Ninteodo fans showing their age.

Matt sums up Nintendos laziness in a great article.

...Nintendo has been cutting costs and taking shortcuts ever since it launched Wii. Not unanimously, of course -- it still goes all out now and again and delivers unequaled traditional experiences like Super Mario Galaxy, one of my favorite games of all time. It has the artistic quality and the technical knowhow to push Wii harder than any other company. But often, either to save time or money, to keep smaller teams or simply because it just couldn't care less, it doesn't bother.

I wonder if maybe Matt isn't showing his age a bit. I mean, if you think about it, people around my age (24-28) grew up on Nintendo, SNES, N64 etc. etc. and those systems had a bunch of great games out, but these great games came out when we were 8-15. Nintendo isn't being lazy, Nintendo is doing what they've always done, make games for people ages 8-15. At that age, just about any game is fun. The thing to take into consideration here is the age group. A lot of the games that the 24-28 year olds today find terrible and average are a blast to 8-15 year olds today, just like it was 10 years ago, the fundamental difference being that the 24-28 year olds back in our day were not 'experienced' as the 24-28 year olds are today, video games were just beginning to peak back then and we peaked with it, we grew up on video games. Now we've switched positions. Now we're the 24 year olds, and since we 'grew up' with Nintendo and Nintendo 'grew up' with us, we're expected Nintendo to follow us, but that isn't going to happen. Nintendo is going to continue to do what its known for, making great games for the younger age group, with the occasional hit for our age group, and how can we blame them? if it weren't for their games that captured our interest in our youth, then our age group might be left with little to no foundation today. Speaking from personal experience, Nintendo games of the past play a huge part in the xbox and playstation games of today, and it would be selfish of me to deprive someone else of that foundation because I want Nintendo to continue to exclusively market to my age group today. It isn't lazy, it isn't cutting corners, its simply marketing to a certain age group that we are no longer a part of, and its what Nintendo does best.

Picks for ultimate fighter!

Kimbo vs Housten Alexander: Housten Alexander. Judging from his most recent fight with Roy Nelson, Kimbo is still too tentative to be in the ufc. Yes, Housten has been knocked out twice, but so has Kimbo(3 times if you include his fight against gannon). Not to mention Kimbo he has had a history of difficulties with the concept of MMA, he has never looked good against any seasoned, valid, MMA fighter, PERIOD. Although I do have to point out, this is a good match up for Kimbo, as his record indicates he wins these types of fights, but I think Housten Alexander is too "MMA" oriented for Kimbo, oppossed to people like Tank Abbot who were basically street fighters in the MMA sport, as it is no surprise at all Kimbo would be people like that.

Jon Jones will beat Hamil. Jones has every conceivable advantage. Speed, strength, reflex. Jon Jones is just a beast plain and simple.

Roy Nelson wins based off of experience alone.


Marcus Williams and Matt Matriol....who cares. I say Marcus wins based upon Matt being demonstratively scared to death when Marcus got into his face in the show.

Sorry for the long absence, been busy.

Update: My prediction for Marcus Williams and Matt Matriol was wrong. Marcus lost because...well...he's terrible. His stand up was just atrocious, his take down attempts were laughable, and when he was actually on the ground, he was a little less than average. As far as the prediction goes, this would be my fault for basing the outcome of a fight on a smack talking altercation, rather than on fighting skills.

Update: My prediction for Kimbo vs Housten Alexander was wrong. First off I want to say WHAT KIND OF DECISION WAS THAT?!!! I thought it was pretty clear that Alexander won that fight! He won the first round, lost the second, and won the third based upon the leg kick and the final elbow at the end. It really sucks to accurately predict everything except the decision. I was completely correct, Kimbo was tentative in that fight. He waited the entire fight. He didn't even cut off the octagon for crying out loud, he didn't even check those leg kicks until the very end of the fight. His 'ground game' was nonexistent, all he did was capitalize on Alexander slipping, it's not like he took him down or swept him or transitioned from guard to mount or anything, he just kinda did a ghetto slam and like rolled into mount. I don't see a future for Kimbo in the sport, especially as he keeps squeaking by on these decisions.

Update: Finally(I wrote 'fianlly' because I was going to write 'finally I made an accurate prediction' and I started writing this update before the the disqualification was announced). OMG!!! LOSS BY DISQUALIFICATION? MAN! TALK ABOUT UNACCOUNTED FOR VARIABLES! SERIOUSLY? yet another accurate prediction of everything except the decision. My prediction for Jones vs Hamill was wrong, yes it was wrong based on a technicality, but wrong nonetheless. Still, my description of the fight was accurate and Jones just has too much skill for Hamill. Although I need to point out that I see Jones falling victim to the same fate as roy jones jr.

Update: I got one right. Roy won.

Come one come all.

Come see what has to be the most dishonest, stupid, idiotic, hypocritical atheist on the internet.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=133943

Keep it locked. Whenever his entertainment value wears thin I'll be sure to make a post that contains all of his idiocy.

For the last time, it's not racist!

The NY Times makes the comment about transformers and star wars.

There’s a serious disconnect in the movie between the image of power that those GM brands are meant to convey and the bankrupt car industry they now signify. That disconnect only deepens with the introduction of two new Autobot characters, the illiterate, bickering twins Skids (Tom Kenny) and Mudflap (Reno Wilson), both of which take the shape of Chevrolet concept cars. The characters have been given conspicuously cartoonish, so-called black voices that indicate that minstrelsy remains as much in fashion in Hollywood as when, well, Jar Jar Binks was set loose by George Lucas.

Neither transformers nor Star wars are racist. Bays and Lucas' portrayal of black people is simply not racist. The 2 robots in transformers along with Jar Jar in the star wars movie accurately depict plenty of black people today and if they were the only portrayal of black people in those movies I would most definitely agree they were racist. However, in the Transformers movie, Tyerese plays an articulate, competent, literate, intelligent black person who attained the highest enlisted rank (E-9 Chief Master Sargent) in the USAF, and in star wars Samuel L Jackson played a wise JEDI MASTER. If you're going to accuse the movies as being racist based upon the negative portrayals of blacks in the movie, then are they at the same time not racist based upon the positive portrayals of blacks in the movie? the truth is there are black people that act like that and blacks that are not, just like they're ignorant whites, asians and mexicans, plain and simple, but those movies cannot reasonably accused of engaging in minstrelsy or racism since they are neither saying nor insinuating that all blacks act like mudflap and jar jar binks. One is engaging in a huge logical error by hurling accusations of racism based upon the movies negative portrayals of black people while at the same time ignoring positive portrayals of black people in the very same movies.

Selective Supernaturalism another argument that doesn't apply to Christianity.

Another gem of ignorance from Loftus which can also be found in his book.

Today's Christians operate by what Harvard-trained biblical scholar Hector Avalos describes as "selective supernaturalism."[11] They believe the biblical miracles because they accept the Christian faith, but they are skeptical of the miracles of other religions. Why the double standard? At least general skepticism of all miracle claims lacking compelling evidence is consistent, and I have yet to see any evidence that requires a supernatural explanation for any such reports.

First off, I'd like to know on what basis are Loftus and Hector asserting that Christians are skeptical of miracles of other religions? because I have never seen nor read nor even heard of any Christian stating that a miracle or supernatural event from another religion never happened. The reason I ask this is because the bible acknowledges the existence of miracles or supernatural events from other religions, whether it being the pharaohs magicians battling Moses and Aaron matching Gods supernatural events with their own or the anti-christ own signs and wonders calling fire down from the sky and leading people astray with his own supernatural events. There should be no reason why Christians are skeptical of the existence of miracles and supernatural events from other religions since the bible directly acknowledges the existence of them. If we assume for the sake of argument that there are Christians that are skeptical of the existence of such miracles and supernatural events, then they are clearly as clueless about Christian theology as Loftus and Hector and reveals the logical error they are both engaging in by arguing against what Christians are doing instead of providing evidence against Christianity, which is as good as arguing against atheism by focusing on what atheists do.

Just how can anyone take this guy seriously?

This was taken from an exchange between him and a Christian scholar.

You asked me how sure I am right. There is no good positive evidence for Chrstianity, of that I'm sure (historical evidence is poor evidence and your God should have known this). There is only negative evidence, known as the god of the gaps. I am so sure I'm willing to risk Pascal's Wager on it. I'm sure in what I deny, that's for sure. I'm not all that sure about what I affirm.

