At this point, I imagine anyone with Internet access has heard of SOPA and PIPA. I found last Wednesday’s online protest quite enjoyable. I love political activism; I love seeing a people stand up to Washington and the large companies who try to purchase power over us*; and I hope this bill goes down because it will do little concerning piracy but could change the Internet as we know it.

Wednesday was a big win. I hope neither of these bills (and anything like them) ever pass.

But I’m also concerned about piracy, the issue some had hoped the bills would address. I’m concerned by the realization that *many* good persons are pirating music, films, and software…but few seem care.

I have a story about piracy. A story from my life.

My Lack of Music Problem

I was never one to listen to music regularly, so over the course of my high school years I acquired only a couple music CDs. But when I went to school (Virginia) in the Fall of 2004, I realized I do enjoy listening to music sometimes; it’s just that when I was home I’d relied upon overhearing music others were playing. So I set about to fix my lack of music problem.

It started small, I ripped a couple of my sister’s CDs to my computer, and I used iTunes to manage my music. It wasn’t long before I wanted to listen to something else, so I found it online for free (maybe a Russian site, etcetera).

Next thing you know, I wasn’t just using iTunes, I was also using MyTunes (pirating music from other computers that shared music via iTunes). Within months I’d amassed tens of gigabytes of music. It was wonderful—I had everything from Elvis to Shania Twain to Papa Roach to Snoop Dogg to Nickel Creek.

Reality Check

After this behavior began (probably more than a year later) I had a conversation with a friend. He confronted me: piracy is wrong, he clearly conveyed; it’s theft.

The wheels began turning in my head. Our conversation didn’t last too long…but I continued to have one with myself for a long while; I wanted to justify my behavior, explain how it wasn’t that bad.

(An Aside Concerning Definitions)

I realize that not everyone agrees upon what piracy means, and I don’t plan to settle the discussion now (I’m not entirely sure myself).

• Often fair use is treated as infringement by groups like Universal Music Group.
• Often we pirate and don’t even know it!

Yes, gray areas exist. For the purposes of this post, let’s ignore those gray areas and focus on the clear areas (such as the piracy I was guilty of early in my college years).

And let’s face it, though gray area piracy does occur often, straight up piracy is super common, and it’s done by normal and generally upstanding citizens of our nation.

Is Internet Piracy Really Theft?

Obviously theft is wrong. If someone questions this, we have other issues with which to deal! (Exodus 20:15, “You shall not steal.”)

Certainly back in the day that mostly applied to physical property (e.g. baskets, pigs, hammers, and pens)

But what about intellectual property (IP—the IP in PIPA)? IP is less tangible (e.g. brand names, music, designs, and prose).

Consider this passage:

1 Corinthians 9:9-11, For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.” Is it oxen God is concerned about? 10 Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope. 11 If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things?

In a relatively direct way Paul is saying that intangible investments (i.e. teaching, prayer, etc.) that he and others have made are worthy of material compensation. Paul used a passage from the law of Moses, and shows that it was not written so much for the sake of oxen, but as a specific instance of a big idea: it is right and good for us to enjoy the fruit of our labor.

And Paul’s specific application shows that whether that labor results in something super tangible like houses and crops or something less tangible such as excellent public addresses and written letters, it is right and good for the laborer to enjoy the fruit of his labor.

Ecclesiastes 3:13, Every man should eat and drink and enjoy the good of all his labor—it is the gift of God.

Thus, when people write/perform/record music, when they design logos, when they create video games, when they write screenplays, etc…it is good and right for them to enjoy the fruit of their labor. And if they write a super popular screenplay, then it is good and right for them to enjoy *lots* of fruit.

(And, yes—for those quick to judge—it is also good and right for them to be generous with that fruit.)

Personal Attestation: As someone who’s possessed much more intellectual property than traditional property, I can bear witness to the fact that that IP often is the result of much labor! (That said, I’m a big open source fan and don’t mind sharing the fruit of *most* of my labor.)

I’ve recorded music, played shows, written at length, built software, etc. IP is most definitely the result of labor, and it should be enjoyed by the laborer. And when you use or make a copy of that property without permission, you’re depriving a laborer of the fruit of his labors; you’re muzzling the ox. This is sin.

(Again, fair use is massively important…and there are many gray areas. I briefly addressed this in the aside earlier in the post.)

My Excuses

After determining it was wrong, I still wanted to justify my piracy—I didn’t want to lose all the music I’d acquired!

These are two excuses I actually told myself:

1. Everyone Does It

So? Since when does God call us to the holiness standard set by “everyone”?

I had no answer.

2. I Don’t Feel Convicted When I Pirate Music

This seemed to satisfy. After all, if celebrating no day as holy doesn’t bother your conscience, then don’t celebrate, right (Rom. 14)? And then I realized, “How terrifying—that my actions are clearly condemned by the Word of God and yet not by my own conscience!”

It was as if my conscience had been “seared with a hot iron” (1 Tim 4:2); it was unresponsive to this sin.

The End of My Story

I repented. I deleted the music. I do my best to refrain from piracy (again, there definitely are gray areas).

And my conscience is much more sensitive in this area now. (I’m even convicted as I write this concerning a piece of software; I need to look into the licensing details!)

Conclusion

What’s the solution? Well, certainly not SOPA and PIPA! They wouldn’t have stopped the college-freshman-me anyway…but a lot of passion was exhibited the other day—a people taking a stand for liberty.

And I would love to see as much passion exhibited by a people in support of the respect of intellectual property. And not a stand that necessarily results in laws, but results in individuals calling each other out and taking a stand for God honoring activity.

Piracy might get someone the coolest things fastest, but I don’t think piracy is cool in God’s book.

The end.

