Album Review: “Born of Osiris – A Higher Place”

I was pretty bored and listening to the new Born of Osiris so I thought I would just write what I think as I listen. I’m not really someone who reviews music (online or publicly but I’m pretty opinionated, generally), reads reviews, or even knows what to say. Although, I listen to a TON of music. I will just throw out my opinions as I go. I hope this is helpful for someone thinking about buying the album and hopefully I’ll get to do this more in the future. If you thought it wasn’t helpful, please comment and let me know how I can be more helpful in the future.

I would like to work out some type of rating system for the future. Rating something with stars seems pretty boring but until I think of something more clever (like sugar cubes?) I’ll roll with stars.

Image obtained from www.metalsucks.net

Eric’s rating: 2/5 stars. The songs are in italics and my attempted descriptions of them follow.

Rebirth (Intro)
The intro has a kind of mysterious and majestic quality to it. Sometimes it’s rather reminiscent to something Muse might do. However, it does have a kind of clown-like aspect to it. The transition does not flow into the next song very well.

Elimination
This song gets very brutal very quickly. They bring in some keys on various parts to give it that death metal feel. There are dashes of epic as we ride the rhythm with a nice lead floating on the surface.

The Accountable
Lots of blast beats and quick guitars until about 50 seconds in. The song gives a nice turn on the guitars and picks out some grooves. Late into the song the keys come in with that epic feel while the guitars ride out rather epicly.

Now Arise
First choppy/breakdown style guitars with a lot of the Architects groove-style licks. Most of the songs so far are a transition between epic slow parts with leads (of course, each having their own BOO touch to it – odd patterns), death metal with speed metal guitars and choir-type keys. The “breakdowns” don’t fly solo anymore. They are always met with keys. The keys are the same on every song so far. The song slows down near the end with just a single clean guitar playing, a choir type key (but only a single note, not chords anymore like death metal), a ghetto-ish beat and just screaming. It sounds kind of bad actually. Nu-metalish.

Live Like I’m Real
Groove guitars with minimal scale work intermingled. About 1:00 BOO switches to odd lead work with that clown feel sneaking back in. REALLY cool part at about 1:44-53. It’s short lived and slides right back into the epic work they’ve been doing with the flowing rhythm and lead over-top. All of the songs, aside from Now Arise at this point, have been very short. Just like the last album.

Starved
More groove guitars but mixing in the EPIC octaves. This song has the best feel to it thus far. The same octave-type overlay gets repeated a lot but it pulls together a lot of the changes they’re working in the rhythm. 1:53 we have solo keys with the drums coming. VERY cheesy sounding. However, when the guitars come in and take over with the same melody it’s almost majestic. I could see King Arthur battling to this. Remains under 2:50, unfortunately.

Exist
This song reminds me of classic BOO. We’ve got the choppy guitars and choppy lead type breakdowns. It sounds great. Ooh.. 1:18 gets so good. The rest of this song is a quite brutal breakdown. Great leads and rhythm picking back up with the epic choir keys again (still the same pad). If I said a song was awesome before… this one is better thus far.

Put to Rest
Ok… I’m getting the impression they stuck the stuff they weren’t so sure about at the beginning of the CD and started sticking the good stuff in the second half. This song really just has a brutal groove to it but it’s a good one. Classic death metal feel with the drums changing the feel back and forth between death and groove. Great solo type leads and those almost poppy backing guitars but it sounds great with his screams. Very slow ending, this is a little different from the rest of the album. Fade outro. Blah ending…

A Descent
Most creative intro (in comparison to the rest of the album), lead and rhythm on the entire album so far. Very epic. They touch base with their first album. GREAT scaling and breakdowns with an amazing almost nintendo effect from the excellent work on guitar that lasts maybe a second (it was awesome though). Sweet groove guitars with scaling. Awesome job. Very short but very good.

