Life / Religion / Philosophy / Science / Polictics

Category: Politics

Discussions about POLITICS and GOVERNMENT. POLITICS and GOVERNMENT at all levels – Federal / State / County / City / and Local. This category is about all things that interest me in POLITICS and GOVERNMENT.

  • Man Made Climate Change

    Man made Global Warming has taken us by storm (pun intended).  The media is literally inundated with it.  Take these particular headlines in the last few weeks for example:

    Climate Change Deemed Growing Security Threat by Military Researchers – The New York Times : May 13th 2014

    U.S. Military Plans Policy Shift in Response to Anticipated National Security Threats Caused by Climate Change – US News & World Report : May 16th 2014

    Military Bases Brace for Slow-Motion War With Climate Change – NBC News : June 8th 2014

    U.S. Military Prepares for Global Unrest Amid Climate Fears – Live Science : June 12th 2014

    Terry McAuliffe Says Global Warming Will Submerge Norfolk Naval Base – No More Cocktails : April 11th 2014

    I could literally fill this post with links from recent articles in the past weeks on Climate Change/Global Warming.  I believe it would be fair to say that it is a currently hot topic (pun intended) given the amount of publishing space devoted to it.

    Given the Science of Climate Change, we (the population of the world) have every reason to be dubious.  To begin with the climate models have been decidedly proven to be educated guesses at best.  And with good reason.  It is an amazingly complex problem.  Consider the lengths that the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) went through in order to verify weather for a Space Shuttle launch.  And when you understand the granularity of the models (4 km grids in large scale and 1.33 km grids in small scale), you begin to understand the incredible complexity of data collection and processing.  Secondly, because of the complex nature of the problem, we really don’t have a sensor grid that allows for large earth predictive modeling.  The model is data starved, across all boundaries (hence the fudge factor in the computer code).  Third, it takes a considerable amount of processing power to run those models.  Consider the Earth Simulator, built by Japan at a cost of 7.2 billion Yen ( ~$7 million US dollars) and operational in March of 2002 (now 12 years old).  With weather processing power purported by these types of machines, you would think we would have up to the minute weather forecasting at every square mile of earth someone was standing on, but that is still not the case, and the weather forecasting we do have, for the areas we have them for, is still flawed to some degree.  And lastly, the incredible assumptions that are made within the models themselves are difficult to find any credibility with.  In just the current set of articles, the experts predict sea levels will rise somewhere between 1.5 and 7.5 feet over the next 100 years.  That is quite a spread.  Furthermore it is an incredibly long incubation period.

    The bottom line is we don’t know.  We just can’t say what the weather/climate/or climatic conditions are going to be in 50 years let alone 100 years.  Furthermore we have no idea how the model is going to change over that period of time or what factors will come into play that will have an affect upon it.  Experts have been predicting different sets of outcomes for years now.  And each time the actual conditions do not match up to their predictions, they simply change the model to match the conditions and proceed forward.  Well I could do that, and I’m not even the expert.

    We then have this claim that all of this Climate Change we are observing is Man Made.  And the question then becomes can human activity on the face of the Earth cause the weather to change?

    A Theistic answer might be Yes and No.  Yes, in the sense that it is in direct response to man’s condition that weather changes upon the Earth have been effected.  And No, in the sense that it is not mankind who controls the weather, but rather God.

    A Theist would accept the premise that God created a perfect system to begin with.  Every facet of weather on this Earth was in perfect balance and naturally worked together to the good of the entire system.  This would mean that the temperature was perfect at every point on the Earth, that moisture content was perfect, that oxygen content was perfect, that harmful radiation from the Sun was blocked, that wind, heat, cold, and other factors were all perfectly balanced within the system.  And that this system then supported the exact perfect environment for plant, animal, and human growth on the planet.  And that all of these would naturally thrive in such a system.

    A Christian however, then accepts the premise that mankind’s Sin then altered the system.  Or more precisely, that because of man’s Sin, and the subsequent steps taken by the Creator in response to that Sin, allowed the original (and perfect) system to break down and to enter into a state of entropy.  And that is what we see the result of in the world today.

    God caused the flood of Noah’s time in response to Sin upon the face of the Earth.  So it was not man per se that caused a climatic climate change, but rather God’s actions in response to man’s Sin.  And this breakdown has then led to the natural phenomenon we view around us today.  Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Monsoons, Typhoons, Lightening storms, dust storms, desert heat, and artic colds.  Even the Ice Age itself.  All are results of the breakdown of the original system, that was first allowed, and set in motion by God.

