Apabila ini benar, aku senang sekali, karena penyakiti itu kakekku sudah punya..!

“I always had this perverted sense of pride because I was managing to scrape by here,” said Brooklyn resident Andrew McQuade, who, after watching two subway rats gnawing on a third bloody rat carcass, finally determined that New York City was a giant sprawling cancer.

Other incidents that prompted citizens to pick up and leave included the sight of garbage bags stacked 5 feet high on the sidewalk; the realization that being alone among millions of anonymous people is actually quite horrifying; a blaring siren that droned on and fucking on; muddy, refuse-filled puddles that have inexplicably not dried in three years; the thought of growing into a person whose meanness and cynicism is cloaked in a kind of holier-than-thou brand of sarcasm that the rest of the world finds nauseating; and all the goddamn people.

In addition, 3 million New Yorkers reportedly left the city because they realized the phrase “Only in New York” is actually just a defense mechanism used to convince themselves that seeing a naked man take a shit on a park bench is somehow endearing, or part of some shared cultural experience.

Before departing by private helicopter, Mayor Michael Bloomberg spoke with members of the media to address the situation.

“…This place is fucking insane. And by the way, that’s not a reason to like it. Anyone who says that is a delusional dirtbag.”

via 8.4 Million New Yorkers Suddenly Realize New York City A Horrible Place To Live | The Onion – America’s Finest News Source.

Let me first remark that pitting science against religion is a dangerous and folly thing to do.  Some of the most world-changing scientists were devout Christians, Muslims, and nativists; they conducted research on the heavens and Earth using the scientific method, and looked upon replicability as powerful because of its predictive value.  They never assumed to have thwarted the concept of God; indeed, they questioned his existence, and in the miracles of life and predictability of our world, their faith was strengthened.  And while some radicalized Christians (or religious people) may wish to depose the theories of evolution and the big bang, one would be hard-pressed to find Christians (or religious people) who might argue the validity of other empirical theories such as gravity and thermodynamics.  All children should be taught the scientific method; it has served to reduce poverty, create infrastructure and opportunity, and better the quality of life of the vast majority of the people on this planet.

Now, when Mr. Slick discusses logical fallability and the existence of God, it must first be noted that he is doing so through the frame of philosophy, of which both logic and ethics are both branches; I remember taking “Philosophy 51: Logic” at the University of Missouri in 2002, and learning many of the logical precepts that he cites in his article.  Having read his article, I feel no need to disagree with his reasoning – but I would encourage all readers to look at his conclusion, and then acknowledge his editorialization of its meaning.  Slick’s *logical conclusion* (and I quote) is as follows:

I conclude that there is an absolute and transcendent mind that, for a lack of a better term, has authored the logical absolutes. I call this absolute and transcendent mind, God.

The first sentence has been derived from logical constructs.  The second is a simple, unfounded opinion, an expression of the first law of logic: the law of identity.  What Slick calls God, Muslims call Allah, Hindus call Brahma, and scientists refuse to ascribe a name to because, and here I am again quoting Slick:

“[The law of identity] states that something is what it is and is not what it is not. For example, an egg is an egg and not a flashlight.”

I’m just going to take a shot in the dark and say that I doubt Mr. Slick would concede that God, Allah and Brahma are one and the same – and if he is not willing to do so, his premise and its logical underpinnings fall apart completely.  Thus, the question I pose to those who agree with Mr. Slick is: Do you believe in Allah?  If an egg is an egg, and not a flashlight, then either Allah and God are both names of eggs, or your entire viewpoint of the world can only account for about 25% of it.  The replicability of your worldview is basically unfounded.

But turning the coin, I would then pose to Mr. Kagin’s followers: we cannot prove the existence of gravity, and yet most of us accept its existence.  Nor can we prove the existence of God, yet the vast majority of the world’s people believe in some concept or another of that entity.  The question I pose is: why try to use logic and science to denounce God?  You sit on the shoulder of giants, and as I mentioned earlier, most of those giants were men of cloth.  It seems to me that a more solid logical argument would be to denounce the mythology surrounding God, and to argue simply that the Christian concept of God, the Muslim concept of Allah, the Hindu concept of Brahma, and the scientific concept of truth are all, at their base, one and the same.

It is my belief that science can tell us how, and that religion can never be in contrast with measurable reality.  It is also my belief that religion allows us to ask why, and that it serves a purpose for believers and non-believers alike.

This is a “debate” that Jason’s cousin Rena sent me.  Attached is the original “article” and my response.

