How to Destroy America

The title may be a bit off-putting, so allow me to be clear: I write this article only to identify the ways in which America is currently being assaulted from within with the intent to quash these practices. I in no way wish to see the end of America--instead I wish to see its restoration.

America: The Monolithic Melting Pot

It's an old analogy that America, while still a British colony, was the great melting pot of cultures, languages and people. It was this early diversity and unification that lead to our national motto E Pluribus Unum which is Latin for "Out of many, one." This diversity made America strong because all people, cultures, ethnicity, and groups of people were unified under a single flag. Indeed, such a set up was ideal for propelling this country to the status of a world superpower in less than 200 years, a feat that has never been accomplished before. Diversity and unity were two dual and essential social concepts which made America the invincible nation.

E Pluribus Plures

If the national motto of a country which could not be defeated was E Pluribus Unum, then the polar opposite of such a country (one that is fragile and weak) is almost certainly E Pluribus Plures, "Out of many, multiple." Diversity without unity is a gun pointed at one's head. Indeed, perhaps the most cliched military tactics is "divide and conquer." A single, unified army is impervious to attack, yet many smaller ones easily fall.

Dividing the Whole

So from this we can see one of the most necessary components of destroying America: division. If America is divided into many smaller groups of people who hold loyalty only to their group then it can easily fall. When people identify as "African-American," "Asian-American," "Latino-American," or any other hyphenated group, they are drawing the lines of division that are the bane of America's strength. Divided along ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, gender, class, etc. America becomes not a single nation, but hundreds of smaller nations.

Liberal Division

In America today, division is being actively pursued by liberal policy. Affirmative action breeds contempt among races, insinuating that without government intervention minorities will be discriminated against which instigates race warfare. Welfare breeds contempt for those with more money, instigating class warfare. The systematic purging of religion from the public view breeds contempt between the religious and non religious, instigating religious intolerance. In the end, the lines of division are drawn from within. 

Final Thoughts

So what may we do to avoid this division and weakening of America? The single biggest thing is to stop identifying as "XXXX-American" and simply as "American." The second is to pursue rational and civil debates on differences in a polite and controlled manner. If these two things alone were practiced by the majority of Americans, our nation would remain true to its motto.

A Question for Atheists: The Book of God's Existence

Atheists maintain that rejection of faith is superior to practicing faith. However, despite this commonly held view, one may at least force an atheist to admit he/she is capable of practicing faith. Simply ask this question:

Suppose there exists a book simply titled "The Book of God's Existence" which, using formal logic and reasoning, proves the existence of God. However, if one who does not already believe in God reads this book that person is doomed to eternal damnation. Many prominent and vocal atheists have read the book intending to prove it wrong, but in each case they immediately become depressed believing their fate in Hell is assured.

You, as an atheist, are not convinced that the book is correct. In fact, you're almost certain that it can be proven wrong since you discover it is simply a modified ontological argument and have successfully found logical fallacies in numerous other similar arguments. What do you do?

There are only 3 valid actions that an atheist may take:

1. Refuse to read the book, but continue to deny God's existence. 
2. Refuse to read the book, but accept God's existence.
3. Read the book.

Each action requires a display of faith, either in God or one's self. Here's why:

1. If they respond with "I wouldn't read the book, but I wouldn't believe in God either" they express a blind faith that the book is fallacious without examination of its contents and in direct conflict with the evidence that every atheist who has read the book believes in God--even those who were most vocal about their non belief.

2.If they respond with "I wouldn't read the book, but I would believe in God's existence" they express a blind faith that the book is correct without examination of its contents and accept the testimony of those who have read it as correct without any real proof to validate their claims. Most importantly, however, they also express a faith in God.

3. Unfortunately, this is the choice most atheists would make. If they respond to the question with "I would just read the book" they express a blind faith that their intuition of the book's fallibility  is correct without any evidence. Further, they show a faith that the testimony of all the atheists who read the book is misguided despite the fact that each person who read the book was a strong atheist before, most likely including others that had also successfully refuted other ontological arguments. However, the greatest faith they place is in their belief that they will not be damned to Hell for reading the book without assurance.

Final Thoughts

In the end, each person is "granted a measure of faith" (Romans 12:3) by God, and an atheist is no different. Despite the claims that they will not express any faith, they are quite capable of doing so in many different situations. This question is simply a thought experiment to point out that they are indeed capable of faith.

