It's just You

Wow, this year has just begun and already we're so far into it. Spring has rolled on us, before we know it it'll be summer. Talk about time being an enemy. Anyways, ok, so here we go. What's my revelation this week? I'm thinking about the apostle Paul, in a matter so common, escaping problems. In his letter to the Roman church he writes "I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me". It's apparent that this is among the laws of our universe. It's just not in our common text books =) So I find it pretty consistent. I'm sure I'm not alone in this matter, but rather those around me, my enviroment, atmosphere, and this so ever growing and changing world.

Time is a factor in which we either race against it, or simply give up. In many points of life I find it to be an enemy, as opposed to a friend of mine. Evolution has truly made it's claim in our world. Of course I'm not talking about some Darwin theory, but just the evolving of our time, our era. We're in an age where we'll soon be seeing revolving skyscrapers. Don't believe me, check it out "Revolving skyscraper".

I've come to grow into a person I didn't see 5 years ago, maybe even 2 years ago, or even a few months ago. I've seem to have lost track of my structure, lost track of my ambitions and goals, my selected choices on succes, my thoughts on how to acheive, lost track of myself. Why? Because I've become more customed to dealing with others, and I've seen as a matter of fact; that the world is much bigger than anyone in it. Look around, your in it. 

If you just take the time to look around yourself, you'll notice the vague images of what life really is. The World is not inhabitted by buildings, materials, industry, or even money. It's inhabbited by people. 
Not normal people, not clear minded people, not loving people, hating poeple, dysfunctional people, monsterous people, but simply people. That's what they are. People. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you've read this far than you've come to see that in us, we have a little of what I just named.

"I can be Worthy"

This is a quote I heard in a sermon no more than 2 years ago by Pastor Daniel Butler, such a great man. When he submitted it to the people, It immediately struck me, even the very depth of me. He went on to speak of how nowhere in the Scripture does it ever make mention where God condenmed or rejected the people simply for not being worthy. Trying your best to be worthy is the thing you find in servants who serve a great King, in a soldier trying to protect his home and country, it's the thing you find in All leaders. It's in our nature to succeed as not only a strong breed, but humans. With this, I turned my thinking into Value. I found that I used to be so wrapped on myself that I rarely had time to truly enjoy my enviroment, enjoy who I was supposed to be. Why? Because I was so caught into the things that destroy people. Power, Money, and the list goes on.

These last few months have been different in so many ways, but mostly 'cause I set time to the side so that I could start building a "self". Not self-esteem, self-motivation, self-determination, but just a "Self"... I need someone in ME to depend on. As you all do. It's rather simple if you think you about it.

I read a headline not too long ago that makes perfect sense. It states "If Electricity comes from Electrons, then does Morality come from Morons?" Makes sense right? Well, at least to me it does. If you can find morality coming from a moron, then you can find a cure for cancer, you can find hope in the hopeless, you can find Love in a hateful heart; what I'm saying is that nothing is impossible. I, as a moron, not often, but sometimes can find sensible morality coming from my brain. I sometimes act out a little rendition of the scarecrows part in the Wizard of OZ, if I only had a brain, when I can't find the answer to my problems. It's childish, I know. But it helps me out so much, so in a nutshell I figure out my problem. Your greatest problems aren't things to consist with your environment, such as friends, coworkers, bosses, weather, etc. It's just you.

Does God Exist?

"Does God Exist?" was the title of the event held on Saturday night(April 4, 2009) which I attended. It was the debate between famed author and atheist, Christopher Hitchens and acclaimed apologist and philosopher William Lane Craig. I did my best to go into this debate without being biased on anyone, or even any belief. I believe in God and there's no one who can change that. So what did I have to lose, right? 

From Beginning to End I honestly believed it was a one sided event. Hitchens brought nothing to the table that even caught interest enough to make an impact. I even remember some Atheists saying things like "Wow, am I HAPPY to be an atheist" in a sarcastic manner of course. 

Hitchens is after all one of the world's most outspoken Atheist, and author of the book god Is NOT Great. So you would think with a broad and bold title the man would have had more to say concerning the subject. But anyways, prepare yourselves for the long breakdown I'm about to give.... and... here... we.... Go!

