[

Current Mood

|

amused

]

I have an affinity for females with ample posteriors. This claim I cannot refute.

My brethren cannot contest,

that at the time in which a female enters the premises sporting an adequately diminutive lower abdomen,

whilst flaunting an almost spherical hind-quarters, one tends to develop an erection.
.

You become excited, want to display your masculinity to others,

because you've noticed this particular female has a substantially swollen posterior.

Her clothing compliments her feminine form,

she has caught your attention and it will not be focused elsewhere.
.

Not to use colloquial terms of endearment, but you have me enraptured,

and I desire photographic evidence.

My many friends and acquaintances have attempted to dissuade my amorous attempts,

but your enlarged Gluteus Maximus has caused me to yearn for copulation.
.
Your protruding posterior of peerless skin, untroubled by wrinkle or blemish, makes me want to exclaim!

Indeed, to enquire, if you would -- ah, but it would be too forward -- to enquire if you would accompany me in my automobile?

I am not inconvenienced by your imposition,

for among my admirers you are unparalleled.
.

I have observed the aforementioned female partaking in expressive body movements to the rhythms of auditory art,

such so that I shall disregard the routine practice of courtship through means of flattery to curry favor.

This lady is excreting perspiration through her exocrine glands as a means of body temperature regulation,

such so that this act could be compared favorably to a gas compressed engine of an American made sports car.
.
I grow weary of printed periodicals,

proclaiming posteriors of a uniform nature are what is generally looked upon as preferred.

The average male of African-American descent, when asked whether said physical characteristic is preferred,

will provide his response as, "Her hindquarters must be voluminous."
.
So I implore you gentlemen.

"We say, yeah!"

Gentlemen!

"Again we proclaim yeah!"

Does the woman you're currently emotionally and perhaps physically involved with possess just such a fundament?

"We declare unequivocally, yeah! 'Tis so!"

Then I'll encourage you to request that she convulse her haunches.

"Convulse thine haunches, fair lady!"

Yes, convulse them!

"Convulse that which you are endowed with, oh fairer sex!"

Convulse that rear which is in such fine fettle.

Madame is well bequeathed!

[

Current Mood

|

tired

]

The Cosmological Argument is one of the most widely disseminated arguments for the existence of God. In its simplest form*, it could be stated as such:

P1: Every finite and contingent being has a cause.

P2: Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself

P3: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length

C: Therefore, a First Cause must exist.

A finite being is something that has a beginning and/or an end. A contingent being is something that is neither logically necessary nor logically impossible. The Cosmological Argument points out that every object’s creator must also have a creator. As a result, an infinite regress occurs, and the only way out of it is to propose a First Cause, which is neither finite nor contingent. Many of those who support the Cosmological Argument use it to justify a belief in a specific deity. Unfortunately, The Cosmological Argument for the existence of God is unsound because it does not create a sufficient link between the “first cause” and God. Furthermore, it fails to take into account the possibility that the universe itself may not require a creator.

To begin, nowhere in the distilled Cosmological Argument is a deity mentioned. The First Cause could just as easily apply to any number of monotheistic or polytheistic pantheons. From Allah to Zeus, the Cosmological Argument makes no claims regarding the specifics of any deity that may have been involved.

Next, the First Cause does not have to be a deity. The collapse of a black hole in a different universe, a collision of M-branes in Superstring Theory, or a multiverse containing infinite universes, all could explain the existence of our universe without also supposing a deity. In fact, Occam’s Razor seems to make all three of these more likely than a deity creating the universe.

Finally, the universe itself may not need a creator. When the Big Bang occurred, the concepts of space and time also came into existence. Because the idea of causation requires the concept of time to have any meaning, questions like, “What happened before the universe existed?” may have as little meaning as, “What is colder than absolute zero?” or “What is North of the North Pole?” If the universe itself does not require a creator, then the occurrence of the Big Bang is the First Cause, rendering the Cosmological Argument sound, but without an accompanying deity.

Possible counterarguments to these objections certainly exist. For example, my first objection raised could be countered with, “Whether or not my specific deity created the universe, it is true that a deity created it, and thus, at least we are closer to the truth.” My second objection could be countered with, “Occam’s Razor only says the solution that requires the fewest assumptions is the most likely. Perhaps God is merely unlikely rather than non-existent.” Finally, my last objection raised could be countered with, “Who is to say that God didn’t create the Big Bang?”

Replying to the first counterargument, I posit we have not gained any information! Any possible deity could be The First Cause, from Yahweh to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There are also many non-deities that have been postulated to create the universe.  In addition, the idea of a deity is not falsifiable. Any experiment devised to detect the existence of a specific deity could also fail because the deity wants it to. After all, any deity powerful enough to create the universe would also be powerful enough to avoid detection by a part of its creation. Therefore, even if a specific deity did create the universe, we have gained no specific insight into the nature of the universe from the cosmological argument.

Answering the second counterargument is perhaps the easiest, as by definition this counterargument is not cogent. The counterargument also admits that the original argument is more likely, and thus is weak before it was even stated.

Finally, the third counterargument is perhaps the trickiest one to answer. There is no data which suggests it is impossible for God to have created the Big Bang. However, using Occam’s Razor again, the solution that introduces the fewest assumptions while still explaining all the data is the most likely to be the truth. If the Big Bang created the universe, why presuppose God to create the Big Bang? Doing this does not actually add objective information to our accumulated knowledge; it only moves the burden of creation one step further away.

Thus, the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God is unsound because it does not connect the First Cause to a deity and does not account for the possibility that the Big Bang is the First Cause. As a result, the argument as it currently stands should not be used to justify belief in a deity.



What do you guys think? Let me know in the comments!

Saw a comment that interested me on skepchick.org. I thought I'd reproduce it here for more to see.

"In seriousness, I as an atheist think that there is no soul in the dualistic sense. However, I think that what is essentially us leaves our bodies at all times, every time we interact with others. Like raindrops in a pond, the ripples we make affect all the other drops, and all the ripples that hit us, are changed by our ripples, etc.

Humanity has one giant soul-soup in which we all make bigger or smaller ripples. What I say shapes you, what you say shapes me. When I recall something you said or did, or if some action of yours consciously or unconsciously affects me or my actions or ideas, that is your “soul” having its effect.

Carl Sagan (for example) made a big splash in the soul-soup. Many of us are shaped by his words and actions.

Religion has it backwards: Your soul doesn’t leave your body at the moment of death, it stops leaving your body, and echos in the lives of others.

We are the heaven in which our dead reside."