His first error is ignoring, either deliberately or implicitly(evidence suggest deliberate since he said there is only negative evidence), both the quantity and quality of personal experience(anecdotal) and documentary evidence for Christianity, both of those types of evidence along with historical evidence qualify as good positive evidence for Christianity, since both personal experience and documentary evidence are both good enough in court. His second error is the following assertion:

(historical evidence is poor evidence and your God should have known this). There is only negative evidence, known as the god of the gaps. I am so sure I'm willing to risk Pascal's Wager on it. I'm sure in what I deny, that's for sure.

This is obtuse on many levels. Exactly how is historical evidence poor? especially in the face of the fact that virtually every military weapon and vehicle got its origins from some point in ancient history, moreover the intelligent and applicable quotes by people like Santayana "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," and several excellent reasons why we should and why we do study history in the first place.
Perhaps Loftus meant historical evidence is poor in comparison to scientific/empirical evidence, in which I agree, but of course, when we lack scientific/empirical evidence then the other forms of evidence become our only forms of evidence. So in both cases Loftus is being obtuse. Historical evidence is definitely not poor evidence and the comparison of historical evidence to scientific/empirical evidence cannot even be reasonably applied to the subject of God because of the perfectly plausible and expected absence of the latter.
This shows that his self proclaimed 'certainty' of what he denies is (in this particular case but there are many others) based upon ignorance in the concept of evidence(only God of the gaps? seriously?) and Christian theology.

Right again, but I really don't want to be.

First off let's state the obvious. My prediction for UFC 104 turned out to be correct, Loyoto won by UD. Now, let's focus on the less obvious, or, to the more observant, which would be the human beings with 2 eyes in their heads, the most obvious thing about the whole fight was Machida did not win the fight, much less win by a unanimous decision?! WHAT?! Rua won rounds 1,2,4 and 5 conclusively and convincingly with round 3 being up in the air and going either way. What fight were the judges watching? ROUND 5 Machida was EXHAUSTED, hands down, limping around on the legs shogun amply destroyed with Muay Thai 101. Aside from the terrible decision, the fight itself was very interesting in regards to the style match up, as it shows, contrary to a lot of peoples assertions, machids 'karate style' doesn't seem to be very effective against basic leg kicks 101 (oversimplification yes I know, but bear with me, I am frustrated at the bad decision) and accurately summed up why I had such trouble judging who would exactly win. Hopefully there is a rematch.

Movie quotes

I never put much stock into movie quotes. To me they always seem like pseudo intellectual catch phrases designed to make the common critical thinking lacking human being say 'whoa, that's deep.' Well, from time to time I tend to eat my words and this happens to be one of those times. I've heard these words hundreds of times, but this short phrase, uttered by an even shorter character, is actually quite sound.

"Do, or do not. There is no try."

A simple statement, but it is true, there is no try. You're either doing it or you are not doing it, trying to do something is by definition to have not done it yet, thus putting you in the category of 'do not.' A surprisingly insightful quote, one which demands further elaboration in the future and one which has made me think to pay attention a little bit more to movie quotes, as I am now wondering what other nuggets I might've missed.

Real life spidey sense

Anderson Silva VS Forrest Griffin UFC 101
Uploaded by IZOPN. - Check out more sports and extreme sports videos.

I don't blame Griffin for getting up and running out of the octagon like he did. After getting knocked out like that, I would've too. Talk about a mismatch. It just goes to show that Griffins 70% heart/toughness 30% skill style can only take him so far.

Logic vs emotion

My prediction for Ufc 104 Mauricio vs Lyoto is a tough one. The logical part of me says Machida will win, but the emotional experienced fighter side of me says Shogun will win. I think I'll go with Lyoto, since not only is he undefeated, Mauricio has is not bringing anything to the table Lyoto has not seen before.

Prediction: Lyoto UD.

Fun with theodicys

First off, before I begin, I am not conceding the gratuitous POE is a problem. Despite the incompetent atheists assertion to the contrary, not only do I know what the gratuitous POE is, I know how to effectively deal with it as well. The best and most logical response to the gratuitous evil POE is they are begging the question the evil is gratuitous, since our ignorance does not = lack of reasons for God. It basically amounts to someone thinking of an evil scenario and saying it is gratuitous. In any case, it is often fun to play around with theodicys.

The theodicy of constant principles in response to the gratuitous problem of evil.

God created the universe with constant principles and laws. Water always boils at temperature X it freezes at temperature Y etc. etc. blah blah blah you get the point, anthropic principle ad nauseam. At this point and in this respect specifically, God stepped back and let his machine do what it is designed to do. Now this machine will undoubtedly kill people and cause suffering in its operation, but the death and suffering of some people and animals is insignificant to the amount of good caused by things like constant gravity laws and freezing temperatures for organ transplants. The suffering of a deer burning to death in the woods from a forest fire caused by a lightning strike pales in comparison when those very things that created that scenario helps get nitrogen to the grown to aid plant growth(lightning) the temperature that wood ignites has helped people cook their food and keep warm during winters. No one calls the inventor of the pencil evil because someone died as the result of being stabbed with a pencil. The question that follows would be "God has the power to stop all of the evil that his machine would be responsible for, unlike the inventor of the pencil, so why doesn't he?," and the obvious answer would be because then the laws wouldn't be constant. Science would be nonexistent since it depends upon the laws being the same every single time, our ability to predict, plan, or do anything for ourselves would be non existent as well. I might want to light a fire to cook, but find I cannot because someone around me might get burned to death or the stove might blow up. I might want to go for a swim in the beach but cannot for the suns light has been extinguished because it has caused wild fires in california, etc. etc. I am sure you get the point.

The wii has officially won the console wars.

Apparently it takes priority over drug raids.

You know how every holiday season the stores all sell out of Nintendo Wiis? Well, that's because they're so awesome -- just ask the cops in Polk County, Fla.

In the midst of a drug raid on a house that apparently took nine full hours and cost $4,000, cops apparently were distracted by Wii bowling. Reports say they started the game up within 20 minutes of entering the house and spent hours playing it.

Perpahs they are gladiators then.

Fik Meijer author of 'History's most deadly sport the Gladiators' makes a very interesting observation about the motivations of some Roman citizens to become gladiators.

"Many were motivated by the prospect of escaping poverty. When they were unemployed or underemployed and struggling for their own basic needs, life as a gladiator offered security."

As anyone remotely familiar with the history of boxing which is often referred to as the poor mans sport, it describes almost the exact same reasons people became boxers in the past(great depression) and today. Another interesting tidbit mentioned in the book describes how the concept of promoters was found in those days as well.

"Because gladiator shows attracted such huge crowds at the time of the Roman Empire, the sponsors had to lay down large sums of money to get the most renowned fighters into the arena at all."

Aaron the incompetent atheist pt. 5

More nonsense from the incompetent atheist.

Theo, this is what you need to understand. God is perfectly moral, therefor God can only do moral things. God is also all powerful, thus he does things the best possible way and in the most effective way.

That is why God is obligated to the GPG. The fact that that wasn't obvious to you just shows that you are not trying to do anything here but prove your right, and do this with out considering what I am even saying.

I knew you had nothing. We'll deal with this nonsense one by one. First, I should post the points he's ignored.

1. Aaron is ASSUMING that lowering the GPG is going against the will of God.
2. Aaron is Assuming that Gods existence and 'all goodness' is dependent upon God choosing the GPG.
3. Aaron is assuming that God is obligated in some way shape or form to choose the GPG.

1. God is perfectly moral, therefore God can only do moral things.
This is just more ignorance of basic Christian theology. God is not judged by our moral standards, anymore than Roy Jones Jr is judged by amateur boxing standards. So God is perfectly moral, but the fact our moral system is inferior to His means we cannot judge His actions by our moral system. So Aaron is defining GPG in moral standards that God does not adhere too, assuming that God defines evil in the same way we do as well. Now, if this is supposed to address my points I don't see how it does. If we define evil as suffering and assume that God defines it that way too, then it is not against Gods will to lower the GPG since God has inflicted suffering in the forms of judgments and warnings many times. For ignorant people like Aaron, it goes like this:

1. Suffering lowers the GPG.
2. God has caused suffering through judgments and/or warnings.
3. Therefore lowering the GPG is not against Gods will.

So Aaron is once again incorrect. If we define evil as suffering, then lowering the GPG is not against Gods will nor is His existence dependent upon the GPG nor is He obligated in anyway shape or form to choose the GPG, thus, in addition to #3 being false, his entire argument collapses based upon the unproven and incorrect assumption that Gods existence is dependent upon maintaining the GPG, despite clear evidence it is not the case.


God is also all powerful, thus he does things the best possible way and in the most effective way.

