Proof of God's inexistence in 11 words

Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift?

Unfortunately this fun little argument does not work with every god out there. However; in many religions, such as Christianity, God is an omnipotent being. 

Omni-all

Potent-powerful

So the question I pose to these all powerful Gods is if they can create a rock so heavy that they cannot lift? This is a simple "Yes" or "No" response and both answers contradict God's definition. If God can create it, it means there is something that God cannot do (thus suggesting that God is no longer omnipotent). If he can't create it, then God's defining characteristic is already a serious problem. 

Now a simple response to this is to say that God is not omnipotent. Of course then we can inquire where God's limits lie? And from there we can ask whether if these limits are decided by us, or did God just felt like telling us what he can and cannot do. Eventually this leads to the conclusion that God is just an illusion that people conjure up to answer questions and/or to have a more meaningful life.

This is of course a paradox and some do no view it as a valid argument. Never the less, for all the times a theist has said something like "God exists because I have faith" you now have a little something to say back. 

Image thanks to-http://www.sodahead.com/fun/greek-mythology-whats-your-favorite-story/question-934937/?link=ibaf&q=heavy+stone&imgurl=http://susannahpollvogt.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/sisyphus-2.jpg

and http://en-gb.facebook.com/group.php?gid=190596735571&ref=nf

25 Million Dead, 33 Million Infected, Now Finally a Breakthrough in Combating HIV/AIDS

Human Immunodeficiency Virus or HIV has consumed the lives of over 25 million people since its recognition. It infects over 33 million people as of today.

HIV latched onto T Cell

The virus itself is very interesting. Usually when the body is attacked by a bacteria or virus the body will activate its own built in defensive mechanism that consists of macrophages and T-cells. The T cells’ job is to identify, find and kill the infected cells; the remnants of those cells plus foreign bacteria will be digested by the macrophage.  HIV is a virus that attacks your defence systems directly; it latches itself to your macrophages and T Cells before injecting its own RNA into those cells. Eventually those cells will rapture, releasing hundreds more replicates of that original HIV virus into your body. Over time your once powerful immune system will become weak and useless. In fact what is interesting about HIV is that it does not directly kill an individual, but it is something else such as the common seasonal flu that finishes the job.

Over the last 30 years, our scientists have been baffled by this virus; it has been impossible to combat due to its efficient ability to target an individual’ immune system and its ability to rapidly mutate into different strains. The only method of fending off HIV is to give a patient immunity boosts; however, it is only a treatment that prolongs the life of the patient and does not get rid of the virus.

Remember how I told you that HIV replicates by injecting its RNA into your defensive cells? It seems that the virus can only inject its RNA through the CD4 receptors on your T cells. Sangamo BioSciences of Richmond, California has found that by exposing the T-cells to a specific enzyme, the enzyme will remove the gene that codes for the CD4 receptors. What this means is that the HIV virus will have no method of replication. The virus has its own life span; once it is reached, just like us, it will die of old age.

"The data seems very encouraging" said Edward Lanphier, Sangamo's CEO. "We are seeking a statistically significant correlation between our treatment and viral load reduction" 

Gerhard Bauer, Professor in Stem Cell Research, said “I congratulate them 100%” showing his optimism and enthusiasm in this astounding breakthrough. There are still ongoing clinical trials to try and turn this scientific breakthrough into a cure; never the less, as of now the future seems a little bit brighter.  

Facts about the Great Chinese Famine that you may have not known

The years between 1958 and 1961 are also known as the “three difficult years” to the people of China. During these years there are estimates showing that anywhere between 11 to 70 million irregular (before natural time of death) deaths occurred. To an extent this act can be seen as a failure of the Chinese Leadership at the time; however, I am here to provide people with a few more facts that were perhaps omitted from the news and textbooks.