********UPDATE********

Although not clearly explained in the question, one may assume that the reason for eternal damnation after reading the book is because a proof of God's existence means a person does not exercise faith in God or Jesus Christ, but instead logic. For this reason, the person commits blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (the only unforgivable sin) for essentially having no faith in God. After all, one doesn't have to have faith the sky is blue or any other proven thing.

Further, you can assume that the number of atheist who read the book is irrelevant.  Their combined knowledge covered every facet of atheism, agnosticism and ignosticism as well as every refutation for every argument for the existence of God. Suffice it to say they, as a group, represent the summation of all of atheist thought.

Finally, one can assume that the knowledge of the nature of the argument (ie. it's ontological) alone does not damn one to Hell, and this knowledge was gained from others who had read the work previously.

Discussion on the Origin of God with @NowAtheist

Who created God? This is one of the major questions that atheist use to justify their beliefs. It was first published by Betrand Russel and is still asked today by such prominent atheists as Richard Dawkins . However, lets dissect this question and find its logical conclusion.

We may provide the first premise the conclusion of the argument is based on which is everything with a beginning has a sufficient cause. This is simple enough: its straightforward logic. If a mirror shatters then something must have caused it to do so. Things do not spontaneously appear or happen (if it did then this would be a egregious transgression of both the first and second laws of thermodynamics) and thus one can safely assume this premise.

However, less intuitively the corollary of this premise, namely everything without a beginning has no cause. It makes sense that something that is truly infinite and eternal and able to transcend all universes would have no cause: nothing to make it appear or happen. Of course, such a situation cannot happen in our universe due to the aforementioned laws of physics. Therefore, it follows that any object that has no beginning is extraneous to the universe.

Further, we may also draw the premise that there must be a first cause. There really is no way around this. If the universe has a beginning (which it does) and the premise that everything with a beginning has a sufficient cause then it follows the universe had a cause. There are currently two explanations for this: either 1. it is a by-product of complex processes that operate in a multiverse in which new universes such as our own can be created or destroyed, or 2. it is a product of God. Naturally one may be inclined to accept the first as more reasonable, however, for the same reasons as our own universe, a multiverse must also have a beginning: some temporal point in which it existed that before which it did not. Of course, you could draw more elaborate hierarchies of multiverses to encompass our own, but this would always be subject to the same flaw: that it must have a first cause.

This is why God makes most sense. If God has no beginning, then He has no cause. This means He is a perfectly suitable entity to initiate the first cause of the universe (or multiverse.) Logically, the premises that lead to this conclusion may be summarized as follows:

1. Everything with a beginning has a cause.
2. Everything without a beginning does not have a cause.
3. Because of the temporal geometry of the universe, there must be a first cause.
4. The first cause is either initiated by God or a mechanism of the multiverse.
5. The multiverse must also have a beginning such as our own universe.
6. Therefore, God is the most likely first cause.

Within the context of this logical framework the question "Who created God" is really moot. If there was an entity that created God, then that would violate the logic of first cause. Simply because God is the first cause, the intelligence that created the multiverse, and because He is extraneous to our own universe and therefore not subject to the same laws of physics as we are, it follows that God must not have a creator.

Homosexuality: Disrupting God's Soul Mates

DISCLAIMER: This post is predicated on Christian theology and is addressed to Christians.

As a Christian, one of the things that discourages me most is the large number of fellow Christians that accept, and even advocate the legalization of gay marriage. There are even some churches that refuse to marry straight couples until gay couples are allowed the same. However, a Christian that truly believes it is best to allow people to marry who they wish and that God is omniscient is severely contradicting himself and allowing himself to be "carried about with every wind of doctrine."

God's Plan

Let us begin by explaining this hypocrisy with the most rudimentary of theology. Most Christians would agree that God is omniscient--that is, He is an all-knowing God with infinite wisdom. So it follows that what God prescribes or ordains is best for us. In Genesis 1:21-25 Adam was in need of a helper; alone in the world, he had not a suitable helper to aid him in tending the Garden of Eden. For this reason, God created Eve, his helper. This was God's creation of the institution of marriage; in verse 24 it says "Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh." By extension, this means God has created every man a soul mate--a helper that the man shall cling unto and become one. This forms the first basic theological  point: that God has created every person a soul mate that is best for that person.

