Take Action: Founder of Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Alliance Appointed to Education Department

kevin jennings 

Protest His Appointment as National Supervisor for “Safe Schools.”

If anyone was concerned about what happened in the Alameda school district (where parents were ignored and the gay agenda introduced to kindergartners), you’ll be interested in this. From the DNA:

Kevin Jennings, founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), was appointed by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to be Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools.

  • GLSEN once sponsored a conference at Tufts University that was advertised to "youth only ages 14 to 21."
  • Three homosexual activists employed by the Massachusetts Departments of Health and Education led a youth workshop titled "What They Didn’t Tell You about Queer Sex & Sexuality in Health Class." Among other activities, the activists guided the students on gay sex practices.
  • Jennings has spoken publicly about a high school student he once counseled who was in a sexual relationship with an older man — yet Jennings never reported this abuse to the authorities, the school, or the child’s parents.

GLSEN is the chief national group promoting policies to force affirmation of homosexuality in schools, beginning in kindergarten.

Should he be overseeing a major federal program designed to promote the health and well being of students and families? We can only assume, given his past, that he will steer grant money toward programs like those offered by GLSEN that put a homosexual agenda ahead of the rights of parents and the safety of students.

Read BB’s more in depth article: Parents Beware! GLSEN Founder to be National Supervisor for “Safe Schools”

What You Can Do:

  1. Call Secretary of Education Arne Duncan at 202-401-3000 (e-mail: arne.duncan@ed.gov) and urge him to withdraw his appointment.
  2. Call President Obama at 202-456-1414 (email: here) and urge him to withdraw this appointment.

27 Comments

  1. Godless American said,

    June 11, 2009 at 10:38 am

    Thanks for the post. That’s great news!

  2. June 13, 2009 at 3:10 am

    Thanks for posting this info! I will be acting on it asap.

    Also, didn’t know how else to share this with you:

    ‘Gay’ family kids 7 times more likely to be homosexual
    But report shows researchers concealing information

  3. beetlebabee said,

    June 14, 2009 at 7:10 am

    Good link! Thanks for sharing.

  4. karisa said,

    June 17, 2009 at 5:05 am

    Once again ramming their agenda down our throats, and our children’s throats, and they call religious people fanatics!

  5. Godless American said,

    June 17, 2009 at 2:00 pm

    No one calls religious people fanatics, they call religious fanatics, fanatics. Not everyone that is religious is a fanatic. This blog is written by one, though.

  6. June 17, 2009 at 5:26 pm

    GA: Sorry, but you’re wrong. Religious “fanatics” run around spewing slogans like “God hates fags,” or telling people they’re going to Hell. There are very few of these people, and BB is not one of them. On the contrary, she is always polite, always concise, and always allows anti-religious fanatics, like yourself, to barf all over her blog.

    While attempting to sound thoughtful, what you are actually saying shows that you yourself subscribe to the notion that all religious people are fanatics. Jus’sayin’.

  7. Godless American said,

    June 18, 2009 at 8:09 am

    If you’re against gay marriage, you’re a religious fanatic.

    Your only reason is because of your religion, with little or no regard for freedom or equality. Freedom and equality are not represented by excluding people from them. Your freedoms aren’t being taken away by the false threat of gay America. Homophobia is fanatical; in this day and age, if you’re homophobic, you’re a religious fanatic and a bigot. It’s simple, and within a few decades everyone will realize that, and look back with disgust at how people use to behave. Just like when grandparents say things that are a little bit racist, fine in their day, not OK today.

    Your bigotry can not be shrouded by your “faith.” There are many faithful, religious people that support love and understanding between everyone, including gays, and they support gay marriage.

    You thinking that everyone that is religious is a fanatic by my definition, only shows how little you know about other religions.

    I don’t think religious people are fanatics, I think religious fanatics are fanatics.

  8. Emissary said,

    June 18, 2009 at 9:34 am

    Godless America,

    Actually, many of the most convincing arguments against homosexual marriage I’ve read have had nothing to do with religion. Including, I might add, some that were written by homosexuals themselves. Would those atheists against homosexual marriage also be considered “religious fanatics”?

  9. Godless American said,

    June 18, 2009 at 12:45 pm

    Are you equating homosexuals with atheists. You show me a single atheist who is against gay marriage. Also, if you’re talking about the movement to take marriage away from government completely, that doesn’t count as being against gay marriage.

  10. K. S. said,

    June 18, 2009 at 12:54 pm

    I thought this was a pro gay rights website when I opened this page up. I wanted to ask about trans gender issues because I think of surgical change of one’s body as evidence of some kind of mental illness, including breast implants which is an accepted form of mental illness and I wondered what gay rights activists think about this. I don’t get any body any where discriminating against any gay person because they are gay. It is no body’s business what sexuality someone is. But I do have concerns about having someone who has mutilated their own body being a model for our children in the position of teacher. If I had it my way the extremely provocative way many of my kids teachers dressed would also be kept out of the class room. I don’t like people’s religious views imposed on my kids in school and I sure as anything don’t like their views on sexuality imposed on my kids. This whole obsession with gay gay gay as some kind of distinct feature that limits one’s eligibility for any sort of job strikes me as completely over the edge in terms of rational thinking and ethical behavior. But I just don’t get trans gender issues. Maybe some sort of constructive explanation about why it is lumped together with homosexuality.

  11. Emissary said,

    June 18, 2009 at 1:26 pm

    Here’s one I found on-line. It only takes one to disprove a hypothesis, right?

    “I’m for civil unions and the same rights as being married. However, I think the word marrige should be only applied between a man and a woman.

    And yes I’m an atheist.”

  12. Emissary said,

    June 18, 2009 at 1:46 pm

    Hmmm, it’s missing the link. I’ll try again.

    http://www.city-data.com/forum/atheism-agnosticism/135034-any-atheists-against-gay-marriage.html

    The person’s “name” is Marodi.

  13. Godless American said,

    June 18, 2009 at 2:46 pm

    Very good, you found ONE unknown, unnamed, atheist commenter on a forum website. There are always exceptions. Is he a religious fanatic, no. Is he a bigot, yes. Being a bigot does not make you a religious fanatic, nor does being a religious fanatic have to make you a bigot. They just tend to go hand in hand.