    Man Made Global Warming?  I accept the premise only as far as man’s Sin is a direct result of all the effects of conditions we observe in the world today.  But to consider that it is mankind, and not God, that controls or affects the weather on the planet is a fallacy.

    I will agree with our Climate Scientists on one small point however.  Revelation 11:6 predicts that one day, for a period of time, it will not rain, and water will turn to blood.  One may assume from this that fish will die, thirst will abound, and food plants will be sparse.  And I’m positive that the Global Warming crowd will stand up and proclaim “We TOLD you so!”

    Problem is, it was already written to be so over 2 thousand years ago.  You cannot outwit, second guess, or alter God in anything you do.

     

     

  • May We Have A Rational Discussion?

    Apparently not when it comes to atheists who are adamant about stamping out all religion in society and within the daily lives of ordinary citizens of the United States of America.

    I’ll explain in a minute.  First let me say this was not the topic on my mind this evening.  For the last day or so I have been gathering my thoughts on Seattle, Washington’s new minimum wage.  I had planned on writing a political discourse on the pros, cons, and ethics of the whole minimum wage concept.  The minimum wage is an item that impacts us all (at least economically).  It may not be an item of interest to a wide audience, but it is something that most have feelings one way or the other on and I thought it would be an interesting side-bar to tackle.

    However, as I sat down this evening to add this entry to my BLOG, this article caught my eye and I was completely astounded.  The article, for those unwilling to follow the link, is about a Missouri High School principle, Kevin Lowery, who used several off references to “God” at the commencement proceedings of the graduating class.  His remarks may be found in this YouTube video.

    My first thought was “This is news?  Why?”  And as my curiosity peaked I read the article in amazement.  NOT at Principle Lowery’s remarks, or the reaction of the students, nor even the report that the YouTube video has garnered over 84,000 views in about 5 days (I’m not sure what constitutes going viral these days, but it is considerably more views than the few hundred hits I get from the stats on this BLOG).  No, the thing that captured my attention is the anti-religious organizations that crawled out of the woodwork to soundly denounce the commencement address.  For me this is the height of irrational behavior within the story.

    The first group cited within the FOX News Story is the American Atheists (which, ironically enough, is a 501(c)(3) – the majority of which are religious organizations)whose spokesman Dave Muscato was quick to condemn the speech by citing that it “… violated the spirit of the First Amendment separations of religion and government.”  In other words it offended his perceived rights.  It is interesting to me that the front page of the American Atheists site has a headline that reads: “STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS”.  What rights?  There is no meaning, no value, no outcome in the atheist world view, so what does it matter?

    But as I have previously argued, rights must come from somewhere and I’d seriously like to know where Mr. Muscato derives his from.  I know where my inalienable rights come from.  God.  As did the framers of the U.S. Constitution.  Mr. Muscato, as a stated dis-believer in a supreme being (or beings) clearly has nowhere upon which to draw his foundation of rights.  Given his world view, any rights he possesses, whether real or perceived, must clearly come from within the system and are thus subject to the rules of the system.  Which would clearly follow that they are then subjective and subject to change.  I could then argue that the perceived right that Mr. Muscato is clinging to was framed by what were clearly religious individuals and is therefore tainted.  I speculate that Mr. Muscato might argue that the framers of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution were actually trying to stamp out religion in the country by putting that amendment in.  But if he were to argue this (or anyone else for that matter), I would have to go back to Dr. Richard Carrier’s question of “Are Christians Delusional?” and ask “Who is delusional now?”  Because most historians today would not argue along those lines.  And presented with clear and rational lines of reasoning to the contrary, one would need a convincing argument to bolster their case.  Without such would be to act irrationally.  No, Mr. Muscato is using a framework to defend his position that was put forth by individuals that meet his definition of flawed.  I would then ask “Why is not the amendment then flawed?”  Or why wouldn’t the rights he believes he has be subject to interpretation or change?

    The second group that was cited with a comment is The Freedom From Religion Foundation who also stated that the commencement speech was a “serious constitutional violation” in a letter to Lebanon School District Superintendent Duane Widhalm.  Here we find a similar argument in that once again an atheist group is worried about their perceived right to not have God mentioned at a commencement address at a public school.