This is just stupid. Aaron, like every other ignorant skeptic that asserts these things forgets the fact that just because one is all powerful does not mean one needs to use that power 100% of the time. For instance, the most effective way to eliminate evil would've been to wipe out the entire human race, including Noah, but because God is merciful, God choose not to kill Noah. This is why assertions like Aarons are both ridiculous and completley ignorant of basic behavior. God most certainly is all powrful but He can certainly choose exactly how He utilizes that power. God choosing to not do something in the most effective way and best possible way is no more unreasonable or unlikely than Roy Jones jr choosing not to fight well below his full potential either. The skeptic might respond, well you're conceding that God is not all powerful, but I am doing no such thing. If you're saying that God is not all powerful because He chooses not to do things in the most effective and best way 100% of the time all the time, then you're conceding that Roy jones jr is not a good fighter because he chooses to not fight the best he can 100% of the time, or conceding that you're not a smart/fast/good artist etc. If you ever choose to not utilize your talents to their full potential all the time 100% of the time.


It really amounts to the following. God by Himself is 100% good. God created the universe to be 100% good. Status quo of goodness is maintained. God allowed evil to come about resulting in something other than GPG, but since Gods existence is not dependent upon maintaining the GPG nor is it against His will to allow or even personally lower the GPG Aarons ridiculous argument falls apart. The skeptic might inquire 'so why did God create' to which one can easily answer, 'because God wanted to create,' to which the skeptic might respond, 'well if God is all powerful then he does things in the best possible way and in the most effective way, but God - creation is the best possible way and in the most effective way. We have God + creation, which is not the best possible way nor the most effective way, so God must not be all powerful,' to which the theist responds. 'Gods choice to do something other than the best possible way and in the most effective way has noting at all to do with his capacity of His power. The capacity of Gods power is not dependent upon its use, because sometimes He might choose not utilize all of that power 100% all of the time.'
One might as well concede that michael phelps is not a fast swimmer because sometimes he treads water or plays in a swimming pool. One might as well concede Usain Bolt is not a fast runner because he jogs sometimes. One might as well concede Floyd Mayweather is not a good boxer because he play fights with his children or spars.

Were did you talk about supralapsarianism? Are you serious that that has nothing to do with what we are talking about? Actually it has everything to do with what we are talking about, you're just too stupid to see it.

No, it does not. You might think it does, due to your ignorance, but it does not. #3 is already false and not only that, you're begging the question assuming God is obligated to choose the GPG and assuming Gods existence and all goodness is dependent upon Him choosing the GPG. It clearly isn't, supralapsaianism has nothing at all to do with those refutations to your argument, try again.

No you're being the idiot here. I used the qualifier, "with the exception of size and scope." You didn't understand the analogy. How can you use your free will to get rid of aids or the flu or cancer? How can you use your free will to get your head out of the mouth of a lion? The world is like one giant room filled with shit like this. Some of us are lucky enough to never encounter it, others are not so lucky and free will has jack shit to do with it Theo. Seriously, go to a cancer ward and tell the patients there to cure themselves with their magical "free" will.

Tell a poor kid in Africa with malaria it's his fault for living in Africa. This is how you chose to answer the fucking question? No wonder I am the only person who actually reads your blog.

Where on earth did I ever say that you can use your free will to get rid of aids or the flue or cancer? where? Like I said, state your point clearly, if you have an argument MAKE IT, other wise shut up. Your stupid assertions and appeals to emotion are laughable.

Btw I love how you really racked up youtube subscribers and ratings after that amazing video to mine? Your at what, 0 subs now? Each video has a 1.5 star rating? Funny thing was that the other Christians who responded, and to whom I responded to, all have 4-5 star ratings, and all gained subs from the experience. Just saying...

Equating the validity of my video with the # of subscribers and ratings? testament to your illogical reasoning right there.

All this goes back to your laptop analogy. Answer me one last question, what's a more perfect laptop, one that can get viruses, or one that cannot?

Stupid question that ignores just about everything I've said. Obviously a more perfect laptop is one that cannot get viruses, but you're under the very ignorant assumption that Gods existence or attributes is dependent upon making the most perfect laptop.

To say with absolute certainty that the earth will always revolve around the sun, would be beyond ignorant. One day the earth with be consumed by the sun and no longer do this. The earth could also be dislodged from orbit, or any other variety of possible things.

Quote mine much. I never once said the earth will always revolve around the sun. Try again. I notice you ignored my 2+2=4 example as well.

You also don't know with absolute certainty that the earth in fact exists, nor for that matter do you know that the sun exists.

Well then you've called just about every single scientist, astrophysicist and astronomer ignorant, close minded, and self deceptive.

Aaron the incompetent atheist pt. 4

Theo, were did I say God created the world evil? Please show me quote. This is the straw man. I never said "created the world evil" I said created a world with evil in it. Please for the sake of Christ show me were I said "God created the world evil." I said god created natural evils in the world, but that's not the same thing.

Now you're trying to change the word 'the' with the word 'a' as if that changes anything. It doesn't. We're talking about one world and one world only, which is THIS WORLD. So in this sense, the word 'the' and the word 'a' are synonomous since they both refer to the same thing. With that being said, the following quote should suffice.

Creating a world with evil is not "the good".

In this quote he even says evil was instantly present.

God created the world. The world has evil in it. God created the world with evil in it, even it was instantly present,

You say I have changed my stance 7 times, but you if you read the 7 quotes it's obvious that they all say the same thing... So what are you on about?

This is just funny!

This quote:

1. No no no. God is morally obligated to do the good. Creating a world with evil is not "the good". Even a 2 year old can see that, right?
Is obviously not the same as this quote:

2. All fine and good, and not really addressing my point. The question is this: Why is there evil in the world and were did it come from?Why is there evil in the world and were did it come from?
Which is obviously not the same as this quote:

3. if god created a world with the potential for evil, a created a world with evil in it.

Another stupid assertion from Aaron.

God created a world with evil in it. That's a tautology, it's absolutely true. An argument from a bible verses is not a logical argument, specially if the evidence of existence proves the opposite.

God did not create a world with evil in it, God created a world with no evil in it and allowed evil to come into existence. Back to your old assertions again I see. An argument from a bible verse is a logical argument, especially in this case since you're arguing against my God whose characteristics and actions are found within those bible verses. The evidence of existence does not prove the opposite, in fact, the evidence of existence proves that God allows a world with evil, He did not create it. God creating the world all good at 10:00 knowing that evil will come into existence at 11:00 still means the world was good at 10:00. God did not create the world at 11:00, since it was already created at 10:00.

Why don't you address supralapsarianism? Are you scared?

I did address it, I said it was largely irrelevant to the argument at hand and it is.

Premise 3 admits my argument, and is my point. Right now, it is not the GPG. Lowering the GPG is going against the will of God as far as I can see. When all is said and done, billions of creations will be in hell, and trillions more will have suffered through life. How is that the GPG?

Then you are being logically inconsistent. What part of that do you not understand? You say God created a world that has evil in it because of #3. Going by that logic, God created the world with the GPG because of #1 and #2 and #4. You cannot have it both ways. Either God created the world with evil in it based upon #3 or God created the world with the GPG based upon 1,2 and 4.
Secondly, you are once again ASSUMING that lowering the GPG is going against the will of God, just like you ASSUME that Gods existence and 'all goodness' is dependent upon God choosing the GPG, just like you ASSUME that God is obligated in some way shape or form to choose the GPG. You are begging the question. You need to either provide evidence for these ridiculous assumptions or shut up about it.

BTW if that is supposed to be a syllogism it is neither sound nor valid. The conclusion doesn't follow logically from the premises. I am not sure what you are trying to assert with those 4 points.

it wasn't supposed to be a syllogism you ignorant moron.

Theo, you don't express yourself in a way that I can clearly understand. If you spent less time telling me I was illogical, and spent more time demonstrating it, perhaps I would understand what you are trying to say. But you don't, and I can't.

The irony of the first statement is hilarious, since Aaron is the one that is constantly changing what his point is.

Try this, remove the personal insults and just tell me what you actually mean. It will be much better for both of us.

No, the insults will remain as long as you continue to constantly change your points, ignore my questions and points, and refuse to concede your mistakes. You've read the rules you half wit, around here you get treated how you treat others.

What? God didn't place us in the world then?

Let me give you an example. I lock you in a room with a lion, a tiger and a bear. I also put parasites in the water and infectious disease in the air. Would I morally culpable for your death? Certainly from a legal stand point I would.

How is this analogy any different from God placing us in a world with natural evil, with the exception of size and scope?