    I’ll do you one better,
    http://www.sodahead.com/question/188350/answers/830476/

    Here, there are actually 4 whole people that are atheist/agnostic and against gay marriage. Now, one of them openly says they are agnostic, so they’re off from the comments I had. But that still leaves four whole people on the Internet that we’ve been able to find that are atheist and against gay marriage. Holy cow, the numbers are racking up. Of course, that poll was taken by 121 people, and only 4 were against gay marriage.

    Honestly, I’m surprised that there were any out there. I guess stupidity and bigotry do cross over to atheists. I think my point has been made pretty clearly though, 99.9% of the people against gay marriage do so because of their religious beliefs. Hell, I think that’s more reliable then condoms! Aren’t they only suppose to be 99.8%, or something?

  14. beetlebabee said,

    June 18, 2009 at 3:21 pm

    To discredit one entire side of the marriage argument by saying all concerns are based in religious piety with any credibility, you have to discount all other social concerns that have been brought up on this site and many others like it. The concerns are not a mystery, they’re out there and so far unanswered, valid concerns.

    It’s convenient to take a sharpened stick to poke in the eye of religion, but what is religion other than a set of beliefs, a way of thinking? Your religion is as valid a set of beliefs as any other. The beliefs that accompany the homosexual activist movement are also religious. They have a way of thinking that may or may not be so. To simply attempt to discredit an opposing view by calling out religion is a fairly weak argument. It gets you points with the ignorant peanut gallery, but here you’ll have to do better.

  15. Smokezero said,

    June 18, 2009 at 6:55 pm

    Godless American,

    You do yourself a disservice to try and lump all atheists into a cohesive unit of belief. The entire idea behind being an atheist is that we don’t believe in God. That’s it. Other than that, we have no dogma, no other position, just an agreement that the evidence for god isn’t there, so there’s no use believing. End of story.

  16. Chairm said,

    June 18, 2009 at 8:52 pm

    GLB and Nonreligious voters helped pass California’s Protect Marriage amendment?

    http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2008/11/glb-and-nonreligious-voters-help-pass.html

    It appears that GLB voters supplied about one-half of the margin of victory for the Yes side. And the nonreligous voters denied the No side the 2% that might have defeated the marriage amendment.

    No doubt that there probably is a lot of overlap between GLB and nonreligious voters, however, it appears that the Yes voters from these two segments of the electorate combined to push the marriage amendment past the 50% mark.

    Not all who identify as “GLB” voted against the Protect Marriage amendment. See:

    http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2008/11/anger-at-gay-communitys-violent.html

  17. Mark said,

    June 19, 2009 at 5:11 am

    Is atheism viable?
    Atheism is, essentially, a negative position. It is not believing in a god, or actively believing there is no God, or choosing to not exercise any belief or non-belief concerning God, etc. Whichever flavor is given to atheism, it is a negative position.

    In discussions with atheists, I don’t hear any evidence for the validity of atheism. There are no “proofs” that God does not exist in atheist circles; at least, none that I have heard — especially since you can’t prove a negative regarding the existence of God. Of course, that isn’t to say that atheists haven’t attempted to offer some proofs that God does not exist. But their attempted proofs are invariably insufficient. After all, how do you prove there is no God in the universe? How do you prove that in all places and all times, there is no God? You can’t. Besides, if there was proof of God’s non-existence, then atheists would be continually using it. But we don’t hear of any such commonly held proof supporting atheism or denying the existence of God. The atheist position is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove since it is an attempt to prove a negative. Therefore, since there are no proofs for atheism’s truth, and there are no proofs that there is no God, the atheist must hold his position by faith.

    Faith, however, is not something atheists like to claim as the basis of adhering to atheism. Therefore, atheists must go on the attack and negate any evidences presented for God’s existence in order to give intellectual credence to their position. If they can create an evidential vacuum in which no theistic argument can survive, their position can be seen as more intellectually viable. It is in the negation of theistic proofs and evidences that atheism brings its self-justification to self-proclaimed life.

    There is, however, only one way that atheism is intellectually defensible, and that is in the abstract realm of simple possibility. In other words, the atheist would have to propose that it may be possible that there is no God.1 But stating that something is possible doesn’t mean that it is a reality, or that it is wise to adopt the position. If I said it is possible that there is an ice cream factory on Jupiter, does that make it intellectually defensible or a position worth adopting merely because it is a possibility? Not at all. Simply claiming a possibility based on nothing more than it being a possible option, no matter how remote, is not sufficient grounds for atheists to claim viability in their atheism. They must come up with more than “It is possible,” or “There is no evidence for God,” otherwise, there really must be an ice cream factory on Jupiter, and the atheist should step up on the band wagon and start defending the position that Jupiterian ice cream exists.

    At least we Christians have evidences for God’s existence, such as fulfilled biblical prophecy, Jesus’ resurrection, the Transcendental Argument, the entropy problem, etc.

    There is another problem for atheists. Refuting evidences for the existence of God does not prove atheism true anymore than refuting an eyewitness testimony of a marriage denies the reality of the marriage. Since atheism cannot be proven, and since disproving evidences for God does not prove there is no God, atheists have a position that is intellectually indefensible. At best, atheists can only say there are no convincing evidences for God that have been presented so far. They cannot say there are no evidences for God, because the atheist cannot know all evidences that possibly exist in the world. At best, the atheist can only say that the evidence presented so far has been insufficient. This logically means that there could be evidences presented in the future that will suffice. The atheist must acknowledge that there may indeed be a proof that has been undiscovered, and that the existence of God is possible. This would make the atheist more of an agnostic since at best the atheist can only be skeptical of God’s existence.

    This is why atheists need to attack Christianity. It is because Christianity makes very high claims concerning God’s existence, which challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum. They like the vacuum. They like having the universe with only one god in it: themselves.

  18. Godless American said,

    June 19, 2009 at 8:19 am

    @Smokezero

    My lumping together of atheists is based on my experiences with atheists. I’m a member of a few atheist groups and have many atheist friends. The common stance is one of apathy towards gay marriage, i.e. why should we care if gay people want to be married? It should be allowed simply for equality.

    I don’t speak for atheists, I only speak for myself. Atheists can be bigots too.

    @beetlebabee

    I discredit a lot of things that are based on religious beliefs. There is a difference between religious and non-religious. It’s called dogma. That’s one reason i would separate non-religious atheists and religious atheists (like Buddhists) because many Buddhists are still following a dogmatic teaching. Believing in God does not mean you are religious, it means you’re a Deist. Simply believing that there must be a higher power of sorts is of no concern to me. What is a concern to me is when people follow dogmatic law and attempt to constrain everyone else within that dogma. That is what you are doing. Allowing people to live their lives is in no way taking away your rights or freedoms, but you’d choose to do so to others because of your dogmatic beliefs.

