Say Anything Blog

So far the cosmological proofs advanced are:

1.  What was first must have always been.

2.  What has always been was not of another.

3.  What is not of another is independent and all else dependent.

...Whence also it is plainly consequent, Fourthly, that such a Being [what was first, not of another, and independent of all] is necessary, or doth necessarily exist:  that is, that it is of such a nature as that it could not or cannot but be.  For what is in being, neither by it’s own choice, nor any others, is necessarily.  But what was not made by itself, (which hath been shown to be impossible), nor by any other, (as it hath been proved something was not), it is manifest, it neither depended on its choice, nor any other’s that it is.

(What couldn’t make itself, nor was made by any other, its being depended not on its choice, nor on any thing dependent of it, hence, that it exists is necessary.)

And therefore, its existence is not owing to choice at all, but to the necessity of its own nature.  Wherefore it is alway by a simple, absolute, natural necessity; being of a nature to which it is altogether repugnant and impossible ever not to have been, or ever to cease from being.  And now having gone thus far, and being assured, that hitherto we feel the ground firm under us; that is having gained full certainty, that there is an eternal, uncaused, independent, necessary Being, and therefore actually and everlastingly existing; we may advance one step further.

And with equal assurance add, Fifthly, that this eternal, independent, uncaused, necessary Being, is self active; that is (which is at present meant), not such as acts upon itself, but that which hath the power of acting upon other things, in and of itself, without deriving it from any other.  Or at least that there is such a Being as is eternal, uncaused, &c, having the power of action in and of itself.  For either such a Being as hath been already evinced is of itself active or unactive, or hath the power of action of itself or not.  If we will say the latter, let it be considered what we say, and to what purpose we say it… --John Howe (1630-1705).

After establishing that “it is most apparent, that some being hath ever been, or did never begin to be” we move on to the second and third evidences.

...Whence, farther, it is also evident, Secondly, that some being was uncaused, or was ever of itself without any cause.  For what never was from another had never any cause, since nothing could be its own cause.  And somewhat, as appears from what hath been said never was from another.  Or it may be plainly argued thus; that either some being was uncaused, or all being was caused.  But if all being was caused, then some one at least was the cause of itself; which hath been already shown impossible.  Therefore the expression commonly used concerning the first being, that it was of itself, is only to be taken negatively, that is that it was not another; not positively, as if it did some time make itself.  Or what there is positive signified by that form of speech, is only to be taken thus, that it was a being of that nature, as that it was impossible it should ever not have been; not that it did ever of itself step out of not being into being.

To sum up: whatever was eternal was uncaused, or existed without cause.  Since what was first cannot be its own cause, something is eternal.  We take this then negatively only, that what was first is not of another. 

...And now is hence farther evident, thirdly, that some being is independent upon any other, that is whereas it already appears that some being did never depend on any other, as a productive cause, and was not beholden to any other, this it might come into being; it is thereupon equally evident that it is simply independent, or cannot beholden to any for its continued being.  For what did never need a productive cause, doth as little need a sustaining or conserving cause.  And to make this more plain, either some being in independent, or all being is dependent.  But there is nothing without the compass of all being whereon it may depend.  Wherefore to say, that all being doth depend, is to say it depends on nothing, that is that it depends not.  For to depend on nothing, is not to depend.  It is therefore a manifest contradiction to say that all being doth depend; against which it is no relief to urge, that all beings do circularly depend on one another.  For so, however the whole circle or sphere of being should depend on nothing; or one at last depend on itself, which negatively taken, as before, is true, and the thing we contend for—that one, the common spport of all the rest, depends not on any thing without itself.—[John Howe, (1630-1705)]

Again to summarize: Since what was first is not of another it is not dependent upon another, but self-sustaining.  It then follows that either what is first is independent or all is dependent.  Since all cannot be dependent else it depends on nothing, what was first is independent and all else dependent upon that which was first.

Many claims are made that theism is without reason and solely the product of faith.  It seems naturalistic theism has all but disappeared from our education resulting in ignorance of its claims.  Theism is the basis of natural philosophy and natural law.  Hence, theism was instrumental in the thought and framing of our US Constitution. 

It will take a series of posts to cover the cosmological, teleological, anthropological, and ontological proofs theism offers—the greatest proof being the summation of all four proofs. The cosmological proofs will be in 5 parts over 3 posts. With all the talk on SAB about a Creator, religion, atheism, etc., and that such is really at the heart of our positions and perspectives, this topic could shed some useful light on things.

....We therefore begin with God’s existence; for the evincing of which, we may be most assured, First, that there hath been somewhat or other from all eternity; or that, looking backward, somewhat of real being must be confessed eternal.  Let such as have not been used to think of any thing more than what they could see with their eyes, and to whom reasoning only seems difficult because they have not tried what they can do in it, but use their thoughts a little, and by moving them a few easy steps, they will soon find themselves as sure of this as that they see, or hear, or understand, or are any thing.