You're an idiot. That is one of the stupidest comparisons I've seen in my life. First off, there are multiple rooms, thousands of rooms, rooms without lions, tigers or bears, diseases or parasites. Secondly, no one is locking people in there, as you have the option to go to whatever room you want to go to. Third God has not only provided ample ways to both get out of the room and avoid any dangers one might find themselves in if they were in the wrong room but your fellow man has as well. So people have the means and will to both leave the room or survive and even make life good in the rooms they might not initially like. It is the equivalent to blaming a 4 star general for the death of a soldier despite the soldier had both the tools to survive and used his own free will to get him into the situation in the first place, knowing full well the dangers of the situation. Exactly the kind of stupidity I've come to expect from you. Finally, in regards to your stupid comment about legal stand points, you once again show ignorance in basic Christian theology. God is not subject to our morals or our legal system. Try again. What moral system or code that God is subject to did God break?

If one of your family members dies of cancer and you going to say it's their fault for being alive? Are you going to say that the millions of people who suffered from leprosy deserved it for contracting it? Will you say that the millions who died of the black plague deserved it for living were they did died?

I don't even know what on earth these questions have to do with anything? seriously. What is the point of these questions, where on earth have I said people who suffered from leprosy deserved it for contracting it? what are you saying? Why don't you make your point in a clear manner instead of asking vague questions?

Will you ever address my claims in a fair way with out distorting my arguments?

Pot, kettle, black. Not only that but I have been addressing them in a fair way without distorting them, you either need to be more clear or admit that you've got nothing and you're only changing up your points because you don't want to admit you're wrong.

How can you be absolutely sure of any knowledge? Absolute sureness of knowledge is the greatest sign of ignorance, self deception and close mindedness. You are a paragon of this Theo, which is why I get such a laugh out of you.

Get your stupid, ignorant, poor attempts at proverbs outta here, not only are you once again assuming that I am absolutely sure of any knowledge but if one were to concede your stupid assertion makes sense, I anyone asserting 2+2=4 or the earth revolves around the sun is ignorant, self deceptive and close minded.

Aaron, the incompetent atheist pt. 3

He said -"The world right now is not 100% good, but it is not the world God created. "

Wait what? God didn't create this world? What the fuck does that mean Theo? This world was created by Allah? Something else created this world? It was brought about by natural selection and random processes? Give me a fucking break, you just keep making it more and more entertaining to troll you, I can never expect what sort of ridicules things you will say next.

Aaron cannot seem to understand the difference between creation and post creation. The only thing God created was a 100% good world. God simply allowed this world to come about. Allowing something to come about does not = God creating something, thus, to assert as many times as you did that God created the world with evil in it is false. I see you've admitted to trolling me. Like I said, you're a joke, glad you've admitted it, by your own admission you're not here for honest discussion.

You don't understand the premise. God would still exist, but the state of moral Good would be lessened by the presence of evil. The ironic thing is, that you who constantly calls me illogical are making a logic error by denying that premise. The greatest possible good defined - Greatest possible state of moral goodness. God would still be the same, but the state of possible goodness would be lessened.

Once again Aaron has resorted to telling me I don't understand something. A quick re cap on this often and very tiring tactic.

1. No no no. God is morally obligated to do the good. Creating a world with evil is not "the good". Even a 2 year old can see that, right?

2. All fine and good, and not really addressing my point. The question is this: Why is there evil in the world and were did it come from?Why is there evil in the world and were did it come from?

3. if god created a world with the potential for evil, a created a world with evil in it.

4. Theo says that a world with the possibility of evil is not the same as a world with the actuality of evil. While this statement may be true if the creator of such a world was not the greatest possible being, the creator he argues for is the greatest possible being.

5. Theo, that's my whole point. I don't care what it was like at the exact moment of creation. I am saying, THE WORLD GOD CREATED HAS EVIL IN IT, BECAUSE OF HOW HE MADE IT.

6. I was never arguing that God created the world evil. If I said such a thing, and I am almost certain I have not, that wasn't my point.

You've changed your point 6 different times. Now, onto the NEW POINT, which will undoubtedly be changed after it is shown to be wanting as well.

God would still exist, but the state of moral Good would be lessened by the presence of evil.

How on earth does Gods existence depend upon the presence of evil or the overall state of possible goodness being lessened?

If you accept premise one, you have to accept premise three. The only premise you can really argue against here is premise one, but your a little too hot in the collar to see that. You attempt to reject the premise was a strawman.

3 is not about whether god creates anything, if god created only a perfect world, still the GPG, but when he creates a world, like ours, WITH EVIL IN IT, not the GPG.

My point is that God created a world that has evil in it, and that it is the way it is by design. There is a flaw in the way the world was created that allows evil. This flaw is here because the world is the way god created it.

So now, we have the 7th installment of the point, which is just as absurd as the other 6. God did not design the world that has evil in it, God designed a world that did not have evil in it.

1. At the beginning when God was alone it was GPG
2. When God created everything it was still GPG
3. When God allowed evil to come into existence it was not GPG
4. When all is said and done, it will be the GPG (God reigns on earth, end of satan, GPG for all time etc. etc.)

So, if you're asserting God creating the world that has evil in it because of #3 then that logic states that God created the world with the GPG because of #1 and #2 and #4. You cannot have it both ways. Either God created the world with evil in it based upon #3 or God created the world with the GPG based upon 1,2 and 4. You're taking one specific point in time and saying God created the world with evil in it, despite other specific points in time that state God did not create the world with evil in it and instead created it with the GPG. You're being logically inconsistent.
Not only that, but if we assume for the sake of argument that the inclusion of the 'flaw' of free will led to something other than the GPG, that assumes that Gods existence and 'all goodness' is dependent upon God choosing the GPG. So you're assuming that God is obligated in some way shape or form to choose the GPG, you're also assuming that God didn't choose the GPG for His creation, in knowing that God is only the GPG and thus choose the GPG for His creation. Oh and before you even assert that God needed to create something, that is also an assumption. God can create just because He wants to or create things for His pleasure, which does not = need.

I was never arguing that God created the world evil. If I said such a thing, and I am almost certain I have not, that wasn't my point. I did say God created the world with natural evils, something you have only responded to by invoking creationism, and btw ID doesn't give an accounting for natural evil sorry.

Natural evil? what on earth are you even talking about? you just sat there and said 'moral good' in your previous statement, now you're talking about natural evil. Natural evil is not moral evil. You're equivocating. Either evil means morally wrong or bad or it means characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering. Natural evil cannot be morally evil, since animals, gravity, and elements do not have morals nor do animals operating on natural instincts violate any type of moral code. So you're equivocating. Looking forward to you screaming 'that's not what I meant again.' Despite you clearly talking about natural evil.

Lastly the Augustinian Theodicy, is the free will defense you moron. Who feed you that bad information. If that's what you are arguing for, you have not expressed that in a clear way.

I believe you're once again taking what I said out of context. A quick recap.

You said: Again, I cannot stress this enough, no respectable Christian philosopher would say that God created a world that doesn't contain evil in it.

Augustine said God created a world that doesn't contain evil in it, therefore your ridiculous claim is false. You're now, once again, taking what I said out of context, since I brought up Augustine to simply refute your ignorant claim.

Aaron, the incompetant atheist Pt. 2

Finishing up my little back and for with Theo and the Truth In Fighting Blog, I figure I have little left to say at this point. Theo has constantly accused me of all sorts of intellectual foolishness, yet he's not done a great deal to prove his point.

This is demonstratively false. I have proven his ridiculous assertions that God created the world evil to be false, along with his assertion that a world with free will, is a world that contains evil to be false, and his very ignorant assertion that the potential of evil is synonymous with creating evil during the actual creation. It's about that simple.

Theo has however, expressed that he is a creationist. Something, that while I could of guessed it, should of guessed, I was not willing to sling that mud with out first having the knowledge that I was correct. Well I was correct. Creationism, in any form - I.D. - young earth creationism, is an intellectually dishonest tactic

I have expressed no such thing, so who knows where he got that from. Not to mention the very stupid assertion that any form of creationism is an intellectually dishonest tactic. He then goes on to write 3 paragraphs about creationism, equating the validity of creationism with the people that believe in it. Hilarious and a testament to his irrational illogical reasoning, since the validity of something is completely independent of the people or lack of people that bLelieve in it.

If Theo had bothered to study what contemporary Christian philosophy had to say about the problem of evil, he may be able to formulate some interesting arguments; but he hasn't and so he cannot.