    @Mark

    You can’t prove a negation. Prove there is no Santa. Prove there is no Tooth Fairy. Prove that I am not God. You can’t. That doesn’t mean any of it is true. But, like you say, let’s remain skeptical about their existence because proof may come out later to show there is a Santa, a Tooth Fairy, and that I am God. Do you still like that argument?

  19. Mark said,

    June 19, 2009 at 9:50 am

    The following is my response to the first portion of an atheist’s critique of two of my papers dealing with atheism. His original criticism was one page, but I have broken it up into two pages relating to each paper he addressed.

    The article was posted on infidelguy.com, an atheistic website, and that is the only reason I am responding to the paper which, in my opinion, does not present its case very well. Nevertheless, I have copied the entire article with the author’s permission and reproduced the two halves; one here, so that it can be more easily addressed. His original comments are in black, and my comments are in green. I have left his typo’s and grammar errors intact.

    “Is atheism viable?”
    This is my refutation of Matt Slick’s other article, “Is atheism viable?”. I’ll show why he is wrong again, point by point. Follow along in his article.

    Atheism is a negative position. This is true. It doesn’t sound so good, and this is what he’s looking for, to make atheists look bad, but it is technically true.

    Mr. Lonovy is trying to play the mind reader. He does not know if I am trying to make atheists look bad or not. In fact, why would I want to do that? Making an atheist look bad isn’t how truth is established. Rather, I attempt to tackle the issues and not the individuals — unlike Mr. Lonovy who has stated in his original paper that I am an idiot.

    Matt says he doesn’t hear any evidence for atheism when he has discussions with atheists. I’m sorry that there are so many stupid atheists, then. There is proof against God’s existance, even if Matt doesn’t discuss it with atheists who know this. Is it enough to completely rule Him out? No. It is enough to say what He does and does not do. As I stated earlier, the only scientific place left for Him is the Big Bang. People used to believe He did many different things, until science proved that they could function on their own without Him. Is that not a good point against Him? It is hard to prove He doesn’t exist, because it is proving a negative, but we can prove the negative that His Christian interpretation is false by proving positives – That things like evolution, abiogenesis, and an atheistic [without God] Big Bang can and have actually occured. These things are strongly rooted in truthful science. There is our best weapon.

    Mr. Lonovy not only insults me, but now he insults atheists.

    For him to say there is proof that God does not exist is really quite a statement. How do you prove a negative? How do you prove that God, the creator of the universe, who exists outside of time and space, does not exist? That is a tall order and I would truly love to see the proof. If it is indeed proof, I will abandon my Christianity. After all, proof is proof. I have asked atheists for proofs and have not yet seen one offered that has stood the test of cross examination.

    Mr. Lonovy fails to understand that even though science has answered many issues about life, medicine, mechanics, the universe, etc., it does not invalidate God’s existence, nor is it in any way a proof or evidence that God does not exist. The only thing science does is explain things using naturalistic principles. But, since Christians define God as being outside of time and space (yet able to interact within it), explaining things naturalistically does not effect the proposed existence of God or not, since He is not limited to a naturalistic system. After all, the Bible states that God created the naturalistic principles working in the universe. Since these principles exist, how would that mean that God does not exist? It doesn’t. Therefore, Mr. Lonovy is again failing to make his point.

    As for the rest of the paragraph, Mr. Lonovy again begs the question regarding evolution, abiogenesis, et. al. He assumes that all of it occurs due to naturalistic principles in the universe, though he has not offered any evidence for this. The topics he introduces are too deep and varied to address here (as they have been addressed elsewhere on my site), but the principle of his presuppositions clouding his objectivity is, to me, very obvious.

    Atheists don’t hold their position by faith, as a Christian does. Faith is defined as being belief in something for which there is no proof. There is proof that things other than what the Bible says have occured. We prove the negative by proving a positive that will contradict it, and therefore render it false. But even with this, how dare a Christian say someone else can’t hold their position by faith? With this logic, we should all be agnostics! Attacking yourself in the process of attacking someone else doesn’t help you. It leaves a level playing field. Why do it?

    I appreciate that Mr. Lonovy attempts to define faith. But I do not accept his definition as being sufficient, though there is some merit in it. I would agree that if something had proof, then there would be no faith. But that isn’t all there is to it. Faith can rest on evidence. That is, a person can decide to have faith based upon evidence. I am sure Mr. Lonovy lives this kind of faith regularly. Let me illustrate. I assume Mr. Lonovy drives a car. Can Mr. Lonovy offer proof before he takes his next drive, that the next time he drives to the store he will make it there alive? No, he cannot. But, past evidence of him being able to drive, people abiding by driving laws, and previous successes of him getting to the store and back safely, are all evidences by which Mr. Lonovy decides to have the faith that he will be able to get to the store alive…even though there is no proof that he will. He is acting faithfully to the evidence. So, Mr. Lonovy’s definition, though true in part, is insufficient and does not reflect the biblical representation of faith which rests on evidence (i.e., the resurrection, Jesus’ miracles, etc.).

    My proposition that atheists hold their position by faith is based upon the idea that there is no proof for atheism; there is no evidence that God does not exist; and that atheism only succeeds if it can refute all theistic proofs and evidences — which they can only hope to do. Therefore, I conclude that there is a large measure of faith that the atheists use to hold to their atheism since there is no proof.

    Again, atheists do attack Christian claims. It is the duty of a skeptic to do so. It is not only this ‘evidential vacuum’ that atheism gains it’s justification, but it is one of the ways. Proof for things which contradict the Bible is much more effective, though.

    I have not yet seen any “proof” offered by an atheist that contradicts the Bible. There may be something out there that does, but I have not yet seen it. So, I really cannot comment beyond that.

    Atheism can only be defended by it’s status as a possibility? Wrong. Science and logic have clearly shown that it is much more than a simple possibility. But what right does a Christian have to say someone else can’t believe something because it’s a possibility? That’s exactly what they do.

    Again, Mr. Lonovy begs the question. Science has not shown that there is no God, nor is there any logical proof (that I am aware of) that there is no God. Since atheism is the position of “no God” either in belief or “lack of belief,” and since there is no proof that God does not exist, then faith must make up the difference.

