Skip to main content

Got Religious

[this is the only religious post you will ever encounter on this blog]

After an excessive amount of thinking, reading and
weighting pros and cons I came to the final conclusion that
actually and deep down in me, I beleive that
1. God exists
2. Christianity makes sense

Many, many arguments exits against 1 and also 2.

But as soon as you accept 1. arguing against 2 becomes
really hard. All objections brought into field against 2. failed to
convince me finally; ok some of them convinced me at first,
and it took years to find out that they were errornous.
Many objections seem clever at first, but really contain
discrepancies or stem from pure ignorance.
Most of those uttering them, do not really reflect
these objections very well. A nice example is
the following "objection" against 1. and partly 2.:
"If god was almighty, could he create a
stone so heavy, that he can't lift it?"
It takes a bit of thinking, but is actually easy to debilitate. I will
leave that as an exercise to the reader, I really don't want to
take the fun out of this; I am sure, that also atheists will
see the inherent logical problems in this objection :)

I think that most religions can be unified to a common theme,
I therefore believe, that some religions contain an abstract
common base, that is below a thick tangible layer of
"stories" - I prefer christianity, as it is the only one
I know just good enough, to see how deeply consistent and
consistent everything is. Although some peices seem odd or
paradox at first, they make sense if you dig deeper and
think about them...

Regarding 1. How could a reasonable scientist exclude
the existence of god, without leaving many
questions open, and without entangling themselves in inconsistencies?
Well even if my ignorance/stupidity is not a
convincing argument that 1. is true, and you believe that
something in this world *whatever that is* exists, you end up
beleiving in some immaterial properties - one way or the other.
I beleive that these properties exist (and might even be corner stones of a
creation done be an intentional, allmighty being, which some call god) and are
basic expressions of the Holy Ghost - as are the brain brain activities,
that ask themselves now, wether this make sense or not.

So ... please do not assume that I will bother anyone with my personal beleivesystem
anymore, I just wanted share these thoughts, that's all I'll ever write about that
topic.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Learning Haskell, functional music

As you might have realized, I started to learn Haskell. One of the most fun things to do in any programming language is creating some kind of audible side effects with a program. Already back in the days when I started programming, I always played around with audio when toying around with a new language. I have found a wonderful set of lecture slides about haskell and multimedia programming, called school of expression. Inspired by the slides about functional music I implemented a little song. Ahh ... and yes it is intended to sound slightly strange . I used the synthesis toolkit to transform the music to real noise, simply by piping skini message to std-out. I used this command line to achieve the results audible in the table: sven@hhi1214a:~/Mukke$ ghc -o test1 test1.hs && ./test1 | stk-demo Plucked -n 16 -or -ip Sound samples: Plucked play Clarinet play Whistle(attention very crazy!) play As always the source... stueck = anfang :+: mitte :+: ende anfang = groovy :+: (Trans
2 comments
Read more

The purpose of the MOCK

In response to a much nicer blog entry, that can be found here . There are actually several distinct "tests" that make up usual unit tests, among them two that really do stand out: one kind of testing to test method flows, one to test some sort of computation. Mock objects are for the purpose of testing method flows. A method flow is a series of message transmissions to dependent objects. The control flow logic inside the method(the ifs and whiles) will alter the flow in repsonse to the parameters of the method call parameters passed by calling the method under test, depending on the state of the object that contains the method under test and the return values of the external method calls(aka responses to the messages sent). There should be one test method for every branch of an if statement, and usuale some sort of mock control objects in the mock framework will handle loop checking. BTW: I partly use message transmission instead of method invocation to include other kind
2 comments
Read more

Keys, Values and Rules: Three Important Shake Concepts

The title was a click-bait! This article will actually try to explain five instead of three important notions in Shake. These are: Rules Keys Values The Build Database Actions This short blog post was inspired by the hurdles with my Shake based build, after the new Shake version was released, which had breaking API changes. Jump to the next section if you are not interested in the why and how of this blog post. Shake is rule based build system much like GNU make. Like make it is robust, unlike make, it is pretty fast and supports dynamic build dependencies. But you knew all that already, if you are the target audience of this post, since this post is about me explaining to myself by explaining to you, how that build tool, I used for years, actually works. Although I used it for years, I never read the paper or wrapped my head around it more than absolutely necessary to get the job done. When Shake was updated to version 0.16.x, the internal API for custom rules w
Post a Comment
Read more