For being sure that something now is, (that you see, for instance, or are something,) you must then acknowledge, that certainly something always was, and hath ever been, or been from all eternity; or else you must say, that, some time, nothing was; or that all being once was not.  And so, since you find that something now is, there was a time when all being did begin to be; that is, that till that time there was nothing; but now, at that time something first began to be.  For what can me plainer than that if all being some time was not, and now some being is, every thing of being had a beginning.  And thence it would follow that some being, that is, the first that ever began to be, did of itself start up out of nothing, or made itself to be when before nothing was.

But now, do you not plainly see that it is altogether impossible any thing should do so; that is, when it was as yet nothing, and when nothing at all as yet was, that it should make itself, or come into being of itself?  For surely making itself is doing something.  But can that which is nothing do any thing?  Unto all doing there must be some doer.  Wherefore a thing must be before it can do any thing; and therefore it would follow, that it was before it was; or was diverse from itself; for a cause must be a distinct thing from that which is caused by it.  Wherefore it is most apparent, that some being hath ever been, or did never begin to be.—John Howe, (1630-1705)

Here is a little something for all those who believe there are no moral absolutes.

“For if there is no higher law, there is no basis for saying that any man-made law is unjust…and, in such case, the ultimate reason for things, as Justice Holmes himself conceded, is force. If there is no natural law, there are no natural rights; and if there are no natural rights, the Bill of Rights is a delusion, and everything which a man possesses—his life, his liberty and his property—are held by sufferance of government, and in that case it is inevitable that government will some day find it expedient to take away what is held by such a title as that. And if there are no eternal truths, if everything changes, everything, then we may not complain when the standard of citizenship changes from freedom to servility and when democracy relapses into tyranny.” (Harold McKinnon)

Which American political party stands to benefit politically from an early withdrawl from Iraq?

Which American political party stands to benefit politically if America gives up on Iraq?

Which American political party stands to benefit politically from an American defeat in Iraq?

Which American political party stands to suffer politically from an American victory in Iraq?

It then follows that whichever party answers the above questions has a vested political interest in America’s failure in Iraq.  What does that say about that party and its leadership? What kind of party invests in the failure of its own country against its sworn enemies?

Nine People Shot in less than Seven Hours

12:38 PM CST on Friday, February 16, 2007.

Six people were shot inside a Mid-City nightclub Friday morning just hours after a triple shooting in Bywater....

Just hours before, a triple shooting in the Bywater area left two people dead....

Mayor Ray Nagin was also at the crime scene Thursday night and issued the following statement on the murders:

“Last month, I stated that one murder is too many in our community, our fragile city that is still on the journey to recovery.  Tonight, I am deeply saddened that our young people continue dying in our streets.

“As I continue to work to address the systemic problems that have plagued our criminal justice system for decades, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of addressing educational and social problems that have plague our community for just as long.

“I commend the clergy for stepping up and working with the city to help our youth find a way out of a life of crime.  We must all work together and unify as a community to save our children from violence.”

This is exactly why we don’t trust liberals on law enforcement and national security.  Apparently, “last month, one murder [was] too many in our community”.  This month the mayor is “deeply saddened”.  So what is he going to do about it?  He intends to fix the “criminal justice system” and address “educational and social problems”.  New Orleans, don’t expect crime to decrease anytime soon.

MADISON, FEDERALIST No. 10
(The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection)

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. [Emphasis added] Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets. [Emphasis added]

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.

The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS…

...From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.  [Emphasis added]

While many Americans decry the current political climate and call for bipartisianship, our founders saw it differently.  These parties and the “distinct interests” each represents are all that stand between our liberty and the destructive nature of democracy.  To hell with biparitisianship if all it means is the interests of both sides will be equally served at the expense of “personal security or the rights of property.”

One argument against a creator and intelligent design rests upon the science restricted by the scientific method—methodological naturalism.  Wikipedia states it well:

... the scientific method, which makes the methodological assumption that observable effects in nature are best explainable only by similarly natural causes, and with irrelevance to the assumption of the existence or non-existence of supernatural elements, and so considers supernatural explanations for such events to be outside of science

methodological naturalism is “the adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it…

...but methodological naturalism must be adopted as a strategy or working hypothesis for science to succeed. We may therefore be agnostic about the ultimate truth of naturalism, but must nevertheless adopt it and investigate nature as if nature is all that there is.

The logic appears to be as follows:

Major Premise:.

.observable effects in nature are best explainable only by similarly natural causes,and with irrelevance to the assumption of the existence or non-existence of supernatural elements, and so considers supernatural explanations for such events to be outside of science

Minor Premise:

Natural causes sufficiently explain the all natural effects in the universe.

Conclusion: 

There are no supernatural causes necessary to explain natural [observable] effects [in nature]. (i.e. there is no creator or intelligent design).