    Either atheism is absolutely true or it is possibly true. Since it cannot be proven that atheism is absolutely true (i.e., prove that there is no God in all space and time, etc.), then all that is left is a possibility that it is true — or, dare I say, that it simply is not true.

    Furthermore, Mr. Lonovy seems to believe that because science can explain things it means there is no God. But this is not logical, as I have demonstrated above.

    Finally, people can believe what they want to believe. I simply question the evidential and logical validity of the atheistic belief system.

    The ice cream factory on Jupiter really shows Matt’s stupidity. Why would anyone believe that there actually is an ice cream factory on Jupiter when there is no evidence for it and many other things, like the planet Jupiter itself, contradict such a possibility? I don’t know, but this is exactly what Christians do with God.

    I suggest that the reader actually read the article in question and read the context of my statement about the ice cream factory on Jupiter. It was merely an illustration. Nevertheless, I will quote the relevant material from that paper:

    “…stating that something is possible doesn’t mean that it is a reality, or that it is wise to adopt the position. If I said it is possible that there is an ice cream factory on Jupiter, does that make it intellectually defensible or a position worth adopting merely because it is a possibility? Not at all. Simply claiming a possibility based on nothing more than it being a logical option, no matter how remote, is not sufficient grounds for atheists to claim viability in their atheism.”

    Again, attacking me personally is not the best way to establish a point. Whether or not I am stupid is, I am sure, a debatable issue among the atheist community, but it should be best left aside when addressing issues of truth.

    Refuting ‘evidence’ for God’s existance doesn’t prove atheism true. This is correct. What about this: Does proving atheism false prove Christianity true? No, it doesn’t. It works both ways. But I’m quite sure I’ve shown that we have many other ways to prove that the Christian god doesn’t exist, so his point is null.

    Finally, Mr. Lonovy is logical. However, he has failed to show proof that the Christian God does not exist.

    An atheist can’t say he knows everything in the universe. Can a Christian? No. Then, how can he say God does exist? Again, Matt’s logic attacks his own religion, too. How stupid. An atheist can know many, many things, though. Enough to come to a logical conclusion that God, at least the Christian interpretation of such a being, does not exist.

    As a Christian, my belief in God rests on evidence, experience, and decision. I see the biblical evidence, experience the work of God in my life, and I have chosen to continue in belief based upon these factors. What I lack in absolute proof, I complete in faith.

    I certainly agree that an atheist can conclude that God does not exist, but it does not mean that his conclusion is correct. I can conclude that screaming blue ants are spying on me, but that doesn’t mean I am right.

    An atheist can say that there is more than just no available proof for God’s existance. There is proof that contradicts the Christian notion of God. Science has shown us how many things in this universe occured, esspecially the appearance and evolution of life. The truth of these things is for a different discussion, though.

    Again, I have not seen this proof Mr. Lonovy keeps mentioning. If there is such a proof, why is it that the atheists are not unanimously using it?

    I do not believe in macro evolution, but even if it were true, it is not proof that God does not exist.

    An atheist must acknowledge that there may be proof for God in the future if they are truely intelligent. Atheism isn’t a dogmatic religion like Christianity, atheists are allowed to do this. This doesn’t make the atheist an agnostic. It makes them open minded. You can accept that such a being may exist without actually believing it does exist. Why don’t Christians accept that there may be no God? If Matt wants atheists to be agnostic because they accept that God might exist, then why isn’t he an agnostic? It works both ways. That is by far the stupidest thing he’s said in his papers.

    As a Christian, I can accept the possibility that there might not be a God. However, I most definitely believe and affirm that the God of the Bible exists and is the only true God. This does not make me agnostic; that is, it does not mean that I don’t know if God exists or not. On the other hand, the atheist states, basically, that there is no God. But if this same person states that God may exist, then doesn’t that mean he isn’t sure, that he doesn’t know if God does or does not exist? That is not the same position I hold at all.

    That is not why atheists attack Christianity. They don’t even need to. I’ve shown this already. Christianity makes irrational claims about God that make me think the Christians are high. [LOL] Their claims no more “poke holes in my vacuum” than someone claiming that there is an ice cream factory on Jupiter. I’ve shown why already.

    I am sure that there are Christians who make irrational claims about God. I am also sure there are Christians who make rational claims about God.

    I do not like my “vacuum”. I’d much rather there be a loving god who would take us all to Heaven when we die. I’d extremely afraid of dying. I’d give up my atheism for immortality in Heaven any day!

    I am glad to see this honesty. But, God allows us to have what we want. If you want your sin and independence from God, He will let you have it and He will not reveal Himself to you. The evidence is there in the Bible.

    We like having ourselves as gods? We’re not all that egotistical. How dare you say this, Matt? Not only is Matt stupid, he’s an as***le to atheists, too. All too much like a typical Christian. I’ve shown why I believe him to be this way. Thank you for reading. Again, anyone who sees my points, please urge Matt to take down his fallacious articles. We don’t need him lying to people about what we believe. [I substituted three asterisks in the cuss word with which Mr. Lonovy referred to me.]

    Mr. Lonovy is referring to my closing statement quoted here…

    “This is why atheists need to attack Christianity. It is because Christianity makes very high claims concerning God’s existence, which challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum. They like the vacuum. They like having the universe with only one god in it: themselves.”

    Of course, the context is that God is the true sovereign and that atheists want that for themselves. In this, they take the place of God and set themselves up as master of their own lives, future, etc.

    Again, Mr. Lonovy uses a personal attack in his paper. This is definitely a poor way to address an opponent.

    Conclusion: I am always open to intelligent dialogue with atheists and have even changed parts of my site in response to some well intentioned and well delivered correspondence from atheists. However, Mr. Lonovy demonstrates a lack of tact and logical acumen. He has not established his case, nor has he ‘refuted’ my paper.

  20. Smokezero said,

    June 19, 2009 at 3:39 pm

    Mark, you need to back up a little bit there. Specifically, as GA pointed out, a lack of proof in the non existence of invisible pink unicorns doesn’t mean that invisible pink unicorns don’t exist. You can’t prove a negative, because that would mean there is something to which you need proof.