    The two questions I’d like to ask about this particular event are: (1) Why are these groups even in existence?  Atheistic individuals and groups should be the epitome of the don’t care attitude.  After all, it doesn’t really matter anyway.  I realize they argue that they are trying to set others free, the Freedom From Religion Foundation even promotes a quote from Miguel Moore, Cleveland Artist… Humanist Chaplain that states as much: “Freedom comes from within, not without.”  But I still ask “To what end?”  What is the purpose behind it all?  In the grand scheme of things it means absolutely nothing.  So why be so adamant about a fight, that at the end of the day, doesn’t really matter who wins or who loses?  You can argue that you are trying to better peoples lives, progress society or humanity, or any number of other worthy causes (some of which religion would argue as well) and it still doesn’t really mean anything because there is no purpose behind the universe.  It is simply a cosmic accident given their world view.

    And the second question I must ask is: (2) Who is the irrational party here?  I mean really?  Those who have a reason to promote an argument because they have a grounded belief that there is something more to what we see and experience and know of the physical universe and who believe that our existence will continue on sustained by a God.  Or those whose very world view precludes any real meaning or outcome and whose propensity to argue the inane would be explained in their paradigm as the results of minute and complex chemical and physical reactions set into motion eons ago and are being played out by a set of physical laws of which we have no control over and can do nothing about.

    Isn’t it interesting that the Atheistic Organizations want to argue vehemently against the voice of Theistic individuals amongst us and yet few Theistic Organizations want to argue that the Atheist individuals need to remain silent in any venue in society.  Public, private, or otherwise?

    Who is the TRUE defender of free speech here?

  • Life Changes

    Have you ever felt like you are at the gambling table of life when you suddenly get dealt the worst possible hand imaginable?  No matter how well you plan, or what kind of in-roads you think you may be making, you wake up one morning and suddenly find yourself facing seemingly dire circumstances.

    It probably happens to most of us in some way, shape, or form.  For some of us it may seem more ominous and more devastating than it does for others.  At times you may even feel trapped and unable to see a way out.  You may wonder why your world is crashing down around you.  Or you may shrink in fear of the unknown or lose hope in all you know or those you love.

    It is at times like these that your world view can make all the difference.  It is also at times like these that an understanding of Faith can help you in your wisdom and understanding of the world around you.

    A friend of mine once wrote:

    “If my logic thus far hasn’t persuaded you, let me try out a moral argument that will attempt to discredit miracles as proof of God’s existence.  By claiming to have experienced a miracle, such as a miraculously healed broken bone, or a complete remission of cancer, people are placing themselves into a precarious moral position.  I would suggest that it is folly to imply that God has intervened to mend a broken body when He doesn’t provide the same service for all broken bodies, or for that matter, to intervene and prevent the break in the first place (you knew I’d have to bring the omnipotence issue again).  Furthermore, to take this position to its most disgusting extreme, it is absolutely the height of arrogance to assume that God has intervened in the above circumstances when child abusers go unpunished every day.”

    (The Word of God – A Logical and Moral Dilemma  pg. 161)

    Yet my friend once told me that he had a lot of faith (little “f”) but not much Faith (big “f”).  Meaning his faith was in human kind (people) but not in God.

    The argument is that if God were consistent (which, by-the-way, He is) there would be no (so-called) inconsistency with those that experience miracles and those that do not.

    The failure in this line of reasoning is that it assumes that God somehow made a mistake along the way and that he suddenly needs to intervene in his creation to “set things back on their proper course“.

    And yet it was the Founding Father’s of America themselves that determined:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    Yet many of life’s circumstances are thrust upon us by the actions of others in our lives.  Here we are, trying to “pursue happiness” when we find our path blocked by those around us who are pursuing their own happiness.

    When we find ourselves in these situations it can sometimes be extremely frustrating and we lose faith in humanity around us.  It is easy to have faith when things are going our way and the stars seem aligned along our path.  But it is difficult to have Faith when we seemingly hold a losing hand and there is little rhyme or reason as to the situation we find ourselves in.

    It is at these times when the Christian world view can proclaim:

    “Have faith in God, He’s on His throne,
    Have faith in God, He watches over His own;
    He cannot fail, He must prevail,
    Have faith in God, Have faith in God.”

    Because it is the Christian world view that understands that God is always in control, even when you do not believe he is.  God is in control when those around you are blessed and you are seemingly cursed.  God is in control when things go your way, or even when they do not.  God is always on His Throne.

    My friend ought to have asked a more poignant question rather than why God does not perform miracles for all broken bodies.  He should have asked why some child abusers are even punished in the first place.  That is he should have asked what makes a particular wrong a wrong.