Challenge:  Identify the fallacy.

(Updates will be added and edited as necessary)

Since it is legal, as well as morally right, to kill someone for attempting murder, why is it not ok with some of you good people to kill (i.e. death penalty) when someone is successful in one’s attempt and convicted of murder?  It seems logical and morally consistent that since a person is deserving of death for attempting murder, that person is even more deserving for committing murder.

Now, considering the practice of capital punishment, I would also like to ask:  Seeing we as a society accept the risk to the innocent of maintaining armed law enforcement, which has resulted in far more accidental and wrongful deaths than capital punishment, why is the very small risk of wrongful execution unacceptable to some of you? 

If in the first answer, justice demands a murderer be executed, then in the second answer, the risk must be both acceptable and necessary for justice to be served.

Jan 30 11:46 AM US/Eastern

WASHINGTON (AP)—The Democratic chairman of a House panel examining the government’s response to climate change said Tuesday there is evidence that senior Bush administration officials sought repeatedly “to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming.”

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said he and the top Republican on his oversight committee, Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, have sought documents from the administration on climate policy, but repeatedly been rebuffed.

“The committee isn’t trying to obtain state secrets or documents that could affect our immediate national security,” said Waxman, opening the hearing. “We are simply seeking answers to whether the White House’s political staff is inappropriately censoring impartial government scientists.”

“We know that the White House possesses documents that contain evidence of an attempt by senior administration officials to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming and minimize the potential danger,” Waxman said…

...The survey involved scientists across the government from NASA and the Environmental Protection Agency to the department’s of Agriculture, Energy, Commerce, Defense and Interior. In all the government employees more than 2,000 scientists who spend at least some of their time on climate issues, the report said. (more...)

Most liberals are opposed to our military efforts in Iraq.  Most say it was ill-advised, reckless, inept, etc.  Most say we are losing in Iraq.  Most say we can’t win in Iraq. I have to ask:

If our military efforts and goal of democracy in Iraq is so wrong, why are the terrorist fighting us in Iraq?  Why aren’t the terrorists fighting us here, in America?  Why is Iran and Syria interested in the outcome in Iraq? (more...)

Robertson Predicts ‘Mass Killing’
Jan 02 6:29 PM US/Eastern

In what has become an annual tradition of prognostications, religious broadcaster Pat Robertson predicted Tuesday that a terrorist attack on the United States would result in “mass killing” late in 2007.

“I’m not necessarily saying it’s going to be nuclear,” he said during his news-and-talk television show “The 700 Club” on the Christian Broadcasting Network. “The Lord didn’t say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that.”

Robertson said God told him during a recent prayer retreat that major cities and possibly millions of people will be affected by the attack, which should take place sometime after September.

Robertson said God also told him that the U.S. only feigns friendship with Israel and that U.S. policies are pushing Israel toward “national suicide.”....

..."I have a relatively good track record,” he said. “Sometimes I miss.”

In ‘Old Testament’ times, one whose prophecy was less than 100% correct, was judged a false prophet and to be put to death.

If Robertson misses on this one, as he has on others by his own admission, who do you think is really talking to him?

Reagan’s ‘64’ Goldwater Speech.

I played this speech today and realized again what leadership is.  The message delivered almost effortlessly relates to our current state of affairs.  I really do miss this great American.

WHAT CAN I DO TO MAKE YOUR FLIGHT MORE UNCOMFORTABLE?
Wed Nov 22, 8:04 PM ET

Six imams removed from a US Airways flight from Minneapolis to Phoenix are calling on Muslims to boycott the airline. If only we could get Muslims to boycott all airlines, we could dispense with airport security altogether.

Witnesses said the imams stood to do their evening prayers in the terminal before boarding, chanting “Allah, Allah, Allah”—coincidentally, the last words heard by hundreds of airline passengers on 9/11 before they died.

Witnesses also said that the imams were talking about Saddam Hussein, and denouncing America and the war in Iraq. About the only scary preflight ritual the imams didn’t perform was the signing of last wills and testaments.

(more...)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida, impeached as a federal judge in 1989 on corruption charges, dropped his bid under pressure on Tuesday to chair a congressional panel designed to help protect America’s security, a party aide said.

Hastings took the action after being told by Rep. Nancy Pelosi, in line to head the U.S. House of Representatives when the new Congress convenes in January, that she would not give him the coveted job, the aide said.

As House speaker, Pelosi decides who in her party serves on the committee that helps oversee federal efforts to protect the United States.

Last week, Hastings made a public plea for the post, arguing that despite being removed by Congress as a federal judge, he did nothing wrong and was cleared by a court of the corruption charges.

But Pelosi decided against picking Hastings for the chairmanship and told him at a private meeting. She has not yet decided who she will name instead, the aide said.

Good News!

But, I hesitate to celebrate too much until we know who she might appoint.  Keep your fingers crossed for a Blue Dog.