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Cory <cory.wellen@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: Good debate!
To: Christine Gould <chris_gould@att.net>

Well, first off, this is not a debate.  This is one person’s point of view.  I love how Mr. Slick is quick to offer his prepared speech in lieu of an actual argument, and then pass it off as such.  I also enjoy how the only mention of his counterpart’s rebuttal is “The best he did was say that logic evolved, that it comes from people”, and then quickly dismiss that as well.

Venturing past all of the glaring issues of a one-sided article presented on a bias website, I’d like to just ask a couple of questions:

1)  Who taught you to tie your shoes?
2)  What grade did you first learn to read?
3)  When were you first capable of solving high school algebra equations?

If the first answer is a person, and the answers to the last two of these questions aren’t “the moment I was born”, then I ask how you can know of the existence of God before such a time as someone told or taught you.  I ask how you could know of any religion before you are told.  I say that I ask, but it’s actually a rhetorical question, as I already know the answer:  Religion, like knowledge, is taught.

Religion is quick to present an answer for any question a human poses.  Slick’s article below is documented proof of such a thing.  When presented with the question “Does God exist”, Slick swiftly answers with a resounding “yes”, while offering no physical evidence.  This is the difference between science and religion:  if science doesn’t know the answer it’s admitted and documented, where religion will simply fill the void for the sake of comfort.  Even if that empty space is filled with a false explanation.

People are afraid of that which they don’t understand, which is why religion created stories to explain it.  I’ll never receive an honest answer from a religious zealot when I ask “Would you believe in God had no one ever told you about him?”.  This is because they are afraid to admit that maybe they wouldn’t even know what God is had they not first been told.

Matthew Slick is a coward for not presenting his opponents argument.

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Christine Gould <chris_gould@att.net> wrote:
I thought you might find this interesting!

On April 17, 2008, I debated Edwin Kagin on “Does God exist?”.  The debate was held on the Campus of West Florida University in Pensacola, Florida.  Following is the text I read as my 15 minute opening statement.  I had to shorten the original by 2 pages so I could read it in 15 minutes.  I made it, with 10 seconds to spare!  I read it word for word with just a couple of slight changes here and there since the flow of speaking was slightly different than the written word in a few places.

How did it go?  Well, I’m biased, but I don’t believe Kagin was able to answer my argument.  The best he did was say that logic evolved, that it comes from people.  That response is refuted in my opening statement below.  But you should see the video when it comes out so you can judge for yourself.

By the way, Mr. Kagin said he’d be glad to debate me on ethics.  Sounds good to me.

———- text of the opening statement from Matt Slick ———

First of all, I want to thank all of you for coming here tonight. I hope you enjoy the debate and that your minds and hearts will be challenged.

Since my time is limited and I have a lot to cover, let me just jump right in.

In order for this debate to occur, Mr. Kagin and I had to have prior agreements on a topic, a location, duration, format, and so forth. But we have also agreed, though not formally, that this debate should be logical. In fact, without logic, we don’t have a debate.

Now, I have a question for you Mr. Kagin. How do you, as an atheist, account for the existence of logic? Remember, the question is directed to you as an atheist. How do you, account for the existence of logic?

The question is important and it directly relates to God’s existence. Asking that a person give an account for something based on his worldview is not a kindergarten exercise. It is not a word game. It is an important philosophical question worth answering, especially given the fact that we live in a finite and physical universe yet use logic which is transcendent and conceptual.

So, I hope to show that the atheist perspective cannot rationally account for logic, but the Christian one can because it acknowledges God’s existence.

But, in order for me to show this, I need to do two things:

First, I need to offer a definition of God. God is that Supreme Being who exists independent of the universe, who does not change, is absolute, transcends space and time, who is self aware, who is all-knowing, ever present, and can accomplish whatever he desires to accomplish. In short, I am proposing the Christian God.

The Second thing I want to address a simple logical principle. If there are only two possibilities to explain something and one of the possibilities is incapable of explaining it, then by default the other is validated. Let me illustrate.

Let’s say that there is a man named Frank who has a small room in his house in which he keeps valuables. This room is encased in thick metal, has no windows, no vents, and only one light with one table inside. The door has a very strong lock which can only be opened by a keypad that requires a sequence of numbers that only Frank knows. There is an alarm, a heat detector, and a motion detector. Now Frank has just acquired a bag full of rare coins. He puts them inside the room on the table, exits, and immediately locks the door behind him.

