Usually, it is my pattern that if I miss this much school, I just quit going. But, that's not going to happen this time. I'm gonna jump back in. It's still nervous-making, though.

Yeah, I can see where it could make you nervous, but go you for jumping!

{{sj}}

Yay Cashmere!

Things are looking progressively more tense at work. If I could get some, "Have those applications find happy readers who want to throw vast sums of money and job responsibilities at Calli"~ma, I'd deeply appreciate it. I've been keeping my work-related sanity, such as it is, by focusing on the nifty new stuff I could be doing, but they are not being terribly quick to get back to me. Of course, I could be shooting beyond my means, but I fit the qualifications they have listed. And, in some cases, then some. And some of the jobs would have to import their employees no matter what, so my current location shouldn't be that much of a thing in their cases.

Oh well. I had a nice, calm weekend, with a viewing of Good Night, and Good Luck, the transition of my back deck from plants to bird feeding, and a spiffy new car battery. OK, the last part wasn't nice per se, but the former battery lasted 7 years (it was supposed to last for 5), and it died at a convenient time and only ate an hour or so out of my life to have replaced. As car trauma goes, this was pretty much a hangnail.

Calli~ma, C~ma, Pete & Jilli~ma, Happy Belated Birthday CaBil, and Happy Anniversary Maidengurl!

I skipped and skimmed, so if I missed anyone, help yourself: ~~~~ma.

A quiet weekend for the DH and I, as he was sicker than he claimed to be, and my feet were hurting because of the plantar fasciitis. We made some more plans for New Zealand, but we still can't decide between renting a car or renting a campervan. My cousins that will be there in NZ at the same time we are are pretty much split down the middle on this questions. Opinions from the Bitches?

Good morrow. You know, working all weekend does nothing to alleviate the Mondayness of Monday. In fact, it's ever so much more so Monday.

Got a call from the Albany Little League director this morning asking if I wanted to be a coach again this year. He needed to know right away because there were six people available for only two slots. Then he noted that I'd probably want to coach what with Emmett having played on his 9 y.o. Tournament Team last summer. (The 9 y.o. team being the team one level up from Emmett's then 8 y.o. Tournament Team. Emmett was one of three players on his team allowed to play one level up when they needed a substitute.)

In short, I am now riding on Emmett's coattails. Sometimes it's weird being Emmett's Dad.

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.

Your choice of words claims that atheists are more likely to grasp at straws than believers or agnostics.

This has not been my personal experience. The atheists I know (and they may well be outliers) demand logical rigor from themselves as well as from theologians.

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.

This is a failing in a the apologetics I have read. You make a big leap in the initial assumptions. I suspect this is the reason why I find some apologetics that believers see as air-tight to be totally unconvincing.

Thanks for saying that, Betsy. That kind of pinged me but I was in a rush to get to work so I didn't comment.

Oh, I really didn't mean it that way, Betsy. If the proof had been one for the nonexistence of God, I would have switched the points of view but not the wording - my point was simply that people tend to scrutinize more heavily things they're not predisposed to believe. The same is true for everything, not just God. Some atheists may grasp for straws to prove the proof wrong, but some theists may commit the equal crime of ignoring obvious holes and using the proof to thoughtlessly justify their beliefs. Different fallacy, but a fallacy nonetheless.

Of course, in this case, the proof isn't airtight, but it is very well done. So there's no need to grasp at straws OR ignore obvious holes - both sides are validly arguable. Thus, the statement really becomes more "theists are more likely to argue the reasonable 'it works' side, while atheists are more likely to argue the equally reasonable 'it doesn't' side, because they fit with their preconceived notions." Which is what I should have said, and I apologize if my wording came out offensively somehow. I was mostly agreeing with Jessica (or was it Jesse?)

ETA: As somebody who has been both a monotheist and a convinced atheist at different times in my life, and struggles with the confusion every day, I have the utmost of respect for people that believe either. Please accept my apology, again, at my confused wording.

The thing is, if you logically prove the existence of God, you have to answer the Problem of Evil: Why is he so MEAN?

If you're working from faith, one answer is "It's ineffable", meaning that the answer is inherently outside the realm of human reason. We have faith that God does have a plan, and that somehow the wrong will be right.

I don't see how you can possibly prove from first principles that a just God allows evil in the world. And I'm not just talking human free will -- I'm talking apes that kill one another, for instance, because of territorial bounds.

"Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown." Sorry. Been waiting to say that for years...just looked like a good opening.

You know, working all weekend does nothing to alleviate the Mondayness of Monday.

Don't work all weekend next weekend, okay? I decree it.