no reason to assume that a omnipotent creator must adhere to his own rules. An apparent contradiction by our logic, may not be a contradiction in regard to Omnipotence.

Please remember that I wrote this only to show there are many possibilities and the possibility of god is not to be thrown out so easily. I do not think that my post proves gods existence, it just proves that the omnipotence paradox is not valid. God is a possibility.

Death, Marriage and Christianity

I have a couple of questions regarding religion,
perhaps you can help me out with a few things.

As you all well know I am not religious, though I have been in and around many religious environments all my life. One question i have had since i was a child was in regard to marriage and death. Having known many religious people who have lost a spouse, and then remarried. This behaviour has always struck me as a selfish act.

Isn't this kind of a contradiction of beliefs? On one hand you believe that you will be reunited with loved ones in heaven, yet some can not wait for death to find a new lover. I always envisioned this reunion in heaven as being very awkward. One husband sits at the pearly gates anxiously awaiting his wife's arrival to heaven, only to find her walking with some other dude. I imagine the original husband is just like: "Who the hell is this guy? Ohh that's just great honey, you couldn't wait ten years, and now we have to spend eternity as a menage a trios." I just don't understand the logic of someone who believes in the afterlife, and remarries after a lover dies.

On another totally different note, I have read a interesting point that someone has made about Christian beliefs. I say someone, but it is really a website, other than the point I'm about to mention, the site was just a bunch of atheist propaganda, so i don't feel it deserves a link. Anyway.....

Many of you have heard about the wondrous healing powers of faith, thousands claim that prayer has healed their illness, cancers, heart condition, financial situation, etc. There are many who would point to these miracles as the source of proof that God heals. Mark 11:24 Jesus says, "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." So the point i was referring to is directed at those who believe that God does heal through prayer:

The obvious question to ask is: What cured you? Was it the surgery/chemotherapy, or was it God? Is there any way to know whether God is playing a role or not when we pray?
Unless you take the time to intelligently analyze this situation, it looks ambiguous. God might have miraculously cured your disease, as many Christians believe. But God might also be imaginary, and the chemotherapy drugs and surgery are the things that cured you. Or your body's immune system might have cured the cancer itself.

Suppose that your arm or leg was amputated.
We know that drugs, science, treatments, nothing man made could bring your arm back, yet God could, he is Omnipotent.

Why doesn't God heal amputees?

Perhaps God chooses only to intervene and provide healing in ambiguous situations, where the source of cure could be interpretive. If an arm was returned however there would be no denying a miracle. It is an interesting point to consider.

The Philosophy of Contradiction

It makes no sense whatsoever that an infinite, omnipotent god would need to incarnate himself as a human and then subject himself to an agonizing and bloody death just so he could persuade himself to forgive us and save us from the cruel fate he created for us. It makes even less sense that the all-wise creator of the universe would manifest himself in an isolated corner of the world during a primitive age of its history, teach proverbs identical to those of the other belief systems of the day, promise to return quickly to destroy the world, and then vanish utterly for a span of time now going on two thousand years, leaving behind no trace except for a few hazy memories and anonymous writings that he had ever been here at all.

This is a excerpt from a Blog i like to visit called Way of The Mind. Now as you may have guessed I'm not Christian, however I do recognize that religious beliefs, text, gods, and the like are very difficult to prove wrong. Many atheist like to find a contradiction in text or practice and use it as a key argument against God and/or Christianity. The above text is very perfect example of the type of argument often thrown into the religious boxing ring.

As i read this quote I had to wonder if the author was qualified to make such a claim, surely he has a right to speak his mind, but is it a relevant argument? According to the quote it would appear that an infallible deity, has made quite an error. If it were true that a supposed infallible entity acted in error, or made decisions that were irrational, it would prove that the Christian God is not omnipotent or infallible. Furthermore I am certain there are countless atheist who feel that this type of contradiction is a excellent reason to condemn Christian beliefs. Let us investigate the possibility of an Omnipotent god acting irrational as the quote and Bible imply.

The most important question to ask is, who is qualified to state which behavior is irrational.

I feel that there are two key requirements, you must have equivalent knowledge about the action, or you must be able to judge the results of the action. For example:

Lets look at a doctor: First, what makes individual a doctor is the knowledge, not the degree, or what the name tag or uniform says. What knowledge does a doctor have? Clearly knowledge about health and the various factors that aid or hinder it. Now, there are only two ways that a doctors practice could be judged. It could be judged by someone who has similar knowledge, they would certainly be qualified to state that a doctors methods for treating a patient were irrational. If you did not have knowledge about health then how could you accurately address his methods? Obviously you couldn't.