    “Atheism is a religion, just like not collecting stamps is a hobby.” This is one of my favorite points to show, as its the most valid argument about your “faith” position. It takes no faith to not believe in something. You don’t need to believe in something to counter the lack of belief in its opposition. You just don’t believe. I don’t believe there’s a fire breathing dragon in my garage. That doesn’t mean I hold a set of tenants to which I profess my lack of faith in dragons in the garage.

    For the TAG, I recomend the TANG (Transcendental argument for Non-existence of God)

    L1. Logic presupposes that its principles are necessarily true.

    L2. According to the brand of Christianity assumed by TAG, God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God.

    L3. If something is created by or is dependent on God, it is not necessary — it is contingent on God.

    L4. If principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary.

    L5. If principles of logic are contingent on God, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time. But this is absurd. How could God arrange matters so that New Zealand is south of China and that New Zealand is not south of it?

    L6. Hence logic is not dependent on God, and, insofar as the Christian world view assumes that logic is so dependent, it is false.

    Also, if you’re looking at the “entropy problem” as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, you should know that this law only takes place in a CLOSED SYSTEM. In an open system, such as ours, we have things like the big ball of light outside, (referred to as the sun), as just one source of continuous energy.

    I don’t have time, or care for that matter, to go over point by point on why you could be so wrong on your evaluation of atheism, and the specifics of a “Christian God” as being the logical solution, but that’s a good enough start.

  21. beetlebabee said,

    June 19, 2009 at 5:12 pm

    Smokezero, atheism is more than just a non belief. It is a system of belief same as any other. I don’t find your analogy enlightening on that point. Everyone bases their actions and choices on a set of beliefs or understandings about the world they live in. To say that a non belief has no bearing on actions so it isn’t a belief just doesn’t make sense. Even atheists believe in something, even if it is that he is the master of his own soul.

  22. beetlebabee said,

    June 19, 2009 at 5:46 pm

    “I discredit a lot of things that are based on religious beliefs. There is a difference between religious and non-religious. It’s called dogma. That’s one reason i would separate non-religious atheists and religious atheists (like Buddhists) because many Buddhists are still following a dogmatic teaching. Believing in God does not mean you are religious, it means you’re a Deist. Simply believing that there must be a higher power of sorts is of no concern to me. What is a concern to me is when people follow dogmatic law and attempt to constrain everyone else within that dogma. That is what you are doing. Allowing people to live their lives is in no way taking away your rights or freedoms, but you’d choose to do so to others because of your dogmatic beliefs.”

    dogma: a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

    So, what about dogma is different from what you believe? Isn’t your system of belief the thing that you base your actions on? Your principles? Everyone has principles, they don’t have to be the same. Even within a group who believes similarly, you will find wide variation. Your implication is that principles and beliefs you associate with one or more religions are not valid beliefs because why? We’re all mind numbed robots with no independent thought?

    I don’t get it. Why can’t you just debate the issues and concerns of the individuals who happen to be religious instead of dismissively attacking religion as a whole?

  23. Mark said,

    June 19, 2009 at 6:58 pm

    The following objection was presented on the Atheism discussion board on CARM as an “evidence” for atheism. It is as follows:

    “To my mind, the best evidence for atheism is the predictability of the universe. Atheism (or perhaps I should say naturalism) posits that there exists nothing capable of circumventing the laws by which the universe runs. Theism, on the other hand, says that there is an omnipotent being who, by definition as omnipotent, could cause the universe to run in any manner he/she/it chooses. Any “laws” we might think we observe are merely the coincidental result of God’s choice to make things happen that way when we’re looking. Atheism thus makes a specific prediction that theism does not. It says that everything within the universe must always follow natural law, since there is no being who could make it otherwise. Theism has no equivalent prediction.

    I will break the argument down into its parts and deal with it accordingly. The argument is reproduced with comments in an outline form.

    1.Premise: “Atheism (or perhaps I should say naturalism) posits that there exists nothing capable of circumventing the laws by which the universe runs.”

    A.Response: Naturalism is a logical conclusion for atheists. It maintains that all things in the universe are the products of natural laws, behave according to natural laws, and that these laws cannot be violated.
    2.Premise: “Theism, on the other hand, says that there is an omnipotent being who, by definition as omnipotent, could cause the universe to run in any manner he/she/it chooses.”

    A.Response: This is a subjective statement with an erring premise. There is no ultimate definition of the actions of God as defined in theism in general. But, the Christian God is absolute and knows all the laws of the universe, since he incorporated them into the universe as he created it. This would mean that He knows all laws in the universe, and can perform actions which would appear to violate other laws — only they do not. The Laws in the universe are a reflection of the absoluteness of the nature of God.
    3.Premise: “Any ‘laws’ we might think we observe are merely the coincidental result of God’s choice to make things happen that way when we’re looking.”

    A.Response: The laws would not be arbitrary (coincidental). If God exists and he has a nature, then what he created (laws and all) would be made in a way that is consistent with his nature. He would not create in a manner inconsistent with Himself, because this would be self-contradictory. The Christian God is eternal and unchangeable (as the Christian believes according to the Bible). Therefore, the laws in the universe would be consistent and absolute, and also result in predictability. This is why the existence of physical laws in the universe are just as easily and logically explained by the Christian as by the atheist.
    4.Premise: “Atheism thus makes a specific prediction that theism does not.”

    A.Response: On the contrary, as demonstrated above. The Christian has every right to claim the predictability of the universe based upon the absoluteness of God’s nature. Instead of randomness that atheism would suggest since the universe and life are the product of chance, Christian theism supports absoluteness and consistency based upon the absoluteness of God’s nature.
    5.Premise: “It says that everything within the universe must always follow natural law, since there is no being who could make it otherwise.”

    A.Response: And what natural laws must God follow? If He created the universe as a reflection of His natural absoluteness, then it is logical that the attributes of absoluteness in physics, etc., also reflect His nature. If miracles occur at the hand of God, then they occur in a system of laws consistent with his nature. What we observe as supernatural is in reality natural to God, and consistent with his abilities and attributes.
    The extent of natural law can and does exist beyond the scope of human understanding. Take quantum physics as an example; there are things we just do not understand. Furthermore, if God exists and he created the universe with all that is in it, then why not admit there will be laws that may never be fully understood by people? There is no logical reason that requires that if God exists, his abilities and knowledge of the laws of the universe (which He created) cannot and do not extend beyond the scope of human grasp. This would mean that the “supernatural” is simply natural to God and miraculous to us.
    6.Premise: “Theism has no equivalent prediction.”