    We do not necessarily understand all of the impacts of good and evil in our world.  We do not even understand why we are faced with seemingly impossible situations in our lives.  What the Christian world view does understand is that God is God, and he is always on His Throne.  And understanding that, having Faith in God, leads us to believe that no matter what the injustice, no matter what the heartache, no matter what the sorrows or trials within our lives, there is a bigger picture beyond us.  There is a God and his plan is perfect even when we cannot see it.

    The Christian world view understands that we are experiencing the vastness of God’s plan and we are experiencing Him with each and every breath we take.

    And if your world view contains no God, what do you have then?  Cosmic Chaos?  Just the matter of the Universe bumping around forcing all of the other matter around it along a particular course?  Even if that course seemingly contradicts the path that one might take in the “pursuit of happiness“?

    I’ll go with God’s plan.  After all, if I’m wrong there isn’t a whole lot of meaning to what happens anyway.  And if your world view states that their is no God, then the “pursuit of happiness” is a vain effort in and of itself.

  • The Words Mean What I Want Them To Mean When I Say Them

    To paraphrase Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll’s Through The looking Glass.  Which is then completed though Alice’s reply:

    “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.”

    Like Mr. Humpty Dumpty, we all want to be the master of words.  The problem is we need words in order to communicate.

    Rush Limbaugh wrote a list of 35 Undeniable Truths as part of a newspaper article once.  In it he stated: “Words Mean Things”

    The highly technical folks that I am most privileged to work with have very strict definitions of terms that can, at times, be pretty unyielding.

    Other friends and family that I have been around have been fairly loose with their words (and intended meanings).  We all want to be the master of words, but are we?

    Several years ago I was at a dinner party with a group of friends.  One of the individuals there, an African American lady, arrived a little late and told a tale of being held up with some co-workers, and when she realized the time and where she needed to be, she told them “I be gone with a quickness.”  This statement or phrase apparently alarmed the rest of the people at the table (or the majority of them anyway, including the host and hostess), most of them white, although there were also some Asians there as well.

    A rather involved discussion on the use of the Queen’s English promptly ensued.  Now I should probably add for clarity, that the individual who used the phrase was a highly educated official within the local School System.  And she stated that when she was with some friends, she spoke one way, and when she was with other friends, she spoke a different way.  The banter went back and forth as to what should be “good” spoken words, and what would be “bad” spoken words.  Everyone wanted to be the master of the words.

    For the most part I sat there quietly throughout the dinner and enjoyed my meal and listened to the debate.  Towards the end of dinner, the hostess turned to me and said “Paul, you’ve been quiet the whole time.  What do you think?  Was that acceptable speech or not?”

    Here I was, put on the spot, in front of everybody at the dinner party.  I sat back and thought for a minute, and then (more or less) made the following statement (I’m sure this is paraphrased after so many years):

    Words mean things, but they also DO things.  And what they do is to convey ideas.  They not only mean things, but they transfer that meaning from one individual to other individuals.  Words have morphed, transformed, dropped out of use, and been newly invented all throughout history.  But as long as the ideas conveyed by the individuals that use them, are understood by the individuals that receive them, then communication takes place and we all have understanding.  I understood what (and I named the individual here) meant when she used the phrase.

    There was a moment of silence in the room before folks went back to, what was now, a much different conversation.  At the end of the evening, when it was time to go, and there were still a number of people at the party, I stood up and said “We be gone with a quickness!” to which everyone laughed and I got a high-five out of the owner of the phrase.

    Words do mean things.  But we all also want to be the master of the words.  And whether we are those that parse every single syllable and use the strictest of dictionary definitions, or we are those that tend to be a little lose and artistic in our speech, the bottom line is that we intend to convey information with those words.

    There are some words in use more and more today, that have traditionally been defined as offensive and foul language.  I am not quite sure when these words entered into our mainstream conversation and became acceptable for use, but I do know I never agreed to give up the mastery of those words.

    If we randomly introduce curse words into our speech, what does that do to our intended communication?  Does it not convey the thought that we are always angry, always foul, and always incapable of expressing ourselves coherently and clearly?  I believe it does.

    There are some words I just will not allow on this site.  No matter how well you think they convey your meaning.  If there are comments on my blog that contain (at least what traditionally used to be) foul language, I will remove that post.

    But as far as today’s communications are concerned, perhaps if we all used a little less offensive language, and at the same time became a little less critical in our hearing, we would see beyond just the words that are used and connect with the intent being conveyed.