Yet you could judge his ability, by observing the results of his treatment. For Example: If you visit to a doctor because you have constant headaches. The doctor would run his test, evaluate your condition, and treat your problem in the manner required (if possible.) If, after his treatment, your headaches reside, you would have learned about his ability as a doctor. You still are uninformed about his methods, because you don't have that knowledge. The evidence would suggest that his methods were rational and his knowledge is true, based on his ability to cure your headaches.

The same logic applies everything: You could judge an auto mechanic by observing the results of his work; "did his repair fix the problem with my car? " If not, then perhaps his knowledge is not reliable. If he fails repeatedly, you could say his methods are irrational. If you could not observe such a scenario, then you must have equivalent knowledge about the mechanics of an automobile, in order to state that his methods (actions related to his knowledge) were irrational.

A fellow blogger named TXStorm, has replied to my position thus far:

Rev,
Fortunately logic and knowledge are not hamstringed as you would have us believe. You are STILL arguing that I must be X in order to comment in any fashion whatsoever upon X. The fact is that I can prove a politician to be a liar without every having been a liar or a politician. I need not experience what he experiences or have the power he has to understand the concepts of honesty and coercion.

With the notions of “god” you have (and in this case you explicitly cite) omnipotence, which is inherently and necessarily contradictory. I do not have to *be* omnipotent in order to know this, for all I need to know is 1. basic sound reasoning, 2. the meaning of “omnipotence” and 3. what constitutes a contradiction.

Fortunately I, and countless others, have these characteristics so we stand as very clear counter-examples to your claims, thus proving conclusively that your claims are simply false.
There is simply no identity relationship necessary for understanding any particular characteristic. If this were true, then it would never be possible to recognize that any other has any ability which you do not have. I can understand a great artist without having his vision or talent. I can understand the mechanic without being a mechanic. I can understand the irrational lunatic without being a lunatic myself.

What you are doing is arguing for accepting the conclusion as axiomatically true, as well as trying to grant special privilege to xnty that is not granted to any other position. The rules of reason work equally for all subjects, so we cannot simply stipulate that one subject is off limits and beyond question.

Ahh yes, Unfortunately TX' has overlooked what i have clearly stated: That one may judge anothers ablitity based on the observable results, or based on evidence. You need not be a mechanic to judge the ability of a mechanic. You need not be an artist to recognize beauty, Yet you must be able to observe the effects of a either when there knowledge is applied in practice. (and have some sense of reason as TX' states)

TX's statement about not needing to be a politician or a liar to prove one wrong at first glance, seems like a total rebuttal to my argument. Yet to say "I can refute a politician or a liar without being either" is a vague statement. In reality, there is something more specific that occurs when someone is proven wrong, the guilty party must make: a statement, a policy, a claim, a law, be involved in a hypocritical action. Therefore all that is required is prove the liar/politician wrong is knowledge about his claim/policy/law/behavior. For Example: If a politician states, "My new proposal will create 1,000 new jobs within the next year. You need not have a political title to prove his claim false. (After all, it is not the title, but rather, the knowledge that is important.) You must have knowledge about how the proposal will function, how it will be applied. You must have knowledge about how the economy functions, and how jobs are created. Then you could correctly state this proposal is irrational. OR you could just wait one year, count the jobs created and say with little more than a third grade education. His proposal did not work, and was flawed or irrational.

In regard to the initial quote about the Christian God; If my argument "holds water" I will ask: Does the author of the first quote, or anyone for that matter, have authority to judge the behavior of an Omnipotent being. The requirements would have to be: having the equivalent to Omnipotent knowledge, being able to observe the results of omnipotent knowledge.

Because we certainly do not have any knowledge that could compare to omnipotence, nor do we have knowledge about the "mechanics" of the afterlife. We must ask; Are the effects of Gods actions observable? Clearly we would not know if he did save us from hell, or if it was necessary, or if there is even anything to observe, until we die. I conclude that the statement at the beginning of this post not valid, because the author can not meet the requirement to correctly make such a statement. Therefore based on the text of the Christian bible, it is not possible to make such a conclusion.

