Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Let's Get Meta-Physical

I'd like to hear Olivia Newton John sing that . . .

Meta-physics - the branch of philosophy that treats of first principles, includes ontology and cosmology, and is intimately connected with epistemology. Also, a treatise (4th century b.c.) by Aristotle, dealing with first principles, the relation of universals to particulars, and the teleological doctrine of causation.

Ontology - the branch of metaphysics that studies the nature of existence or being as such.

Cosmology - the art or profession of applying cosmetics. . . . Wait that's cosmetology . . . Cosmology is "the branch of philosophy dealing with the origin and general structure of the universe, with its parts, elements, and laws,and especially with such of its characteristics as space, time, causality, and freedom."

Epistemology - a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge.

Teleology - the doctrine that final causes exist.

Now that we got THAT outta the way . . .

So here's the deal. I hear all kinds arguments against the existence of God. I hear about how religious adherents are not intelligent (really, it's only Christians. I've yet to hear a person admonish an Islamist or an Atheist for using emotion instead of logic) . Nor are they tolerant. In fact, Christians in particular are intolerantly and disgustingly exclusive. These arguments are chock-full of metaphyiscal reasons why the atheist, or the evolutionist, or the existentialist is absolutely correct and Christians are wrong.

Two observations:

Observation 1) Anyone who condemns the Christian for being exclusive while arguing an exclusive position negates their own argument. Even if they argue that everyone is correct in their arguments except those adhering to exclusivity. Now they are excluding the one thought and thus condemning their own argument. Furthermore, many times, the argument gives "evidence" that does not exist. This cartoon showing a baseball is never the case in these debates. Many times, the argument that Christianity does not have evidence for reason is "proven" without evidence (merely the supposition) that God does not exist, or that evolution happened.

For instance, the "there is no God" argument because of world suffering is intrinsically riddled with fallacies. If you argue that no just God would allow such things, you must assert the following: A) There is moral good and bad (because you are now telling me that suffering is bad and not suffering is good), and B) that moral good has been established by something (if there is a good or bad, which you assert, it comes from somewhere, if not from yourself as judging what is good and bad). So if morality is there and you are judging morality, then there must be a standard of morality. Now you must determine the source of morality. If you argue that we each have our own standard, then your argument falls on its face. If my moral standard is lower than yours, I can say that God would allow such things to happen. You say that your standard would not allow it, arguing for exclusivity of your standard of morality. Back to square one.

Logically, there is a better chance that all religions and ideologies are wrong and then there is of all being right.

However, giving the ontological reason for suffering (i.e., sin and fall of man) ceases the circular arguendo.

Observation 2) Between existentialism and Christianity, Christianity is the only logical belief system. Blaise Pascal, the SCIENTIST and mathematician put it this way: We cannot be certain of the existence of God or the non-existence of God. If you believe God does not exist and are wrong, you have everything to lose. But if you believe in God and are wrong, you still fulfill a existentialist's perfect reality. If you believe in God and are right, you are in paradise.

The best part about this blog post: it will not have any effect on those that adhere to the idea that Christians are stupid or exclusive. And in that, I prove my point.

Monday, September 12, 2011

Makin' a Comeback

Hey Friends!

It has been too long since I've been blogging.  I don't say "writing" because I've been writing everyday . . . just not the type that has general interest to most of the world wide web.  For instance, I have a brief due to the Missouri Court of Appeals on Monday, which means I'll have to send the original and nine copies today, or rush them off tomorrow.

However, I still have to tweak my last argument and put together the appendix (not my favorite part).

Some blogging topics that will be coming down that pike include to transform negative situations into growth opportunities, how meta-physics affect us all, and the some legal considerations businesses may have and not know it.

Stay tuned!

Reinventing the Wheel

New article of the Regent Global Business Review.


I authored the first article title, "Reinventing the Wheel: A New Spin on American Business Leadership."