tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.comments2024-03-14T18:56:31.716-05:00Two Catholic Men and a BlogJoehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13632007696351816323noreply@blogger.comBlogger1192125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-6415339579163518562024-03-13T20:12:25.423-05:002024-03-13T20:12:25.423-05:00I came across a sermon by Bishop Barron and he men...I came across a sermon by Bishop Barron and he mentions the wheel of fortune. Learning about it has shaped a huge part of my faith. I tell all my fellow Catholics about it. I just came across this page and it explains it so well!! Good work and God bless! Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-51245617167495413872020-04-10T13:18:23.609-05:002020-04-10T13:18:23.609-05:00This is a very wonderful reflection. It has helpe...This is a very wonderful reflection. It has helped me to reflect on Jesus' passion and my sins than before! It is my grate desire to share it with others so that we can grow together more and more closer to our God. May God bless you Ben.<br /><br />Sister Susan Najjemba, IHMR<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16004549522605584195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-3405531537620953932019-11-25T21:42:57.897-06:002019-11-25T21:42:57.897-06:00Hi, I have a third eye. It came when I was dying ....Hi, I have a third eye. It came when I was dying . I stopped worrying and became calm . Kind of like drowning. Heaps of struggle and sorting in the mind and then calmness. I have had it for 13 years and recently a priest engaged it with his song . So I told him as I wanted him to heal my sons auditory processing which is healable with music. The priest was not impressed. The third eye puts you mentally in a place of beauty just don't tell anyone if you have it or that they engage it. People prefer theory not the actual by the looks of things. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-30587537259470272012019-01-11T01:55:31.636-06:002019-01-11T01:55:31.636-06:00Thanks .... good writing..
Thanks .... good writing..<br />Anton Susantohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07997215604738835086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-24254360574796618642017-10-03T23:07:06.075-05:002017-10-03T23:07:06.075-05:00Hi Ben,
Rather than considering what would convinc...Hi Ben,<br />Rather than considering what would convince Ben, consider the question, ‘What should be convincing to Dawkins?’ My answer is ‘Showing on his own terms that his argument is false.’ However, to do so requires getting his attention.<br />His argument shows an increase in mutational efficiency, not an in increase in probability as he claims it does. Therefore, he has not solved ‘the problem of improbability’.<br />An error analogous to Dawkins’ claim that gradualism increases the probability of Darwinian evolutionary success, is to claim that Car B can travel a greater distance than Car A in the following example. One has the choice of Car A or Car B to drive from Chicago to St. Paul, roughly 400 miles. Both cars have 15 gallon gas tanks. Car A can travel 375 miles on a tank of gas. Car B can travel 450 miles on a tank of gas. On what basis could one choose Car B rather than Car A?<br />Analogous to his claim regarding an increase in probability, Dawkins would say that Car B can travel a greater distance than Car A. That is false. Both cars can travel equal distances. The correct claim is that Car B is more fuel efficient than Car A.<br />Analogously, the series of sub-stages of Darwinian evolution is more mutationally efficient than a single overall stage, while both processes achieve the same probability of evolutionary success (just as both cars can get to St. Paul). Dawkins has demonstrated the greater mutational efficiency of the series, not a greater probability of success. That is something Dawkins should be able to understand. It leaves him without his central argument (in his lingo ‘the big one’) for why God almost certainly does not exist.Bob Druryhttp://theyhavenowine.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-47330207190903832872017-10-02T20:20:40.828-05:002017-10-02T20:20:40.828-05:00Hi Bob,
I think Dawkins expressed gradualism, whic...Hi Bob,<br />I think Dawkins expressed gradualism, which breaks the improbability up into small pieces, as “climbing mount improbable”. Even if a valid point, I don’t think gradualism accounts for the probability of an anthropic universe materializing by itself with all the necessary physical constants being set precisely as they are. Or the probability of a solar system and planet being formed arbitrarily producing an environment that can support the fragilities of life, while at the same time spinning around in a mindless universe that is so hostile to life. Once the environment is set, what are the odds of dead things becoming living things all by themselves and then evolving to become self-aware things like us who can sit around and wonder about it all?<br /><br />I don’t find it convincing, not because of the math, but because of the final conclusion which essentially is……“We come from nothing for the purpose of nothing.”Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11953563578914140396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-3098987840394902342017-10-01T21:22:32.566-05:002017-10-01T21:22:32.566-05:00If one could get his attention, it should be fairl...If one could get his attention, it should be fairly easy to convince Richard Dawkins that his argument that ‘there almost certainly is no God’ is false. His main argument is that both Darwinian evolution in a single large stage and the existence of God, represent prohibitive improbabilities, but only the problem of improbability of evolution is soluble. It is solved by gradualism, which ‘breaks the improbability up into small pieces. Each of which is slightly improbable, but not prohibitively so.’ Clearly, God cannot gradually develop, so there is no solution to the prohibitive improbability of God.<br />Dawkins has illustrated the role of gradualism with three mutation sites of six mutations each. He thinks he has demonstrated an increase in the probability of evolutionary success of natural selection. However, it is evident from his arithmetical analysis that he has demonstrated that the role of gradualism in Darwinian evolution is to increase mutational efficiency with no change in the probability of evolutionary success.<br />Elsewhere, Dawkins has noted the principle that the values of a variable defined over the range of 0 to 1, such as probability (and improbability) vary from one another by degree, not by kind. Consequently, there can be no problem of improbability, which depends upon distinguishing one kind of improbability (prohibitive) from another kind (non-prohibitive). Dawkins’ claim that ‘the argument from improbability is the big one’ is not simply false. It is meaningless, by his own admission that the problem of improbability depends upon an undefinable distinction between kinds of improbability. (See ‘Richard Dawkins as his own critic’, Theyhavenowine.wordpress.com)<br />I actually admire Richard Dawkins for two quite lucid arguments. It is a shame no one has got his attention to point out these important arguments and their correct conclusions. (1) Gradualism in Darwinian evolution effects an increase in mutational efficiency, without affecting the probability of evolutionary success. (2) No two values of probability differ from one another by kind. If one rejects a value of probability as too close to zero to be an explanation, he must reject every probability, however close to, but less than one, as an explanation. <br />Bob Druryhttp://theyhavenowine.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-57080949311326740052017-08-31T13:40:23.325-05:002017-08-31T13:40:23.325-05:00It's a shame more people aren't aware of E...It's a shame more people aren't aware of Eastern Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Both are heavy on mysticism and the sacred!!!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02197297467941373553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-402482163484722232017-06-30T21:44:56.995-05:002017-06-30T21:44:56.995-05:00And all the king's horses and men could not pu...And all the king's horses and men could not put Humpty's soul together again. ;-)Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11953563578914140396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-87641765799271009512017-06-30T19:15:15.168-05:002017-06-30T19:15:15.168-05:00And then there's “When I use a word,” Humpty D...And then there's “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.” Lewis Carrol, Alice through the Looking Glass.<br />And nice quote and comment!duhemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08742949750689428697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-38574252161668222112017-06-30T11:04:30.064-05:002017-06-30T11:04:30.064-05:00There is wisdom in the 'Alice' books. In W...There is wisdom in the 'Alice' books. In Wisdom, too.Brian H. Gillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13209697542675181894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-16841960605759863712017-04-30T10:53:36.147-05:002017-04-30T10:53:36.147-05:00Nicely reasoned and well thought out. I like what...Nicely reasoned and well thought out. I like what you've said, Ben. However, I think you're flogging a horse, if not dead, pretty close to it. What one has to do is to counter the proponents of global warming (or climate change--whatever), not with rational arguments and facts, because they don't listen to those, but with ridicule. See Matt Briggs latest post on the latest march by the hard left on global warming http://wmbriggs.com/post/21586/duhemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08742949750689428697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-251426033364113852017-04-04T03:01:21.261-05:002017-04-04T03:01:21.261-05:00Dogs seem to be happier than humans because they d...Dogs seem to be happier than humans because they don't live in the future as do humans. They are living in the present moment. We should take a lesson from human's best friend - Dog. <br /><br />Regards,<br />Perrie Jinnie<br /><a href="http://www.petsgroomingtips.com" rel="nofollow">Pet Grooming Tips</a><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06257568568360134074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-26557702441552683722017-01-23T12:44:53.731-06:002017-01-23T12:44:53.731-06:00How would you prove it?How would you prove it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-21175749674535089452017-01-22T22:57:40.913-06:002017-01-22T22:57:40.913-06:00Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas have better proof for...Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas have better proof for the soul than an NDE. Can a person experience an NDE? Certainly. (My dad had one.) Is it because the soul leaves the body? No. You do not have a proper understanding of the soul. It cannot sense without a body and therefore if it left the body, as some people say happens, it would not be able to see or hear. Also, you would have to say that everyone who had an NDE rose from the dead, for only when a person dies is the soul no longer with a body. The name NDE is actually a misnomer. A person cannot be near death and the soul just jump out of the body for a minute or so and then jump back into it. That is not how the soul and body are joined. To truly explain the soul, as Aristotle states, is one of the most difficult tasks. Using an NDE is not one of the ways to prove the soul.