Chairman Mao was the State Chairman of the People’s Republic of China during 1958 when he started the “Great Leap Forwards”, an attempt to for China to “catch up to the British and surpass the United States”. One of the factors used to rank the industry of a nation is by its annual steel production. Been roused by the idea of achieving self reliance, Communist supremacy and showing undying patriotism to their country, the people did everything possible in an attempt to surpass the steel production in the previous year. They melted their pots, pans, and farming equipment in backyard furnaces. These furnaces are made of clay and due to the lack of rope many women voluntarily cut off their hair for its structural support. Steel has the chemical formula Fe3C. It compromises of 0.2-2% carbon and the rest been Iron (some also contain Zinc and other substances), for the carbon to attach itself with the ironic metallic bonds one must burn iron with coal at controlled environments. Most farmers did not know this, and the steel they produced were useless (also known as pig steel). Although overall steel production in 1958 surpassed 1957 by up to 10%, this number dropped radically in the following years. The people now had nothing to cook food with or flow fields with.

The Great Leap Forwards is seen as a large contributing factor for the Great Chinese Famine. There were deaths during these years. But are the numbers entirely correct? Should the Mao receive so much criticism over his actions? Are the facts exaggerated? Here are some facts that you may not have known that previously:

The population of the People’s Republic of China in 1953- 450million

                                                                          1960- 600million

Due to the production of medicine, Chinese life expectancy was increase greatly; the cumulative life that the Chinese people received due to Mao’s era is up to 35billion years.

The death rate seen between 1958 and 1961 seemed high compared to China after its communist revolution. During pre-communist China, the death rates were even greater than those seen during the Great Chinese Famine.

Against popular belief, the famine was not used as leverage to kill off Chinese minorities. After finding out about the famine, Mao ordered much of the food in storage to the Chinese Minorities. Although a lot of Chinese suffered hunger, the minorities of China fared much better.

Finally, Chairman Mao cannot be held solely accountable for his actions. Due to a tendency to impress superior party officials, a commune farm party leader will increase actual grain production many times more than what they actually produced (one documented an increase of twenty times). These local officials would then further increase the amount of grain produced within his region. The annual food production report that Chairman Mao saw would have been much greater than that of previous years. He would then signal party members to take a certain amount of grain away from the villages based on those numbers (leaving what he thought was more than enough for the villages). This resulted in a massive amount of food that cannot be consumed in the cities and very little left in the villages. To accommodate the vast influx of food grain was exported to the Soviet Union, people held eating contests daily, and the rest were simply left to rot in the granaries while people starved in rural areas. Party officials were too afraid to tell Chairman Mao of the actual situation, and so Mao found out about this situation a few years later. After finding out, he took responsibility of the failure, stepped down and gave up his position as State Chairman. 

Excitement

*

A slightly different post tonight. It is weird that one can feel so excited and nostalgic at the same time, especially at such a weird time. I guess not so much the excitement but rather the nostalgic feeling. The only explanation is that my current situation parallel's my experience of leaving an old home. The same process of throwing, packing, considering and repacking really brings back old memories.

We are such weird creatures. We look forwards to something for so long yet just when it is about to happen, our feet stumble a little. Just when we are about to toss something, we wish to hold it once more.What separates us however is that some people stumble and fall whilst others continue on. 

To me, this feelings has been experienced so many times that it feels like a visit from an old friend. 

Here is a piece of music call Bolsheviks Leaves Home that portrays, to an extent, of my excitement.

Goodbye for a while dear comrades, I hope our separation will not be too long. 

Comrade L

*Sincere thanks to Prolific Studios for the image

A theory on the failure of Communism

Why does Communism not work? This is why-

This kind of “I am better than you” mentally is more apparent in males then females; however, deep down I believe we all have the mentally that whispers to us “destroy that person so you can be his/hers superior”. This is what Friedrich Nietzsche said, that all of our actions in life comes down to our “will to power”, that an individual wants to have power over someone else.

There is nothing that we can really do about it because it is this inherent whisper that has led us to today. If we were passive creatures, our ancestors would have gone extinct a long time ago. Never the less, like Nietzsche, I believe that we have the capability to change and to adapt.

