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.

'Re-vamp' to logical POE refuted

In response to the supposed 're-vamp' of the logical POE found here.

Atheist special pleading.

I always hear the following argument.

A.)The atheist states that he does not believe in God because there is no scientific evidence for God, which is fine, as God is absent from scientific literature.

B.)However, there is no scientific evidence for a slew of other things the atheist believes as well, there is certainly no scientific evidence that the atheist himself exists, or his mother exists, or that his parents love him/spouse love him, or his friends like him, yet the atheist believes that.

The atheist might state that A is more reasonable, but that is beside the point as it no longer becomes about scientific evidence now, but 'what is reasonable' and 'what is reasonable' is entirely subjective. To the atheist it might be 'more reasonable' to believe B rather than A, but to a theist it is equally reasonable to believe in A and B.

It is quite fine to say that you have not experienced evidence for God, it is also fine to say that there is no scientific evidence for God, but that doesn't even matter, as you most likely have not seen evidence for quantum mechanics nor have you seen evidence for evolution. The atheist engages in special pleading and hilarious irony when they declare personal experience is not good enough when it comes to God because they believe in something else that somebody elses personal experience. It simply boils down to what the completely subjective notion of who are what is 'more reasonable' to follow.