* (I didn’t want to distract from my point up top…but this is too good not to mention!) We’ve all long known that corporations regularly bribe politicians through campaign contributions (and are often successful). One amazingly direct quotation surfaced through this whole SOPA/PIPA ordeal, a statement from a studio chief who said, “God knows how much money we’ve given to Obama and the Democrats and yet they’re not supporting our interests.”

Hashtags: Are They a Twitter Invention?

No.

First, hashtags were first used in a Tweet by a user, who now happens to be a Google employee, not Twitter.

Second, this usage was not entirely original; actually, it was bringing a preexisting standard to a new medium with a slightly modified use.

Third, over time, the way many use hashtags on Twitter (and now all over including Facebook) has evolved as people like you and me use them. (Just like language evolves.)

The Creator

Chris Messina is the guy who first used a hashtag in a tweet. He asked, “how do you feel about using # (pound) for groups. As in #barcamp [msg]?” (The Tweet that began an era.)

This was August 23, 2007.

Although a great idea, it didn’t take off until the disastrous fires in San Diego lit up the Internet (including Twitter). Messina was an active evangelist for the hashtag and took advantage of the opportunity. Here’s his blog post dated October 22, 2007; in this entry Messina makes a solid case for the potential of the hashtag convention.

The True Origins: IRC

Messina’s Tweet suggesting hashtags was made on August 23, 2007. Two days later here wrote a long blog entry giving further explanation for the convention he’d proposed.

It occurred to me that IRC presents a proven model for these needs with its foundation on channels, and so that’s what I’m generally going to call them.

In this post he explains how the hashtag idea isn’t entirely original but is very directly based upon an preexisting standard from Internet Relay Chat—essentially a protocol for certain kinds of chatting online (mostly for geeks).

I’ll admit, I didn’t use IRC until just a few years ago, but the protocol has been around nearly as long as I have—1988. One useful feature of IRC is separate conversations in different channels (conversation topics/groupings). To enter a specific conversation in IRC, one would type the following:

/join #conversationtopicgoeshere

Twitter users, look somewhat familiar?

Messina’s idea was to be able to follow conversations on Twitter by simply having users preppend Tweets with the conversation topic…or the grouping for a conversation…or the “channel” to which the Tweet belonged.

While I fully credit him with the creation of hashtags within the world of Twitter, we must not ignore the idea (hashtagging) did not fully originate with him.

Evolution

Messina’s idea was to simply associate Tweets with a conversation. For example:

#christmas2011 I had sooo much fun shopping today!

But the usage has evolved to be more than simply a conversation title but fun/useful/additional information communicated in a very blunt way (and I’ve fully embraced this usage). Example:

Ten more pages and I head home! #cantwaittobehome #ilovefoodsomuch

In this instance #cantwaittobehome and #ilovefoodsomuch are not conversations to which this statement belongs. They’re essentially addendums, almost parenthetical statements but even less connected to the sentence.

Conclusion

The Twitter is an interesting piece of software with lots of potential; my intention is not to take away from the company. However, a common notion is that hashtags are a “Twitter thing”.

But, Twitter didn’t create hashtags, one of their users “created them”. And, he didn’t really create them so much as borrow them from a preexisting protocol. Subsequently the usage evolved and spread to other platforms as well.

btw, I’d love to hear other ways hashtags are used. I demonstrated two common usages that I’ve seen, but I’m sure there are others!

Yes, I’ve already voiced my support for a congressman from Texas, but I’m interested in a conservative victory in 2012. I won’t compromise much for this victory, but I’m certainly willing to change who I support. (I guess you could say I’m less loyal to Ron Paul than I am to many of the principles he vehemently advocates.)

Thus, as Rick Perry declares his candidacy yesterday, I’m now taking a serious look at him. Maybe he’s the best candidate for a conservative victory.

Over the past few weeks I’ve heard some things (mostly great things). And I’ve seen some snippets of speeches and prayers. He’s seems polished, confident, respectful, sincere, and intelligent. But I really don’t know anything about him, so today I spent time looking into Governor Perry.

I checked out the Texas budget; while he was governor both spending and debt increased. That is certainly disappointing, but not necessarily the end, so I continued reading about him.

Then I stumbled across something quite shocking, and that is why I’m writing now.

The Executive Order

In February of 2007, Rick Perry issued an executive order mandating all females receive the vaccination Gardasil before entering the sixth grade. Gardasil prevents several types of a very common STD.

(In addition to the parental rights issue, the vaccine had only been approved less than a year previous by the FDA, and within a couple of years (2009) studies came out raising legitimate questions concerning the safety of the vaccination. Thus this is also an issue of safety and foolishness. I’m not saying it should be illegal, but mandatory!?)

Here’s an article that gives a quick summary of the entire situation as it went down.

I’m am short on time, but I’ll try my best to be brief. In short, this order is a violation of parental rights (parents, not governors, should decide what vaccinations their children receive), it assumes scandalous behavior concerning YOUNG girls in Texas (11-12 years), and it is a very foolish to mandate such a vaccine with so little history to have determined safety.

To make matters worse, although this order was issued in 2007 and was subsequently overwhelmingly overturned by the Texas legislature only months later, Perry has not seemed repent in the least.

That sums it up, I’ll continue with some thoughts on the various issues I’ve mentioned here (plus another one, possible corruption).

NOTE (to maintain intellectual honesty): The word mandate is very faithful to this issue since the text of the executive order clearly says, “The Health and Human Services Executive Commissioner shall adopt rules that mandate the age appropriate vaccination of all female children for HPV prior to admission to the sixth grade (The Executive Order, emphasis added).” However, I must inform you that according to an AP article I read, in Texas parents are able to opt out of mandatory inoculations by filing a written affidavit explaining an objection for religious or philosophical concerns. That said, props to Texas for this opt out loophole…but, in my opinion, that changes little concerning Perry’s actions.