Biola University hosted a debate between William Lane Craigand Christopher Hitchens on the question “Does God Exist?” The debate was moderated by Hugh Hewitt and seen live by several thousand in attendance at Biola and many more at remote locations in 30 states and several countries. 

1. This event was no mere spectacle, but a legitimate debate that addressed substantive arguments.
2. Everybody behaved themselves, including members of the audience.
3. Bill Craig made two claims in his opening argument: (A) There are no good arguments for atheism, and (B) there are several good arguments for the existence of God (theism). The balance of his opening argument was devoted to four carefully delineated arguments and a fifth thesis about the role of experience in grounding belief in God. This organization of the case for God’s existence has been used by Bill Craig time and again. The first argument is a cosmological argument, based on the origin of the universe. The second was a version of the teleological argument that emphasizes the improbability of the existence of a universe inhabited by human beings, given the evidence of both physics and biology. Third, he argued that the best explanation for the existence of objective moral facts is the existence of God. Fourth, he stated three sets of historical facts that are uniformly accepted by New Testament scholars, which together provide ample evidence thatJesus Christ rose from the dead, implying the occurrence of an important miracle and hence the existence of God. Each argument was constructed as a valid deductive argument, so that rational denial of the conclusion would require a direct challenge to one or more of the premises in each argument. His fifth point was that belief in God can as well be grounded in direct experience of God, though this is not to be confused with an argument for the existence of God. He ended with a challenge to Christopher Hitchens to show how these arguments err, and also argue that God does not exist.
4. Bill Craig made the interesting point that believers in God should not be so distracted by arguments for the existence of God that they miss the experience of God.
5. In his opening argument, Christopher Hitchens argued first that Bill Craig is not a consistent evidentialist, and that, to the extent that Craig is an evidentialist, he is, like any evidentialist Christian, a “retrospective evidentialist” who appeals to evidence now that no theist could have centuries ago. Further to this point, Hitchens suggested that contemporary (Christian) theists have, in the face of scientific evidence for evolution, “retreated” from their earlier strategies by claiming that evolution is evidence for theism, or is at least compatible with theism. Next he argued that even if God did exist (by which I think he meant the God mentioned in the conclusion of Craig’s arguments), no reason has been given to believe that this God cares, while there are reasons to think this God is indifferent. (I think, consistent with his practice in his book god Is Not Great, Hitchens would use the word “god” without caps.) His third point was that Craig is obligated to “prove to a certainty” that God exists, while atheists like himself rightly value the role of doubt in the absence of evidence and intellectual humility. This led directly to disclaimers about Craig’s definition of the term “atheism”—Hitchens regards himself as an “a-theist” in the sense that he believes no good reasons exist for believing God exists and so he does not believe that God does exist. Thus, he does not claim to know that God does not exist; therefore, he has no obligation to argue that God does not exist. He concluded with a direct response to the teleological, or fine-tuning argument, for theism. First he said that most physicists acknowledge that “we hardly know what we don’t know” about the origin of the universe and its early history. This looks more like an objection to Craig’s cosmological argument, so Hitchens may have mispoken. He then said there were three“layman’s reasons” for rejecting the fine-tuning argument. I was only able to distinguish two, since they were not enumerated clearly. First, he asked whether prior to the beginning of the universe there was pre-existing matter, as a step toward the question, “Who designed the Designer?” Second, he asked whether theists have considered the “nothingness that is coming,” his point being that the universe will eventually fade into oblivion and that therefore the so-called “Designer” seems to have designed poorly.
6. The two opening speeches differed dramatically. Bill Craig laid out a case in straightforward manner, with numbered premises and his conclusion. (A complete outline of his cumulative case was included on one sheet of the program that was printed for the occasion.) Christopher Hitchens adopted more of a narrative style that was more loosely argued and less linear in its progression. Both were articulate and engaging.
7. In the rebuttal, cross-examination, and response portions of the debate that followed, Bill Craig pressed Christopher Hitchens on his conception of atheism, his reasons for being an atheist, and his responses to the arguments presented in Craig’s opening speech. In this respect, Craig was in greater control of themes in the debate. This was helped immensely by the clear progression, crisp identification, and repetition of his original arguments. Hitchens resisted Craig’s efforts to extract a more precise definition of Hitchens’s atheism than his simple denial that there is adequate evidence for theism. Hitchens claimed that if you believe the universe is designed, then you also have to believe the designer is short on the excellence attributed by theists to God. There is a tension between there being a god who is completely indifferent to human suffering, or a god who provides a bizarre remedy in the form of having “someone tortured to death during the Bronze Age” and Roman rule, a god who demands conformity to his requirements in order to be saved from damnation, and, in any case, who leaves countless individuals without opportunity to hear about and accept this remedy.
