Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and Redemption

by walterm on October 8, 2016

So it has come out that Donald Trump made some boorish comments in a locker room eleven years ago about a married woman he was trying to have an affair with. This is indeed a sad day and everyone knew with an ego the size of Manhattan that Trump, as with most powerful men, would find beautiful women something to be pursued and conquered. I don’t see him as much different than many other highly successful billionaire moguls such as Roger Ailes in recent news. If that is your personality type, you probably shouldn’t be running for President even if you have turned away and repented of such behavior because character does matter (well, not so much with Democrats as Bill Clinton has proven) and you will be held to a far higher standard than others. What you did ten or twenty years ago does matter because it will come out even if private, and the expectation is that you will conduct yourself the same in private as you do in public. The real person is the person who acts when no one is looking. And thus the October surprise, timed just two days before the second presidential debate and a little over four weeks before the election. It can’t get much worse than this.
All this being said, let’s not forget there is solid evidence his opponent’s husband raped women while in the governorship of Arkansas, and it is further reported that he forced himself on women while President. And of course, he disgraced the Oval Office by having sex with a young, impressionable intern. His wife, who is now running for President threatened, demeaned, and savaged the women who came forward to say he forced himself on them while in high public office. In my view, that is far, far worse than what Donald Trump said in a moment of braggadocio in private in a sweaty locker room with some other equally egotistical mogul. Hillary Clinton is a woman who also exposed our country’s national secrets to terrorists and foreign governments in a brazen attempt to get around the federal freedom of information law. Clearly she had much to hide.
As much as it pains me, I’m still voting for Trump since one to three Supreme Court appointments will be made and I certainly don’t want Hillary Clinton making those picks. For those who have not been following California Senate Bill 1146 just signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown last week, the bill in its original form was a brazen attempt by the California state legislature to strip moral codes from Christian institutions of higher learning by making it easy for LGBTQ students to sue for discrimination, and to hurt these schools by withholding funds from needy students that would choose to attend a Christian university. In effect, the intent of the bill in its original form was to have Christian schools sued out of business and to also be choked out of business since they would lose lower income students that would no longer be able to use state funds to attend their schools. Because of public outcry it was amended until the most heinous provisions were removed, but the bill’s sponsor, Ricardo Lara, has vowed to fight on next legislative session. If Hillary wins, with just one Supreme Court pick your 1st Amendment protection of freedom of speech and freedom of religion will effectively come to an end, led by California. There will be a flood of lawsuits winding their way to the Supreme Court that will virtually silence the church in America.
In conclusion I want to note how the word “redemption” springs to mind with respect to this sordid affair. Just a couple of weeks ago, Hillary Clinton said that half of Donald Trump supporters are “deplorable” and “irredeemable.” With a total voter base of about 130 million people, that’s about 32.5 million people that she wishes to govern but has insulted with little apology. Now we all know that her Christianity is at best questionable, as none of her statements or policies display an ounce of Christian love or character. She says these people are “irredeemable”, but the Bible says God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. And that includes Donald Trump. We don’t know what is in his heart, and if he has turned away from his behavior of eleven years ago since starting a family with Melania Trump, he should be lauded. But of course, you have those who live in the gutter and have little belief in redemption or Christian charity and so they bring this old matter up to destroy a man who is trying to do a good thing today, despite what he may have done in his past. Surely, they will have their reward.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Material vs. Immaterial – A Worthy Debate?

by walterm on November 12, 2014

A continuing scientific debate surrounds the idea of mind as an immaterial substance. Ever since Descartes advanced the notion of a radical substance dualism where the mind and body are two fundamentally distinct things, the mind (immaterial) and the body (material), there has been the ongoing argument against the notion that an immaterial mind cannot interact with a material body. The argument has been that it is properly incorrect to expect that the immaterial can have a causal influence on the material, particularly with the Cartesian notion where since there is no unity between mind and the body we have substantively a “ghost in the machine.” In contemporary science, this Cartesian notion is fully rejected in view of a monistic (or physicalist) enterprise that posits literally everything is material. Now dualism of the immaterial and material has been, in some form or the other over the centuries, the default view since people have a strong propensity to see their minds as having some distinction from their bodies, even though it has some form of unity which may not be as radical as that of Descartes. Yet the naturalist objects to any form of dualism, substance or otherwise.

But is the debate here really and truly about the immaterial vs. the material? Is this an argument over semantics? Or are the naturalists simply shortsighted about what precisely defines the “immaterial”? I would argue that it is both, and that there is another way of viewing mind-body interaction that doesn’t constrain us to what I believe is a shortsighted debate on both sides. For a moment, let’s step away from the debate and consider what matter is. In this universe there are really only two “types “of things: the fundamental forces and energy. According to Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2, there is mass-energy equivalence. In other words, the mass of an object is simply a measure of its energy content and they are proportional to one another based on the speed of light squared. So anything we call matter is at core energy. Matter is made up of atoms, which have a nucleus made up of protons and neutrons, surrounded by a cloud of electrons. There is the strong nuclear force, which binds the nucleus, and the weak nuclear force that governs the decay of sub-atomic particles. The electrons are bound to the nucleus by the electromagnetic force. These are three of the four fundamental forces, with the force of gravitation that we all know and love rounding out the four.