Violation of Parental Rights

Volumes could be written on the subject, but suffice to say that families are crucial building blocks for society. This is certainly Biblical and can also be supported by various social tests (success of children from healthy homes versus broken homes).

Unless there is an issue of serious abuse or neglect, there ought not even be a discussion about the state usurping the rights of parents.

And certainly choosing not to inject your eleven year old daughter with a vaccination approved less than one year ago that will protect her from some STDs which she would most likely only come in contact with if she has sexual partners before marriage…certainly this is not abuse.

Sixth Grade?

At minimum his assumption of sexual promiscuity upon the population at large is fairly disrespectful. If someone wants to encourage their daughter to sleep around, well the vaccine is legal and available, go for it. But why must it be mandatory for those who respect themselves and those around them?

Additionally, vaccinating young girls against some STDs could readily lead to a couple of problems:

1. It might give them a false sense of security that they are safe from STDs in general.
2. The very process (three separate shots) and accompanying education could be read by young girls as tacit approval of sexual promiscuity.

Safe?

Personally, I recommend you think twice before injecting anything into yourself or your children.

The idea of vaccinations is awesome, and vaccinations have certainly contributed to our relatively long and healthy lives. However, they can be dangerous.

This particular vaccination, Gardasil, has been judged fairly safe and effective; thus the FDA approved it in June of 2006. Rick Perry issued the executive order in February of 2007.

Personally, I’d want to wait a bit until Gardasil had more of a proven track record to see if it was safe to inject into my daughters. (Well, I wouldn’t get them Gardasil, period. But if I was actually interested in the vaccination, I’d wait to verify its safety.)

Perry didn’t wait at all. He didn’t seem to care even though he was going to require many thousands of young girls to be injected. He was in such a rush he issued an executive order (which then had to be overturned by the legislature).

And only a couple of years later there are studies coming to light that raise questions. This isn’t to say that Gardasil is terrible and evil, but there are legitimate concerns that need to be considered. And the responsibility to make a wise decision rests upon parents, not governors.

Corporate Ties

Things start to look messy.

While governor, Rick Perry had a chief of staff (2002-2004) named Mike Toomey (who was also involved in the Tom Delay scandal). Toomey then became a lobbyist for Merck & Co. (the producer of Gardasil).

Perry’s next chief of staff was Deirdre Delisi (2004-2007). And his mother-in-law, Republican Rep. Dianne White Delisi, was a state director for Women in Government. This group has been very interested in HPV and cervical cancer and received funding from Merck. (The exact funding hasn’t been disclosed by either party.)

The Merck PAC contributed $6,000 to Perry.

A Huffington Post article states that Toomey co-owns a private island in New Hampshire with Perry’s campaign manager, Dave Carney.

Now, certainly there is no proof. However, this executive order issued by Perry flies in the face of parental rights. Its disrespect and assumption (and possible tacit approval) of young girls’ sexual promiscuity flies in the face of most in the Christian Right (Perry’s base). And it is downright foolish to mandate so quickly after approval by the FDA.

Why would he issue an executive order like this? Not only doing something very much not conservative. Not only doing something that wouldn’t sit well with his base. But bypassing the legislature altogether (although they do have some say and later overturned it by an overwhelming majority).

After seeing these connections via friendships and money, a very reasonable explanation is that this wasn’t something he did because he felt it was right…but very possibly for less honorable reasons.

A firm conclusion would be foolish, but it looks bad enough that it demonstrates at least some very foolish practices if not actually intentionally dark. If he is totally innocent and simply felt it would actually be healthy for these girls, then why not make it a major issue and push the legislature to do something about it? Why step in so quickly and issue this executive order?

Another thing, why associate so closely with the man involved in the Delay scandal?

Again, a firm conclusion would be foolish, but this certainly is shady.

No Repentance

The legislature overturned his executive order. From the Real Clear Politics article:

Roughly 60 state lawmakers called on Perry to rescind the order. He refused. Just six weeks after Perry put pen to paper, the Texas House rebuked him on March 14, 2007, passing HB 1098, overturning his executive order by a vote of 119-21. The Senate followed suit the following month by a vote of 30-1.

After this, Governor Perry gave a speech.

This speech is disappointing. Instead of recognizing legitimate concerns with his hasty mandate via executive order, he maintained its necessity and acted as if the legislature was depriving Texans of good health, stripping them of protection. However, the vaccine is still legal and available…just not mandatory. So they haven’t been deprived of anything except an executive order mandating they’re daughters be inoculated.

Tentative Conclusion

Rick Perry, I’m not impressed. In fact, I’m somewhat shocked.

As usual, I maintain the right to switch my conclusion if I become aware of additional evidence or reasoning that changes that which I’ve found.

However, I don’t see that happening. This isn’t based upon a single blog entry somewhere on the web. The sources I’ve used have been the Governor himself, The AP, The Huffington Post, Real Clear Politics, and some other (yes) more obscure ones.

But if you do know additional information, I’d love to hear it!

*btw, Ron Paul is strongly opposed to mandatory vaccinations.

The First Premise

Now that the reasonability of the (2) second premise has been established in the previous post, let us examine the (1) first premise.

1. Everything that began to exist had a cause

A Brief Illustration: A Broken Window

If you arrive at home and notice the kitchen window is broken, there are many possible explanations. Maybe a tornado kicked up debris or maybe a thief broke in or maybe a child threw a ball or maybe the window spontaneously broke entirely uncaused or maybe the glass had been changing over time (unintelligibly to you) and suddenly reach some sort of breaking point or maybe…

There are lots of explanations, and technically any and all of these explanations are possible, but which one is most reasonable to believe? Well, if you knew some kids were playing with a ball out in the yard that morning, I suggest a conversation with them; the ball through the window theory is looking very promising. If things are missing and the house is trashed, then the thief hypothesis is a reasonable option. And so forth.