So why does communism fail? Partially because of the issue I rose on this short post. On the other hand we should probably look for ways to create an utopia rather than disregarding and shooting down attempts at this dream.

Anyways, main point of this blog post is to show you this awesome video. A great display of heart and courage in these two men.

Is the Communist Ideology Morally Justifiable?

Is the communist ideology morally justifiable?

To answer this question I created a How To Manual on “How to be a Good Communist”. The first part of this manual was created based on the inverse of an American propaganda video during the cold war, Parts two and three are a combination of my knowledge and classical communist ideals. The main point within this manual is to give up the idea of individualism and focus all personal efforts on the community. I chose this as the focus for one important reason; the reason is that the cause for the failure of communism is mainly due to corruption and greed. Within a communist society a farmer that does nothing lives equally as well as a farmer that works from dawn to dust hence creating a society where there is no incentive to do anything. The communist society in my manual bypasses that problem; the incentive to work hard and strive for achievement is for the community rather than the individual.

Communism is the economic term for a controlled economy; however, this ideology offers more than just an economic theory as it also provides people with social equality which results in a stronger unified community. If we were to convert this economical and social ideology into an ethical expression we will find that communism is the parallel of altruism ethically. So when we are asking the question “is the communist ideology morally justifiable?” we are looking at the argument for and against altruism.

The basis of the manual is fairly similar to the utilitarian (a variant of altruism) doctrine that one must act in such ways that will “generate the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people” within the community.

In most everyday cases people are usually fairly utilitarian (altruistic). There are many examples of actions involving the utilitarian concept; my favourite scenario involves the train. I posed the following question to one of my classes that has an even spread of academic performance, social acceptance and religious faith. “If a train was going to run over ten people and you had the chance to pull a switch so that the tracks will change and the train will only run over one, will you pull the lever?” Over 75% of the class said yes to this question as they all thought the life of ten and the death of one is better than the death of ten and life of one.  Or in other words the majority of the class believes that acts that benefit the greatest amount of people can be justified even if a few innocents must be harmed.

Their perspective on this situation parallels many of the points made within the manual and altruism. Especially those on slide twelve, step eight- “A good communist is willing to give up all that the individual has for the continuation and success of their community” as the community is the majority and that their individuality is the lesser minority.

Ethical egoism is on the other polar end to utilitarianism. An ethical egoist believes that all choices made and actions done by an individual should be done such that it will grant that individual happiness without regard of others. This normative ethical theory contains many interesting objections to utilitarianism/altruism and in turn communism. An ethical egoist would say that other individuals have no right to take away what others have, and that it is not ethical for the weak to exploit the powerful through this ideology. For example within the manual the act of having a strong government controlled economy, giving up the need for materialistic goods, surrendering everything for the community are seen as completely unethical and unjust. There are two possible responses to this objection. Firstly this manual would reply that giving up individuality is not exploitation but a contribution that people with the right mindset will openly accept. Secondly a utilitarian/communist reply to this objection would state that the act of taking away/nationalizing materials from an individual is perfectly justifiable as long as it produces happiness and contributes to the community. The ethical egoist would firmly disagree and say that the community has no right to take away anything that is earned by someone else as the community does not deserve it.

The problem for an ethical egoist (excluding Auguste Comte) about communism or a form of altruism is the majority taking advantage and using the minority plus the destruction of individualism. The following argument is a reduction ad absurdum. Imagine if individualism is moral and altruism is immoral. This would mean it is moral for corporate leaders to use people in work places where they only provide them enough to barely survive. It would mean that when food and money is distributed it is moral to kill your co-workers and take their earnings. This world where people have no consideration for others is absurd! The ethical egoist fails to take the majority into consideration. Although what the majority acts on is not always the right thing, in this circumstance when it is either to control one or exploit ten, the majority factor is not only a concerning factor but a deciding factor on this issue.