A Higher Place
Very strange leads and harmonies with those groove guitars again. I think I’ve said that about every song but that’s just the style they’ve got penetrating the entire album. A good portion of the album feels like an extension of the same song. 1:35 does some simple chord guitar work unlike the rest of the album. Actually, a lot of the epic parts remind me of some of the feel you’d get from old Soilwork. Good song. I can’t tell if I’m just getting sick of the same ‘ol kind of guitar licks that resonate throughout the entire album or if it’s just not that exciting.

An Ascent
Same type of intro as A Descent but with creepier sounding guitars that don’t give the same feel at all. A section has the most Nu-Metal feeling guitars on the album so far but is fortunately short lived. They finally change the keys to a piano sound but it only trickles in for a moment. Lots of good harmony work on the guitars. That Nu-Metal riff comes back and haunts me for a moment. After 2:00 comes some of the most sky reaching epic parts of the album (Don’t get me wrong, it could be more epic. I’m only talking relatively to the rest of the album.) The outro of this song is really just repeating the same guitar riff by itself over and over as it fades out but, honestly, it sounds great and is probably the best outro on the album so far.

Thrive
Cool breakdown patterns with eerie lead. About halfway the eerie lead comes back and is amazing over an almost Norma Jean style rhythm that hits on some harmonics here and there. More groove guitars, of course. I haven’t said much about his vocals so far. There really isn’t much range there. He’s got minimal range between his highs and lows. He’s really a good screamer overall and his lows are very brutal. Pretty raspy highs but not Euro raspy.

Face of Death
Breakdown rhythm with more eerie leads (which is really their typical style). Lots of scale work, in both the rhythm and lead. So far, not a very impressive ending to an album. Very short song… I think only one song was over 2:50…

Overall this album was decent. I’m not sure how often I would listen to it. It’s almost more of a really common background metal. It’s not nearly as intense as their last album; a lot of riding the epic (not real epic, though) choruses and grooving to their rhythms. The guitar work can get pretty close to that Nu-Metal style but a lot of metal is incorporating that; especially the kids over in the UK like Architects and Bring Me the Horizon. The album was just far too redundant to keep me interested the entire time. I almost wanted to stop listening to it, even though the album probably barely makes 30 minutes with 13 songs. If you pick it up, I hope you enjoy it more than I did!

New Imogen Heap Single “First Train Home”

Image taken from Stereogum.com

New Imogen Heap – “First Train Home” – Album Art – Stereogum

Shared via AddThis

Summary of “Relativity: Physical Meaning of Geometrical Propositions”

I’m going to go through Einstein’s book ‘Relativity’ and briefly summarize (as if it’s not already brief) what I believe Einstein is saying; chapter by chapter. I’m not a Physicist and I’m actually pretty bad at math. I’m just a Philosophy major who is really interested in time. My intention is to summarize Einstein as correctly as possible; however, that’s not likely going to be the case. If anyone stops by and notices that I’ve seriously misunderstood Einstein, please, by all means, correct me. My intention is to learn Einstein’s Relativity and hopefully spark an interest in others at the same time.

Einstein begins by addressing what it means for a geometrical statement or proposition to be true. He states that ‘[t]he question of the “truth” of the individual geometrical propositions is…reduced to one of the “truth” of the axioms’ (Relativity, p. 3) So, what is an axiom? Well, the Oxford Guide to Philosophy defines ‘axiom’ as follows:

An axiom is one of a select set of propositions, presumed true by a system of logic or a theory, from which all other propositions which the system or theory endorses as true are deducible – these derived propositions being called theorems of the system or theory. (The Oxford Guide to Philosophy, p. 74)

I will try to stick to the examples provided by Einstein because, like I said, I’m no mathematician, physicist, etc.

Euclidean geometry begins with certain concepts like, as Einstein points out, a ‘plane,’ ‘point,’ and ‘line.’ Furthermore, there are certain axioms which have been established. For kicks, here are five axioms Euclid provides:

1. “Let the following be postulated: to draw a straight line from any point to any point.
2. “To produce [extend] a finite straight line continuously in a straight line.
3. “To describe a circle with any center and distance [radius].
4. “That all right angles are equal to one another.
5. “The parallel postulate: That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines make the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles.” (Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry#Axioms)

As you can see, I have cited these axioms from Wikipedia. I realize it is not of the most reliable sources. So, if anyone determines that these are in any way incorrect, please let me know.