We reason like this everyday, all throughout the day.

One of these possibilities is *never* accepted: the window spontaneously broke entirely uncaused. And there is a reason this is never accepted—it isn’t a result of prejudice. For all known human history, this reason has never been found to be reasonable. Thus at this point not only is it not accepted as the explanation for a broken window, but for good reason it isn’t even considered as an option.

Intuition, Experience, and Observation

In short, the idea that all things that begin to exist have a cause just makes sense intuitively. And not only does it make sense, but the totality of our experience and methodical observation confirms our natural intuition.

Further, if this (1) premise one was false, then why wouldn’t anything or everything pop in and out of existence entirely without cause? Why is our Universe so stable? But, if the Universe sprang into existence from nothing and for no reason, we could expect to find massive instability. Galaxies would pop in and out of existence, horses would appear in our parlors, etc.

Now, you might wonder, maybe this instability exists outside the Universe and only within the Universe the (1) first premise stands. However, how could “from nothing and for nothing” discriminate concerning these uncaused beginnings!? The falsity of (1) premise one leads to the overturning of the Law of Cause and Effect. And if such is the case, then in our experience (and certainly in our methodical observation) we would find violations of the Law left and right.

However, we find stability. We find the Law of Cause and Effect. We find no violations. We find the (1) first premise is quite sound.

Quantum Events

For those who have some familiarity with Quantum Physics, let briefly address quantum fluctuations.

First, my knowledge is limited, if you want to pursue this extensively, I recommend going other places! But I know a little, and now I will proceed.

At the quantum level, the spontaneous creation of particles and antiparticles has been observed with measurable effects. Does this disprove (1) premise one? Might this be the contrary behavior we’d expect to find through methodical observation if the premise wasn’t sound?

I submit that the answer is “No.”

Why? Because it really isn’t a “from nothing for entirely no reason” situation. These fluctuations occur in vacuums, but vacuums in our Universe are not nothing; they are very much a sea of energy constrained by the laws of physics.

A testament to this is the very fact that these particles and antiparticles exist only for very short periods of time, and the assumption by the physicists I’ve read is that this is on account of the law of conservation of energy.

Thus this differs from what the (1) first premise really gets at in that these quantum fluctuations come from a sea of energy and apparently are obeying prexisting laws beyond themselves. Thus, they don’t begin to exist entirely uncaused, but are at least indirectly caused by their vacuum environment and at least allowed by the laws of Physics.

When we observe these fluctuations the logical question is “why?” We don’t have a complete answer yet, but don’t stop too soon. We have a partial answer, and I’m holding out for a more complete one. It isn’t terribly reasonable to assume that something came about for no reason just because we don’t have a decent explanation for it!

What About Outside Our Universe

Since there is no denying the reasonability of this premise within our universe, the question becomes “How do we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the premise holds true outside our universe?” The short answer is that we don’t, and we can’t.

However, it is clear that just because we cannot be 100% certain of something, does not mean that we are stuck and have no rational grounds for moving along. Remember the previous part concerning the nature of proof and reasonability?

For instance, let’s try answering another question:

How do we know that this universe didn’t spring into existence five minutes ago; all of us having been created with a full set of memories that are happy, sad, pleasant, and scary and all together false and imaginary?

The answer is: we don’t know and can’t know. We can’t prove that it did and we can’t prove that it did not!

However, we can come to the reasonable conclusion&emdash;based upon intuition, scientific observation, and strict reasoning—that the universe did not pop into existence five minutes ago. It is possible that such is the case, but we reject the notion because it is unreasonable.

Similarly, couldn’t there be exceptions to (1) premise one? Sure. Is it reasonable to think there is such an exception? No.

Concluding the Kalam Cosmological Argument

For review, the complete (and brief) syllogism:

1. Everything that began to exist had a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause

The logic is valid.

The (2) second premise is highly reasonable.

The (1) first premise is highly reasonable.

Thus, necessarily, the conclusion is highly reasonable.

Next

In the future we’ll consider reasonable characteristics of the cause and their implications.

Introduction

Well, it’s been longer than I anticipated since the last post, I guess I got distracted, and then lost vision. But now I’m back.

I haven’t been able to reduce Part Three below two thousand words, so I’ve decided to break it up further into two posts, Three (A) and Three (B). In this post I will introduce the argument, and then consider it’s second premise.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Much credit goes to William Lane Craig, a prominent scholar who’s excellent presentation of this argument has had a great impact on me.

(Much credit is also due to my friend, Carson Smith, who has engaged with me in dialogue for many hours concerning this and related subjects. He also authored sections of this, but I cannot remember which ones.)

The Kalam Cosmological Argument, one of many versions of the Cosmological Argument, is an argument for the existence of a cause of our universe, and takes the form of a very simple syllogism.

1. Everything that began to exist had a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause

Using this basic syllogism, let us proceed.

Validity of the Syllogism

Firstly, does this syllogism represent valid logic? That is, if the (1) first and (2) second premises are true, does (3) the conclusion necessarily follow? The answer is yes, for this syllogism is of a simple form:

1. All A are B
2. x is an A
3. Therefore, x is B

This syllogism represents simple and valid logic. Thus, if the premises are true, then the conclusion necessarily is true also. In order to determine the soundness or reasonability of the conclusion, we now must examine the premises. The conclusion is as true/sound/reasonable as the weakest premise.

First we’ll analyze the (2) second premise.