In conclusion, is communism morally justifiable? It is the social/economical derivative of altruism and of utilitarianism (normative theory that most people support); it acts in ways that will benefit as many people as possible; it creates a strong tightly knitted community based on contribution and equality. Morality is about doing the right thing, the subjectivity of the “right thing” in this case applies to the majority; ergo the communist ideology (particularly the ideas from the manual) is morally justifiable.  

(That there is my main analysis, there is an extra paragraph about practicality if you are interested)

Although practicality does not come into morality I think it is still an important issue especially regarding a social/economical ideology. I asked the class stated previously “Who is willing to give up their freedom for complete happiness”, less than 10% of the people raised their hands. If they are not willing to give freedom for full happiness, it is not practical to assume that they will submit to an ideology that demands a portion of their freedom for the high potential of increased happiness.

 Visit http://www.youtube.com/user/TheRedStarReports?feature=mhum and enjoy some classic communist era songs

Is a Clone a Unique Person?

Identity, having an identity is important to almost every person in existence. An identity, no matter the definition of it, gives a person their own sense individuality and the ability to govern their own choices in life. The non-philosophical source, a novel by Jack London, “White Fang” gave me some detailed insight into the question of whether if a clone is a unique person or not. My conviction of the answer to this question parallels the theme of the book, that nature always prevails over nurture thus negating the fact that a clone is a unique person. The method that I will be using to affirm and agree with the question will be from a libertarian approach where I will question the validity of the two individual’s similarities.   

To prove that a clone is not a unique person I will have to use two different cases to assemble my point. Case 1; imagine an individual (let us call him A) walks into a cloning device, after the process is complete the original A and a copy of A that is identical to A down to the singular atoms of the clothes that he is wearing (we will call the clone of A, B). If A and B were then put into two controlled environments that were exactly the same, due to their identical genetic makeup and experiences they will learn at the same rate as each other and analyze things in parallel manners. If we have a cloning reunion in 10 years, one would not be able to tell the difference between A or B. Now many people will argue that the probability of this situation is so unlikely that under current circumstances this argument can be ignored and be deemed redundant. Here is where Case 2 comes in; again imagine if subject A is cloned and subject B is created, and B is identical to A down to the singular atoms on the clothes that they are wearing. Now let us assume that A continued his life in the Soviet Union and B is went to a different country (let’s say the Nazi Germany), after 10 years will they still be the same person or will they be unique? The front up answer would be yes they are unique since B will be able to speak German and A cannot; where B is a faithful member of the Nazi Party against A who is a loyal member of the Soviet Communist Party and finally where B would enjoy eating German cuisines unlike A who enjoys Russian meals. Now think about the situation in a different manner, if A went to Nazi Germany and B remained in A’s place in the Soviet Union (now using the argument from case 1) we will in fact see that A will be exactly the same as B if B had moved to Germany. Noting the fact that the only thing that created the difference between A and B is their different environments one can logically say that B is the exact same person as A except the fact that B is in a different environment. The obvious objection to this would be the fact that A and B are still different, even if they would have turned out the exact same way if they were switched the Soviet A and Nazi B are still two separate unique individuals. For the rebuttal of this objection we will have to look at the nature versus nurture argument. My source “White Fang” is about a wolf cub that is reared by humans. Within White Fang’s life he had 3 masters each with a different treatment of White Fang, in the end whether if his treatment was tough love, utter brutality or compassion White Fang always treated them all with sincere loyalty. This inner trait of White Fang was the aspect that defines him, and no matter how he was treated he would always act accordingly to his defining personality. Now think about A and B, two people that were identical 10 years ago. Although the outside “shell” of their personality is different, the way they think and the way they act would still be identical if thrown into two identical situations. The only problem now is that the “shell” of Soviet A is different to the “shell” of Nazi B. Imagine two pens that are both same brand and type except that one was slightly heavier (by 0.1grams) than the other one; would you classify them as unique pens? Of course not; and we can take this example even further by arguing in reverse; imagine two deer who were reared by different mothers that grew and looked the same to the human eye; they both ate, ran and reproduced in the exact same cycle over and over again, would you be able to identify a clear difference between the two deer? Again no, so are they unique? Yes! Imagine if they both got attacked by a pride of lions, one may stop running and cower in fear while the other one will continue running until his legs literally give out. This proves that the “shell” of a person lacks the ability to influence an individual’s major choices. The “shell” corresponds to how a person reacts to situations on a minor scale (like a greeting or even a language); but, the actual personality trait is how a person reacts to a situation of a large scale (like making a career pathway or choosing a spouse). If we use the argument prior to this with the pens and deer we can in fact see that A and B cannot be classified as unique, they are too similar to have a differentiable difference, thus making the clone of an individual not an unique person no matter the circumstances. 