    A.Response: Yes it does. Christian theism states that since God is absolute and created the universe, it will demonstrate the absolute nature of laws. It further states that the supernatural, the miraculous, are consistent with God’s nature; and since God is beyond us, God’s behavior will also often appear beyond us.
    This objection is not a proof for God’s non-existence, and it does not offer a theory of natural law predictability that Christian theism cannot. Therefore, it is not a proof for atheism.

  24. Mark said,

    June 19, 2009 at 7:09 pm

    The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God
    This is an attempt to demonstrate the existence of God using logical absolutes. The oversimplified argument, which is expanded in outline form below, goes as follows: Logical absolutes exist. Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature, are not dependent on space, time, physical properties, or human nature. They are not the product of the physical universe (space, time, matter), because if the physical universe were to disappear, logical absolutes would still be true. Logical Absolutes are not the product of human minds, because human minds are different, not absolute. But, since logical absolutes are always true everywhere, and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind that is authoring them. This mind is called God.

    1.Logical Absolutes
    A.Law of Identity
    i.Something is what it is, and isn’t what it is not. Something that exists has a specific nature.
    ii.For example, a cloud is a cloud, not a rock. A fish is a fish, not a car.
    B.Law of Non-Contradiction
    i.Something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense.
    ii.For example, to say that the cloud is not a cloud would be a contradiction since it would violate the first law. The cloud cannot be what it is and not what it is at the same time.
    C.Law of Excluded Middle (LEM)
    i.A statement is either true or false, without a middle ground.
    ii.”I am alive” is either true or false. “You are pregnant” is either true or false.
    a.Note one: “This statement is false” is not a valid statement (not logically true) since it is self-refuting and is dealt with by the Law of Non-contradiction. Therefore, it does not fall under the LEM category since it is a self-contradiction.
    b.Note two: If we were to ignore note one, then there is a possible paradox here. The sentence “this statement is false” does not fit this Law since if it is true, then it is false. Paradoxes occur only when we have absolutes. Nevertheless, the LEM is valid except for the paradoxical statement cited.
    c.Note three: If we again ignore note one and admit a paradox, then we must acknowledge that paradoxes exist only within the realm of absolutes.
    2.Logical absolutes are truth statements such as:
    A.That which exists has attributes and a nature.
    i.A cloud exists and has the attributes of whiteness, vapor, etc. It has the nature of water and air.
    ii.A rock is hard, heavy, and is composed of its rock material (granite, marble, sediment, etc.).
    B.Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time.
    i.It cannot be true to state that a rock is not a rock.
    C.Something cannot bring itself into existence.
    i.In order for something to bring itself into existence, it has to have attributes in order to perform an action. But if it has attributes, then it already has existence. If something does not exist, it has no attributes and can perform no actions. Therefore, something cannot bring itself into existence.
    D.Truth is not self-contradictory.
    i.It could not be true that you are reading this and not reading this at the same time in the same sense. It is either true or false that you are reading this.
    E.Therefore, Logical Absolutes are absolutely true. They are not subjectively true; that is, they are not sometimes true and sometimes false, depending on preference or situation. Otherwise, they would not be absolute.
    3.Logical Absolutes form the basis of rational discourse.
    A.If the Logical Absolutes are not absolute, then truth cannot be known.
    B.If the Logical Absolutes are not absolute, then no rational discourse can occur.
    i.For example, I could say that a square is a circle (violating the law of identity), or that I am and am not alive in the same sense at the same time (violating the law of non-contradiction).
    ii.But no one would expect to have a rational conversation with someone who spoke in contradictory statements.
    C.If Logical Absolutes are not always true, then it might be true that something can contradict itself, which would make truth unknowable and rational discourse impossible. But, saying that something can contradict itself can’t be true.
    D.But since we know things are true (I exist, you are reading this), then we can conclude that logical statements are true. Otherwise, we would not be able to rationally discuss or know truth.
    E.If they are not the basis of rational discourse, then we cannot know truth or error since the laws that govern rationality are not absolute. This would allow people to speak irrationally, i.e., blue sleeps faster than Wednesday.
    4.Logical Absolutes are transcendent.
    A.Logical Absolutes are not dependent on space.
    i.They do not stop being true dependent on location. If we travel a million light years in a direction, logical absolutes are still true.
    B.Logical Absolutes are not dependent on time.
    i.They do not stop being true dependent on time. If we travel a billion years in the future or past, logical absolutes are still true.
    C.Logical Absolutes are not dependent on people. That is, they are not the product of human thinking.
    i.People’s minds are different. What one person considers to be absolute may not be what another considers to be absolute. People often contradict each other. Therefore, Logical Absolutes cannot be the product of human, contradictory minds.
    ii.If Logical Absolutes were the product of human minds, they would cease to exist if people ceased to exist, which would mean they would be dependent on human minds. But this cannot be so per the previous point.
    5.Logical Absolutes are not dependent on the material world.
    A.Logical Absolutes are not found in atoms, motion, heat, under rocks, etc.
    B.Logical Absolutes cannot be photographed, frozen, weighed, or measured.
    C.Logical Absolutes are not the product of the physical universe, since that would mean they were contingent on atoms, motion, heat, etc., and that their nature was dependent on physical existence.
    i.If their nature were dependent upon physical existence, they would cease to exist when the physical universe ceases to exist.
    D.But, if the universe did not exist, logical absolutes are still true.
    i.For example, if the universe did not exist, it is still true that something cannot bring itself into existence; that is, anything that did exist would have an identity, and whatever could exist could not be itself and not itself at the same time.
    ii.Therefore, they are not dependent on the material world.
    6.Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature.
    A.Logic is a process of the mind. Logical absolutes provide the framework for logical thought processes. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature.
    B.Expanded: Logical absolutes are either conceptual by nature or they are not.
    i.If they are conceptual by nature, then they are not dependent upon the physical universe for their existence.
    ii.If they are non-conceptual by nature, then:
    a.What is their nature?
    b.If it is denied that Logical Absolutes are either conceptual or physical, then there must be a 3rd (or 4th…) option. What would that option be?
    c.If another option cannot be logically offered, then the only options available to us are conceptual and physical.
    d.Since logic is not a property of physical nature (see point 5 above), then we must conclude that they are conceptual by nature.
    e.Simply “denying” that Logical Absolutes are either conceptual or physical nature isn’t sufficient.
    7.Thoughts reflect the mind
    A.A person’s thoughts reflect what he or she is.
    B.Absolutely perfect thoughts reflect an absolutely perfect mind.
    C.Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind.
    D.We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind God.
    8.Objections Answered
    A.Logical Absolutes are the result of natural existence.
    i.In what sense are they the result of natural existence? How do conceptual absolutes form as a result of the existence of matter?
    B.Logical Absolutes simply exist.
    i.This is begging the question and does not provide an explanation for their existence. Simply saying they exist is not an answer.
    C.Logical Absolutes are conventions.
    i.A convention, in this context, is an agreed upon principle. But since people differ on what is and is not true, then logical absolutes cannot be the product of human minds, and therefore are not the product of human conventions; that is, of human agreements.
    ii.This would mean that logical absolutes were invented upon an agreement by a sufficient number of people. But this would mean that logical absolutes are a product of human minds, which cannot be the case since human minds differ and are often contradictory. Furthermore, the nature of logical absolutes is that they transcend space and time (not dependent on space and time for their validity) and are absolute (they don’t change) by nature. Therefore, they could not be the product of human minds which are finite and not absolute.