Evidence for the Truthfulness of the Second Premise:

Metaphysics

The second premise:

2. The universe began to exist

If the universe did not begin to exist, then it is eternal and has an infinite past. However, it can be demonstrated that the actualization of an infinite quantity quickly leads to absurd results. Infinities cannot exist in reality. Stick with me for a moment, this will make sense. Another simple syllogism:

1. An actually infinite number of things cannot exist in reality
2. A beginningless series of events is an infinite number of things
3. Therefore, a beginningless series of events cannot exist in reality

Simply put, infinities cannot be actualized.

Additionally,

1. An eternal universe must exist over an infinite period of time
2. An infinite period of time would imply a beginningless series of events
3. A beginningless series of events cannot exist in reality
4. Therefore an infinite period of time cannot exist in reality
5. Therefore the universe cannot be eternal

This states that time without a beginning means that there exists an actually infinite set of time events. But since we know that infinities cannot be actualized, then time must have a beginning, and the universe must not be eternal.

This is an important point to understand, so let’s continue further. Some more illustrative arguments:

Billiard Balls

Suppose person A has an actually infinite number of billiard balls. Person A could give ten of the balls to person B, but he would still have an infinite number of balls himself. Infinity minus ten equals infinity.

Continuing with this for a moment, suppose person A gave person B every other ball in his collection, an infinite number of balls. So person A keeps an infinite number of balls, every other ball, while giving away and infinite number of balls. Infinity minus infinity equals infinity.

This math works on paper, but when applied to actuality, it becomes absurd. We all know that if you have a bucket of balls, no matter how big (even a bucket the size of our galaxy) if you give away ten billiard balls, then you will have ten less. You will not have the same amount.

Similarly, if you give away your total number of balls, then you will have none left. Infinite numbers are useful for lots of stuff, but they cannot be actualized…it’s absurd.

In this case with the billiard balls, we encounter a situation in which infinity minus ten (or even infinity minus infinity) does not change the actual number of balls remaining; there are still an infinite number of balls. This defies logic, and therefore, due to the law of non-contradiction, this example demonstrates that actualized infinities cannot exist in reality.

Walking Home

Enough with the billiard balls, let’s consider a situation more directly analogous to infinite time.

Suppose that you started walking home from a position an actually infinite number of steps (yards) away from your home. Now imagine that you take one step. If you subtract one step from infinity, you still have an infinite number of steps remaining, and so your one step closer to your home has simply positioned you another infinite number of steps away from your home. In essence, after one step you now have an “infinity minus one” number of steps to go, which is, of course, just another infinite number of steps. No matter how many steps you take, you will aways have an infinite number of steps to traverse, and so you will never make it home.

Not only can we not actualize infinities because of the absurdity and the law of non-contradiction, but we could never traverse an infinite number of steps, events, or pass through an infinite amount of time, even if such quantities of distance or time were real.

Back to Our universe

Now let us consider some things about the universe. If the universe were eternal—as in, has always existed, as in, did not begin to exist, as in, has existed from an infinite past—then between the infinite past and the present exists an infinite expanse of time. As has been demonstrated, an infinite expanse of distance, time, or anything, cannot be fully traversed, and so our universe could never traverse that infinite expanse of time to reach the present. Given an infinite past, our universe would always be in transit to the present, an infinite amount of time away.

However, we have reached the present! The universe has reached “now”!

The only way the universe could have reached “now”, is for it to have traversed a finite expanse of time on its way to “now”. If it traversed a finite expanse of time to reach now, which it must have done, then there must have been a beginning at which it began. The only way to have a finite expanse of time before “now”, is to have a beginning.

To Summarize The Metaphysical Arguments

Infinities can never be actualized, only approached. Thus time as we know it (think space time) had a beginning.

Thus, our universe is not eternal, but began to exist at some point in the past.

Contemporary Science

The non-eternal nature of our universe can be attested through an analysis of the impossibility and absurdity of eternal time. However, is a logical analysis of the absurd effects of infinite time just a theoretical idea about the non-eternality of the universe, or does the realm of science provide us with any additional information to confirm or deny the claim that the universe is not eternal?

The answer to this question is: Yes! Scientific observations do provide additional information about the eternality or non-eternality of the universe. In fact, scientific observation has done much to corroborate the theory that the universe is not eternal, has not always been, and therefore had a beginning…aka…”the universe began to exist”.

Redshift and Expansion

One of the many observations directing one to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning is fact of the current expansion of the universe. In 1929, Edwin Hubble observed that galaxies appeared to be moving away from each other, based on his observation of the redshift in the light received from distant supernovae. Hubble’s observations and subsequent conclusions demonstrated that the universe is expanding. This conclusion carries the implication that the universe had a definite beginning; for movement backward in time necessarily entails the progressive densification of our universe, and consequently, if one were to continue to move backward in time, eventually they would reach a state in which the universe was unexpanded and extremely dense. If one were to travel far enough into the past, they would reach the point in time when the expansion began, thus representing the beginning of the universe. The event causing this unexpanded and dense amount of material to expand, is commonly known as the Big Bang, and marks the beginning of our universe.

Accelerated Expansion

In 1998, a monumental discovery was made by cosmologists indicating that the universe is not only expanding, but expanding more rapidly now than it was in the past. Again, the discovery that our universe is expanding (at an accelerating pace no-less) is a strong evidence that in the distant past, the universe began to exist. However, the discovery of the universe’s accelerating expansion also demonstrates that the universe will not collapse back on itself, destroying the postulation that the universe has oscillated back and forth, eternally, by means of successive Big Bangs and “Big Crunches”. Digressing back to the original point, the accelerating expansion of the universe is yet another corroboration that the universe’s expansion and the universe itself began at some point in the distant past.