Frank then goes directly to his car, drives to a meeting, and returns 3 hours later to inventory his currency. But to his surprise, after he disables the alarms, unlocks the door, and enters the room, he finds the coins are not in the bag where he left them. Instead, they are neatly stacked on the table. Upon further examination he discovers that the stacks of coins are in separate piles in sequences of prime numbers from 2 through 31. Frank wants to know how this happened. He calls the police.

When they arrive they find no physical evidence that anyone else besides Frank had been in the room. For all they know, he arranged the coins. There aren’t any fingerprints, shoe prints, or traces of DNA other than Frank’s.

But Frank knows he did not arrange the coins and the coins didn’t arrange themselves. Frank is bewildered and refuses to believe that someone got into the room. His criteria for proof necessitate that there be some finger-prints, shoe prints, pry marks, or the alarms having gone off. But none of these evidences are there. So, he refuses to believe the obvious because his criteria for proof doesn’t include the possibility that someone intelligent arranged the coins logically without also being detected in the manner that he chooses.

Now, we can see that the proof is there. Obviously, someone arranged the coins. But Frank is not persuaded. Why? Because proof is different than persuasion.

Okay, so let me reduce this illustration to a simple proposition: Either an intelligence or non intelligence arranged the coins. There aren’t any other options.

In like manner, in this debate we have only two options: there either is a God or there is not. Since there are only these two options we can take a look at them and ask a question: Which position, the theistic or atheistic, can account for the existence of logic? One of them has to be able to, otherwise we have no rational reason for the existence of logic at all.

Now, Mr. Kagin might just say that he doesn’t know how to account for logic. I have no problem with him pleading ignorance should he so choose; after all, Christians sometimes do the same thing. Or on the other hand, he might say he doesn’t need to give account for the existence of logic and he might offer various reasons why he doesn’t need to. In either case, whether it is ignorance or ignoring, I’ll continue through with this debate using my argument and enjoy Mr. Kagin’s neglect in responding to it. But, I do expect a logical response from Mr. Kagin and I hope it is forthcoming.

So, in anticipation of possible responses from my atheist opponent, I want to enlist the help of previous atheists who’ve tried to give me an account for the existence of logic. I will list their arguments and attempt to show why they are invalid. But, I won’t stop there. After I have shown that their arguments are invalid, I’ll try to show that the Christian perspective can account for logic and thereby demonstrate that God exists.

So, what is logic? Logic is the process of proper thinking based upon principles that govern the validity of arguments. Logic is used in proofs, refutations, explanations, and even in debates.

Logic has laws. I’ll list three of them.

The first law of logic is the law of identity. It states that something is what it is and is not what it is not. For example, an egg is an egg and not a flashlight.

The second law of logic is the law of non-contradiction. This means that something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same way. In other words, two contradictory statements cannot both be true.

The third law of logic is the Law of Excluded Middle which says that a statement is either true or false. “We are here” is a true statement. “The planet Mars is in my pocket” is not a true statement.

Now, these laws, and others, are logical absolutes and they form the basis of rational discourse.

So, let me reiterate my argument in brief before I tackle the atheists’ attempts to account for logic.

I propose that logical absolutes are conceptual realities that do not depend upon human minds or the physical universe for their existence. Since they are conceptual, absolute, and transcend space and time, there must be an absolute and transcendent mind from which these logical absolutes are derived. I conclude that absolute and transcendent mind is God. That is my explanation. But before I try and support it, let’s take a look at the various explanations offered by atheists and see why they are insufficient to account for logic.

If I miss any, I hope that Mr. Kagin can articulate them for me.

The First explanation I want to look at is that logic is the product of a single human person who thought it up and other people agreed that it was true.

The problem here is that if you assume that one person thought it up, then what happens when another person says it is false? If logic’s existence and truth is based upon an individual thinking it is true, then another person can say it is false and it would be false. But this is illogical since something is not false because someone says it is false.

The second explanation I’ve heard is that logical absolutes are conventions. In other words, they are principles that we humans agree are valid. But agreeing that they are valid doesn’t account for them. This would also mean that logical absolutes are then subject to “vote” and popular agreement. But this would mean that something is true because a lot of people believe it is true. What would happen if the majority of people started saying that truth is not absolute, or that mutually contradictory statements are valid, would it mean then that these things would then be so? Of course not. So that argument doesn’t work.

The third explanation I’ve heard is that logic and logical absolutes are the result of chemical processes in the brain. The problem here is that if someone’s brain chemistry is altered, then logic is altered. But that can’t work. Besides, people’s brains are different and often contradict each other. So people’s brains can’t be the source of logical absolutes, in spite of their particular brain chemistry.