    When we begin to use less offensive language with one another, and begin to listen a little more carefully to one another, we might find that true communication will begin to take place.

    This does not mean we cannot be passionate in our communications.  Quite the contrary.  We may be very passionate, but at the same time very respectful.

    Words.  They mean things.  AND: They DO things.  What do your words do?

  • LRPSP

    LRPSP. com has been up for over a week now and I thought I’d step back and provide some foundation for the categories, my biases, and the general discussions.  The About page provides an overview of the Blog, however I thought that over time a little more detail might be provided.  This is a short introduction.

    The pillars of the site – Life / Religion / Politics / Science / Philosophy are the foundations we exist upon.  I have collapsed some of the categories for the sake of a short, catchy URL (at least I hope it is catchy), but for the most part the things that make up our world and make us who we are fit into these categories.  They are also the categories where the most passionate debates come from.  These are the discussions about who we are, how did we get here, why are we here, where are we going, what are we supposed to be doing, and what does it all mean?

    if you were to look at an apologetics course such as The Truth Project – hosted at Focus On The Family you will find pretty much the same core of pillars.  These pillars are also where apologists such as Dr. Ravi Zacharias, Dr. Del Tackett, or Josh McDowell might build their cases on.

    I am nowhere near as talented as either one of these three individuals, or others like them, but I do have an understanding of the basics, and I enjoy a heart-to-heart conversation.  And I’d like to invite anyone and everyone to join in the conversations.  Especially those that are dissenters, such as these folks that obviously take issue with Josh McDowell’s book Evidence That Demands A Verdict.

    Of course this is a family oriented site so the rules are somewhat strict.  Of course that doesn’t mean we cannot have adult discussions from time-to-time, but it does mean that a certain level of civility and a language code will be insisted upon.

    The pillars cover the following:

    Life– Everything that animates us that we experience, know, and deal with on a day-to-day basis.  Life covers the physical, our bodies, our world and our interactions with it, our souls, our emotions, thoughts, and what makes us laugh, what makes us cry.  Life covers all the unique characteristics that make you – you and me – me.  These could be hobbies, sports, interests, studies, jobs, interactions, or anything else that makes us the unique creations we are.

    Religion– Everything within the Spiritual world and our connection with God.  Religion may encompass Theology, our innermost selves, Heaven, Hell, Angels, Demons, and all things of a Devine nature.

    Politics– Would cover our Governments, our laws, things that govern our social interactions, or even the application, adjudication, or interpretation of those laws.  Governments (and thus politics) do not necessarily exist at the Capitol buildings and no where else.  They generally permeate our entire lives.  Homeowners Associations are a form of Governance (and are generally found to be the bottom rung of government).  However, Politics may even extend into the home and the family structure.

    Science– Is all the sciences.  Biology, Sociology, Anthropology, Archaeology, Geography, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, etc.  the Sciences are important because they facilitate our discovery and our understanding of the world around us.

    Philosophy– Our Philosophies are what define and establish our World Views.  They help shape how we see things and through what colored lenses we interpret things.

    Obviously by now, if you have followed any of my timeline, or read my blog posts from the beginning, you might surmise that my World View encompasses a God.  I believe Theology (I just grouped this under Religion) is the foundational study of all.  It is the foundation upon which everything else is built.

    It should be clear by now that my Theological Foundation is the ground floor that all other pillars sit upon.

    And I would like to point out that all great minds start out here (not that I am saying that I am a great mind, but rather that I am a good student and have learned from them).

    Even amongst our high level contemporary thinkers, Dr. Richard Dawkins, Dr. Richard Carrier, Dr. Stephen Hawking, and (of course) Dr. Ravi Zacharias, and Dr. Del Tackett, all of these start with Theology.

    What is it that consumes Dr. Dawkins completely?  Why it is to disprove the existence of God.  Dr. Stephen Hawking’s latest book, The Grand Design, states “It is reasonable to ask who or what created the universe, but if the answer is God, then the question has merely been deflected to that of who created God.” (The Grand Design, pg. 165, 1st paragraph).  Dr. Carrier is certainly consumed by Christians (if not God), see part of his talk at Skepticon 3 (or just search YouTube for him).  All of these individuals are consumed with Theology, the study of God.  Granted, their study intends to disprove the existence of God, but you cannot disprove that which you do not study.

    Clearly all great minds agree that Theology is foundational to any other study we may pursue.  It provides us insight into other studies and (as Dr. Hawking points out in his book on pg. 164), it is a necessary study to answer the questions: “Why is there something rather than nothing?  Why do we exist?  Why this particular set of law and not some other?” just before he launches into a Theological discussion of God.

