Monthly Archive for April, 2007

New Web Dev App for Mac

Published
by
David
on 2007-04-28
in Web Dev
. Closed

There is a great new web development tool for Mac: Coda from Panic (the makers of Transmit). It runs on SubethaEdit’s core, and has a souped-up Transmit FTP engine. While I am a pretty big fan of CSSEdit, it has an excellent CSS app built-in as well. It also comes with some great books, and some junk I am not able to use well yet, like SSH terminal. But I am not fond of the live preview, and while I have heard great things about SubEthaEdit, it is not BBEdit. It does not support http/live preview (like BBEdit and CSSEdit), so it only does light client side page rendering. But Cabel says it should soon support that as well relatively soon. I think it is the best single replacement for Dreamweaver, if you are not a big fan. I think DW is a glitchy mess, though I use it all day long at work on a W2K machine. It is an all-in-one application for people that like to code by hand and post it with relative ease. There is a lot great about this. But it is not a complete replacement for BBEdit/Transmit/CSSEdit(/Safari/Firefox), as it stands. Though I would not mind if it is. I don’t know if it is worth the 70 bucks I paid yet, but I don’t doubt that it will be soon. I hope you’ll think about trying it.

I have heard some good things about TextMate, and would love to hear more about it. But for now, I am quite content with BBEdit.

Considering the Roots of Our Thinking

Published
by
David
on 2007-04-22
in Philosophy and Theology/Doctrine
. Closed

Why We Think What We Think

I am, like you, a presuppositionalist. (I am sure that sounds presumptuous, and some of you may disagree.) There are certain things in life that cannot be proved. In this case, I am a Biblical presuppositionalist: I believe that the Bible is true as a primary tenet of my understanding of things. We all take things for granted, like those who drafted the Declaration of Independence, who said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” speaking of natural right. When considering the root of our thoughts, it is worthwhile to note that we all believe things that cannot be proven. When Moses wrote the book of Genesis, he said that God created the world.

How, pray tell, would he prove that? Rene Decartes said, “Cogito Ergo Sum,” or I think therefore I am. How do you imagine Mr. Descartes might demonstrate that his thinking proves his being? I do not deny our existence, I deny our ability to prove it. (Otherwise, why am I writing this?) I am no solipsist; a solipsist would say that he can prove his own existence, I will not even assert that, how can you?

Realizing that it is nearly impossible to prove a thing, there are some things that we take for granted, i.e. that we are alive, that we require nourishment to live. (I have no interest in disproving that.)

Some Examples of the Best Cyclical Thinking

There are two good examples of cyclical thinking that are worth noting, right after the best and broadest example, Christian Faith: Calvin’s admonition that to know God you must know yourself, and to know yourself, you must know God; and that in most reformation confessions, the first article addresses the Word of God and its being given by God. I think if I had been writing a confession today, I would have started on the subject of creation. But I think it would not have been as good a way to start, though it makes all the sense in the world to me. It may be that those men who fashioned the London Baptist and Westminster Confessions, had in mind that early sin in the Garden, namely, Satan’s undermining derision, “Yea, hath God said?”

That said, I will go on in my frail consideration, with the knowledge that there are two scriptural reasons to why it may be sometimes appropriate to start with creation, namely, Gen 1.1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth and Romans 1 shows that natural revelation is sufficient unto condemnation. So, while knowing about creation will not save a man, scoffing at God in light of it will damn a man. So, Genesis 1 shows us that God begins with the foregone conclusion that God began not with the argument that the Scriptures are His word, but that He created. Secondly, Romans shows us that creation knowledge is quite perilous, and powerful, though not life-giving.

In the beginning God…

God exists. He is the immaterial first Cause. There is nothing made but by his hand. While Scriptures are not needed to see this, it is by Scripture that I know that they are not needed to see this (Rom 1.19-21):

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

However, all the only thing raw reason does is show us his existence, not his essence. I am frail, and my thinking feeble, as I have to reflect in my constant struggle with unbelief, I can rightly pray with that father in Mark 9.24, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.

What is there that was not made? Kelvin’s law of Energy Conservation says, Matter cannot be created, nor destroyed, it can only change forms, from matter to energy, and then energy cannot be destroyed. So we know that matter cannot create itself. However, truly, to think that anything could create itself is fundamentally absurd. It does not take a scientist to figure that out. But that is my point. To think that the universe could create itself is fundamentally absurd. If you really think otherwise, write me. I will not be able to straighten you out, though. Your problems are deep.

I am going to end here for now. I have too much to tackle here. This is an ongoing thing. I will next address the absurdity of evolution, if the Lord allows.

Fallout from Virginian Tragedy

Published
by
David
on 2007-04-19
in Constitution, Philosophy and Politics
. Closed

I am sorry for those who have lost loved ones in the tragedy in Virginia. I am blessed to have no relations (that I know of) that have been involved in that tragedy at Virginia Tech this week.

In the wake of those harrowing events at the VT campus this week, there is concern over campus security, and ensuring the safety of students. There are three basic problems with that:

  • Its focus is too narrow.
  • It is quite likely unconstitutional.
  • It is cost-ineffective (for now).

I think it is shortsighted to say that we need to take better care to secure students throughout the land. We are often only concerned with our own personal circumstances and callings. Consider, there is nothing that kept that from happening to people in the World Trade Center, a Colorado High School, an Oklahoma Federal Building or an Oklahoma Post Office. All people need to be protected: subway and airplane passengers, soldiers (from fellow soldiers), children from parents, and vice versa. What state can prevent all of that? I know of none. However, if we are interested in safety, we must consider all venues, not only the one from which we are reeling.

