Promoting a Guest

Words of Margaux

Do you guys remember Will Moorfoot? He wrote a guest post for me a while ago. Well, now he has a collection of poetry on Amazon. Check out his guest post again:

If you like his poem, you should go to this link on Amazon and check out his

It’s “A collection of poetry inspired by the Romantic era of literature concerning itself with all manners of oddities from demons to cats,” says Will.

Visit Will’s blog for more

View original post

The fall of angels – Promote Yourself

 fallen ang

The times of restless, ancient still
When all did bow to tyrant’s will
And raging beast did stir in mind
Of glowing orb of purest rime,
Who that great God bestowed upon
The ghastly truths of divine One
And how harsh lies of damned deceit
Would make His cattle, kneel and bleat.
How kings and monks would fall on ground
And beg The Lord to let them drown
The men who did not follow creed
Of scriptures law, by human weeds.

And so when angel did learn of
The pointless life and hollow love,
He rose above that smirking Lord
To strike him down for good, for sure.
And yet cruel God did know his flight
With ever-present, burning sight.
That angel fell to fiery deep
Where always cursed to wrongly reap
The souls of men who did not good
Nor either did they take the hood

View original post 149 more words

Concerning God

We shall begin by examining the potential relationship between God’s omnipotence and omnibenevolence. If God is, as the common Christian belief holds, infinitely powerful then it should follow, assuming he is in possession of freewill and an awareness of the self, that it is possible for him to manipulate, or guide, the universe towards some goal or objective since his authority can override the physical laws of nature. The will of God created reality and that same will may govern it directly at any point in time he so chooses. Now, let us also suppose that God is omnibenevolent, armed with this knowledge we would make the assumption that God wishes to exercise this good in his creation and in fact, make goodness a vital and fundamental part of creation itself. However this does not seem to be the case and God, at least from a human perspective, appears to allow the existence of evil and suffering in the universe which are contrary to his complete nature of goodness. This leads to three potential conclusions. Either: God does not exist since two parts of this nature create a contradiction which cannot be logically resolved. God is not omnipotent and some other force besides God is responsible for the existence of evil making us wonder what exactly our “God” is and whether or he is worthy of worship. Or finally, and possibly most controversially, that God is not ominbenevolent

God is the creator of the universe and according to Christian doctrine the “creator of all things visible and invisible”. This view of God currently has a place in science and is a potential solution to the cause of the Big Bang, in fact it seems logical that there should be a first cause since an infinite series of events with no beginning is illogical and to presume such an absurdity would be foolish. Therefore, with God as the creator of reality, just as a watchmaker is responsible for creating a faulty clock God is responsible for the malfunctioning of his creation (for example earthquakes and volcanoes causing human suffering and death). This could suggest that evil does not originate from God and that reality as we know it was formed from preexisting matter which contained the potential for evil. This would suggest that God is not the creator of everything and that God is not omnipotent since he cannot dispel this evil potential which tragically resides within all matter. Nor is he eternal since otherwise be would have been responsible for creation and therefore some other being or force must instead be responsible. If we are to have a first cause, and it is not God since he did not create reality, then it defies logic to state that before the first cause God existed. Even if God existed before time he could not have existed simultaneously with the first cause since otherwise it would be necessary for the first cause to create God as he was created which is impossible since he was not made but simply was. God cannot have been created before the first cause was because the first cause was never not. God must have come after. If the first cause created God then he must have been created at a measurable point either in time or some other substance or dimension since any time, place or nowhere that God was created the first cause must have existed before since only it can be eternal by logical definition.

If God created the universe for a purpose then he is responsible for how that final purpose is achieved, if he creates a world in which death and evil exist in order to achieve some ideal then God’s omnibenevolence is proven to be purely speculation since an all good God would be prevent evil and suffering. However, it could be argued that God has the greater good in mind when he allows the existence of evil, or a good which is beyond the comprehension of mankind. This would suggest that the actions that we consider evil are not really evil at all and are instead simply things that we dislike. We may dislike an action such as rape or genocide but that does not make it evil by any means, simply undesirable to a human being. To one who can see the bigger picture of events (and even the true nature of these events) there is no immorality in these actions despite what we humans may think of the matter. After all, we are only created in the image of God, and come nowhere near to the likeness of God himself.