I know exactly what contemporary Christian philosophy says about the POE and so what? what on earth does that have to do with my assertions? what on earth does that have to do with anything that I have said? Aaron in his ignorance seems to think that there is only 1 way to refute an argument or something.

Theo says that a world with the possibility of evil is not the same as a world with the actuality of evil. While this statement may be true if the creator of such a world was not the greatest possible being, the creator he argues for is the greatest possible being. Theo seems to be arguing for some bumbling idoit of a God, one who simply could not foresee the possible consequences of his creations. But this being has maximal possible knowledge, so even if he didn't know exactly what the future would be like, something theisticly add odds with dozens of bible versus, he would still be able to know what the probabilistic future of the world would be. He would know that placing a tree of good and evil, and a talking snake, in his so called paradise would lead to the fall with absolute certainty, most specially if the creatures he placed there had no knowledge of good and evil, and thus could not possibly know they had sinned. If God creates a world with the possiblity of evil, God has created a world knowing that evil exist in this world.

He still cannot grasp the difference between actual and possible. Throwing Gods attributes in there doesn't change anything. The words are still antonyms, they still are not synonomous. God creating the world all good at 10:00 knowing that evil will come into existence at 11:00 still means the world was good at 10:00. It is really that simple. There was no evil that God created, PERIOD. God simply allowed the evil to come to pass, which is a lot different than creating it. So Aaron is basically reiterating what I've already refuted and decided to throw Gods attributes in there thinking it would change something, it didn't. In fact, arguing that evil will at some point come into the future is once again tacitly conceding the argument! since the evil comes IN THE FUTURE, not in the present act of creation. Placing a tree was not evil neither was placing a snake or human beings with free will. The evil didn't happen until after the creation. God knowing evil will come about does not = God creating evil, since the evil did not come about until after the creation. This is evident in both the bible and the fact that Aaron himself used the word 'forsee.'

–verb (used with object)
1. to have prescience of; to know in advance; foreknow.
2. to see beforehand.
–verb (used without object)
3. to exercise foresight.

By stating that God would know the future, Aaron is once again conceding the argument. God knew in the future that evil was going to be present, but the key word is IN THE FUTURE, not in the present. So at the PRESENT TIME OF CREATION, there was no evil because God saw it was going to be there IN THE FUTURE. Once again, Aaron has conceded the argument but is too ignorant to understand that he did.

This is why, as I have said in previous blog posts addressed to the much more intellectually challenging and thoughtful Steven, that if Christianity is true, than supralapsarianism is most likely true. I doubt that Theo even knows what this word means, or for that matter what it entails. But the fact remains that this is by far the most honest interpretation, at least in my own opinion, of Christian theology.

Not only do I know what that means, it is largely irrelevant to the argument at hand. I don't care what you think of someone else, the very fact that you are both unable to effectively argue your claims and unable to refute mine shows it doesn't take much for you to consider something 'intellectually challenging and thoughtful.'

God created the world. The world has evil in it. God created the world with evil in it, even it was instantly present, it was inherit and absolute in accordance with the creation of the system. Had god made a world that evil wasn't possible, we wouldn't be having this discussion

Lets see. Everything was good all the way up until the 3rd sentence. God did not create the world with evil in it. You just CONSTANTLY REPEAT THIS NONSENSE OVER AND OVER. I mean, its like you're saying 'forget providing evidence for that assertion, repeating it over and over will do!' Seriously. You're a joke. There was no evil present at creation, your baseless assertions are just that, empty baseless assertions without a shred of evidence to support them, in direct contradiction to my arguments which show quite clearly that God did not create a world with evil in it. In fact, Aarons own words state that as well. He uses words like "forsee" and "potential" which directly state that at the time of creation, there was on evil. So Aaron is even ignoring his own words at this point.

Theo makes the silly claim that we have free will in heaven and there is no sin there. Theo, why then did Lucifer conduct himself in the most sinful of ways in heaven, thus resulting in his explusion? This is a non-sense explanation that you cannot further elaborate on, because you know reading this that you misspoke.

Mistake on your part. Not only was I talking about heaven POST Satans imprisonment, which describes not only a good world but humans using free will within that good world. I also said that Adam and Eve had free will and the world was good, so you completely ignored that assertion. Finally, even if I was talking about heaven before Satan was kicked out, you seem to forget why he was he was expelled in the first place. Because there is no evil in heaven, when satan did evil he was expelled. Do you not know what the word expelled means? Do I have to show you that definition too?

Theo accuses me of "quote mining" though he is misusing the fallacy here. I think he means that I am making a straw man of his argument, which while basically the same thing, is not in the way that he is using it. You cannot quote mine some one you are debating if the quote you use is in context and about the topic you are debating, and from the same debate. When I used Theo's example, I used it with the near exact wording and in the exact same context that he did. I didn't change the meaning of put it out of context. He claims that all analogies break down, what does this mean? He admits the failure of this analogy, yet he continues to use it for the rest of the post? The analogy was a poor one, a good analogy won't break down. Your failure to defend your analogy, your admission that it does work, it only an admission that your own viewpoint doesn't work.

I explained the purpose of my analogy was to simply show the difference between creation and post creation and THAT IS IT. You took my analogy out of context by not arguing what it was intended for, so that would be your quote mine. Finally, ALL ANALOGIES FAIL AT SOME POINT, ALL ANLOGIES BREAK DOWN, if they didn't they wouldn't be analogies, they would be IDENTICAL. What part of this do you not understand? oh wait, let's open up the dictionary again.

1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
Here is an even better one:

Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.

Now lets look at identical.

similar or alike in every way: The two cars are identical except for their license plates.

Well gee, would you look at that. An analogy cannot be similar in every single way, otherwise it would be IDENTICAL.

1. God is the greatest possible good.
2. If God is the greatest possible good and he does not create, then there will only be the greatest possible good.
3. If God creates, then there would not be the greatest possible good.
4. Either God creates or God does not create.
5. Therefore, either there is the greatest possible good or there is not the greatest possible good.
6. If God exists, then he would choose the greatest possible good.
7. There is not the greatest possible good.
8. Therefore, God does not exist.

#3 is wrong, we've been through this before and I've proved it false 3 times over in this exchange. You are assuming that if God creates, then there would not be the greatest possible good, that is not only an assumption but an incorrect assumption at that, as I have proved in these exchanges. I said this in the video and also said it in a thread over on Tweb.

Let's say for example when God was alone without the universe the status quo of goodness was 100%. God initially created the universe and everything in it and it was good (Genesis 1) the status quo was still 100%. So your syllogism ignores Gods initial creation of the universe and is also assumes the act of creating things was not good. According to the bible, this is not the case, the initial act of creation was good, the status quo of goodness was maintained, so #1, in addition to the things I mentioned earlier, assumes that God cannot create things and still have the status quo remain 100% good. So in a sense I reject #1 becuase of the assumptions, not because it is not factual. Yes God is the greatest possible good, but God and what God creates(that are not molested and keep their initial state, stuff that is not 'corrupted by sin or sinners') would still maintain the original status quo of goodness.

Like I said, we've been through this before, this is just you ignoring the evidence your assertions are wrong and just continuing to assert it over and over. Not only that, but #3 being false isn't the only thing incorrect about your argument, but for now it will due to refute it.

The Catholic church makes up the majority of Christians, about 1.1 billion+, and both the Pope and the Catholic church accept the theory of evolution. So the accounts for more than half right there, even you though you might be likely to say that Catholics are not Christians, simply google the fallacy "No true Scots man".

You're confusing the Catholic Churches position on evolution with people actually believing in it. Even then, you are not even accurately representing the Churches position.

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

So you can't even accurately present data to support your assertions.

But furthermore Catholics are not the only group that believes in evolution, pretty much every denomination of non-fundamentalist Christians accept evolution. Several leading evolutionary biologists are Christians, such as Francis Collins. Google theistic evolution to understand their position better.

There you go again, confusing positions the churches take with the number of people that actually believe in it. You see, Churches support both positions, creationism and evolution. Not only that, but your assertions go against the available evidence as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/national/31religion.html

In a finding that is likely to intensify the debate over what to teach students about the origins of life, a poll released yesterday found that nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools

http://www.hcdi.net/polls/J5776/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4648598.stm

Creationism is unique to fundamentalist religiosity, and it is also absent from respectable Christian philosophy and teachings of philosophers like Dr. Craig and Alvan Plantinga; both accept the theory of evolution.

There you go again equating the validity of something with who doesn't believe in it. It is a testament to your irrational illogical reasoning. Not only that but both Craig and Plantinga support ID. So you're once again caught not being accurate with data.