The fourth explanation is to say that logic is a function of language. If that is so, then is logic in Spanish better than logic in English? Or is Russian logic superior to French logic? If they differ due to language constructs and patterns, then is there a Spanish logic, an English logic, and a French logic? That would make no sense. Seeing this difficulty, atheists sometimes say that language constructs are consistent across different languages, in spite of the stylistic diversity, and that they reveal logic. But that is exactly it. They “reveal” the logic that is alreadythere; linguistic constructs don’t invent logic or form it. Linguistic constructs describe logical processes. They don’t account for their existence.

The fifth explanation is that logic is a property of the universe, like the natural physical laws of motion and gravity. The problem here is that it equates logic with things like weight, mass, heat, and cold, all of which can be measured and their effects observed. But how do you measure and observe the effects of the law of non-contradiction or the law of excluded middle? If you could develop an experiment to test for logic like you would motion or gravity, you’d have to use logic beforehand to develop the test and this would assuming the validity of the very logic you’re trying to test. So this explanation fails.

The sixth explanation is similar to the previous one. It says that Logical absolutes would cease to apply to anything if the physical universe stopped existing because logical absolutes could no longer be called true or false. But this doesn’t work either. You see, it is logically true that something cannot bring itself into existence. If the universe did not exist, it would still be true that something could not bring itself into existence. The truth would still be true whether or not it was known and whether or not the universe existed.

Also, if Logical Absolutes being true or false depends on the existence of the physical universe, then they would stop having existence and meaning in the same way that gravity and motion would stop existing and have meaning. But this would mean that logic is a property of the physical universe in the same way that gravity and motion are properties of the universe. But, gravity and motion can be measured and tested. Not so with logic. In fact, no test can be developed to measure, weigh, or photograph logic. This would mean that logic is not a property of the physical universe as are gravity and motion. Therefore, it cannot be said that it would cease to be true if the universe ceased to exist.

The seventh explanation is that trying to use the existence of logic to demonstrate God’s existence is nothing more than a word game.Alright, if this argument is a word game, then it should be easy to point out where it is wrong. So, when I ask atheists to do that, they don’t demonstrate how it is a word game, whatever that means, and they have yet to demonstrate to me how the argument is false. So, I can’t accept it as a refutation.

The eighth and final explanation I’ve heard offered by atheists is that asking them to account for the existence of logic is asking the wrong question.

Okay, then why is it the wrong question? Give a logical reason why it is not right to ask an atheist to give account for the existence of logic and logical absolutes. Just saying it is wrong doesn’t make it so. I would not expect an atheist to accept me saying, “Asking me to prove that God exists is the wrong question.” He or she would be right in asking me why it is the wrong question.

As I said before, if there are other explanations that I have not listed here, perhaps Mr. Kagin could offer them and then we could cross-examine them later.

But before my time is up, I would like to try and show that the existence of logic and logical absolutes shows there is a God. Also, please notice that I am not first assumingthat God exists. I am first approaching the issue of logic and then concluding that God exists. I’ll try to do that with three points.

First, the laws of logic are conceptual by nature. They occur in the mind. The Laws of logic are concepts. They cannot be frozen, weighed, measured, or photographed anymore than love and humility can be frozen, weighed, measured, or photographed. The Laws of logic are not found under rocks or in test tubes. They occur in the mind. They are conceptual. You can think of them. You can write laws of logic down on paper. You can talk about them and listen to them being discussed in a debate, but you cannot observe the laws of logic occurring in matter. This is because they are conceptual by nature.

Second, the laws of logic are absolute. This means that they don’t stop being true if we disagree with them. It means their absoluteness is not dependent upon our wants, our brain chemistry, popular vote, how big the universe is, or how cold or hot something is. They are absolute. They don’t change. Otherwise, logic would not be dependable and consistent with itself and with reality and we would have no way of being rational and judging the arguments in this debate.

Third, the laws of logic are transcendent. Logic transcends space and time. This means that if you were to go in any particular direction and reach the end of the physical universe, logical absolutes don’t stop being true because of where you are located. If you were to travel back to the beginning of the universe or move a trillion years into the future, they don’t stop being true because ofwhen you are. At least no one has yet demonstrated that they stop being true.

Now, another question. Is it logical to conclude that if there’s a concept, there must also be a mind? This seems reasonable.

