In defense of philosophy

by Andrea Elizabeth

If one has pulled one’s back wrong and wonders if it also has to do with stress, then while being laid up with a heating pad and ibuprofen, one could therapeutically watch the beautiful Netflix documentary series, Tales by Light, which highlights different exotic photographer’s techniques, instead of the usual conflict oriented shows.

In episode two, though, the photographer went to a Buddhist temple where the monks were engaging in their practice of debate where the standers approach the sitters and bring forth a position that the sitter has to debate. Unfortunately they did not record the conversations, but that would have been too conflict oriented. However their red robes looked beautiful in the Himalayas. The narrator said that this teaches the monks humility in not being too attached to their own point of view. It would help Facebook debates if trolls were agreed to argue the other side and be critiqued on their integrity.

Before this sequence I was thinking that philosophy does not necessarily lead to truth, even if the engager believes himself to be intellectually honest. It is instead the Art of War.



St Athanasius to the rescue

by Andrea Elizabeth

St Athanasius is the curing breath of fresh oxygen in The Incarnation. Ah, much better.

Our Saint says that Christ’s miracles prove that he is God and produced the material world out of nothing. As soon as the atheist materialist materially explain the Big Bang, I’ll remove them from the list of erroneous fringe religions. 

Science takes as fact that justified knowledge is repeatable. They have not been able to repeat the Big Bang, and there’s no discovered repetition of a life bearing planet. They claim they’ve recently created a life form from “scratch”. They made artificial DNA by replicating GTC&A and injecting it into an existing cell. That’s not ex nihilo nor from materials not already the product of life. It just shows that they are getting better at understanding how existing things physically work, not how they ultimately came to be. 

What I want to be measured is if the extra energy required for miracles is created or redirected. My hypothesis is that if a single atom can cause an explosion, then it is redirected. 

And I believe the relationship of the spiritual world to the material is very close,  such that sin alters our brains and bodies and ultimately the universe. However, so did the Incarnation.

good grief

by Andrea Elizabeth

The Great Courses philosophy lecturer, Dr David Johnson, of King’s College, has a pointed agenda to discredit religious people. He teaches that religious belief does not fit the criteria for justifiable knowledge because there is always a simpler explanation that involves fewer entities, meaning natural physical laws. That St Paul was epileptic, and that everyone else is suffering from temporary brain malfunctions from food and sleep deprivation and emotional extremes. And parents pay him to teach, I mean insult and reprogram, their children. 

But don’t his credentials, courses and ability to quote leading thinkers sound good? 

“Professor Johnson regularly teaches classes on metaphysics, philosophy of religion, philosophy of mind, and logic, as well as courses on critical thinking and scientific reasoning. He has published papers on human freedom, the problem of natural evil, the multiverse, the existence of souls, and many related topics in such journals as Religious Studies, Sophia, Philo, Philosophy and Literature, and Think. He also maintains two blogs for Psychology Today.”


He did have a point that even if one religion is right, its exclusive claims mean 9 out of 10 of religious people’s beliefs and experiences are wrong/false. But it’s not that simple. He included splits in the top five religions, but did not include Orthodox with Catholics and Protestants. So actually 10 out of 10 in his list were “wrong”. However, there are shades of wrong. Not everything false religions teach is false. We acknowledge not everyone’s religious experience comes from God. Everyone in the world is deluded about something, even esteemed experts. But if all you have is 90% wrong people, then you should still seek their 10% of truth.

evolving knowledge

by Andrea Elizabeth

It’s hard to find Respectivism among evolutionary geologists, whether they be atheist, intelligent design or Christian or theistic evolutionists, and instant creation of different species ists, whether they be Young Earth, Gap theory or Old Earth progressive creationists. Each laugh at the other’s explanations. The most convincing argument from each of the two sides that I’ve so far found is,

The evolutionists have more transitional skulls than most creationists acknowledge.

These skulls can be classified as extinct apes or isolated humans.