Modern Science

The beginning of the universe has also been described by leading cosmologists and theoretical physicists such as Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose. In their publications, “The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe” (Astrophysics Journal 152 (1968), pp. 25-36) (co-written with George Ellis), and “The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology” (Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 314 (1970) pp. 529-548), Hawking and Penrose conclude that space and time, along with matter and energy, had a distinct beginning at some point in the past. Stated more simply, they concluded that before the Big Bang, time, space, energy, and matter did not exist. Instead, everything began to exist only once the Big Bang occurred.

Reasonability

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is simple. But it is valid and it’s conclusion is bold. The debate concerns the reasonability of the premises.

2. The universe began to exist

This premise is highly reasonable. It is strongly supported by metaphysical arguments and modern physics and cosmology.

Next we’ll consider the (1) first premise. And then we’ll consider the reasonability of the conclusion and its implications.

• I will do my best not to allow my blog to be entirely political for the next two years (election season). That said, I love politics and think the issues are super important, so I will certainly not remain silent on these issues.
• This focuses on Romney and the prolife issue, but what I want you to see are the implications on his character and/or his intelligence.

Flip-Flopping

Concerning the pro-life issue, Romney is unreliable at best (and a lying fake at worst).

In this 2002 video he is accused of flip-flopping. He clearly declares his *policy* (not personal) position to be identical to that of this very pro-choice opponent.

He has since changed his policy position (for the 2008 race)…The man accused of flip-flopping in 2002 flip-flopped again!

If he were the only remotely decent candidate, then sure, maybe consider him. But there are several others in the field who hold decent policy positions, and are actually reliable!

Life Begins at Conception. Good. Defend It!

From 2007, “I believe from a political perspective that life begins at conception.”

Later in the same interview, “I was always personally opposed to abortion, as I think almost everyone in this nation is. And the question for me was, what is the role of government? And it was quite theoretical and philosophical to consider what the role of government should be in this regard, and I felt that the Supreme Court had spoken and that government shouldn’t be involved and let people make their own decision.”

So life begins at conception…but the government should just allow people to choose whether or not to murder their children? Now, to be charitable he probably doesn’t realize that his position clearly acknowledges abortion as murder and then protects that right to murder…but at best he isn’t bright, and I’d prefer a bright president if possible!

Please

I like to be right, so please help me!

I don’t presume to always be logically correct or to always have all interesting information. So if you think I’m using information incorrectly or haven’t considered some additional info, please let me know. Write a comment or shoot me an email.

I’m super opinionated…but I’m super open-minded too. You can also disagree with these statements : )

WikiLeaks was officially launched in 2007 with a fairly clear focus:

Our goal is to bring important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for sources to leak information to our journalists (our electronic drop box). One of our most important activities is to publish original source material alongside our news stories so readers and historians alike can see evidence of the truth.

Sounds like classic journalism, right? Well, things have gotten sticky real fast. The year 2010 found WikiLeaks at the center of controversy after releasing the Afghan War Diary (91,731 military documents, mostly classified as “secret”) and then the Iraq War Logs (391,832 military documents, the biggest leak in our military history).

These documents documents contained lots of info and lots of names. I’m not sure anyone has linked the leak of the documents to any casualties, but potentiality has been noted many times.

They’ve linked non-military things, but nothing to which I’ve paid much attention.

About a year ago they released a video taken from an US military helicopter. They called the video collateral murder. The title is certainly a biased editorial (I believe some of those killed were armed insurgents), that said the video didn’t make the servicemen look good.

I watched it. It was strange to see actual footage of men dying. I remember clearly how I felt while watching it. I felt sick. I’ve seen many movies where people get killed, and Hollywood does an excellent job of making it super realistic, the blood and gore are like you’re only feet away. But death in films (even graphic and violent) does not effect me nearly the way this black and white long range video did. Hearing the gunshots, and then seeing the people fall, knowing that this isn’t a film…I’m actually watching people die, it was crazy. I don’t necessarily recommend it.

Anywho, that is what WikiLeaks does. They encouraging people to anonymously leak information (that usually equals violating organizational rules), and then they leak it (often with an editorial twist).

Journalism

The truth is that when I think of journalism, I don’t think of brief headlines about the latest travels of the president to some foreign state. I think about people like Deep Throat who leaked info to Woodward during the Watergate scandal. I remember the Pentagon Papers published by the New York Times in the early 70′s.

I think about investigative work (often involving anonymous informants who leak information) that uncovers truth. Of course, the truth is often that we’ve been told lies…and the liars are rarely happy that such truth has been uncovered!

So in many ways, WikiLeaks is an attempt to utilize modern technology to put at least part of the journalism process (informant/leak finding) on steroids.

Is It Legal

Free speech is important. And the First Amendment exists not to protect chit-chat about the weather, it exists to protect speech that most people hate and want censored.

So can you say anything legally? Basically yes, but not exactly.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court said the following:

[Our] decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not allow a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or cause such action.

It is not legal to say something if you’re intention is to incite lawless action and will likely be heeded by hearers.

Otherwise, it’s protected.

Is It Good?

What if you work at the FBI (like Deep Throat) and you become aware of illegal practices and a big coverup dripping with corruption. But all the documents containing useful info are “secret” and you have signed a confidentiality agreement.

Is the right action to talk to the Washington Post or write a group like WikiLeaks? Or should you just ignore it and not participate?

Sometimes that question might be easy (like if people are being murdered, etc.) but at other times it could be very difficult (a small series of lies concerning minute sums of money).

Fact: there is a hierarchy of authority in our lives.