So, then, consider two points on a graph; A and B. Given these two points and axiom (1), we might form a line. What if we ask ourselves the following question: “Is it true that only one straight line goes through two points?” Einstein says that whether it is true or false that only one straight line goes through two points is not to be determined by geometry. The question is essentially nonsense. Why would he say that?

Well, when we speak of a statement or proposition as having the property of being true or false we are generally considering whether or not that statement or proposition corresponds with the world or reality. However, geometrical propositions are logically derived from certain axioms. So, the truth of those geometrical propositions are inevitably determined by the truth of the axioms. The axioms, as we previously defined by the Oxford Guide to Philosophy, are merely presumed to be true. I doubt the axioms of geometry are ‘merely’ assumed; however, I felt that the particular use of language would bring out how devastating it can be to derive propositions from false axioms.

I believe that Einstein explains that the “truth” of a geometrical proposition can be determined by, rather than a system of presumed axioms (geometry), its correspondence to physical reality. Although, he says, ‘[o]f course the conviction of the “truth” of geometrical propositions in this sense is founded exclusively on rather incomplete experience.’ This is certainly true and I can’t help but to see this statement as a hint of safeguard and foreshadowing. Safeguard and foreshadowing in the sense that there will be theorems derived from his theory that are not – or were not – empirically verifiable.

Did Christopher Hitchens Just Commit Reputation Suicide?

So, the epic debate just ended between Christopher Hitchens and Dr. William Lane Craig. I was able to follow it online because either the Biola Christian Apologetics Program and Associated Students group was kind enough to have or he himself, Lenny Esposito, updated a blog LIVE on the debate!

Dr. Craig started out with his usual arguments: the cosmological, teleological, moral, empty tomb and personal experience arguments for the existence of God. You can learn about Craig’s presentation of these arguments from the blog that covered it here (although in very minor detail), from his website, or from his book Reasonable Faith.

Hitchens seemed to use a lot of rhetoric. He tried to argue we can know we’re not designed because we evolved. Though, evolution doesn’t disprove design nor God in any way. He tried to argue that if a Christian believes evolution was how God created living creatures, then they can be dismissed because 99.99% of the animals that existed went exinct. As if that shows something? He mainly sticks to the ad homenim abusive from what I can tell from the debate blog posts.

He said that atheists shouldn’t be required to prove that there is no God. Of course they should. He’s asserting a statement with truth value.  He goes on later to mention that he is able to assert that there is no God from the little to no evidence of God. However, this cannot be logically inferred. For example, in the 1800’s the logic text books used the following statement as a truth claim: “All swans are white.” This is because the English had not yet been to Australia where black swans were discovered. So, even though there were probably literally millions of instances where they had seen white swans and never a black swan, this instance shows how absurd it is to conclude that “All swans are white” on the grounds that there is no evidence to the contrary. As you can see, not all swans are white. Some are black.

Check out the link to the blog, read up on the debate and buy it when it comes out! I’m sure it will be entertaining. Christopher Hitchens has been a big hit with his book “God Is Not Great” and considered one of the more popular atheist spokesmen. I wonder how he will be received now that he has performed so poorly against philosophical arguments.

Does God Exist?: Christopher Hitchens vs. Dr. William Lane Craig

An epic debate is to take place between atheist spokesman Christopher Hitchens and Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig April 4th at 7:30PM (Pacific). It’s sold out but there will be a live broadcast that is $98 for access. If you like good debates (and this one will be good) check it out! Check here for more information.

Exploring the Absurdity of an Infinite Universe

Time may be infinite; but, it must have a beginning. It is often argued that the universe has no beginning and that it has just always existed. I will explore a few points that, I believe, show how absurd this view really is.