Concepts reside in the mind and thoughts reflect the mind. Since we have absolute and transcendent logical truths which are conceptual by nature, I conclude that there is an absolute and transcendent mind that, for a lack of a better term, has authored the logical absolutes. I call this absolute and transcendent mind, God.

Now, you may or may not agree with my conclusion. Perhaps you are like Frank and refuse to accept that someone else got into the room and arranged the coins in a logical fashion. Perhaps your worldview does not allow this argument to be true anymore than Frank’s presuppositions allowed him to believe someone got into his room and arranged the coins. But, as I said before: proof is different than persuasion.

Now, I again turn my attention to you Mr. Kagin. You may or may not like my conclusion. But whether or not you do, and no disrespect meant, your liking or disliking it has no bearing on it being true or false. If my argument is not valid, please demonstrate to me how it is not valid. Please give me a logical explanation, stemming from your atheistic perspective that accounts for the existence of logical absolutes. Of course, in order to do this you would need to use logic. I would even say that to do so you have to borrow from the Christian worldview to try and make your case in order to argue against the Christian worldview.

So, how do you account for the existence of logic and logical absolutes from your atheistic worldview? I don’t believe you can and I conclude it is because your atheistic worldview does not comport with reality — but the Christian worldview does.

Thank you.

I don’t really squat, even in Indo.  I am always on the lookout for squatters, so I can keep my distance.  But after reading this article, maybe my opinion should change…

-The only thing from the white man list that resonated with me with Queens of the Stone Age, which I turned on immediately after reading the list (I’d tried to listen to it the other day, actually, but had forgotten the bands name.)  The paragraph subsequent to the infographic listed this as the sole “vaguely feminine” entry in the list.

Maybe I am a white female, because I do enjoy the following entries from that list:

-bonfires
-boating
-historical fiction
-Eat Pray Love (the book, but maybe because I’ve been to India and Indonesia and love good writing – the plot didn’t appeal to me, so I doubt the movie will please)

But actually, it’s perhaps more rational to come to the conclusion that I am a black man, because from that list, I like the following entries:

-Mos Def
-The Roots
-Kanye West
-Boondocks
-Ladies
-Jay-Z
-Outkast
-Talib Kweli
-2Pac

I can, at least, safely say I am not a black woman, as the only resonating entries there were:

-Coming to America
-Hip Hop (and probably only because of my black man-ness)

And while hip-hop would also make me a Latino man, the only other things from that list that I identify with are Full Metal Jacket and Mars Volta – although I identify with both of these strongly.  I am in no way an Asian female.

Malcolm Gladwell is as close as I get to being an Asian man.  This detail, interestingly enough, also makes me an Asian woman, and since I also like Slumdog Millionaire, I am actually more Asian woman than I am Asian man.  Which was also the case, if you’ll recall, with my whiteness.  Interesting…

My Indian man-ness is pretty strong – I like India (but probably not as much as them), Indian food, “veg,” Gandhi, slumdog millionaire, red hot chili peppers, the namesake, and r.e.m.  Almost all of the details that made me an Indian man also make me an Indian woman, interestingly enough.

A love of Richard Dawkins and the Sopranos is all the Arab man I can muster up.  And Eat Pray Love and Persepolis make me an Arab woman.

Now since I live in Indonesia and am actually typing this from there, I was very interested to discover how Pacific Islander I am.  These details tie me to the word cloud-produced image of a male Pacific Islander:

-2Pac
-Science
-Dr. Dre
-The Roots

Trader Joe’s is the only thing that makes me an Pacific Islander woman.  Good thing they have that floral print on everything..!

What do I draw from this?  That the user base of OKCupid may not have the most representative sample of any ethnic groups – not even white.  Nonetheless, it is compelling, and worth some time to analyze!

Maybe this is why?  But its not just for big things.  It won’t even power a jump drive now.  I think when I plugged in that flash modem that temporarily killed my computer, it may have pummeled my logic board a bit. =/

Wireless Service providers are petty thieves.  This article makes that abundantly clear.

Congrats to Citra, who was Indonesia’s Fulbrighter of the month!  Her involvement in Indonesian Journalism, her against-all-odds life story, and her internationalism, among other things, are quite impressive!

Wow, I definitely saw Kobayashi being carried around by people during the contest…but he got arrested afterward?  I take his side – he shouldn’t have to sign a contract for the American eating league – first, because that’s a joke, right, and second, because HE IS A SIX-TIME CHAMPION OF THE EVENT!

Let him eat!  Let him eat!

A novel approach to protecting oneself against rapists.  He does have to insert for this device to be deployed.  See the pictures…