We have lots of authorities: church elders, parents, employers, civil servants, God, and maybe more. But they are not all on an equal level. Obviously God is the highest on the list. In fact, the reason we recognize the others is because God has delegated authority to them, but if one of them tells us to violate His law, we ought to disobey them for they are a lesser authority.

Example: Peter and the Apostles in Acts 5

We know that civil government is an authority that God has placed in our lives.

1 Peter 2:13-17, Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, 14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men— 16 as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. 17 Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.

But when the human authority conflicts with God, God trumps.

Acts 5:27-32, And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, 28 saying, “Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man’s blood on us!”
29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree. 31 Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.”

My point is that if you’ve signed a confidentiality agreement, you should respect it as much as possible, but if people are breaking the law and engaged in massive coverups, etc…there are higher authorities than that contract between you and a corrupt organization.

Final Conclusion

As far as I’m aware, what WikiLeaks is engaged in is classic journalism on steroids. Is it legal, yes. Is it good, it can be.

That said, from what I know of the organization, I’m sure that I disagree with their bias…which shapes what they choose to release and their editorial spins (titles + commentary).

But I’d rather them be able to have their bias and I have mine, then have us both be controlled by some central government bias.

So, while I probably would do most things differently than WikiLeaks, I’d prefer they not be stamped out (at least not by a tyrannical government…if people stopped donating I’d be happy). What they do ought to be legal and could lead to some good once in a while.

Nothing gets me more interested in how the government spends money than cutting a check for thousands of dollars. (Full disclosure: I only paid about 16.5% of my income for the last year, but a few thousand dollars is pretty significant to this guy who works a couple part-time jobs!)

If the government’s goal is to get me heavily interested in Federal fiscal policy, they have succeeded. I’m always interested in such things, but after filing my taxes today, I’m freshly aware of my personal and emotional investment! (Hey, Scripture is right: where my money is my heart is also.)

So I pay a small amount, but it still left a dent that has caused renewed interest!

Mostly (about 12.4% of my 16%) my money went to Social Security. “How do I feel about this?” Well, I’m glad you asked…I happen to be fairly interested in this at present!

My Friend Sam

Let me give a simple illustration that sheds some light on how Social Security is currently working.

There are two characters: my friend Sam and me.

I’m terrible at saving money. I happen to get a gig where miraculously I earn $10 million. Knowing my propensity to frivolously spend, I decide to give the money to my friend Sam for one year for safe keeping, and he agrees to the plan.

Sam now has the $10 million.

“Should I put it under a giant mattress?” He asks. “No, that is impractical and unsafe.”

“Should I put it all in the stock market? Nah, too dangerous. But a savings account is too boring and the money won’t do anything useful for a year.”

He has an idea, “I’ll lend it to myself! Yes, I’ve paid back my college loans, and I’ve never missed a payment on my home mortgage. I’m safe, and could do lots of useful things with the money.”

Stellar idea, right?

After he’s loaned himself the money, he finds that he has a lot of spending money on hand. He buys his mother a new car, completes his home mortgage, and donates one hundred thousand to a charity downtown for the homeless.

A couple months later he decides to remodel most of his house, purchase a new car himself, hand each of his several children twenty grand in cash for academic assistance, throws a county wide festival at a substantial financial loss, hires a personal trainer and a housekeeper, and donates another hundred thousand to the charity downtown.

Life is good. Sam owes himself some money, but that’s ok, right?

Halfway through the year Sam learns of another charitable organization in need, and makes a commitment of five hundred thousand dollars every month. He notices that the local high school could really use a new building, so he donates five million dollars towards a construction project. He makes a monthly commitment to supporting a computer laboratory with IT support too—these kids need to have proper access to the digital age.

The year ends.

I come back to Sam looking for my money. I have an idea for a small business startup that I’m really excited about (a brick and mortar business). Sam says, “Ugh…oops.”

Social Security

To be fair, this illustration is very simplistic. A few corrections:

• With Social Security (SS), this happened over a longer period of time—kind of like a frog in water, you don’t always realize how dumb something is when you get into it a bit at a time.
• With SS, it started out with amounts that reasonable could be rapaid. Unfortunately, it has grown to trillions of dollars and the government (with many other trillions of dollars of debt) is now in about as dire a situation as Sam with $10 million.
• To be clear, a lot of the things that the government has done with the trillions of dollars were not entirely evil but often driven by nice motives.

If you’re unfamiliar with SS, the basic idea is that along with standard taxes, about 12.4% (half paid by employers) of an individual’s income is given to the government. And then once that person becomes disabled or retired, they start receiving SS checks from the government. Essentially, it is mandatory, government run insurance/pension plan.

During much of the program, the government has brought in more money than it’s paid (all the baby boomers were paying). Having this money, they decided to invest it in themselves. They take our retirement money and spent it on schools, roads, Libya, international abortion, etc.

(Didn’t know that our tax dollars, partly go towards funding abortions overseas? http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/23/obama.abortion/.)

The government has continued this process for years, and it’s at the point where they’ve spent trillions—too much for them to just cough up without some serious pain.

All That to Say

I’m fine at saving money. Even if “Sam” was actually intelligent and trustworthy, I don’t need his help. I’d save and invest the money myself.

There is another siginificant difference between the illustration and the actual system:

• One is optional (the illustration) and the other is required (Social Security)

(I guess one could theoretically avoid SS by moving to Kenya or something). SS is not an optional government service, it is mandatory.

Just like I’d opt out of having my friend Sam help me out, I’d opt out of Social Security even if the system worked well.

But not only am I forced to participate, but the system doesn’t work well! Uncle Sam is terrible with money. Spending is out of control, why would I ever go to the government even if I needed help?