Actualizing Infinity
Hilbert’s Paradox of the Grand Hotel
Imagine a hotel with infinitely many rooms. A guest arrives, however, there are no vacancies. Each room is occupied. But, the man at the front desk tells the guest not to worry. He’ll make room for him. He has each guest move to the room that is one greater than his own. Essentially, N+1. Room 1 becomes vacant and the hotel is able to accommodate the new guest.

Now, imagine that an infinite number of guests arrives. The man at the front desk tells them not to worry; he has the guest in Room 1 move to Room 2, the guest in Room 2 to Room 4. Essentially, the guests in Room N to 2N. In doing so, all of the odd numbered rooms become vacant and the infinite number of guests are able to be accommodated. Yet, remember. The hotel was full when the guests arrived.

Strangely enough, imagine that an infinite number of guests decide to check out the next morning. For example, all of the guests in the odd numbered rooms. So, the hotel had no vacancies, infinitely many guests check out, infinitely many guests remain and infinitely many vacant rooms remain from the guests that checked out. So, infinity – infinity = infinity.

Furthermore, imagine that all of the guests in rooms greater than three check out. So, infinitely many guests check out and three remain. Infinity – infinity = 3.

It’s easy to see that an actually infinite number of things is self-contradictory.

Attempting to form a set of actually infinite things by N+1…
…is impossible. For example, consider time. An infinite past implies an infinite set of past of events; it implies an actual infinite.

1. The series of events in time is a collection formed by adding one member after another.
2. A collection formed by adding one member after another cannot be actually infinite.
3. Therefore, the series of events in time cannot be actually infinite.

Premise (1) relies on what J.M.E. McTaggart calls the “A-Theory” of time. That is, that the past no longer exists and the future does not yet exist; only now exists. Premise (2) can be explained as the problem of traversing the infinite. We can consider time as a series of event-states. This current event-state was preceded by and could have only come about because of the previous event-state. The previous event-state comes about after another preceding one. However, if the preceding event-states were infinite, as we traverse back we would find that no event could have come to be without a prior event first taking place. So, as William Lane Craig put it, “if the series of past events were beginningless, the present event could not have occurred, which is absurd.” If premises (1) and (2) are true, the conclusion, that the series of of events in time cannot be infinite, follows logically.

Consider a line which extends infinitely in both directions. At any point at which you may count the preceding event states on the line, you have a line segment showing a finite amount of time between that event-state and your current event-state. However, prior to the earliest event-state we can conceive of, the line extends infinitely. That means, before we could have reached the the earliest conceivable event-state, an infinite number of event-states must have already occurred. Everything should have already happened.

God and Infinity
We have seen the paradoxes Hilbert’s hotel has presented us and the problem of traversing the infinite past. Now, one may wonder if God could have always existed. Hasn’t God had to traverse an infinite number of event-states before reaching this point, which renders Him impossible? No. God exists outside of space and time. The Standard Model of the universe (also known as the Big Bang) is the most scientifically accepted model of the universe. This model explains that space and time came into existence at the moment the “Big Bang” occurred. God, being the creator of the universe, cannot be bound by it. Since time has a beginning and God created time God must exist outside of time. For all we know, our entire existence is His now.

Infinite Future
As a Christian, I believe that I have an infinite future. This is possible. That is because at any point in time only a finite amount of time has existed. The finite is actually possible. Time may extend infinitely into the future but it must have a beginning.

Back to the Debate

Phew! Here we are again. I’ve been feeling extremely tired today. I’m trying to get back on schedule before the school semester starts back up. I’ve been staying up anywhere between 5-8am every day. I’ve got some early morning class I’m going to have to be ready for! Ouch… Anyways, back to the debate!

Mr. Rube has stated the following,

God, though, is given as being omnipotent. How can there exist something analogous to a life-threatening virus, against which God has no alternative but to do his best to protect us from it by letting us suffer? Shouldn’t omnipotence give him more options? (If the answer’s free will, then okay, but I thought I’d try rephrasing my problem with the analogy to see if there’s anything else I missed.)