According to TX' all that is required to identify irrational behavior is knowing the following:

1. Basic sound reasoning.

2. Meaning of the word "omnipotence"

3. What constitutes a contradiction.

This is very logical, but lets put TX's theory to the test and see if it "holds water". I will tell you about a story that i read. It is a story about an infallible painter, but in order to put this into context, you must imaging that you have no knowledge about being a painter. That is, you must imaging that you do not have the knowledge that a painter has, which is about mixing colors, the nature of paint, how to achieve depth and proportion, proper brush-stroke technique. If you forget this,you'll have about as much knowledge about paint, as you have about the mechanics of omnipotence.

Once upon a time there was an infallible painter, who painted the most beautiful landscape ever painted. Every stoke was planned and intentional, every color and texture was envisioned before he ever made a stroke. To begin his masterpiece he painted the entire canvas orange, he paused, then he laid down a beautiful dark mountain range. He reflected for a long time, Then he painted over the entire canvas with white, then started over with another mountain range. Once more he paused, this time he repainted the canvas grey, and again repainted a different mountain range on top of the grey. He stepped back, looked his work and said: "yes it is done, and it is just as i originally envisioned." The painter was proud and he told several friends and family about his masterpiece and his vision. Yet before anyone could see the painting, he hid it away and then disappeared. All that remained was the story about how an infallible paint created the greatest picture ever.

Now I'm sure that anyone could look at the text from this story and say: "This painter was certainly not infallible, and he couldn't have planned every stroke and color. He repainted his canvas three times before he was satisfied. Clearly a contradiction in the text. " Based on TXStorms requirements you would be right. Based on mine you are not qualified to judge, because you do not have the knowledge of a painter, and you cannot judge the work, to verify if it is as beautiful as the story claims.

What you might know IF you had the knowledge of a painter is this: The painter knew that his oil-based paints could not be entirely covered when painted over, it would create the appearance of depth with shading. Every layer added depth, every mountain range on top of every layer further added to this effect. It was intentional, every layer, yet because we did not have his knowledge we misjudged.

I say this is true for all types of knowledge, you must have equivalent knowledge to judge ones action in regard to their knowledge. OR you could judge their ability to use their knowledge, based on the observable evidence.

It is possible, and I'm not saying its true, but if there is a omnipotent creator out there, his actions will not be judged by man. For we do not know about the various factors involved in how a sin would effect a soul, or how it is cleansed. Or what order the necessary actions must occur.

So for every atheist who has used similar rhetoric to beat down the text of the Holy Bible, I say "By stating that you know what is irrational behavior for an omnipotent entity, you have seriously overestimated your own knowledge." I will suggest that if you wish to continue to disprove Christianity, looking for contradictions in text may not be of any use to you. Perhaps try to prove that the source of the text is not credible. Otherwise your only option is to prove that the existence of an omnipotent being is impossible. Which would be quite an argument to undertake, one that I would love to read if possible.

A Glitch in Evolution

"Mental disorders are common in the United States and internationally. An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year. When applied to the 2004 U.S. Census residential population estimate for ages 18 and older, this figure translates to 57.7 million people. Even though
mental disorders are widespread in the population, the main burden of illness is concentrated in a much smaller proportion — about 6 percent, or 1 in 17 — who suffer from a serious mental illness. In addition, mental disorders are the leading cause of disability in the U.S. and Canada for ages 15-44. Many people suffer from more than one mental disorder at a given time. Nearly half (45 percent) of those with any mental disorder meet criteria for 2 or more
disorders, with severity strongly related to comorbidity."

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/healthinformation/statisticsmenu.cfm

This is a excerpt from the National Institute for Mental Health's official website. It is an amazing statistic. Are we that flawed mentally? Perhaps the current state of our mental ability has not "evolved" to handle the constant access to basic survival needs. If you accept that evolution is a creditable model for the development of our species, then you'll know that the human consciousness is just an extension of our organism that has evolved throughout many years.

Awareness is found in all living things to some extent. For example: plants grow towards sunlight, roots grow deep to find water, the Venus fly-trap detects when an insect is within its grasp, and then reacts by quickly entrapping it. From the most basic, to the most complex, an organisms awareness and ability to react is essential to it survival.

Consciousness is when an organism has developed an intelligent awareness of its surroundings. The human consciousness is certainly the most advance example of awareness in any organism on earth. Its ability to avoid danger, manipulate its surroundings, provide food & sustenance are unmatched, yet still, it is only an extension of the organism. It is a tool employed by the organism to serve itself. You are a tool of your organism, or in other words your body is not meant to serve you, you are meant to serve it. That is your purpose, to find sustenance, avoid danger, reproduce and to learn from your environment to better serve your body. If you accept evolution, you must accept that.

So what does this have to do with mental health?