Whether you are a OEC or YEC makes no real difference, you're still holding to an absurd intellectually dishonest position.

How ironic. You state OEC and YEC is an absurd intellectually dishonest position, but in stating that, you are being intellectually dishonest, since there are many intellectuals that support and adhere to ID.

Again, I cannot stress this enough, no respectable Christian philosopher would say that God created a world that doesn't contain evil in it. Not one. This is why there are theodicy's and defenses against the problem of evil.

Really? because you say so? how on earth do you even know that? it is also hilarious how you state I am ignorant in the POE yet here you are showing ignorance in the POE. St Augustine said the same thing I am saying, that God created everything good. In fact, it is called Augustinian Theodicy, so you're once again, Incorrect. It is becoming an entertaining trend with you.

I bring up you're education because of you're misuse of terms like "logic", "assertion" and "fallacy". If you did receive a formal education in philosophy your teachers served you very poorly.

Show me a single time I've misused either of those words.

Aaron, the incompetant atheist.

Aarons ignorance extends beyond basic Christian theology. He makes the following ridiculous assertions:

if god created a world with the potential for evil, a created a world with evil in it.

Aaron is confusing potential with actual, trying to make antonyms synonymous. A quick look at the dictionary reveals his ignorance.

1. possible, as opposed to actual: the potential uses of nuclear energy.
2. capable of being or becoming: a potential danger to safety.
3. Grammar. expressing possibility: the potential subjunctive in Latin; the potential use of can in I can go.
4. Archaic. potent 1 .
–noun
5. possibility; potentiality: an investment that has little growth potential.
6. a latent excellence or ability that may or may not be developed.

Aaron seems to think that creating something with the possibility of it being evil some time in the future is actually creating evil in the present tense of creation. It isn't. Why? well aside from the fact that the word Potential is opposed to the word ACTUAL and thus the 2 cannot be synonymous, in fact, they are antonyms.

Not only do the very definition of the words refute Aarons ridiculous assertion, simple logic does as well. God created everything good on the 6th day with the potential of it being evil some time in the future, by definition of the world potential, the evil is nonexistent at the time of creation. It must be, since at the time of creation, the evil was only a POSSIBILITY, or there was only POTENTIAL for evil, so it wasn't even in existence yet. Possible evil cannot happen in during the actual act of creation, by definition it must happen after the actual creation taking place, thus during creation, potential evil is just that, a potential, it is not existent during the actual creation, since it is a potential evil in the future, not an actual evil. Aaron is not only ignoring the fact that the first evil act didn't happen until Adam and Eve disobeyed God, but is also ignoring the fact that the 2 words hes using are antonyms. He simply cannot find an example of evil during the creation process, which is why he has retreated to POTENTIAL evil or POSSIBLE EVIL, but even that doesn't get him anywhere, by retreating to potential and possible evil, he has tacitly conceded that there was no actual evil present during the creation process, so he's already conceded this argument. He's just too ignorant to realize it.

He goes on to assert more nonsense:

No you are changing the goalposts. A world with free will, at least according to christians, is a world that contains evil. I am not saying god made the evil, I am saying he made a flawed world with the capacity and actuality of evil.

Incorrect on all 3 counts. First, I never changed the goalposts, in fact how on earth could I? I've been responding to his ridiculous assertions the entire time so how could I be moving the goal posts this is just another baseless assertion from Aaron, however, we have proof that Aaron is moving the goalposts(see end of post). Second, a world with free will is not a world that contains evil. Adam and Eve both had free will before they ate the fruit and God described it as good, in fact, various Christians assert that heaven not only has free will but it is a world that contains no evil(heaven duh), even the heavily fundamental Christians of rapture ready recognizes this. Third, God did not make a flawed world with the capacity or actuality of evil. Aaron simply does not realize that free will is not a flaw in that it is designed to do what God wanted it to do and it was perfect in that sense. God wanted people with free will, so God gave them free will, thus free will is not a flaw, since it was and still is, functioning as it is designed to do. The fact that it allows the possibility of evil is irrelevant, since upon creation, there was no evil present, since the word possibility is not synonymous with actual. Even if one were to concede that free will is a flaw, so what? the word flaw does not = evil, it is not even synonymous with evil, thus God created something with a flaw does not mean God has created anything evil. Nowhere in any dictionary, merrium webster, oxford, dictionary.com, wiki, does it state evil is synonymous with flawed. Not only that, but how on earth are you even using the word 'capacity'

Another stupid assertion:

So man, with "his" freewill brings about parasites, disease and natural disasters? Your saying god didn't create all these things? God did not create lions with sharp claws, crocodiles with teeth meant to maim, and snakes with poisonous blood?

This is entirely dependent upon what the Christian believes about the origins of life. YEC's obviously don't believe in death before the fall, so lions and alligators and parasites, etc. etc. were either non existent or eating plants. Depending upon what type of OEC one is, they either believe the original animal was created without 'sharp claws' etc. etc. and developed them later after sin was introduced into the world, thus it is not a problem for them, or that animals eating each other is no more evil than people eating plants, all part of the design of the food chain and animal kingdom. As far as natural disasters go, that is simply nonsense. There can't be a natural disaster if no one or noting is around to die from it, and disease came about because man brought sin into the world. So this is just more ignorance of Christian theology on Aarons part.

His last refuge is right here:

God makes the world, it is perfect and with out sin or evil, and only God and his creations exist were then does evil come from? If Theo wants to say that man brought evil to the world from their free will, then he has to admit that God made a world were evil was possible, thus the world was not "all good" when created, it had a flaw that allowed for evil.

This is him once again trying to make antonyms synonymous. The potential or possibility for/of future evil is not evil at the present, since potential is nonexistent at the actual point of creation. Pre fall Adam and Eve with their free will were good, since they had not committed any evil acts yet, the potential and possibility for evil was there, but the evil itself was non existent until it they actually did evil, thus, at the time of creation, no evil existed at all, it couldn't since it was only a potential and it didn't happen until post creation.



Finally, we will reveal all of his general errors.

Now it is kind of fun to notice how Theo interacts with those who disagree with him, asking if they are either illiterate or deaf, he is no stranger to the ad hominem, and I think it's cute in a very simple minded way. But I digress.

Completely incorrect. There are people here and elsewhere that disagree with me and I do not call them illiterate or deaf, examples of this can be found throughout the blog. Also, I have engaged in no ad hominem. Aaron is ignorant of what an ad hominem is, for one to engage in a fallacy one must make an argument. An insult(which is what I've been doing to him) is not an arguement, thus it cannot be a fallacy, thus it cannot be an ad hominem.

What does Theo mean when he says this? A while back Theo used the example of building a laptop. His example went like this "6 months ago I built a laptop, when I finished building it, it was perfect. Now the laptop has viruses on it. I (the laptop creator) didn't put the viruses on it."

He is quote mining me, taking my analogy I gave completely out of context. I explained this on YT and in the thread I gave the analogy. The analogy was used because of he constantly kept repeating the same assertion God created the world evil, over and over and over like he is still doing. The analogy was created to simply show him the difference between creation and POST CREATION, and that is it. He is simply taking the analogy completely out of context into something the analogy was never created for. Look at the following example:
"The camera is like an eye, they both have lenses." That analogy was for the purposes of illustrating the fact that both camera and the eye has a lens. Now if someone were to say the following "WELL THE CAMERA IS MADE OF METAL AND PLASTIC AND THE EYE IS NOT!!" this is true, but that is not what the analogy was meant to convey, thus it is a quote mine, since the analogy was designed for a single purpose and that is it. The fact is, ALL ANALOGIES BREAK DOWN AT SOME POINT! if they didn't then they would be identical and not analogies.

I suspect Theo will assume I am trying to argue that God created evil; I am not. I am simply saying that this world was flawed from the beginning and any attempt to say otherwise is foolish and bullheadedly ignorant.

Gee, why would I suspect that? Let's take a look at this assertions:

1. Creating a world with evil is not "the good".
2. 1:10-1:14
3.god must necessarily create a world with evil

Not only that, but the world was not flawed from the beginning. Potential/possible future evil does not exist during the actual moment of creation and I have yet to figure out how you're using the world 'capacity'.


Oh ya, can't forget about him moving the goal posts:

No no no. God is morally obligated to do the good. Creating a world with evil is not "the good".

I refute that assertion and he then states:

All fine and good, and not really addressing my point.

The question is this: Why is there evil in the world and were did it come from?