The answer is free will. Let’s introduce libertarianism, which is defined as follows:

the view that a person is free with respect to a given action if and only if that person is both free to perform that action and free to refrain from performing that action; in other words, that person is not determined to perform or refrain from that action by any prior causal forces.

If you disagree with this idea of free will, then we’ll have to move the subject on to free will rather than the Problem of Evil for a while. I’ll go ahead and continue on just in case you’re alright with me so far.

I’ll have to agree with Alvin Plantinga that libertarian free will is morally significant. Why do I believe that? If an action is praiseworthy or blameworthy, then that action is morally significant. Let’s think of an example. If I program a computer to do a specific action, such as delete all of the files with the “.pdf” extension in a given folder, I do not feel the need to praise the computer for its compliance. It did exactly what it was programmed to do. The computer could not get to a file named, say, “Arguments for the Existence of God.pdf” and decide, “I really like this file. I think I’ll save it for later.” I hadn’t given it the option.

Now, consider a world in which we can only freely choose good actions (the atheist’s dreamworld). That is to say, on your birthday I can give you a cake or a card but not a bag of dead babies. I can choose between good actions but I cannot choose the bad one. So, our free will would be, in this sense, restrained if we could only freely choose that which is good. There would be no moral significance to any of our actions. We cannot be praised for doing what is good (because it’s all we can do) and we cannot be blamed for what is bad (because we can’t even do it). So, by only being able to freely choose the good we do not have a morally significant free will.

I also believe that God can only do that which is logically possible. I mean this in the same way that we say a square cannot be both a circle and a square at the same time. It’s logically impossible. It’s logically impossible for God to create a rock heavier than he can lift. It’s also logically impossible for God to create beings with morally significant free will and no evil. Here is a list of four possible worlds:

World1,
(a) God creates persons with morally significant free will;
(b) God does not causally determine people in every situation to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong; and
(c) There is evil and suffering in World1.

World2
(a) God does not create persons with morally significant free will;
(b) God causally determines people in every situation to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong; and
(c) There is no evil and suffering in World2.

World3
(a) God creates persons with morally significant free will;
(b) God causally determines people in every situation to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong; and
(c) There is no evil and suffering in World3.

World4
(a) God creates persons with morally significant free will;
(b) God does not causally determine people in every situation to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong; and
(c) There is no evil and suffering in World4.

Worlds 1, 2 and 4 are all logical possibilities. Unfortunately, World3, the “weird and wonderful,” is the only world that is logically impossible. In World1 our free will is not interfered with by God (in that way it actually remains that there is free will) and there is no evil. In World2, God could take away our free will and manipulate us in a way that we only make right decisions. Viola! No evil. In World3, God gives us free will and manipulates what we do so we only do right things… Wait… what!? That’s not free will at all. That’s illogical. In World4 God could give us a free will and not manipulate us. Of course, that’s the same as World1 except the difference is that in World1 there is evil and World4 there is not. Why is that? It’s because the creatures whom are created have free will. Therefore, there are 2 logical possibilities. Either the creatures freely never choose to do evil, resulting in World4 or the creatures freely choose to do evil resulting in World1. As it turns out, the Bible says we were a World4 until Adam and Eve disobeyed God and we became a World1. Drat!

So, to answer your question.  God created everything perfect. We had morally significant free will. There was no evil. We sinned, evil began; from World4 to World1. It takes two parties in this case to create World1. God, whom created us and allowed our free will so that we may freely choose to love Him, and us, whom has the ability to freely choose good and evil. If we had not chosen to do evil acts then there would exist no evil (as far as our case is concerned with evil related to humanity). Allowing us to cause evil in order to have morally significant free will (fully-blown free will) seems worth the while if we’re talking about the God of the Bible (which we have been).

As Plantinga says,

God’s creation of persons with morally significant free will is something of tremendous value. God could not eliminate much of the evil and suffering in this world without thereby eliminating the greater good of having created persons with free will with whom he could have relationships and who are able to love one another and do good deeds.