I’m not sure of a great solution. Reign in spending, pay off the debt (both foreign and intra-government), and live within our means. Personally, I’d rather not participate in Social Security. But if I have to, let’s at least make the system responsible! #votesmart

Can You Prove It?

You might think you know many truths and can *prove* them. But seriously, what can you actually prove? Cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am), Descartes’s famous premise. It is quite good.

But moving beyond that basic idea, it is pretty hard to prove anything.

Can you prove your body actually exists? What if you are in the Matrix—your mind is plugged into a virtual reality system somewhere? Can you prove you aren’t? Can you prove that the people around you aren’t figments of your imagination?

No, you can’t actually prove these things.

However, we don’t get anywhere useful by questioning obviously reasonable ideas like the actuality of our bodies. Unless you are presented with a good reason to doubt, trust your reality is actuality; it will allow you to continue on to much more interesting conclusions! It takes some faith to believe your body exists and that the people around you exist, but it is more useful to believe, and since there is no evidence to the contrary it is reasonable to believe our reality.

Sometimes this point becomes very significant because people will ask, concerning my beliefs, “Can you prove it?” Well, no. I don’t think I can. But I cannot even prove your existence! But what I can do is show that my beliefs are very reasonable. Can you?

Reasonability

So rather than trying to prove X before exercising faith, one simply needs to judge X’s reasonability. I essentially already covered this in the last post, but I want to make sure my bases are covered.

There are at least a few ways we judge if something is reasonable:

• we use science (observable, measurable, and repeatable tests)
• we use intuition (if something just “feels wrong” it is very difficult to believe)
• we use our experience (I like to call it experiential data)
• we use logic (propositional, predicate, categorical, math, etc.)

And then we come to a conclusion concerning a thing’s reasonability.

Of course, if we want to have good results then we need to be careful in our judgement. If we have an unsound premise or variable that is unaccounted for in a test, then our conclusion may be entirely unreasonable! So let’s proceed cautiously.

Teaser

If you’re bored so far, the next post might be more interesting: what’s the explanation for the existence of the Universe? Yes, my favorite version of the Cosmological Argument.

First

Before we tackle traditional questions, we need to clarify and define some ideas. Faith and reason are commonly seen as contrary to each other. Or two things that need to be carefully rectified. However, I think that the exercise of faith (not in anything in particular) ought to be universal but reasonably applied, the relationship is that simple.

I have two points for this first section: (1) we all exercise faith on a daily basis and (2) the question is not whether to exercise faith but, rather, in what ought we to have faith?

Faith

Many persons are highly skeptical of those who have “faith,” and sometimes rightly so, for one ought not believe something for no reason. That said, faith is often very sensible. Let me give an illustration.

Object Lesson: The Continent of Antarctica (wiki link)

Do you believe that Antarctica exists? I do. It is a large chunk of land in the middle of the Southern Hemisphere. I believe various things about Antarctica. For instance, I believe that the continent is home to several species of penguins. I don’t actually *know* that the continent exists, but I have a strong faith in its existence.

Assuming you share my belief, let me ask you another question: *why* do you believe that Antarctica exists? Unless you have actually been there (and even then, technically), you are exercising faith to hold such a belief.

In this case, however, it is not blind faith which faith is often directly correlated with, but is in fact reasonable faith. We exercise faith that Antarctica exists because it makes sense to believe for a variety of reasons:

1. Things like continents exist
2. Textbooks that make other statements we hold as true also claim Antarctica exists
3. We have seen video footage of scientists in Antarctica
4. If it did not exist, most probably some reasonable and noble person who has purportedly “been there” would fess up and run a campaign declaring a conspiracy theory

Based upon these reasons (and other too) it is very reasonable to believe or exercise faith in the existence of Antarctica.

And that’s just one example. Here’s another.

Object Lesson: Wikipedia (wiki link)

You are probably aware that you ought not place very much faith in Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is very useful, but when I write a research paper I find sources that are significantly more trust worthy. Trust. What does trust really mean? It means that you can reasonably place your faith in something. Could a trusted source get something wrong? Of course. But we don’t trust sources because they cannot be wrong but because it is reasonable to believe they are correct.

A case for the reasonability of trusting a source would include an analysis of their track record and their methods. Neither of these guarantees they cannot be wrong, but simply allows us to reasonably determine whether or not to place faith in their research. Anyone in academia who cites a source is demonstrating some level of faith (or expectation of faith in others).

What we find is that faith is something that we all exercise very regularly. We believe news reports (or at least aspects of them). We trust certain reputable sources. I even believe things I will almost certainly never empirically test myself (e.g. the existence of quarks).

People may scoff at faith, but either they scoff at something that ought to be more precisely defined or they scoff at sensible living! Without faith, one could not believe anything one hears, even if it comes from what ought to be a trusted source. Without faith, one cannot even trust what is seen and felt (we trust our senses==an extension of faith). Without faith, one is necessarily is shakily uncertain of whether the Sun will rise tomorrow, because its track record of rising everyday does not prove it will rise tomorrow but simply gives great reason to a faith in such a happening.

Reason

I could go on and on about faith, but that should suffice. My point is simple, faith is no stranger at all to any rational person. Many might not have been aware, but all normal people exercise faith (and rightly so) daily. The key is always exercising reasonable faith, not blind faith.

Blind faith is faith when one believes something without any reasoning to support said belief. Is there one piece of evidence that would suggest I am going to live one thousand years? Certainly not. If I were to believe this anyway, then I am not using reason to guide my faith. Instead I am closing my eyes and rejecting what is reasonable (I am an American male who is slightly overweight, and thus I’ll probably die between sixty-five and seventy-five years old with an upper bound of one hundred twenty, if I set a record or something!).

So the question isn’t whether you should or should not be a person of faith, the question is whether or not your beliefs are reasonable.