The second problem is that the protection that would be required by some would be entirely unconstitutional, consider the fourth amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Circumstances like these are generally improbable, so how would you protect yourself against them? If we undermine the constitution, we live in an arbitrary state, at the mercy of our newfound dictator. If we continue down this course we live a life like all have lived in times past, one that has uncertainty and fear. This is not new. The state cannot protect us from that in the end.

I believe there could easily come a point where we would have such a state where it would be possible for the government to so easily monitor our behavior through the use of video surveillance and RFID that we could be secure in a way that would assuage the fears of most Americans. But we would not be able to do the most sensitive things without our Big Brother knowing what is going on. There would no longer be wire taps, there would be an open phone system, that is constantly being passed through a governmental audio algorithm. All corners monitored by cameras, all corridors and all public school restrooms. However, one thing is forgotten here: monitoring is not protecting. In the end the state can only survey and hope to get there to limit the fallout. Security is freedom from danger, etc. When I lived at home, my dad used to say, “Son, I cannot make you do anything, I can only make you wish you had.” Likewise, the government cannot secure us they can only limit us and manage the aftermath. And every time more security measures are put in place, people overcome them, consider notorious hackers, they live to breach obstacles. Those men in the planes on 11 September 2001, Timothy McVey, Eric Klebold and Dylan Harris were all murderous engineers, devising the best way to maximize bloodshed.

Consider the following:

Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? (Amos 3.6) Cf. similar passages.

Maybe we should be considering the source of safety and tragedy is the same, and repent before him, rather than railing against our god, the state.

Killing and Killing

Published
by
David
on 2007-04-14
in Philosophy and War
. Closed

We have gone to Iraq to install democracy, which is still a fledgling, and practically (if not philosophically) flawed political idea. We have cited Sadam’s killing thousands of many of his own countrymen as a cause for our desire to help them. However, we are killing more in a couple of days than he may have killed in the life of his entire regime. In 2003 it was estimated that we have killed 45 million here in America with abortion/infanticide, at an even rate, that equates to 1.5 million/year (more than 2,500/day). If you took a scalpel and excised Calif. along its border, and let it drift into the sea, so that everyone drowned, that is the approximate number of children who have been killed in America since the Roe v. Wade Decision in 1973.

How did we get here? Our decision to go to war with Iraq was purportedly to find WMD in March/April 2003 (with a minor free-the-Iraquis mission while we were there). However, the initial 5 percent mission has become the 95 percent mission, and we have tried to forget about the other part all along the way.

Thoughts on this War

Published
by
David
on 2007-04-13
in Philosophy and War
. Closed

Screen Capture from “Why We Fight”I recently watched Why We Fight a BBC documentary on the Iraq War on Google Video [1|2|3|4]. It was an interesting exposé on the war. I don’t know that it was a very honest telling of the war story, but that is easy to say, since I would be reluctant to count the other side as more trustworthy.

Fox Lies Bumper Sticker Thumbnail ImageI was a soldier for 11 years and 8 months before recently leaving the service (2007.02.28). I left as a sergeant (E-5) with my first 8 years and 5 months AD, and my last 3 years and 3 months in the National Guard. While I am not of the mind that my service makes my opinion any more or less valid than someone who has never served, I think it will help to show why I have formed opinions on some things.

I am happy that I am out, though I am not arguing against the legitimacy of service or the government in the use of force in lawful circumstances. I believe that it is legitimate to serve, and as noble as the calling of a physician or a janitor. (And I would hate to do either job, or even work on my car, as I am sure many would hate to code web pages.)

One of the most frightful things about this war has very little to do with whether or not it was legitimately waged: it is, rather, that the president was allowed to wage it so single-handedly. We have in America arguably one of the most able electorate/legislative bodies in the world. In light of the evidence that was brought to them, they were quite happy (a few votes shy of a 75% super-majority) to allow the president to execute this war without their interference/input. I think it is additionally noteworthy that the vast majority of the world thought that Sadam Hussein was quite guilty of infractions against UN resolutions and more. I am not arguing that the president did or did not lie, that is hard to know for sure one way or the other with our limited evidence. I am saying that if our intelligence was poor, it was not unlike the rest of the world’s in terms of apparent quality.

Aside: I have seen back-peddling on both sides of this very partisan issue. Republicans have feigned holding the moral highground for a long time. However, when they use argumentation like well others lied, too, it does not hold a lot of water.

My point here is not to vindicate the president, my point is to point out the flawed perspective in this mess: We trust the media, proven liars, to tell us that the president is a liar. We hear the legislature chiding him, frequently, but they largley voted for him to do it. Though the percentages on both sides of the party chasm are quite notably skewed, even with that nearly super majority. I think the GOP voted nearly unanimously for him, while the Democrats voted against his control with a very simple majority.

I have not given much thought to this war in the past, for fear that I would find that we should not be there, and I might have unnecessary scruples about any part I might have had in it. I also did not want to express dissent against my Commander-in-Chief. Now I am out, and while I can now do so more freely, I do not see compelling evidence for a trustworthy source that our president acted illegitimately. That does not mean I don’t suspect anything is wrong. That means that I don’t believe the media, and am not willing to condemn him for something I cannot prove.