Within the past couple hundred years, many of our societies have went from hunters and gatherers to consumers that hunt for deals on jewelry and gather fast food value meals. This puts our precious consciousness completely out of its element. Our brain was wired in a time when meals had to be hunted, and not always found. When meals where planted and did not always grow. You might say its just a basic instinct to find food, and your right. If the human consciousness was a car, our instincts would be seated behind the wheel. The instinct to find sustenance, to feed ourselves, family or tribe was the primary drive behind our consciousness, and survival required constant effort. For many thousands of years this was one the main purposes of human consciousness.

Maybe you Fancy yourself a little bit more intelligent that someone from the Mesolithic era. (Roughly 20,000 years ago.) I assure you; if Mesolithic man were given the same resources as you in their education and childhood development, there would be little different. The technological world that you live in is just a house of cards stacked upon the backs of a few thousand innovators and inventors. Our ability to communicate and share our knowledge has allowed each generation to add to the long chain of knowledge while the common man reaps the benefits. Actually the metaphor of a chain is very realistic view of our everyday knowledge. The beginning of the chain is composed of innovators and inventors, link after link, each hanging on to their predecessors for many miles. Then at the bottom, in one unoriginal lump, dangles you and I with the rest of mankind.

Now take that Mesolithic mind that is hard wired to search for food and expend every one of its resources for survival and sustenance, then place it in the technological wonder that we live in. The technological age is only a recent addition to the chain of knowledge, thus lowering the rest of man into a totally foreign environment. The purpose of our consciousness not yet evolved to serve this change. Surrounded with the constant access to food and sustenance our minds malfunction and overindulge. Our instinct to expend all our effort on survival has changed, the previous "wiring" does not compute with our modern surroundings. The drive to eat manifests easily into an eating disorder, which i feel is the result of our human nature, in an environment that does not need such a drive to find food. Imaging Mesolithic man, suddenly surrounded by fast food and supermarkets, shelter easily obtainable, clothes available for purchase everywhere, shoes! Surely he would over-indulge.

Our consciousness no longer needs to devote all its resources into providing for its organism. Now the human consciousness has an overabundance of free time to think about whatever it wants to. Our minds dwell on foreign ideas, like happiness, expending all its energy and resources into caring about what other people think about its appearance. For a brain that is hard wired for survival, in an environment were survival is not a concern, neurotic behavior is common. When a organism is placed in an environment that is not in accordance with its instincts, the consciousness malfunctions. Similar behavior is found in hunting dogs, if they are denied the opportunity to fulfil their instinctive function, they become neurotic. A type of parrot called a macaw, is dependant on interaction and intellectual stimulation, if deprived it will develop a neurosis.

So here we are, millions of Americans, many of us never have to worry about when the next meal is coming, or how we will survive the winter. We are left to our own device, the extension of our organism called the consciousness. Recently freed from the bonds of survival, we become manic depressive, obsessive-compulsive, bi-polar and bulimic train wrecks.

Cigarette reform laws

I would like to see the rest of the country follow Maine's recent example:

On Jan 19, a new cigarette reform law took effect in Maine's second largest city, Bangor. The law will prohibit smoking in a car with children. This gives Bangor police the authority to pull over a car within the city limits and give a fine of 50$ to anyone caught smoking with a passenger under 18 years old.

The result of this new law was a massive uproar , and many people who support smokers rights, began their rhetoric. I think the arguments in favor of this are obviously based an a child's a lack of control in regard to the environment that he or she lives in. This makes the adult population obligated to provide a safe environment for children. Health issues are the main concern and i think the reason why you shouldn't smoke with a child in a confined area, are obvious.

So why should anyone oppose this law? Here are the several of the key argument against this it. I will offer a counter argument to each.

1. Second hand smoke is "....Junk science."

2. Gary Nolan, a spokesman for the pro-smoker's group, The Smoker's Club, said..

''At some point these busybodies have to stop,'' Mr. Nolan said. ''If we can give our rights up to personal property, the nose of the camel is in the tent and there's no telling how far we can go."

His point is this: How far can you pursue smoking around kids? Will you allow police to dictate what you can do in your own house? Can they search your car or your body? Does this give government to much authority? Is it an infringement on the 4th amendment?

3."......I'm telling you the high-fat craze is next.''

Another Pandora's box scenario. Still it must be defined where the limits of health issue laws end. Obesity is a major concern in America and can lead to all types of health issues, like diabetes & heart problems. So do we ticket parents who are caught feeding their children high-fat foods?