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12929919445524000555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-40016280776938032992017-01-08T07:09:53.222-06:002017-01-08T07:09:53.222-06:00"Whenever someone asks for proof of something..."Whenever someone asks for proof of something, especially something immaterial, I sometimes ask if it is possible to prove anything at all."<br /><br />Science doesn't give proof. That is the perview of mathematics and logic. The more proper question would be the request for evidence.<br /><br />As for NDE experience, I've often thought these were the religious equivalent of the prank of knocking on someone's door and running away.<br /><br />CheersMichaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15109458923860112875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-34347000677764689582016-11-10T10:20:23.072-06:002016-11-10T10:20:23.072-06:00Hi Bob,
The post is really referring to the electo...Hi Bob,<br />The post is really referring to the electoral college (state polls).<br />“State polls were off in a way that has not been seen in previous presidential election years,” From this article...<br />http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/technology/the-data-said-clinton-would-win-why-you-shouldnt-have-believed-it.htmlBenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11953563578914140396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-54145226481428100842016-11-09T19:09:25.087-06:002016-11-09T19:09:25.087-06:00I don't know that all the polling data was wro...I don't know that all the polling data was wrong. Trump and HRC wound about even in popular vote (maybe with HRC a little ahead as Calif. votes get tallied.) IBD predicted Trump ahead by 1 point; the USC polls consistently predicted Trump ahead. And most of the polling differences were within an error margin of the actual difference. Where the polling failed was in not taking account of 1) lower turnout for HRC than had been for Obama (a small difference, but important for the final result); 2) amongst people who thought both candidates were morally unfit for the presidency, a greater proportion held their noses and voted for Trump.<br />But I agree that the best thing we can do is to pray for President Trump and our country.duhemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08742949750689428697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-62019885392726234032016-10-10T23:36:45.173-05:002016-10-10T23:36:45.173-05:00I may pick door 1 just for the novelty of seeing a...I may pick door 1 just for the novelty of seeing a man eat a lion. Ha!<br />Actually a better analogy is man eating cubs because cubs are cute and small like babies. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Lenahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09173616693453942166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-7337188738153276972016-10-08T12:55:56.409-05:002016-10-08T12:55:56.409-05:00Well, with respect to honesty I would compare the ...Well, with respect to honesty I would compare the candidate's statements over time, compare his/her statements with respect to actions. We have quite a bit of objective evidence in this respect for both candidates (especially now that HRC's talks to Wall Street organizations have been linked). With respect to other aspects of character, for example compassion or empathy, one can again look to objective instances--for example how one describes a disabled reporter, how one labels opponents. Do I need to go further? The only thing that doesn't have much objective evidence going for it is the business of whether a bad outcome would be reversible--for this one has to have God's Middle Knowledge.duhemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08742949750689428697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-40358382244162816272016-10-08T08:40:43.139-05:002016-10-08T08:40:43.139-05:00Hi Bob,
If you wanted to use a general issue or te...Hi Bob,<br />If you wanted to use a general issue or term like honesty for example, you'd want to think about "measures" and note them. How would you know the person is honest or not? What would you observe or hear or experience. What would be the trigger or triggers that tell you?<br /><br />We sometimes do this at work when choosing a candidate to hire. The idea is the make the thinking as "visible" as possible to others and even yourself via documentation.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11953563578914140396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-86714867960601879362016-10-07T19:23:43.961-05:002016-10-07T19:23:43.961-05:00That's a very nice approach, using weights and...That's a very nice approach, using weights and scores. I'm not sure how impartial or accurate one would be using these, and there's one very important property pertaining to the candidate (rather than party) that you haven't listed: character--which includes honesty, knowledge, impulse control (e.g. finger on the nuclear football), etc. There is another property that is also important: how likely is it that the outcome would be reversible if it's a bad one. <br />And as far as assessing risk goes, one can use a "minimax regret" decision analysis on possible outcomes (see my post (dept. of shameless self-promotion) "The Pearl of Great Price--Pascal's Wager Revisited".