In any given atom, the nucleus contains 99.9% of the mass of the entire atom. But its diameter is only 1/100,000th of the surrounding electron cloud. Given that the size of the atom is determined by the orbit of the outermost electron (for our purposes) the atom is thus 99.9999999999999% open space. So though we think we see typical objects in the world as “solid,” they actually are not, and the reason one can’t simply move one object into the same space of another is due to the repulsive electromagnetic forces of electrons in each object. In fact, it is electromagnetic forces that keep us from slipping through a chair when we sit on it. What we see is the aggregate on the macro scale, whereas at the atomic scale, the world looks completely different and behaves completely different (at the quantum level) from what we normally see. Now as this relates to the subject of the material vs. the immaterial, let’s grant that the four fundamental forces we discussed above are indeed “material.” They may be material, but nonetheless, we can’t see them. They are forces operating under (ostensibly) natural laws that are invisible to us. But how can something invisible act on something material? Forces act at a distance, but how do they act at a distance with no “physical” connections between them? Even Newton declined to attempt to explain how gravity worked. He could only describe it with mathematical equations, but he couldn’t say how it worked or why it works the way it does. The same is true today.

Now the four fundamental forces don’t have intelligence. They simply act according to some set of laws and don’t vary. But what if there were otherwise invisible forces that actually do behave intelligently? The four fundamental laws may not be intelligent within and of themselves, but somehow they do exist and the mathematical equations that describe them are often called “beautiful” by physicists not only because of their simplicity but also because of the perceived ability that these fundamental forces have shaped the universe that we call home. So wouldn’t it be reasonable to posit that if we can have unintelligent, invisible forces, then we could also have an intelligent, organizing force also invisible with the creative activity to provide the organizational structure undergirding unintelligent fundamental forces as well as the matter that these forces influence? Thus, that organizational force would be able to interact with matter in the same manner as the four fundamental forces, exerting its will on the universe as it sees fit. It would uphold and support the universe for its own purposes, including the powers it has given to the fundamental forces that do the “grunt” work of dealing with matter based on a set of established laws created by the intelligent force.

The force of gravity, as demonstrated by Einstein in his general theory of relativity, is a geometric property of space and time. He actually didn’t believe gravity was a force at all but is a distortion of space-time (rather, the “fourth dimension”). Gravity influences the passage of time by dilating it, causing observers that are measuring time in regions of gravitational potential to see time advance differently. The closer the observer is to the gravitational potential, the more slowly time passes for that observer. So even if gravity is not a force as Einstein asserted, but is simply a curve in space-time, it adds another dimension to the universe that we experience. It is a dimension that we can’t see, but a dimension that has known effects on us. So again, we have something that is not visible, in a dimension beyond three-dimensional space, having a causal effect in the universe. Therefore, I believe the argument that immaterial substances cannot have a causal effect on material substances is an utterly foolish argument to make because first, we don’t know what it means to be “immaterial” in the first place, and second, whether you believe the fundamental forces are material or immaterial they’re still invisible, have causal powers, and so it makes no fundamental difference whether they are material or not. So if there is an organizing force or dimension, then we can accept that it makes no difference if it is material or not.


{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Stephen Hawking Continues His Bad Philosophy of Theology

September 30, 2014

Typically I try to ignore the uninformed ramblings of the atheistic scientific community when it comes to matters of God and origins.  But I think it’s time to get back to regular writing and focusing more on science, though I will continue on with politics. I read a recent article at Tech Times where Stephen […]

Read the full article →

Mozilla CEO Ouster Shows Why “Diversity and Tolerance” Movement Is a Sham

April 3, 2014

As of right now, that wonderful browser Firefox has been uninstalled from all machines in my office, and good riddance. Mozilla’s CEO, Brendan Eich, was forced out of Mozilla solely because of his belief in traditional marriage. The headlines read that he was forced to resign after a firestorm of controversy due to his support […]

Read the full article →

Gay Republican Candidate Richard Tisei: Tolerance Only Goes One Way

March 24, 2014

In a recent Wall Street Journal article, George Tisei, a gay man and leading candidate who is running for Congress in Massachusetts, notified the Republican Party recently that it needs to embrace “all freedoms,” including the freedom to marry someone of the same sex. He sees it as a party that is “stuck in the […]

Read the full article →

Understanding Liberal Argumentation: Jehmu Greene vs. John Stossel

March 18, 2014

This past week I watched an episode of John Stossel where he clearly and persuasively debunked the phony “war on women” liberals fomented in 2012 out of thin air, a problem that of course only Democrats in government can solve. In a segment on Obamacare, one of his guests was Obama apologist extraordinaire Jehmu Greene, […]

Read the full article →

Liberals and the “Discrimination” Ruse

March 9, 2014

This weekend I was listening to a talk radio show discussing the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), where the subject of “women’s rights” came up. Sirius XM radio host David Webb had a liberal and a conservative guest providing opposing perspectives on the purported pay disparity between men and women. While it has been conclusively […]

Read the full article →

Arizona SB 1062: When People Willfully Suppress Truth for Lies

March 2, 2014

Again, the LGBT community preferred to make truth a casualty as they lobbied hard to kill a simple update to already existing Arizona law. And they were joined by prominent Republicans, the NFL, and even Governor Jan Brewer who vetoed the bill on Friday purely out of political pressure and a lack of conviction. The […]

Read the full article →

What Gays Need is More Love, Not More Attention

January 27, 2014

Over the past year, a number of television personalities and athletes have “come out” as being gay, to the collective yawn of the American people. In what they believe to be a “courageous” move, we find that “coming out” isn’t courageous at all because these people who come out are finding they aren’t being treated […]

Read the full article →

Walter’s Healthcare Reform Plan

November 27, 2013

I can’t really say this is mine because it comes from a number of ideas floating around out there. But this is what I am advocating for as a replacement for that horrid and horrible government power grab called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). In essence, the problem that needs to be […]

Read the full article →