Yay Cashmere!!!

{{sj}} retail is absolute hell. I wish the managers could get their act together. I figure the scheduling will be bad since they're entering Christmas shopping season. I hope it gets easier for you.

but it makes no specific argument for any specific theology. The God proven within is eternal, unique, and a Creator. That's it.

That's a pretty specific theology, if you ask me.

I don't personally think any "proof" of the existance of God is going to hold up if the person reading/writing it isn't already a believer -- my willingness to accept conclusion C depends entirely on how much I buy premise A in the first place, not how air-tight steps B1-25 are.

I figure the scheduling will be bad since they're entering Christmas shopping season. I hope it gets easier for you.

Thanks. I specifically told them no more than 15 hours so I can keep my earnings down to what is acceptable to the government. They have been scheduling me for more than that, but a lot of those hours are on call hours, so I haven't really worked more than fifteen hours, but I potentially could. It is all way too complicated for retail, imho.

On the bright side of my day yesterday, I really do have the best mother. I may complain about her being too much, but she is always there when I need her. I called her crying from the parking lot of the mall last night, and I ended up going back to her place where she had Chinese take out waiting for me. I fell asleep at her place last night and she made me breakfast this morning and ironed my skirt and found me a new top to wear to work today. She is the bestest.

They have been scheduling me for more than that, but a lot of those hours are on call hours, so I haven't really worked more than fifteen hours, but I potentially could.

I don't get how they could make you work more than you say you are able to work. Retail is a mystery to me...and for that I am truly grateful.

My friend/guitarist in my band is a manager at Sharper Image so I hear all the horror stories of being in the local managment side of retail. Plus we have to take a hiatus from playing out every year for November- December because he has no time off at all.

Today is my mom's b-day and my 18th anniversary. I have NOTHING planned for anyone. I have not even bought a card for either of them.

Good lord, Fred. I've been in that station at rush hour and I can just imagine the riot.

No riot -- everybody gets off the train there in the morning, so nobody was left at the station. And the driver announced that there'd be a train at the next station (McPherson Square) to bring people back.

aw, {{sj}}

That's a pretty specific theology, if you ask me.

I don't personally think any "proof" of the existance of God is going to hold up if the person reading/writing it isn't already a believer -- my willingness to accept conclusion C depends entirely on how much I buy premise A in the first place, not how air-tight steps B1-25 are.

Oh, it is somewhat spcefic, yes. It's general monotheism, but it could be Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Baha'i, Unitarianism, or pure Deism. Doesn't say anything about a God that cares, which was tommy's statement.

As to whether the proof holds up - I don't disagree with what you are saying. In fact, you're saying two things I don't disagree with. The first is that the proof doesn't hold if the axiom is deniable (premise A). That's where I think this guy's proof might fail for me. That said, it's a lot harder to argue against his axioms than it is against his conclusion, because they are much more based in observables - that's the whole point of the proof. It comes up with God, an unobvious conclusion, in a finite number of obvious steps from simple axioms. Sure, if I reject them, I reject the proof, just as if I reject Euclid's axioms his geometry no longer holds, but that's okay - he makes it clear that's the case, and the proof is still interesting.

The other thing you're saying is that only a believer will believe the proof. To some extent, that's true, in that I think a believer is less likely to really, seriously analyze the axioms and logic for holes, and a convinced non-believer (an atheist) is more likely to desperately seek out holes that may not even be there, so they can continue their atheism. People always interpret what they see and read to fit their own world view (actually, there's a hole section about this in the philosophy section of this book that's really quite cool to read). The discussion still forces both sides to think about their positions, and may inspire adjustments in their perspective, so I still think it's a fun thing to read and talk about, even if strong atheists or believers will never adjjust their basic belief in God on the basis of it.

And, well, there is one population that the "proof" might be useful for - the true agnostics. We're few and far between, and even the most neutral of us actually lean in one direction or another, but we profess lack of knowledge. Every little bit of extra knowledge helps. Is this proof convincing to me? I don't know. But it's not arguing against something I disbelieve, it's merely arguing for something i don't yet believe. Or, rather, don't convincingly believe any more. That makes it a truly interesting question.