    D.Logical Absolutes are eternal.
    i.What is meant by stating they are eternal?
    ii.If a person says that logical absolutes have always existed, then how is it they could exist without a mind (if the person denies the existence of an absolute and transcendent mind)?
    E.Logical Absolutes are uncaused.
    i.Since the nature of logic is conceptual, and logical absolutes form the framework of this conceptual process known as logic, it would be logical to conclude that the only way logical absolutes could be uncaused is if there was an uncaused and absolute mind authoring them.
    F.Logical Absolutes are self-authenticating.
    i.This means that logical absolutes validate themselves. While this is true, it does not explain their existence.
    ii.It is begging the question. It just says they are because they are.
    G.Logical Absolutes are like rules of chess, which are not absolute and transcendent.
    i.The rules of chess are human inventions since Chess is a game invented by people. In fact, the rules of chess have changed over the years, but logical absolutes have not. So, comparing the rules of chess to logical absolutes is invalid.
    H.There are different kinds of logic.
    i.Saying there are different kinds of logic does not explain the existence of logical absolutes.
    I.”Logical absolutes need no transcendental existence: saying ‘they would be true even if matter didn’t exist’ is irrelevant, because we’re concerned with their existence, not their logical validity. Saying ‘the idea of a car would still exist even if matter didn’t exist’ doesn’t imply that your car is transcendental (reductio ad absurdum).”
    i.Why do logical absolutes need no transcendental existence? Simply saying they don’t need a transcendental existence doesn’t account for their existence. “Need” deals with desire and wants, which are irrelevant to the discussion of the nature of logical absolutes.
    ii.Also, why is it irrelevant to say they would be true even if matter didn’t exist? On the contrary, it is precisely relevant to the discussion since we’re dealing with the nature of logical absolutes which are conceptual realities, not physical ones.
    iii.The illustration that a car would still exist if matter did not exist is illogical. By definition, a car is made of matter and if matter did not exist, a car could not logically exist. By contrast, logical absolutes are not made of matter. The objection is invalid.
    J.”Logical abstractions do not have existence independent of our minds. They are constructs in our minds (i.e. brains), and we use them to carry out computations via neural networks, silicon networks, etc., suggested by the fact that logic – like language – is learned, not inbuilt (ball’s in your court to demonstrate an independent existence, or problem with this).” (…continued in next objection…)
    i.How do you know that logical abstractions do not have existence independent of our minds? Saying so doesn’t make it so. This is precisely one of the points about the nature of logical absolutes; namely, that they are a process of the mind, but are not dependent upon human bodies because human minds contradict each other and are also self-contradictory. This would preclude our minds from being the authors of what is logically absolute. Furthermore, if they are constructions of our minds, then all I have to do is claim victory in any argument because that is how I construct my logical abstractions. But, of course, you wouldn’t accept this as being valid. Therefore, this demonstrates that your assertion is incorrect.
    K.(continued from previous objection…) “Logical absolutes are absolute, not because of some special quality, but because we judge them using logic. Therefore, their absoluteness doesn’t arise from any special ontological quality (category error on your part).”
    i.You are begging the question. You use logic to demonstrate that logical absolutes are absolute. You are not giving a rational reason for their existence. Instead, you assume their existence and argue accordingly.
    ii.Furthermore, when you presuppose the validity of logical absolutes to demonstrate they are absolute, you contradict your statement in your previous objection about them being constructs of human minds. They cannot be constructs of human minds, because human minds contradict each other and themselves.
    iii.I do not see any category mistake on my part. The nature of logical absolutes is that they are conceptual, not physical. This is something I have brought out before so that their categories do not get mixed. The nature of logical absolutes is exactly relevant to the question.
    L.(continued from previous objection…) “Logical absolutes can be accurately described as conventions in communication. The fact that they are widely employed does not imply anything transcendental, anymore than the wide employment of the word “lolly” as something small and yummy implies that the word “lolly” is transcendental (non sequitor).”
    i.Saying that they are “widely employed does not imply anything transcendental” is inaccurate. Something that is transcendental, as in logical absolutes, would naturally be widely employed because they are valid. You have recognized that they are widely used, but they are because they are transcendent. They do not become transcendent because they are widely used.
    ii.This still does not account for the existence of logical absolutes.
    M.(continued from previous objection…) “Logical processes are clearly carried out by material constructs, usually neural or electrical. They do this without any known “input” or “guidance” from anything transcendental, which makes you wonder why anything transcendental is needed in the equation at all (reality check).”
    i.You haven’t defined “material construct” or what you mean by neural or electrical (constructs). If you mean a computer or something of that kind, this doesn’t help you at all because humans designed them using logic. If you mean that they are the process of the human brain, you still haven’t solved the problem of their existence; since the implication would be that if our minds do not exist, logical absolutes would not exist either. But this would mean that logical absolutes were not absolute, but dependent upon human minds. Again, the problem would be that human minds are different and contradict each other. Therefore, logical absolutes, which are not contradictory, cannot be the product of minds that are contradictory.
    ii.You don’t have to know the input or understand the guidance from anything transcendental for the transcendentals to be true.
    N.”Logic is one of those characteristics that any healthy human ‘has.’ It’s not free to vary from one person to the next for the same kind of reason that ‘number of eyes’ is a value that doesn’t vary between healthy humans.”
    i.Saying that logic is something that everyone “has” does not explain its existence. Essentially, this is begging the question, stating that something exists because it exists.
    ii.The analogy of “eyes” is a category mistake. Eyes are organs. Different organisms have different kinds of eyes and different numbers of eyes. Logic is consistent and independent of biological structures.
    O.Logic is the result of the semantics of the language which we have chosen: a statement is a theorem of logic if and only if it is valid in all conceivable worlds. If the language is trivalent (true/indetermined/false), tertium non datur is invalid. Uniformity of the universe can be rationally expected in a non-theistic universe. If there is no one around with the transcendental power to change it, why should the behavior of the universe tomorrow differ from its behavior today?
    i.”Semantics of the language.” Semantics deals with the study of the meaning of words, their development, changes in meaning, and the interpretation of words, etc. But semantics by nature deals with the changing meaning of words and the often subjective nature of language and its structures. To say the absolutes of logic are a result of the use of the subjective meanings of words is problematic. How do you derive logical absolutes from the non-absolute semantic structures of non-absolute languages?
    Furthermore, simply asserting that logic is a result of the semantics of the language does not explain the transcendent nature of logic. Remember, the TAG argument asserts that Logical Absolutes are independent of human existence — reasons given at the beginning of the paper. Since language, in this context, is a result of human existence, the argument would suggest that logic came into existence when language came into existence. But this would invalidate the nature of logical absolutes and their transcendent characteristics. Therefore, this objection is invalid.
    ii.If logic is the result of language, then logic came into existence with language. This cannot be for the reasons stated above.
    iii.If logic is the result of language, and since language rules change, then can we conclude that the laws of logic would also change? If so, then the laws of logic are not laws, they are not absolute.
    iv.Saying that “a statement is a theorem of logic” does not account for logic, but presupposes existence of logic. This is begging the question.