I’ve really only been attached to moral evil in relation to free agents so far. I’ll move into natural evil once we determine whether or not Mr. Rube agrees with me thus far or if we need to go into a free will discussion! Thanks to all for your replies so far!

Joined the Fun: The Problem of Evil

I received a few replies on my last post. Most notably, Mr. Rube himself. I’m glad I’ve successfully maneuvered my way into the discussion! So, to begin Mr. Rube agrees with the situation we’re in; that premise (5), if there is an all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing God then there would be no evil, is in question.

He claims my example, that the parent might have sufficient reason to allow their children to undergo harm they may not understand to provide a better life for them, is either weak or does not apply. I accept the blame for him coming to this conclusion because I did not state the example very clearly. In the example, the child lacks the knowledge of the parent. The child only feels the pain without understanding; whereas, the parent allows the pain because she/he does understand. This is only to bring about our lack of knowledge in comparison to an omniscient being.

Of course, we must examine the possibility that God created all things good and evil is merely something we’ve created on our own. This is something Saint Augustine had come to conclude. For example, imagine a room that is completely empty other than a small table in the center. On top of the table is a candle burning brightly; it is the only source of heat in the room. How might we make the room colder? We would have to extinguish or reduce its source of heat. For Augustine, evil is a privation or a lack of good much like cold is a privation or lack of heat. Furthermore, the complete absence of heat is known as absolute zero. Absolute zero is not capable of becoming any colder. Likewise, the complete absence of good is not corruptible, in the sense that it cannot become any more evil.

Strangely enough, absolute zero is theoretically unrealizable. Even the coldest depths of space do not fall below three degrees Kelvin. Zero degrees Kelvin would require all of the molecules in a given area to completely stop moving. So, even though we attribute words like “extremely cold” and “freezing” to a lack of heat there is always a certain amount of heat everywhere in the universe. No matter how cold it is. This realization somewhat softens the blow when Augustine claims that if something “were deprived of all good, they would not exist at all.” That is to say, everything that exists must be, to some extent, good. This allows Augustine to conclude that God made all things good.

I really like how “A Pilgrim” put it in my last post:

Frist, what would you make of the argument that evil is not some objective ‘thing’ which exists, but rather the absence of some other thing, i.e. good?

This is the quick and short of my long babbling explanation from above. Also, as the “Pilgrim” points out, free will is sufficient reason to allow suffering and evil to exist.

He writes,

If God were to have arranged things so as to not permit any kind of suffereing at all, it would only be able to be accomplished by stripping free will from the equation, the result of which being we would be little more than robots.

(I think he must be a philosophy teacher, or maybe just a real philosopher. They’re always very careful to not necessarily attribute any belief to themselves. *x-files theme song*)

Saint Augustine also writes the following:

Just as a stray horse is better than a stone which is not astray, since the stone does not have its own motion or perception, so the creature who sins of his own free will is more excellent than the creature who does not sin because he has no free will.

I suppose that you could argue that this is untrue. Either that (i) there is no free will or (ii) pain and suffering is not worth free will. But I believe there is good reason to believe that it’s actually better than lacking it (whether you necessarily like it or not). I don’t have a whole lot of time to go into this aspect of the argument in this post because I’ve got one killer game of Monopoly coming up in the other room but I’ll hit on it in the next post if Mr. Rube has any objections to free will. But, if you accept that (i), there is no free will, then your opinion doesn’t really mean anything in these posts and I can essentially discard them. They’re just a product of your environment and you can’t really attribute any truth value to it.

Joining the Fun: The Problem of Evil

A good friend of mine (Brooks Robinson) began a blog on how directly apparent God is in the universe. One thing led to another and a very interesting guy picked up on his post. Basically, a little debate has sparked up and I wanted to hop in. I won’t be responding much to any of their old posts but I’ll pick up on the latest (including small bits that apply to it). It’s by a fellow that calls himself “Cubik’s Rube” (I, personally, dig the name). He has brought up the problem of evil.