And I’m still trying to locate a more differential explanation for if the oxygen element in the molecules of the earth’s crust is from chemical reactions or the respiration of single cell plants. Most say water/H2O came before life, and that the first respirating cells suddenly covered the water, relatively speaking. Earth is the only place they know of where free oxygen exists as it is highly attractive to most other atoms, like carbon, iron, and silicon. Only the respiration of plants releases it independently into the atmosphere. Dr. Wysession in the Great Courses geology series said that a lot of the oxygen and carbon dioxide in rocks is absorbed from the atmosphere. It also seems that ancient volcanoes from when the waters still covered the earth’s surface could have mixed up water, or previously oxidized (from cellular respiration) iron, and magma to form silica crystals in granite. As a result of oxygen concentrating over time in the earth’s crust, first in oxidized iron, it further seems that the lighter rocks began to rise and accumulate to form the differentiated plates. The lighter plates (with higher concentrations of oxygen-bearing molecules) formed the continents and the heavier plates the ocean floor which subducts under the continents to eventually form mountain chains and terrestrial volcanoes.

I’ve put independent explanations together to draw the above conclusions. Perhaps an atheist conspiracy is covering up the accumulated logic that leads to God creating life, which was the key to the uniqueness of our atmosphere, and even the composition of our crust with its unique plates. Or maybe there’s a more Respectivist explanation than an evil conspiracy.

Back to the philosophy lectures in the Great Courses, the professor is saying that only  natural, scientifically repeatable explanations given by credentialed people can fit the definition of justifiable knowledge. He gave one little sentence that differentiates this from faith in the midst of a whole lecture which was mostly about how resurrections can’t be scientifically proven, and that uncredentialed people’s testimony is highly fallible. He believes that since reports of Princess Diana’s and Elvis’ coming back from the dead are false, then you can’t believe that Jesus was resurrected either because dead people stay dead. It is interesting to me how secular proofs ultimately revolve around Biblical explanations of divine intervention. This probably has to do with science most recently evolving in predominately Christianized and western lands.

Early earth probably didn’t have plates 

by Andrea Elizabeth

according to new geology work in Australia 

The end of ep 7, “What is the Best Way to Gain Knowledge”

by Andrea Elizabeth

His definition of knowledge is “justified true belief” which he explains is complete natural scientific knowledge of how the world is. The next lecture addresses challenges to this so that should be interesting. 

But I say everything exists and everything happens in my coined respectivism. I think crazy people and children (who don’t possess the above knowledge) are right. I watch Pentatonix videos to learn about relationships, natural talent, humility and skill and how they work to achieve beauty and perfection when the individuals are flawed. God exists and doesn’t exist, but he doesn’t leave. Even if all that’s left of him in your space is one hydrogen atom.

Episode 7 cont

by Andrea Elizabeth

He’s saying objects aren’t hot, they just excitement of molecules. That statement ultimately implies that atoms or even their components, have no relation to the substances they find themselves in (which could be being severed), nor to our experience of them. So impersonal. With that mindset you can swing either way with our experiences of them as well, either nothing exists but our experiences, thus disrespecting other “created” things and magnifying our own. Or that even our experiences don’t matter (see what I did there?) since they are baseless. 

Right now I’m having a weird relationship with my experiences. It’s sort of apathetic about my pathos (by that I mean passions, emotions, and affectedness with connections), which does exist. And it’s not that I think pathos doesn’t matter. It’s just that pathos in general is too often overemphasized and I’m tired of it. Not that I don’t overemphasize it still. It’s just that I either don’t trust it, or find it easier or more proper to function without it. Not that I’m stoic. I’m just tired of experiences and don’t think they’re all they’re cracked up to be. Therefore I am not denying myself, I’m just resting.

The Big Questions of Philosophy 3 (ep 7)

by Andrea Elizabeth

The philosophy guy says that objects don’t actually have the properties we ascribe to them such as color and warmth. He doesn’t have a ring on his finger, but he does have a son. I’m thinking the child’s mother got tired of his habit of explaining everything away.