8. The most noteworthy difference between these debaters consists in this: preparation. One may agree or disagree with Bill Craig’s claims, but there can be no question that he was thoroughly prepared for every aspect of the debate and never faltered in his response to objections by Hitchens. Christopher Hitchens, on the other hand, dropped several of Craig’s opening arguments, and seriously misunderstood or distorted the moral argument, the argument from the resurrection of Jesus, and Craig’s appeal to experience. I think Craig was most successful in demonstrating the error in Hitchens’s discombobulated rendition of Craig’s moral argument. Whether the audience followed the competing interpretations of N. T. Wright’s historical argument concerning the probability of the resurrection is another matter. But I can vouch for Craig’s construal of Wright’s argument, and, for that matter, for Hitchens’s confusion on the point. As for the appeal to experience of God (and the witness of the Holy Spirit), I might have put the point differently than Craig did and treat it as a kind of evidence that serves the subject of the experience without the need for argument. But Bill Craig and I may have a different view of the epistemology of such experience.
9. Christopher Hitchens made a couple of odd points in his rebuttal, as if to answer arguments or objections that Bill Craig had not given. For example, he asserted that he believes in free will, and went on about it as if Craig had pressed him directly on this point. This was a strategic mistake, if only because it wasted valuable time that should have been devoted to what was already on the table. Worse, Craig could have challenged Hitchens’s claim to believe in free will, given his naturalism. I gather that Hitchens sensed this, saw its relevance to the question of moral conduct, and attempted to pre-empt Craig on the point. But Hitchens’s complete failure to understand the moral argument presented by Craig landed him in enough serious trouble as it was. Hitchens also digressed about the embarrassing canonization of Mother Theresa by the Roman Catholic Church. I suppose he couldn’t resist, since he had written a whole book on the subject. It was obviously a pointless statement and added all the more reason for people to believe he had no real argument.
10. The only thing that surprised me about Bill Craig’s strategy in the debate was his determination to get Hitchens to specify more precisely his self-identification as an atheist. Much of Craig’s cross-examination time was taken up with this question. That is due in part to Hitchens’s bobbing and weaving on the point. I understand Craig’s rationale for tasking Hitchens with clarification of his position. I’ve encountered the same maneuver in my debates with Michael Shermer and Greg Cavin, for example. As I see it, regardless of the standards of formal debate, both parties to a debate of such existential significance should be clear about their own positions and be prepared to present good reasons for them. (While this is a burden of proof issue, the term “burden of proof” never came up, if I remember correctly.) Christopher Hitchens has a worldview. It is thoroughly naturalistic and scientistic, and indeed materialistic. It hardly matters what he means by “atheism” in application to himself, since this is clearly his positive stance. And he made no attempt to argue that his worldview is true. Bill Craig is right about this.
11. Christopher Hitchens’s attempt to distinguish between the hubris of the argumentative theist (my term) and the intellectual humility of his kind of atheist was totally unconvincing. Hitchens’s tone in the debate, consistent with his hallmark practice, belied his disclaimers about claims to knowledge. Once, in his closing argument, Bill Craig drew attention to this point, and did so dramatically but graciously. He pointed out that Hitchens made his own truth claims on behalf of atheism, that he did so without supporting argument, and that “you’ve got to come to a debate prepared with arguments.” While Hitchens did make arguments, they were largely unfocused, sometimes disconnected, and often irrelevant.
12. The second half of cross-examination must have been interesting to the predominantly evangelical audience. Christopher Hitchens asked Bill Craig directly whether he believes that there are devils, that Jesus was born of a virgin, that some nonChristian religions are false, and that some Christian denominations entertain false beliefs. Craig answered each, respectively: yes, yes, yes, and yes. But he added (a) that the existence or non-existence of demons has no bearing on his argument from the resurrection for theism, (b) that while he did not think the virgin birth could be proved, whether it happened is also irrelevant to his case for theism, (c) that Islam is among the false religions, and (d) that while there are differences among Christian brethren (Craig is not a Calvinist but more of a Wesleyan, for example), their differences are on less substantive points. While Craig may not have expected this line of questioning, he answered well. It was a sign of Hitchens’s lack of preparation, I believe, that his cross-examination of Craig was unproductive. (One further indication of this is that Craig’s answers were never brought up for special criticism.)