If God has freewill and is omnibenevolent then he must be in control of his creation and is therefore responsible for all that happens within the universe and out of it. One implication of this is that, because God exercises freewill not only is he responsible for his creation but he governs it as well. Therefore God is not so much an all good ethereal being attempting to better both man and the universe as a whole but a divine dictator whose lust for power and control has corrupted him beyond the scope of human understanding. He is the perfect example, not of good, but of pure self interest and the complete disregard for the interests of others. He is in fact responsible for his creation but, since he is all powerful and there is no one to oppose him, there is no reason why he should be responsible (the ethical term) towards it. After all if one has free will and the ability to do as he pleases then why should he not take advantage of the situation, especially if the consequences of such actions have no negative implications for the actor. God is said to be more than a man, in many respects this is true, but it is likely that he possesses freewill, and that gives him the awareness and ability to do as and what he pleases.

If we are to assume that all things which occur in the universe at this time are the result of the fundamental forces of nature which came about or were adjusted at the creation of this current universe and that God was responsible for the creation of these forces and the universe, then, even if God is transcendent, due to his omniscience he must have been aware of the exact implications of his creation to an incalculably small scale. This is proven by the precision that the universal constants appear in mathematical form (Planck’s constant being one of them). This suggests that Gods plan has, already, as good as taken place and that all things that occur in the universe including evil actions have been calculated and predicted at that defining moment before creation. God is therefore omnipotent and omniscient. The question remains however, as mentioned in the above paragraphs, as to whether or not God is simply incomprehensibly good or merely a divine dictator with no regard for the individual human life.

On fiction


It would appear that reason, and for that matter mathematics, is not the abstract and beautifully pure form of knowledge that we might at first deem it to be. This results due to the fact that all human thought processes must be based on sensory experience. Consider how the world around us shapes and models our views, how the dimensions of time and space constrict our vocabulary and hence our thought patterns (we cannot so much as talk of things outside of space and time). All knowledge the human mind possesses is obtained through our sensory experience. Even reason is based upon observation and hence empirical knowledge. Consider a child born deaf, dumb and blind without the capacity to feel the world through touch. Its mind would merely be a blank canvas awaiting influence and impression from the external world. It would have no knowledge of rationality, mathematics or the like. Rationality, then, is merely the purification of the convoluted muddle that is the human thought, filtered down to a precise and clear cut standard for conscious beings to use.

Genuine emotion, however, is also based upon the human thought process, it seems usually to work from a subconscious basis and (from the views of Dawkins and the like) an adaptation developed through natural selection which allows the mind to make decisions based upon a form of herd morality and hence causes the organism to behave in a way which will be beneficial to the entire species (much like morality in fact). This is shown by the fact that we do not choose to have genuine emotional reactions to things in any circumstance, any emotion that we force ourselves to feel is not genuine. Therefore emotion is independent of the conscious thinking mind and is, instead, a process of the subconscious which runs in the background to our everyday though and, to a large extent, shapes and influences it. However, this may sound like irrationality primarily because it is independent of reason in the up front and direct sense that we choose to carry it out. But I might remind the reader of our definition of emotional response and that it is a reaction developed over thousands of years by natural selection to allow the overall prospering of the herd. Emotion, therefore, is a branch of rationality that the human awareness does not actively partake in but feels the results. The example below may help illustrate this:
Firstly, a man decides that, for his own purposes, to disregard what little morality he has (he is therefore in some way mentally incomplete and damaged) and launch a nuclear warhead at a country whose primary ethnicity he hates with a raging passion. It has already been widely publicised that this man has killed thousands of this ethnic race and will not stop until they have all been eradicated. Another man, who is of the utmost good in terms of his morality, now has the chance to kill this genocidal mad man before he can bring about any more deaths. It is most likely that the good man will do what needs to be done to avoid the loss of millions of innocent lives as long as he does not belong to any deontological faith or morality, in other words he is free from the influence of religion and formulated moral arguments in general (even the one who would permit him to carry out the action). The good man can see that the greatest good for the herd would achieved by killing the mad man before he launches the weapon. In other words, his emotional sense of obligation of love for his fellow humans has been formulated by the subconscious mind by rationality into the permitting of an action he might otherwise deem immoral. This good man might even hate the mad man for what he has done, emotion, therefore, is derived form a rational mechanism of the subconscious mind, that emotion we feel for a person can differ to what we feel for them if they do something that goes against the common good of the herd.

Armed with this idea of emotion we straight away notice that such a concept can be linked to the idea of rationality in the sense that it is based upon a method of reason and consideration of facts with the intention of arriving at a conclusion about whether or not a decision made by an organism is beneficial to species. It is a form of rationality in itself used by the subconscious mind. Emotion for individuals rooted in the real world, therefore, must be rational unless there is something fundamentally wrong with the human being in question.