What if this soul mate happens to be of the same sex? Many Christians who advocate gay marriage no doubt fall into this same trap of ignoring that God does not make one's soul mate the same sex. Many times in the Bible (Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:24-27, Jude 1:7, etc.) homosexuality is shown as an abomination unto God with severe consequences. Some dismiss the most explicit passage in Leviticus simply because it is in the Old Testament, however this is a moral law, not a ceremonial or cultural, which means it is still as binding today as the 10 commandments (future article to come soon.) Everywhere the practice in mentioned in God's Word it is shown as a sin. This forms the second basic theological point: that homosexuality is a sin.

Destroying Soul Mates

Given that the two points made in the last section are accepted by Christians (which is easy enough since the Bible explicitly points out both numerous times) it is easy to see why homosexuality hurts people: because it stops a person from marrying the soul mate that God designed specifically for them. Think about it, every person has someone who God made for them which, according to His plan, is the best person for them to marry--their soul mate. A person's soul mate will help, guide, and strengthen them throughout life as well as love and care for them with a deep love. However, to support homosexual marriage is to either deny that this is true (which I have shown earlier it is true) or to support someone marrying a person that isn't their soul mate and therefore isn't best for them.

Final Thoughts

As I consider Christians who support same-sex relations, I suppose they do so in an effort to help others live the best life they can and be truly loved. In short, it is compassion that moves them. However, this sentiment is expressed in contradiction to God's Word. If a Christian were truly compassionate upon a homosexual, they would teach them the Word of God, show them that God has designed a special soul mate for them and help them enter into a biblical and godly marriage. By supporting traditional marriage, a Christian supports the idea that the soul mate which God has created for a person is the best spouse for him/her. If you know a Christian that supports gay marriage, please share this article with them and help guide them on a path of biblical truth in love. Also, to those who say homosexuality is permanent, I would encourage you to watch the following testimony. 

What is Open Mindedness?

Open mindedness seems to be the all-important virtue for our society today: those who have mastered it are treated as intellectual geniuses who have evolved beyond themselves to embrace the world, and those who do not are treated as imbeciles unable to participate in any form of intelligent discussion. However, even with our obsession over this virtue, many people are unable to grasp what it means or practice it--including those who hail it as the chief political virtue.

Open Mindedness Predicated on Humility

In order to be open minded you must be willing to change your currently held ideas and beliefs if sufficient evidence has convinced you the opposite to be true. This should be a rather common sense practice: once you're proven wrong you change your opinion to coincide with the truth. However, to do this, one must accept that they are in error, something which only the humble can easily do. It is for this reason that open mindedness, and the ability to earnestly seek the truth is predicated on humility, yet this same humility is lacking in most of society today--especially those who boast that they are experts or more intelligent.

A Conservatives Best Debate Tool

Open mindedness is a great tool to use in debates with liberals. It usually tends to be a liberals that pride themselves on open mindedness and tolerance, yet when they are faced with opposing political opinions they quickly deny their legitimacy with any number of insults (eg racist, homophobe, Bible-thumper, etc.) However, this can be used to a conservative's advantage with a simple question:

Do you consider yourself open minded?

The most likely answer is "yes" to which one should reply "Open minded enough to consider my thoughts? Good. Then ...." and proceed with the argument. This is not only useful only for presenting the argument in a fair manner, but also instrumental in concessions. Because the majority of conservative ideologies (if not all) are based on simple truths, and logical premises and conclusions, open mindedness can be used to gain a concession. After the arguments have been presented and you've justified your position with statistics, logic, and science, the other person will either agree that you are correct and leave knowing the truth, or they will insist that their fallacious ideas are correct. To which you may simply reply:

You told me you were open minded. I've shown you how (my argument) is correct with reasonable, logical conclusions drawn from reasonable premises. If you really are open minded why won't you concede that your argument doesn't hold up under inspection?

This is of course only a rough template, but the idea is the same. Expose their hypocrisy in hailing a virtue they do not possess. Even if they never do concede, those who watch your debate or listen in will understand that yours is the more level headed and logical argument.

Final Thoughts

Open mindedness, at least for some people, is a virtue they praise but do not truly understand or hold. When you use it as a tool to expose the truth, nobody who holds truthful ideas or positions will ever fear it. It is only those whose pride and hubris does not allow them to be wrong that cannot accept this virtue and these people will always drift through life always believing lies and fallacious arguments.