13. The main development of the cross-examination period is that Hitchens allowed that morality could be “purely evolutionary and functional.” Given his comments on morality throughout the evening, I don’t see how they could be anything else than that on his view. Thus, he is, Craig would argue, caught in a contradiction if he also claims that morality is objective in the sense Craig defined. And Hitchens had made such a claim. Note: Hitchens could hardly have denied this and remained consistent with his condemnation of religion in his book.
14. Speaking of Hitchens’s condemnation of religion, I think he found the balance that was needed if he was to remain faithful to the spirit and tone of his book without completely alienating his audience. His diatribes in god Is Not Great are mean and visceral in the extreme. During tonight’s debate, he was more cautious in his declamations. He did say “I’ll be damned” if I don’t say what I really think of religion and Christianity. But this was mild in comparison with what Hitchen is capable of. The problem is—and he knew this—his off-the-cuff remarks were not germane to the debate. Someone reading his book for the first time after seeing this debate may be surprised by the venom they find, but they probably will not be shocked. I say this because I do think it was a delicate balancing act for him to be more measured while still acting in character.
15. Christopher Hitchens attempted to drag Old Testament accounts of “genocide” and other divine sanctions of dubious moral character into the debate. This was predictable. Bill Craig rightly noted that these complaints concern the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture, and are not salient to his case for theism. Some in the audience may have wondered how Craig could avoid these issues and also invoke the New Testament in describing the grandeur of God’s plan of salvation. As it happens, Hitchens didn’t raise the point. But it also happens that there is no inconsistency in Craig’s view of the bearing of Scripture on aspects of the debate.
16. Another comparison of interest to me has to do with the existential appeal of their respective points of view. Bill Craig seemed actually to be enjoying the dialogue. Certainly he was unapologetic about his Christian faith. He spoke convincingly of the transformation of his life after believing in Christ. And he explained the basis Christians have for hope in this life and the next. He even urged Christopher Hitchens to become a Christian, since Hitchens wants to say that there are objective moral values but can’t account for them in his worldview. Craig said this without seeming the least bit supercilious. I thought Craig struck an excellent balance in describing the future hope of Christians and its bearing on the endurance of suffering now, and a Christian activism on behalf of those who are oppressed or even deprived of life. For his part, Hitchens explained that he finds meaning in life by seeking liberty for himself and for others, and that, since so much violence against humanity is done in the name of religion, he is constrained to combat religion publicly.
17. I’ve already mentioned how Christopher Hitchens responded to Bill Craig’s moral argument for theism. It struck me that this argument was the most widely discussed of them all. The irony is that for all that he had to say in response, Hitchens actually “dropped” the argument. (To say that he “dropped” the argument is to say, in debate-speak, that he didn’t actually address the argument.) In his response to Craig’s argument, Hitchens recast the argument as an argument that atheists can neither know what is morally right nor do the morally right thing unless they believe in God. That is not the argument at all. It baffles me that so many atheist, agnostic, and skeptical debaters distort this argument so consistently. The question is how to ground the objectivity of moral truths without reference to God, not whether moral truths can be known without believing in God or whether it’s possible to behave morally without believing in God. The point is neither epistemic nor behavioral, but ontological. My preferred formulation of the moral argument is a little different than Craig’s, but my experience has been the same as his. Debate opponents miss the point.
18. Returning, finally, to something I mentioned previously, this debate exposed a difference in preparation on the part of these two debaters. This is far more significant than it might seem at first. William Lane Craig has debated this topic dozens of times, without wavering from the same basic pattern of argument. He presents the same arguments in the same form, and presses his opponents in the same way for arguments in defense of their own worldviews. He’s consistent. He’s predictable. One might think that this is a liability, that it’s too risky to face a new opponent who has so much opportunity to review Craig’s specific strategy. But tonight’s debate proves otherwise. Hitchens can have no excuse for dropping arguments when he knows—or should know—exactly what to expect. Suppose one replies that William Craig is a more experienced debater and a trained philosopher, while Christopher Hitchens is a journalist working outside the Academy. That simply won’t do as a defense of Hitchens. First, Hitchens is no stranger to debate. Second, he is clearly a skillful polemicist. Third—and most important—Hitchens published a book, god Is Not Great, in which he makes bold claims against religion in general and Christianity in particular. With his book, he threw down the challenge. To his credit, he rose to meet a skillful challenger. But did he rise to the occasion? Did he acquit himself well? At one point he acknowledged that some of his objections to the designer argument were “layman’s” objections. His book, I believe, is also the work of a layman. It appears to have been written for popular consumption and without concern for accountability to Christians whose lives are dedicated to the defense of the Gospel.