    But I hope you don’t think all of my Blog discussions will be some boring, unintelligible diatribe about Religion, or Politics, or Philosophy, or Science.  No, I’d like to discuss the fun parts, the sad parts, and the parts of life that interest you as well.

    It is sincerely my hope you will see the importance and value of these pillars, and that they will help  guide your input, but if not, don’t worry about it.  Either read for fun, or join in to share you opinion.

    But let’s have a conversation about: Life/Religion/Politics/Science/Philosophy!

  • Is There A God?

    One of the harder hitting and more intriguing questions asked in Life, Religion, Science, and Philosophy is: “Is there truly a God?”   I might suggest here that the question ought to be asked within Politics as well, but alas, it would seem that most of our Governments today have either convinced themselves that it makes no difference whether or not they explore this question, or that the answer to it has no bearing on their functions or actions (as if they are outside of the impacts of the question).

    To some, it might seem as if this is an unanswerable question, although the vast majority of the world has already answered it for themselves.  Some have let others make the determination for them, essentially giving them the answer.  Some pursue this question relentlessly day-in and day-out.  And a few don’t have the time or effort to pursue it.

    Others may ask why it even matters.  For a segment of the population there will be those that will understand why I would start with such a question, the rest may be confused or otherwise surprised that I would jump out of the box with this question.

    But for me (and many others) this is a foundational question.  It is one that shapes your world view.  It directly effects how you view Life, Religion, Politics, Science, and Philosophy.  It is a life-changing question and its impacts are far reaching.  And it is a question that is current and relevant today (Reference this news story for a list of Celebrities whom you might think believe in a God since they claim to be religious).

    It also is a question that bares ones biases.  And since I am desiring an honest and sincere pursuit of the interesting things in Life, Religion, Politics, Science, and Philosophy, it is a question that I must start off with.  It is a question that is seminal to any really interesting discussion of Life, Religion, Politics, Science, or Philosophy.  It is not a question to which everyone will agree upon an answer on, but it is a question that we should all agree has far reaching effects on our day-to-day lives.  And so, as for myself, I begin with: “Is there a God?”

    Obviously there are three distinct answers to this question.  There are those that would say “No.  Absolutely not.”  Those that would say “Yes. Absolutely there is.” and then there is everyone else.  I put ‘everyone else’ in the category of “I don’t know”, “I don’t care”, “Maybe there is or maybe there isn’t”, or “It doesn’t really matter one way or the other.”  But however you answer this one question will shape the way you approach everything else in life.

    Consider Dr. Stephen Hawking or Dr. Richard Dawkins for example.  They have absolutely stated that there is no God.  Their answer to the question is “No.”  And that answer shapes their world view and their pursuits in life.  In the case of Dr. Hawking it has been an almost continual life time goal to establish the fact, once and for all, that there is no God.  They state rather emphatically that there is no God (and seemingly, have done little to persuade the list of Celebrities referenced in the news article above).

    Secondly consider Dr. Billy Graham, or Dr. Rick Warren.  They would assuredly answer the question “Yes.”  And that answer in turn shapes their world view and pursuits in life.  And they have very different foundation they build upon than those which Dr. Hawking or Dr. Dawkins build upon.

    The third category I will not discuss at this time other than to say that anyone who believes the question has no bearing on their life or that the answer to the question does not affect their lives one way or the other, are people who are blinded to the effect that one simple choice has already had upon their lives.  In other words, their choice of apathy has just as much a profound impact on their foundational life beliefs, and does the choice of those who say “Yes.” and those who say “No.”  I suppose I could throw Dr. Richard Carrier in here as an example skeptic, except he really is not.  He is as much of a “No.” person as any of the other “No.” persons out there.  Unfortunately I tend to believe that by the time one has risen to enough prominence level to be used as an example, they are no longer in the third category but are rather firmly ensconced in either the “Yes.” or “No.” categories.

    So this is a good place to start, it is interesting to me, and it broadly sweeps all aspects of Life / Religion / Politics / Science / Philosophy.  It is a question to end all questions.  Is there really and truly a God?

    My answer is YES.  Absolutely there is.  For me, it is the only model that makes sense.  For me, it is the only model the evidence supports.  For me, it is the only model that answers all the other questions that life throws at you from any category.  Of course there is a God and he is the foundation for understanding all other pursuits in Life / Religion / Politics / Science / and Philosophy.