So he moved the goalposts. The 'goal' was set to his initial assertion that God created a world without evil. I met that 'goal' and refuted it and now he has moved the new goal to a completely different question that was never asked before. Classic example of moving the goalposts.

Conclusion: looking forward to him once again claiming 'I've missed the point' despite him clearly defining what that point and/or return to baseless assertions to cover up his inability to refute a single thing I've said and/or whine about the length of this post. Either way, he will not honestly or logically refute a single significant point I've made.

Update: Aaron seems to think that me explaining a YEC position means I am a YEC. This is a testament to his logical ignorance and inability to read past the first sentence of what I write, since I also layed out an OEC position. So he's either being logically inconsistent or he didn't read past the first sentence. I am not a YEC. I have said this in this blog in my video and other places as well.

Aaron strugges with basic Christian theology.

Aaron states the following:

No no no. God is morally obligated to do the good. Creating a world with evil is not "the good". Even a 2 year old can see that, right?

Aaron is insistent upon constantly repeating the assertion that God created a world with evil. This is simply incorrect. The following scripture shows what God saw after He created everything:

Genesis 1:31
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

Well gee, would you look at that? God saw ALL that he had made and it was VERY GOOD. So, let's break this down so Aaron and people like him who show startling ignorance in logic and basic Christian theology found in the first chapter of the bible. The creation of the world is described in Genesis 1. Not only did God call ALL that He created good after He created it(Gen 1:31), but even during the creation process itself, He called it good. So, it can easily be summed up as the following.

God saw All that He created was very good.
God created the earth.
Therefore the earth was very good when God created it.

So it looks like I've proved Aarons statement to be demonstratively false, along with all of his other statements found in his video. How will Aaron respond? no doubt how hes been responding, with baseless assertions and inaccurate accusations trying to hide his inability to refute the any of the points I've brought up.

A whole lot of nothing.

This is definitely the case in Aarons situation. He makes 2 rather ignorant claims on his blog and on this blog.

Theological Discourse is a fellow blogger who I initially encountered after making a youtube video on the logical problem of evil, he posted two (comical) videos in response to mine, both of which demonstrated that he clearly wasn't attempting to comprehend the argument. He further posted a blog in August on the problem of evil, in some sort of alleged rebuttal to infidals.org. You can find that post here.

I already responded to these stupid baseless assertion on YT. He just asserts with no evidence whatsoever that I was not attempting to comprehend the argument. These are nothing but baseless assertions.

As you will see Theo's response leaves to little to respond to, mainly because he doesn't actually say much of anything about the problem of evil, save a few meaningless assertions and some bible verses that do not really address the problem of evil.

Now he once again asserts with no evidence that I didn't say anything about the POE, which is clearly incorrect. He then declares that the assertions I made are 'meaningless' and states that some bible verses do not really address the problem, really? why might that be? because Aaron says so? comical ignorance right here, more baseless assertions from a frustrated atheist who can't refute a word I said. Not only that, but those assertions are simply incorrect since the bible verses directly refute his stupid claim that God did not create everything 100% good which can be found from 2:14-5:00 in this video here. Every single stupid assertion he made was refuted.

The main problem lies in that Theo doesn't realize that the problem of evil is not asking if an all powerful, all knowing, all loving and wholly moral being can tolerate evil; it's asking why such a being would create a world with evil if it has the powers (all-omnis) and the moral obligation (wholly good) to do otherwise.

This is Aaron taking my rebuttal to a SPECIFIC ARTICLE and applying it to ALL POE ARGUMENTS. This is also Aaron completely inable to refute a single thing I've said on the video. All he does is give baseless assertions without a shred of evidence to support them.

Theo do your homework a little better next time please.

No, YOU need to do your homework in logic and stop assuming stupid things. My response to a specific argument should not be applied to anything other than that specific article.

Now onto another ignorant statement he made.

If go to that video you will see that 3 other people posted responses and all of them got a response, I actually posted my 5th response video on that subject last night. Maybe if you watch those you will have some of your questions answered.

In other words, he responded to everyone except me. I wonder why that might be? He does not want to respond to my arguments despite me giving a rebuttal to EVERY SINGLE POINT HE MADE.

Your video didn't say anything, sorry but you didn't bother to actually say a single thing about my argument.

This is hilarious. Notice that my video responds to EVERY SINGLE POINT HE MAKES and he simply dismisses those responses with baseless assertions that they are 'meaningless' and 'don't say anything about the POE,' yet provides NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to support those stupid assertions. Honestly, who do you think you are fooling? Don't come at me with these ridiculous baseless assertions in a disingenuous attempts to hide your inability to refute a single argument or point I've made with actual logic and evidence. It's that simple. Get your weight up, you're still in the amateurs. It is entirely ironic and hypocritical that Aaron would state my blog has lacks content, when his responses to me have no content WHATSOEVER. Nothing but baseless assertions and thinking my rebuttal to a SPECIFIC argument is a rebuttal to every single POE argument. Not only that be he COMPLETELY IGNORES the greater portion of my post, concentrating on only one part. The irony and hypocrisy of Aarons 'content lacking' statement is hilarious.

Mayweather wins.

From now on I will be doing predictions for every big upcoming ufc and boxing fight. I figure I'll start off with an easy one regarding the upcoming boxing fight Floyd Mayweather Jr vs Juan Manuel Márquez. I predict Mayweather winning by unanimous decision. Why? because of Mayweathers fighting history. Since he's been active in the lower weight classes where Mexican fighters usually dominate, and having fought big named Mexican fighters from Diego Corrales(R.I.P), Carlos "Famoso" Hernández, Genaro Hernandez, and José Luis Castillo (twice!) Mayweather should have no problems and no surprises with Marquez.

Update: looks like my prediction was correct, mayweather wins by UD. The post fight interview was also very entertaining as well.

Paul and women.

There are a lot of misconceptions regarding following scripture.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church

The interesting thing about it, is most people read it completely void of historical context. A couple of things to keep in mind when reading this verse.

1. Paul was writing to the Church in Corinth.
2. The early Christians were responsible for elevating the status of women back in that day. Evidence for this can be found here and here
3. This status included women being being able to attend and even participate in church services, which is a far cry from the OT in which the religious services were mostly male.

So if the status of women was elevated and women can attend and participate in church services, then it seems, like all new people eager to learn, were asking tons of questions, after all, they were new correct? this is a first time thing for all of them, so it is only natural if they ask questions, but the men, they've been doing this for centuries, so they have a handle on the whole thing. I think this is a viable option in regards to the meaning of the passage. I don't think Paul condemning all women to speak in church, obviously they could pray and prophesy according to 1 Corinthians 11:5, he recognized Junias as an apostle in Romans 16:7, and recognized Priscilla teaching Apollos the way of God in Acts 18:24-26. So Paul obviously recognized womens ministry, I think the historical data shows that Paul was addressing specific instances happening in the respective places of who and where he was writing.

Brutally honest, if not a little crazy.

I just got finished watching the documentary on former Heavyweight Champion Mike Tyson and I have to say it really provided a lot of insight. Mike Tyson is one of, if not the most honest fighter I've ever seen. The fight game is honest, it not only requires honesty, it demands honesty. If you're fighting someone who has more power than you, you must be honest and recognize he has more power than you and plan accordingly. Mike is honest, he spoke about his fears, saying 'when I was in the locker room I was scared, but as I got closer and closer to the ring I got less and less scared,' he spoke about his relationship with Cus D'Amato, stating that it was like a father son relationship. I think his combination of honesty and dedication, not only to the sport, but to his trainer, was a huge factor for success. He said Cus D'Amato's word was like the bible when it came to boxing.

The documentary also gave some insight into the training techniques of Cus D'Amato. Mike said that he wasn't even allowed to box for the first two weeks because Cus D'Amato would talk to him about strategies and the psychology of boxing, training him in the art of psychological warefare. In the documentary it showed him getting into the ring and working a technique. He said he would stare at his opponent with a scowl on his face and the opponent would stare back at them. It showed the opponents eyes adverting for a split second and Mike said 'once he looks away I know I've got him, that is the chink in his armor, he lost the fight before it began, some people loose the fight in the locker room but this guy lost the fight right when he looked away'. It's also interesting to note that Mike said he was on the decline when he started losing his 'mental' and 'spiritual' edge. It had nothing to do with power! Boxing is spiritual! Cus D'Amato would tell Mike.