Common Days, Revelation & Love

It’s March 22, Sunday Night. I haven’t blogged in a few weeks. I’ve been lagging it to keep my blogs updated. I actually have people who have asked when I would update it, no joke.  Amazing eh?

It’s Sunday evening, the day’s gone. I just got out of an amazing Service that was very moving; something that’ll change our world or even just the people in our lives. The truth is, I could blog more often; I do always have something to talk about. My interest in blogging isn’t just to relate to people but rather inform, teach, or even just share the things I learn that are ground breaking. Things that’ll perhaps put me ahead or above the times. You see, I want to effect my time, not let the time(s) effect me. I do my best to find everyday uncommon from the day before, the sad thing is that most days are as common as can be. I guess that’s because it’s simply Life. If anything, I have to make my life more important, valuable, and worth being in every minute of the days I find so common. 

Like most people, I want to be founded in something. I want a firm foundation for the way I believe, what I believe in, and how I believe in myself to be great. My greatest and utmost belief and foundation lies in Christ. Word. You may not understand where I’m coming from on this one, logically it may not making any sense. But than again, what is “logic” or “sense” but two one syllable words that are defined by a dictionary?

I believe in Christ, and I’m glad I do. It makes me a better person. You see, there’s an attribute to Love which we all hate, either because it caught us off guard, we maybe didn’t know that it even existed in the term, or because we’ve seen the damage of it in our Life. That attribute is this, Leaving. Leaving, or being split is awful, it hurts. Whether it be through a relationship that no longer exists, someone moved away, or even split up by death. In our definition of Love, a definition between humans of course this attribute is ever present. Sad, right? 

The Greek language is accountable for our modern definitions of Love. From what I know of the word Love, along with some short studies, this language has a few definitions for the same word, the first being eros, than philia, and finally, there’s agapé.

•Eros defines more of an exotic, erotic, or lustful Love.

•Philia brings a friendly Love into play. It’s “Love, because of...” e.g. “I Love you because you’re a great friend, because you’re an awesome person”. Make sense?

•Agapé is not an easy type to bring into play. It simply states “I Love you in spite of...” e.g. “I love you in spite of the fact that you fail, in spite of the fact that you don’t feel worthy” and so on. 

I don’t think it’s easy to love someone in spite of... We find the smallest reasons to not want to truly and fully Love. We feel that someone’s level of value doesn’t meet our level, or their interests clash with ours. It’s because agapé is very difficult to accomplish towards one another, and I’m okay with that; for this one reason. God loves unconditionally, He loves in spite of. But I will say this, as long as I can have another “common” day, I’ll make sure I continue to aim high, I’ll see to it that agapé love will top my charts towards another human being. Anything’s possible.  I find it amazing that one service truly opened my eyes and spirit to something so great, so fresh.

Just remember this... God is Love, and Love is real, because God is real. 

Generation Y, Lost?