“Cubik’s Rube” has provided us with the following information:

Skeptics often claim that an all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing God would not allow such suffering to take place as we see all around us. The claim “God would intervene to stop this suffering” is not an assumption about his behaviour, but a conclusion drawn from assumptions about his power, his love, and his knowledge.

We can form the following argument with that information:

1. God is all-powerful.

2. God is all-loving.

3. God is all-knowing.

4. There is evil.

It seems Mr. Rube, as Sirius Knotts has dubbed him, has realized that there is in fact no contradiction here. He needed to add the fifth and slightly mysterious premise:

5. If there is an all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing God then there would be no evil.

Ah ha! Here is the contradiction he’s looking for! But how have we obtained this bit of information? He claims that it’s not an assumption but merely a conclusion. We’d need more premises to conclude this is true; so, let’s see if we can compare it to any other sorts of things. Let me think, who else has all of these omnis? No one that I can think of. Though, we must admit, this is certainly conceivably true. It is conceivable that a being with the three omnis would not allow evil. Is it also conceivable that a being with omniscience would know something we don’t know? Of course. Could this include a reason for allowing evil? Sure, why not? Let’s add a new premise:

6. An all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing God may have sufficient reason to allow evil to exist.

Ah, that’s better. So, now we must modify (5) to state the following:

5. If there is an all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing God then there would be no evil unless there is sufficient reason to allow evil to exist.

Certainly, (6) is also conceivably true. Let’s say a mother intentionally inflicts pain upon her child. She pricks him with a needle! Ouch! We might think this woman is evil unless she had some morally sufficient reason to allow the pricking to happen. Fortunately, she was having her child vaccinated to prevent him from any future illness that may lead to much greater suffering. What a nice lady!

So, Brooks had also mentioned something quite interesting about Mr. Rube’s point of view. He presupposes that evil exists. That’s a good thing! However, I’m not sure that he realized what this implies. Brooks writes:

…without some transcending moral standard there is no good and there is no evil. So you’d have to recognize some sort of divine lawgiver who says “evil is this,” to recognize what evil is.

Mr. Rube responds,

Would you really be unable to recognise what is or isn’t evil without divine guidance? Is rape not obviously awful enough that you could figure this out for yourself, without needing it pointed out to you? If your divine lawgiver set as the moral standard that putting your left sock on before your right was the most evil and abhorrent act imaginable, would it really be the case?

This was the only tidbit of information I could really get out of Mr. Rube’s last post. But I guess a little is better than nothing at all! Of course, I agree, we are all able to (sociopaths aside, I suppose) determine these things are morally wrong. But, how are we able to do so?

What I think Brooks was trying to explain was that by calling something wrong or evil you are expecting the other person to understand what you mean. It’s not likely you’re pulling this bit of information out of thin air if you expect your calling it wrong to have any meaning or value. It must be true. So, if you feel that we should all understand this act you explain to be wrong you must expect it to be something objective. This is wrong no matter who does it; no matter where they are. It applies equally to all of humanity. OK, I agree.

Now, why should we believe this is possible? What good reason is there to expect others to abide by this morally objective standard by which you call these acts wrong? The only good explanation is if that objective standard for morality transcends humanity. If there is no transcendent objective morality then there is no obligation to behave morally. Why should there be? Society? Easy lifestyle? Sure, that will make life for yourself more comfortable. But, if these things are really wrong, then we must be morally obligated to obey them. If not, then is morality really real? It seems it’s merely an idea. By no means may we even attribute it to being a “good” one.

California, here I come.

It’s been pretty tough deciding what I want to do. Of course, I started with the attempts to become a rock star (doesn’t everybody?), which didn’t work out (so far ), but at least I got to play the Minniapolis date on the Warped Tour. It was a lot of fun while it lasted. While I was busy writing songs I also wanted to be a programmer. I got my associates in Information Systems, learned some C++ and C# and made plans to go back to school for Computer Science while I worked full time as software support for CAT, through a company called ATS. That job was terrible (the people, however, were amazing) and I totally learned that I HATE DESK JOBS. Something else, much more significant, took place during that year off from school. I found my true calling; or rather, He found me.