To affirm the fact that the clone of an individual is in fact unique I will be using a libertarian approach to answer the question. Freedom is classified as the ability for us to make choices and that the will of our choice is the source of our choice. Imagine Soviet A and Nazi B (individuals who were cloned 10 years ago and put into two very different situations) from the previous paragraph, at any moment these two individuals can change drastically due to a change of mind which will lead to a change of their individual wills that can change the outcome of their decisions. Imagine Nazi B who under the influence of Nazi propaganda was suddenly against the communist ideals that he previously cherished. This change in will has the potential to result in different decision making when we consider the premise that we are free and that our choices are based on individual will. The counter argument for this would be from a deterministic point of view, that all actions are based on the environmental factors affecting the individual. What these environmental factors have an effect on is only the “shell” of the person and not the inherent traits of the individual. Thus if all choices are already pre-determined and that the environment act directly on the nurture of the subject (not nature) then one could say that Nazi B is still the same as Soviet A when it came to important decision making, because of this Soviet A and Nazi B are still inherently identical and that all their choices are pre determined. Although the point is valid, a rebuttal to that point would be that changes of will can be completely random that is undeterminable by determinism. The occurrence of randomness cannot be denied and in many cases cannot be convincingly explained by determinism. For example, human evolution is a process caused by mutations, these mutations create variation and the variation leads to increased chances of survival. Mutations, radioactive decay and human mind experiences randomness constantly that can create a domino effect that will completely change the outcome of a situation (thus the potential to completely change the inherent nature of an individual). Now by combining the sources definition of freedom and the chance of randomness to relate to our example of Soviet A and Nazi B, we realize that in fact due to an occurrence of randomness Soviet A and Nazi B after 10 years of separation can actually be completely different, thus making them unique individuals.

 To summarize this essay we must consider both arguments that were made. The first argument that opposes the fact that clones are unique people creates the argument based on the nature versus nurture debate. Argument one believes that there may be slight differences between Soviet A and Nazi B; however, due to their inherent nature they are too similar to be considered unique. The weakness to argument one is the definition of something been unique, for argument one to stand one must accept the fact that in order to be unique, there must be a major inherent difference. Argument two favours the fact that clones are unique, the argument comes from a libertarian perspective. A libertarian believes that because of randomness an individual like B who was once identical with A 10 years ago has the ability to become someone completely different. The biggest weakness in argument two is the validity of the randomness argument, a determinist would respond to randomness in two ways: 1, the act seems random to us because we cannot or may never be able to fathom what is actually occurring. 2, the act seems random but it is only by pre-determined events that lead to this occurrence of randomness which will actually make the random act a determined event. Although both arguments have its weaknesses, I believe that argument 1 has more stable, in depth and contains more tangible proof. When I am asked with the question- Is a clone a unique person? My front up answer would be no. However, my more in depth answer would be no, because their choices and decisions are too similar to be considered different. None the less, to someone who would still believe that even the slightest difference (like a 0.1gram difference between 2 otherwise identical pens) between two people will make them both exclusive could argue that A and B are still different and unique individuals. 

Visit http://www.youtube.com/user/TheRedStarReports?feature=mhum and enjoy some classic communist era songs