It's been about 5 weeks since I've last blogged. Much has happened within that time, a new job, new assets, new blessings and new people in my life that I already love and appreciate. It's been a great start in the year, and as I said before; this will be my year. I see it's potential and greatness already, I got a jump in me, a push, a fervency to consist in accomplishing my goals. I'm loving it. I'm saying this because I just got the motivation I need to blog. I just got out of a lecture, or what some might even consider a correction sitting. I will say first of all, it moved me, and I am assure that I needed to hear it no matter how much it made me squirm in my seat. This blog doesn't need to be long at all to feel my drift... 
What I've come to see is this, whether you believe it or not. We're not in the end times; we are literally in the closing minutes of the end times. I say this only because of its truth. I've come to see that I don't have the time, nor the compromise to simply do nothing with my life at this moment.  I need to evolve into a better me, I think the better me is selfless. This is the thought that Generation Y is lacking. Some might call it post modern, some may simply call it new age. But for the sake of clarity we'll stick to the actual term, Generation Y. I am a part of this vast generation which has adopted many philosophies, faiths, and even religions. It's easy to see the confusion in this young, fresh, and learning generation that I've simply called Generation 'Why?' (it's not very hard to see this one) 

This Generation is easily unlike any other in the history of the World, and I don't say this easily. Through the ages till now, the 20th century was the most abused century. From wars, to communism, to the greatest slaughter man has seen from the cynical mind of a man who brought 'Change' to our world, Adolf Hitler. Of course, we could spend more time in that subject and thought alone. What I'm trying to illustrate is that our Generation, something which was to be sacred for our time, has become a game of this and that. We have adopted all of the worlds' previous philosophies. We have adopted the very thoughts and philosophies that have caused empires to fall. If Generation Y is not among the final stages of time, than I can only imagine what more would, or should come.

If there's something we can do to save our time, than let's do it. I support our time finding the real truth of these matters. 

I am for Generation Y, I also believe in Generation Y... 

(more to come soon)

As the World Ages

2008, Great year? I'll let you decide for yourself, or whatever crowd you speak for. I'd like to think of '08 as a very colorful year. Our world, this great planet seen so much change that will forever be established in our history books in just one year. Believe it. Not only did we elect our first black President, but we also stayed in War and officially went into "Depression" but everyone's still to busy to see it. Either we were to busy, blind or just didn't pay attention enough or we've clearly wrapped our minds around it already.

As for me, I've already began my year greatly by appreciating the things that were done in my life for 2008. It seems sad that even though I have surrounded my life with faith these last few years; it was '08 that truly taught me to hang on for dear life. I courageously did my best to place the little faith I had into a celestial investment, a place that my faith would fit. So I'm writing this with as little negativity as possible. I doubt it's enough to ruin the beginning of the year, so my positivity enlightens me to stay golden.

I wont write much, I'll do my best to keep it short. 

I read an article in our recent summer which just past about "regrets". It was actually very awesome, I always do my best to resist what Doctors or Psychologists say about People. The truth is that they study one person's behavior and lay it upon statistics of people or criminals and such on, and blah blah blah, right? So anyways, It was very interesting to read because I felt very comfortable relating myself to this study.

It's funny that I recently seen the same study pretty much summed up by an Apostolic Pastor on youtube in a service, and I'll sum it up as short as possible. It goes like this; your biggest regret at the end of a year will not be the things that you did that you wish you hadn't but your biggest regret on the closing of this year will be the things you didn't do but wish you had. According to the research of psychologist "time is a key factor in the things we regret". The study comes down to actions verses inactions. 

Over a short period of time we tend to regret our actions, the things we did that we truly wish he hadn't. While on the other hand, a long period of time holds yet a different deck of cards. Over the long haul of time we will eventually find ourselves regretting our inactions, the things we didn't do but wish we had when the chance was ours for the taking. It also stated that in a short period of time your action regrets will outweigh your inaction regrets 53-47% of what you do on a weekly basis. In other words tonight, looking back all the way to last wednesday night 53%  of people will regret the things they did with their actions, whether it be running a red light, saying something you didn't mean, or etc. 

Now I'm skipping a lot and heading right into age. 

He also said, when you finally are wrapping it all up and your high in age 84-16% becomes the numbers. 84% of people (you) will not regret the things that you said, did, or let go. You will regret the things you didn't do but wish you had done when you definitely had the chance. Oh what a difference in number. I might have to add, I totally believe these statistics.

So in my closing, have a great beginning of the year. Please make the most, or best of it. You do not want to be on the flip-side of these statistics, nor do I. 

2009, here we are. 

Make the best of it.