It was at this time I became a Christian. I had countless debates with one of my friends and my arguments just didn’t add up. I went from agnosticism to sincerely seeking an answer. I hate to play this story down because its significance to me is great; Certainly, it deserves to be better told than it will be. However, I haven’t much time! Oh… what the heck!

No more than 2 years ago I began sincerily seeking answers. I wanted to know if God was real. I wanted to know if there was something to believe in or if all of these people were crazy. I won’t lead you on, I was raised in a Christian household but my life certainly hasn’t shown it. But, for the purposes of this story, I do not want to lead anyone to believe that I was raised in a perfect Christian household. Having a mother with a few mental disabilities and a  strict father, who wasn’t easy on the spankings or yelling, certainly wasn’t easy. I have always thought that for some reason my dad completely changed when I became 19 or 20. Maybe it was me. I couldn’t honestly say, but something was different. My dad went from being my main fear at home to being the person I looked forward to talking to the most. That holds true to this day. Anyways, I debated a lot with one of my good friends, Brooks Robinson (who you can find under my blogroll – awesome kid). He’s a great guy and didn’t give up. He kept coming back with great arguments and videos I could watch. I was convinced that there was nothing shaky about his belief. He had good reasons to believe in God. Good enough that, I thought, “why am I being so bias?” At some point, I felt as if during this process I had almost been called upon. At least, this is the way I feel in retrospect.

I decided to go along with my friend, Kelly, (and roommate at the time) to church. At the end of the service they asked anyone who wanted to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior or wanted to be prayed for to just come to the front of the church. I was reluctant to go up because I felt embarrassed. But, finally, I worked up the guts to walk to the front. I stood at the front and just began asking God to reveal Himself to me. As I stood there, people in the church were making their way across all of the people praying for them. One man stepped up behind the kid next to me and put his hand on his shoulder. He began to pray; I don’t remember what he said but I do remember the kid just falling to his knees and crying as he continued to pray. I, honestly, hoped that would happen to me. Moments later I felt a hand on my shoulder and heard a man begin to pray. I waited, I prayed. I felt nothing. Complete disappointment twisted in my gut.

I began walking back to my seat. About halfway through it this most overwhelming feeling came over me. I couldn’t quite explain it but I knew at once: He answered me. It was the most amazing feeling I’ve ever felt in my life. I felt completely whole. Completely happy. I retained this feeling for nearly half an hour after church. I couldn’t stop smiling. I recall thinking, “I can die now.”

Since then, my life has completely changed and I believe will continue to change. Any one of my friends can surely vouch for that; whether they like it or not .

I’ve switched my major from Computer Science to philosophy. I’ve decided to get my Bachelors in philosophy and go on to get my masters. This is where California comes in. I feel that God is calling me to the Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, CA. I’m not sure what exactly I’m suppose to do when I get there or what I’ll major in for sure. I’ve prayed about it and recieved hints here and there. I even had my doubts at a time, clouded by the fear of not making enough money, and switched my major back to Computer Science. I enrolled in all Computer Science classes and set up my schedule for the next two years with one of their advisers. I, then, became confused. I felt sick about it. I prayed again and asked God and was pushed right back into philosophy.

So, this weekend a group of friends and I are heading out to California to check the place out. I’ve set up a meeting with one of the schools advisers on Monday. I can’t wait to see the place. I can’t wait to talk to the people and I can’t wait to be completely inspired.

Well, it’s certainly past my bedtime (ha! as if! *snaps fingers back and forth*). I’ve got one more final tomorrow and I’ve got to study all morning for it. I somehow concluded that making s’mores bars was a better idea for tonight.

Let’s not forget why we’re here. Let’s glorify God as best we can and when we fear that we’re not good enough, ask God to pick us up, whipe off the dirt and set us back on the right track. Those of you who feel in your heart that God is knocking, don’t let the door go unanswered.

God Bless