The dvd also confirmed a lot of the reasons why I thought Mike started to decline. The first blow was the death of his trainer, Cus D'Amato, the 2nd blow was both his marriage and divorce to Robin Givens, the 3rd blow was his rape charge, all the while engaging in sexual promiscuity and allowing people to leach off of him. Mike described his sexual promiscuity as 'they would take from me and I would never receive anything back' and he described his leeching as 'I hung around a lot of leeches, but in a way I liked it, I liked having them suck my blood, then I would go out and buy my blood back with my money.' In the end, the most remarkable thing about Mike is his ironic conclusion in the sport of Boxing, as he fell victim to a tragedy described by none other than Cus D'Amato himself.

"To see a man beaten not by a better opponent but by himself is a tragedy."
- Cus D'Amato.

I've changed my mind!

Yes, that's correct, I've changed my mind. Over the past week my favorite superhero has officially become Batman and I have Batman Arkham Asylum to thank for that, along with the DVD of anime shorts entitled Batman: Gotham Knight. That game made me appreciate Batman for the gritty, down to earth, superpower lacking human he really is. Everything he does is done through pure humanity, there is nothing super about it, he has no flight, no super strength, no super speed,and because he doesn't have any powers, in my opinion, this makes him a better superhero because he does just as good as the other superheros all while lacking their powers. If you don't have an Xbox or PS3 I suggest watching the anime.

I do love a good prediction....espcially when I make them.

If you remember I said G.I. Joe was going to suck.
Looks like the critics agreed.

40% rating from Rotten Tomatoes

Consensus: While fans of the Hasbro toy franchise may revel in a bit of nostalgia, G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra is largely a cartoonish, over-the-top action fest propelled by silly writing, inconsistent visual effects, and merely passable performances.

C- for Yahoo movies:

Critics Reviews Average Grade: C-

Boston Globe, Ty Burr
"...a loud but proficient slab of explode-o-rama summer blockbuster nonsense, perfectly entertaining if you like that sort of thing, extremely skippable if you don’t." more... B-

Chicago Sun-Times, Roger Ebert
"There is never any clear sense in the action of where anything is in relation to anything else." more... D+

Chicago Tribune, Geoff Berkshire
"That G.I. Joe is completely ridiculous should come as a surprise to no one. That it's not an outright disaster might be a different story." more... B-

E! Online, Luke Y. Thompson
"...Frequently laugh-out-loud cheesy, and the digital effects are highly dubious." more... C+

I also said Roy Jones Jr and Anderson Silva were destined to fight.



Now for my next prediction. G.I. Joe will be out on dvd no later than October, and Anderson Silva will destroy Roy if they fight in the UFC, but Roy will not destroy, but retain a convincing win over Anderson Silva if they just box.

Problem? of evil?

I imagine skeptics wouldn't assert such things like this if they had a coherent grasp of logic in the first place. the following:

The UPD faces the obvious objection that if you have no idea what reason God has for allowing evil, then for all you know there is no justifiable reason at all for an all-good God to permit it. And even if the FWD and SMT were successful, they would still leave much apparently gratuitious evil unexplained. As William Rowe points out, when a fawn burns to death in a forest fire and no human being ever knows about it, this apparently unnecessary evil neither preserves human free will nor builds the character of human beings.

I mean really?

The UPD faces the obvious objection that if you have no idea what reason God has for allowing evil, then for all you know there is no justifiable reason at all for an all-good God to permit it

For all you know there is no justifiable reason at all? is that really a logical rebuttal? I mean really? the same logic can apply in reverse. If you have no idea what reason God has for allowing evil, then for all you know there is a justifiable reason for an all good God to permit it. Logically there is no difference between one or the other, what can be applied to one can be applied to the other, just because one has no idea, it does not follow that there is not a justifiable reason. I am sure a 2 year old cannot comprehend a justifiable reason why his mother puts him down for a nap everyday, I guess it follows there is no justifiable reason for the father to permit it? just because someone at the lower level has no idea why someone at a level higher permits X, it does not prove nor suggest that the person at the higher level has no justifiable reason to permit X anymore than it proves or suggests that person has justifiable reasons to permit X, why is this? the atheist answers his own question, because no one has any idea, round and round we go.


And even if the FWD and SMT were successful, they would still leave much apparently gratuitious evil unexplained.

How much evil does it take for it to be gratuitous? and how does the skeptic even know? where is the line between gratuitous and un gratuitous evil?


As William Rowe points out, when a fawn burns to death in a forest fire and no human being ever knows about it, this apparently unnecessary evil neither preserves human free will nor builds the character of human beings.

This is based upon pure assumption. How on earth would someone know when a fawn burns to death in a forest fire and no human being ever knows about it? that sentence alone is silly. How do they know it is apparently unnecessary, perhaps the fawn was going to run out in front of a car? perhaps the fawn burned to death in order to occupy a predator that might've otherwise killed a hunter or camper, and even if it was unnecessary, how do they know it disproves God? as the bible is rife with examples of not only God existing alongside evil, but tolerating certain levels of it as well.

Genesis 6:5-6

5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain

God did not destroy humanity until their wickedness became a certain level.


Genesis 15:16

16 In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure."

Here it talks about a full measure of sin. These 2 verses not only prove that God exists along side evil, but He tolerates a certain level of evil, so even if one were to concede that there is 'unnecessary evil'(I am not conceding this however) it still does not create a problem.

IGN confirms my suspicions, other review sites however....

They seem to think G.I. Joe was a good movie.

If any film this year has suffered the one-two punch of bad buzz and worse marketing, it's G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra. Those who've spent even a small amount of time reading online sites and movie mags have likely caught wind of problems in the editing room, problems with the script, problems with the director, Stephen Sommers, and, most importantly, problems with the movie itself – rumors which were hardly dispelled by the film's downright unimpressive trailers. That, coupled with the hesitancy of the die-hard Joe fans to support any adaptation – as well as the fact that today's kids simply weren't raised on the classic toys and cartoons – virtually paved the way for a film that appeared as if it'd make Transformers 2 look like Twelfth Night in comparison.

Count us surprised then that G.I. Joe doesn't disappoint. In fact, taken in the proper spirit, it delivers a relatively action-packed and – dare we say – fun bit of mindless entertainment in a fashion that's been missing from movie screens this summer. In these days of more serious-minded (and wildly successful) adaptations, it is unexpectedly refreshing for a film to be so wildly "popcorn" without falling into the realm of the unengaging and inane. Let's make no mistake here, however. This is a B-level action movie with relatively well-drawn characters, a few minor subplots and smartly staged, near-constant action. Shakespeare, it ain't. For better or worse, it feels very much like Sommers' The Mummy, chock-a-block with massive set pieces and broad, dramatic beats without ever taking itself too seriously.

The first paragraph seems to confirm my suspicions of why I thought the movie was going to suck. The next paragraph however is an odd one, as they states it doesn't disappoint, but then turn right around and call it a B-level action movie with relatively well-drawn characters. Other review sites however state the movie is going to be good. I still maintain that the movie will suck, but I must admit, the hype is getting to me, as I am looking forward to see if it is going to suck or not.

God works through people too.

This man chose to pray instead of taking his daughter to the doctor.

WAUSAU, Wis. (Aug. 1) - A Wisconsin man accused of killing his 11-year-old daughter by praying instead of seeking medical care was found guilty Saturday of second-degree reckless homicide.
Dale Neumann, 47, was convicted in the March 23, 2008, death of his daughter, Madeline, from undiagnosed diabetes. Prosecutors contended he should have rushed the girl to a hospital because she couldn't walk, talk, eat or speak. Instead, Madeline died on the floor of the family's rural Weston home as people surrounded her and prayed. Someone called 911 when she stopped breathing.

I think these people forget that God works through people and also forget that God can heal in a multitude of ways, chiefly by working through people. A healing is a healing, if you pray for her to be healed and a doctor fixes her, is the prayer not answered? was she not healed?

Neumann, who once studied to be a Pentecostal minister, testified Thursday that he believed God would heal his daughter and he never expected her to die. God promises in the Bible to heal, he said.
"If I go to the doctor, I am putting the doctor before God," Neumann testified. "I am not believing what he said he would do."

Taking the girl to the doctor is not putting the doctor before God, since nowhere in the bible does it state or show that God will heal a certain way. By that logic the people that lived in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago that took their sick to the Disciples were putting the 'doctor before God.'

Matthew 10:8

8Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,[a]drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.

The disciples were given the ability to heal and people took their sick to them, so there is nothing wrong with taking the sick to the doctor, and doing so is not putting the doctor before God. This brings to mind a very relevant scripture.

Hosea 4:6
6 my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge.

We are indeed destroyed by lack of knowledge, this being a prime example. I pray God forgive the parents for their ignorance.