He doesn’t take into account that our eyes interpret the different relationships surfaces have with light. And our hands have a temperature range that we can survive and be comfortable with. We compare the actual temperature the object has with that range. He doesn’t get relationships.

profound thought of the day

by Andrea Elizabeth

After learning that photons existed before atoms and discussing it with my physics son, here you go:

God used his free will to submit to creation’s rules out of love. We use our free will to break free of creation’s rules and become divine out of love. Both involve denying yourself and doing things according to a different nature. But it’s not denial in the anti-matter way. It’s more like strong force and weak force. It’s like applying the breaks to yourself, but you never stop completely.

If the correlation with the article isn’t clear, I’m talking about God being light like photons. In the big bang there was a process where the light had to be controlled/weakened in order for atoms to come together.

big picture, please

by Andrea Elizabeth

It is so frustrating to try to find answers for how the earth and life formed when my thick book just quickly glosses over stuff and takes stuff for granted. I have another book that may go into more detail, but right now I’m trying to fill in the blanks by reading articles online. I have not saved these all of these articles but independent google searches of key words should make the latest theories apparent. The problem is that when you start getting into more details, the information becomes much more isolated from the big picture. My big picture query right now has to do with the formation of continents, but that also involves our planet at one time being completely covered by water.

There is a lot of new thinking on lots of things. Used to be they thought that comets brought water to the cooling earth’s crust. That’s always seemed silly to me. Now research shows that comet ice contains too much of the wrong isotope of hydrogen, deuterium. Our water is more consistent with that found on asteroids. Still, talk about trying to fill or empty the oceans with buckets. New research is studying the possibility that the asteroid rocks that formed the earth contained water that precipitated from molten magma. This is still unsatisfactory to me because a lot of earth’s components didn’t arrive pre-packaged. It’s pretty obvious that the earth is basically a smelter. A huge cauldron of all the elements whose dynamic creates different layers of temperatures and their corresponding precipitates.

Unsatisfied with the water capsule in asteroid theory, I separately googled how do you make two hydrogens and one oxygen atom combine? It’s pretty easy but very dangerous. You get the 1st and 3rd most common atoms in the universe together and you light a match. Voila, a huge explosion and water. There are a lot of other ways as well. Some people also say water came out of volcanos – there you go. Some say that water happened before the atmosphere, but I agree with the ones who say it happened at the same time, due to the different weights of the new combinations and the different temperatures they exist in.

Anyway, apparently oxygen does not occur by itself and must bond with something. In the early stages it bonded with carbon and the atmosphere was co2. Methane, which is hydrogen and carbon, probably before that. Everyone agrees that oxygen was released into the atmosphere as an independent gas after algae like organisms covered the water. And they agree that oxygen makes up 50% of the earth’s crust. First there was oxidation of free floating iron that caused it to become insoluble and deposit on the ocean floor in bands. Other rocks also absorb lots of oxygen and carbon gases from the atmosphere.

But the continents were formed mostly from granite (which has more oxygen {1st most comon element in the crust}and silicon {2nd most common}, which combines to form quartz [silica]) which has more of the lighter elements that have floated up as convection of magma differentiated and recycled the elements according to weight over long periods of time. Therefore granite owes a lot of its oxygen content to respirating sea plants!  Granite has larger amounts of silica than basalt, which comes from the magma extrusion in spreading oceanic ridges, does. I have been googling silica, which is the resultant quartz, origination sites and am not totally satisfied yet. It comes from magma and steam vents? It seems silica is the major stabilizer in granite. It is very resistant to weathering and erosion. It is also what makes up sand and sandstone, which is the remaining part of eroded granite.

So, it seems to me that by putting 2 and 2 together, we get continental and plate formation as the lighter elements crystalized, floated up, and moved together. Their places are continually replaced by basaltic ocean floor which is heavier and in the molten cauldron, subducts under the lighter continental crust, which process pushed old sandstone up to the top of the tallest mountains along its fault lines. Intercontinental rifts, such as occur at Yellowstone, Lake Baikal, Ethiopia and the Red Sea are also very interesting and worthy of more study. It seems they occur over hot spots which are poorly understood atypical magma intrusions.

ok, i’m tired. sorry for the number of “which”s