<br />By the way, II'm still undecided, but leaning to writing in Evan McMullin's name as a true conservative. in my state the outcome is very likely (according to polls) HRC.duhemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08742949750689428697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-5558108663640948712016-09-03T11:18:38.001-05:002016-09-03T11:18:38.001-05:00Seems like a rather lot of convoluted navel gazing...Seems like a rather lot of convoluted navel gazing in both the article and comments. When faced with these combination natural/supernatural propositions which seem to be directed at no definitively satisfactory conclusion, I always remember the words of Albert Einstein: God does not play dice with the universe. I expect neither science nor theology to come up with answers to these questions in my lifetime or possibly never but I do recognize that the store of knowledge on these matters increases as time passes and we should probably be satisfied with that for now.pueblosw@gmail.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04955678254129002919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-74981020526365950112016-08-27T10:52:44.080-05:002016-08-27T10:52:44.080-05:00This reminds me of something I heard once. You he...This reminds me of something I heard once. You hear about dolphins pushing shipwrecked sailors to shore, but we don't know how many they pushed out to sea.echarles1https://www.blogger.com/profile/04879754087186890351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-78318486608813945722016-08-20T12:15:03.442-05:002016-08-20T12:15:03.442-05:00Thanks, Dr. Kurland. I also plan to wrap this up ...Thanks, Dr. Kurland. I also plan to wrap this up after I make a few concluding remarks to defend myself and what I actually set forth, much of which you still seem unwilling to engage without twisting it into a straw man you can easily knock down, which is most unfortunate.<br /><br />1. Ellis as a cosmologist is quite good at times, and he has written some good things on cosmology (though there are a few noticeable flaws in some of his musings), but note the actual context in which I point out that you grant him the title of "philosopher" with no background in same based on the credentials you insist must be there for Jaki to be considered a cosmologist. As for being a cosmologist, I simply point out that based upon the background you mention about Jaki, Ellis' degrees, etc., would also not qualify him for the title. However, I accept that he is a cosmologist even if his PhD work was not in cosmology. Once again, you take what I actually set forth, ignore much of it, set up a straw man, and then proceed accordingly.<br /><br />For anybody looking at the works of both men, Jaki is easily much more the cosmologist than Ellis is the philosopher. You don't have to publish X amount to be an expert, etc., but even so, look at the hundred or so articles published by Jaki and the books he has written that include many insights into cosmology. Even if this does not technically permit the title of “cosmologist” granted by you, others will see that Jaki was indeed a cosmologist, and at the very least in the manner that you grant the title of “philosopher” to Ellis. Bottom line: Fr. Jaki's background and many scholarly studies on cosmology make him a cosmologist.<br /><br />2. Once again, check what I actually write about inflation from my first comment and the following ones. The comments come about because of favorable statements you make about the theory in section 4.2.6 of your book (contrary to your claim, the problems have not been “largely dealt with” by the nonsense of inflation), a bogus claim at the end of the third paragraph of section 4.4.3, and elsewhere. I point out the utter silliness of the inflation theory (Dr. Unzicker crushes it in his book) that you still entertain as a possibility even though you have rightly mentioned that it can't be measured or scientifically observed, etc. Holding onto this nonsensical unscientific theory even a little bit, and also publishing even marginally favorable things about it is a very sad disservice to the Truth. Oh well. Also, you once again make the point about looking at velocities relative to an observer, but that was not and is not my point as is clearly stated in my previous comments. As such, yours is the red herring you complain about, just like the false charge you leveled against me that I criticized you about your weight when it was you who did so about yourself, and I used sarcasm regarding the use of the oxymoronic "mathematical metaphysics" (which I hope you now understand is indeed an oxymoronic term based on a true understanding of metaphysics, etc.) so you could merely declare the weight you complained about possessing as being considered less than the reality. In any case, if it is a problem for you, I hope you get it under control soon.<br /><br />Lastly, I do hope that you (and others) will look even more into the works of Fr. Jaki for greater guidance regarding faith and science, you read Unzicker's "Bankrupting Physics," and you use even more Catholic theology than you already have, plus you add the works of Thomistic philosophers like Gilson and Maritain and others previously mentioned in order to obtain a stronger grasp of metaphysics and the meaning of creatio ex nihilo and how God acts. All that this will likely do for you is make you a better Catholic Physicist/Cosmologist. Not a bad result, that.<br /><br />Dominus vobiscum<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com