My response:

1. Is second hand smoke dangerous?

Well the Surgeon General certainly thinks so. Some of the effects of regular exposure include a 25 to 30 increase in the chance of developing heart disease and a 25 to 30 percent increase in developing lung cancer.

http://www.healthfinder.gov/docs/doc10303.htm

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/index.html

http://www.healthfinder.gov/Scripts/SearchContext.asp?topic=779

http://search.hhs.gov/search?q=Second+Hand+Smoke&sitesearch=&ie=&site=HHS&output=xml_no_dtd&client=HHS&lr=&proxystylesheet=HHS

I'd have to take their word for it, after all they are... "America's chief health educator, giving Americans the best scientific information available on how to improve their health and reduce the risk of illness and injury."

The other side of the debate is posted here: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-23540013_ITM

Oddly the article is the copyright of Financial Times Ltd. which may have some interest in cigarette sales, I'm not sure.

This one is from The Smokers Club:
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html

2. Is this law the gateway to infringement on our 4th amendment rights?

Second hand smoke harms your child, so it is illegal to smoke in a car with a child aboard. Yet, isn't it just as harmful to smoke around your child at home? Shouldn't it be illegal to smoke around your children in any confined area? Why just in a car? How would law enforcement effectively enforce law in your home? Where does it end.

I'm not really sure. One factor might be that it is just more practical to enforce public law. Laws that effect your behavior at home are much more difficult to regulate. Still, there are many behaviors that are illegal at home and in public, so why should this be any different? I can't think of a good reason why it shouldn't be illegal to smoke around children within a confined area such as a home or car. If there is no probable cause you need not worry about your rights being violated. The important personal rights to protect are those of the children, the ones who don't have a political voice, whose health is being compromised.

May I add that as a long time smoker who has children, I have never lit a cigarette in my home, and I've never smoked in a car with my children. It is only takes a little effort to show consideration for their well being. Actually I find it strange that this law should even be necessary, rather it should just be a common courtesy. Yet so many are to lazy and/or narcissistic to be unconvinced with issues like the health of their kids.

3. Are laws about feeding children High-Fat foods next on the agenda?

I hope so, there are lot of good reasons why obesity just as bad as second hand smoke. Some people would say that its a national crisis. A leading market research firm based in Rosemont, Ill., shows that about 62% of adults and 34% of children are overweight or obese. Health issues for children include:

• Cardiovascular disease
  



• Type 2 diabetes, DKA
  



• Polycystic ovarian syndrome
  



• Respiratory disease
  



• Slipped capital femoral epiphysis, Blount's disease
  



• Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis
  



• Pseudotumor cerebri
  



• Depression, low self-esteem, decreased quality of life

http://www.aap.org/obesity/

This type of abuse would have issues with law enforcement. It would be very hard for police to recognize an illegal food, and well as difficult to detect a crime being committed. Perhaps some authority could be given to doctors who could contact law officials when a certain weight ratio has been exceeded and determined to be dangerous to the child. Officers could issue mandatory education/exercise programs with fines for non-compliance. I wouldn't recommend law officials and police to have open enforcement on this area though, as I said, it would have to be through the medium of a doctors referral.

I feel that the example Maine has provided is ideal, yet as I have discussed in this post I'm not worried/concerned with any of the Pandora's box scenario's. If any of my points are off-based, or if an example of 4th amendment related wrong-doing has been overlooked, please inform me. Please refrain from the commenting on whether or not second hand smoke is dangerous, unless your a doctor or research scientist, then please do!

The lost Jesus Tomb; random thoughts...

Today is the day that a documentary entitled "The Lost Tomb of Jesus"
will be on the discovery channel. It is also the first day in my investigation into the nature of belief, which as Socrates said, is the "short-cut to thinking". I have been perusing around the web to various atheist and christian websites. So far most atheist website proclaims this new evidence as a solid refutation of the cornerstone of christian faith. While every Christian site proclaims this as just a bunch of fabricated b/s.

Despite the fact that the show has not aired yet, most people are already formed their opinions about the validity of it. Further evidence that holding on to an opinion skews the way you view everything. A fellow carpenter once told me to "keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out...." I would like to add on to his quote: "...but not so closed that nothing else gets in."

I hope everyone will watch tonight from an objective chair, yet i suspect the agnostics will be the only ones who learn anything tonight. Its on Discovery Channel on March 4 at 9 p.m. ET/PT. Here is the official press release

On a humorous note, i have read that many people propose the idea of Jesus being cloned, (atheist of course) not the kind of Resurrection that Christians believe in. Check out this site for a laugh.