But what of fictitious characters, surely, I hear you say, the same logic is not applicable to them. Well, true reader, but that does not make we cannot take a different approach. The French Philosopher Rene Descartes suggested in his meditations that the only thing one could be sure of was his or her own existence. Cogito ergo sum. I think therefore I am. The idea was that our senses could (and might) have the habit of deceiving us so that we would not know an illusion from reality. Descartes suggested this with his usual philosophical elegance:
“I shall suppose…that some malicious demon of the utmost power and cunning has employed all of his energies in order to deceive me.”
If this is the case then perhaps there is no difference between the real world and the one created by the brain purely through imagination. Another example may help to illustrate this. The American philosopher Hilary Putnam in his book Reason, Truth, and History put forward the brain vat though experiment. He suggested that if there existed a hypothetical brain, removed from its body and placed in a vat with all the necessary nutrients for survival and was wired up to cables which acted as a synthetic nervous system which delivered illusionary sensory information to the mind, the brain would process this information as though it were reality and hence the minds perceptions and experiences would be the same as any other persons. The mind is therefore ultimately what determines all that is accepted as reality and all that is not in a human. Something need not be real so much that it exists in what we would define as the physical universe, all that is needed is something extremely similar to reality that mimics it in all its being.

It therefore is of no consequence to the mind if something is grounded in reality or is some utterly abstract, platonic idea. In terms of emotion all that matters is the believability, or credibility, of a fictional character for us to have genuine feelings or emotions for him, her or it. We are emotional towards a believable character since the brain regards it as a real being in the physical world and hence a subconscious, rational herd morality mechanism is triggered in our minds which accounts for our feelings towards the character despite not existing in reality. To this extent, and with our definition of rationality we can safely say that it is truly rational to have genuine emotions for such a character. This arises because our definition of rationality is one not of pure and mathematical qualities but one based on our own sensory experience and the workings of the brain; it is therefore the case that, because emotional reactions to individuals results from a process of rationality in the subconscious mind that weighs up actions and reactions in relation to the good of the species.

There exists, therefore, a directly proportional link between the credibility of a fictional character and our rational, emotional response which is subjective to the individual situation. Emotion is rooted in rationally and emotion for imaginary characters can trigger the same response in humans as real people. Such a proposition truly suggests that the reality that we see is false and incomplete or overcomplicated in some way and hence truly begs the question of whether or not we are truly aware of the happenings in the physical world around us. What really lies outside of the veil of perception that is the deceitful mind? Perhaps we shall know, or perhaps not. But, if even our reason is imperfect and tainted, who knows what is watching us in the greater reality. Perhaps those fictitious characters that are supposedly products of our mind truly exist and laugh as they watch us fumble about in the darkness and nativity of our primitive minds…



The detached one


On closer examination of our physical reality it seems that a creator may indeed be inferred from the regularity and intrinsic beauty of things, however, this being need not possess a conscious mind, nor need he bring about an afterlife. It is in fact likely that, for us, this creator simply does not care. 

Why: an overrated concept

dc Science and Religion Faith and Reason
In the ancient clash between science and religion a devious and most absurd technique has arisen on the frontier of the faithful with the intention of reconciling the discoveries of science with the myths of the world’s sacred books. It is none other than the infamous statement:
“Science explains how, religion explains why.”
Its use creates a sort of stale mate in which the hunt for objective knowledge by whatever branch of study ends at some deity or unexplained supernatural force. But is a world in which we do not question postulates of existence such as God one that is good to be a part of? A world where we abandon our hunt for knowledge and truth and instead replace it with wishful thinking and dreams. I for one cannot imagine how a reality of this kind could be meaningful in any way whatsoever. It is, thankfully, a world which does not exist on closer observation of the above statement.

The how and why distinction is in fact wrong to make. Why is but a deeper version of the idea of how. It is a matter for relativity which depends of the observer’s point of interest and understanding of a topic, one person’s why is another person’s how. An example may help to illustrate this:
Imagine that two agents observe a man picking up a cup from a table. One is a physicists and the other is a car salesman who knows little of the discoveries of science. As the salesman observes the man he understands how the cup is picked up (the man used the muscles in his arm to combat gravity and lift the cup by exerting a force on it) this is his how. He then asks why the man chose to pick the cup up (his motives which lead to the act) this is his why. However, the physicists understands how the man made the decision to lift the cup due to the knowledge of electrochemical activity in the man’s brain which is responsible for thought and decision making (in this analogy) this is his how. He then asks what the reason was for the brain existing in the way it does and why the laws exist which have governed its development, this is his why.

So it becomes evident that the idea of why is simply a variation of how which works at a level slightly deeper than the observers level of knowledge. It is a relative concept and tailored to the individual at a specific moment in time. It is most certainly not a means by which religion can be maintained under the scrutiny of scientific enquiry.