  25. Mark said,

    June 19, 2009 at 7:12 pm

    Answering the Transcendental Argument for the Non-Existence of God
    The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG) is a powerful and, in my opinion, non-refutable proof for God’s existence. However, there are those who refuse to accept it and have offered a counter argument, the Transcendental Argument for the Non-existence of God (TANG).

    I heard about this argument via the CARM discussion boards and was pointed to a website that proposed the argument. After reviewing TANG, I found it to be invalid. I’ll quote a paragraph from the website that articulates TANG, and then I will show you how it is invalid. My comments to the argument are in green.

    “How might TANG proceed? Consider logic. Logic presupposes that its principles are necessarily true. However, according to the brand of Christianity assumed by TAG, God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God. But if something is created by or is dependent on God, it is not necessary–it is contingent on God. And if principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary. Moreover, if principles of logic are contingent on God, God could change them. Thus, God could make the law of noncontradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time. But this is absurd. How could God arrange matters so that New Zealand is south of China and that New Zealand is not south of it? So, one must conclude that logic is not dependent on God, and, insofar as the Christian world view assumes that logic so dependent, it is false.”1

    I will re-create this paragraph below in outline form and analyze the statements one at a time, adding comments accordingly.

    1.”according to the brand of Christianity assumed by TAG, God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God.”
    A.Clarification: God did not invent or create logic. It is correct to say that logic is dependent upon God, since it is a part of his perfect nature.
    B.If the person writing this article understood TAG properly, he would not assert as part of the TAG argument that God created logic.
    2.”But if something is created by or is dependent on God, it is not necessary–it is contingent on God.”
    A.Incorrect. If logic is a part of God’s nature, then it is necessarily existent because it is based on God’s existence. In other words, it necessarily must exist because God exists.
    B.God’s self-existence and necessary attributes are consistent with the first Law of logic, the Law of Identity, which states that something is what it is: A = A. Since the TAG argument ultimately concludes that God exists (God = God), then his attributes, which are dependent and necessarily a part of his existence, also exist. You cannot separate God’s attributes from God himself, since his attributes exist because God exists. By way of analogy, I am six feet tall. My height (or whatever height I might be) is an attribute of my existence as a full grown man, and it cannot be separated from what I am. Of course height can be altered, but “height” cannot be removed from my physical existence. It is a part of my existence.
    C.The objection erringly separates God’s nature from logic, as if logic can be a separate thing from God’s nature. This is not the TAG argument, and it is not logically necessary as shown in 2.B above.
    3.”And if principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary.”
    A.If “contingent” here means not necessarily existent but were chosen to come into existence, or were brought into existence somehow, then the argument is invalid for the reason stated in point 2.B above.
    4.Moreover, if principles of logic are contingent on God, God could change them.
    A.See point 2.B above.
    B.This conclusion fails to understand that logic is not separate from God’s nature, but is a reflection of God’s nature. Since God’s nature does not change, the principles of logic cannot change.
    C.The critic fails to understand the TAG argument properly.
    5.Thus, God could make the law of noncontradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time. But this is absurd. How could God arrange matters so that New Zealand is south of China and that New Zealand is not south of it? So, one must conclude that logic is not dependent on God, and, insofar as the Christian world view assumes that logic so dependent, it is false.”
    A.By now we can see that the argument fails in his earlier assumptions. Therefore, his conclusion cannot be trusted and is not valid.
    B.”The absolutely impossible may also be called the intrinsically impossible because it carries its impossibility within itself, it’s the borrowing it from other impossibilities which in turn depend upon others. It has no unless clause. It is impossible under all conditions and in all worlds and for all agents. “All agents” here include God himself. His omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say “God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it” you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words “God can”. It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even though we talk it about God.”2

  26. Chairm said,

    June 21, 2009 at 8:51 am

    GA said: “99.9% of the people against gay marriage do so because of their religious beliefs:

    Exit polls and post-election surveys do not support your assertion.

    Meanwhile, irreligious voters and GLB voters who cast ballots in favor of Proposition 8 provided the margin of victory for marriage amendment.

  27. hiacynth said,

    June 24, 2009 at 3:54 pm

    Homosexuality is as much preventable as it is curable. Help your child build strong self confidence and eliminate, if you can, any situations where your child may be molested and/or strongly influenced by a gay person (such as gay teachers or other figures of authority who are gay). Of course, radical homosexual movement designed to bring homosexuality into your home and your child’s school is not making it any easier. The good news is rational people are saying enough.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: