James A, Ph.D

On January 20, 2018, Twitter suspended my account for a year old tweet about homosexuality and slavery (quoting Biblical history) which was reported by followers of James White of Alpha & Omega Ministries. Today, they have suspended my account, again, for no given reason. At least the last time the Twitter Nazis suspended my account they showed the tweets in which they claimed violated their terms of service. This time, no such tweet was listed. Twitter just arbitrarily suspended my account.

 

UPDATE:

I didn’t find out what why my account was suspended until I logged in today (6/22/18 1:38 PM), and had to delete this tweet to get back on to my account.

Advertisements

Darwinian Natural Selection Is Self-Defeating

James A., Ph.D.

Hypothesis: Darwinian evolution is self-defeating because it requires something to determine that a part of a functional system know that it’s functional before it is “saved” for future usage. For example. The bacterial flagellum motor consists of multiple parts that rival an outboard motor on a boat (to borrow Michael Behe’s analogy). Each part must be present simultaneously for the motor to work. To explain the origins of this machine,  Evolution would posit that the individual parts developed gradually over time, with natural selection “keeping” the parts that function, and rejecting those that don’t, and eventually, natural selection produces a fully functionally advantageous part. (Granted, I understand Evolutionists will complain that Darwin never attempted to explain the origins of anything, which I think is a disingenuous response because whenever a Darwinian evolutionists attempts to rebut a creationist who is explaining the origins of something, the Darwinian responds with the exact same arguments he/she would use if they were merely by ipse dixit assuming arguendo the origins of the thing to be explained.)

Here’s the problem. How does natural selection “know” that any evolved part is functional in the first place? How does natural selection know what any individual part is supposed to do? Without any guided, external intelligent governance, this requires natural selection to have amazing foresight because there’s nothing for natural selection to compare the part to in order to know that it will be useful for something in the future. For example, say natural selection develops a metal flap for a carburetor that later proves useful in regulating gasoline for a combustion engine. Since no engine is yet present, on what basis does natural selection “decide” that the flap should be saved and somehow stored for future use? Why would natural selection save the metal flap at all? How does it know it WILL need it? The only rebuttal I’ve heard from atheists I’ve presented this argument to is “evolution doesn’t ‘know’ things”, which is really a red herring and a “it just is” argument. However, natural selection would HAVE to know to produce its predictions.

A second problem is that of memory. For natural selection to know not to repeat the same mistakes of the previously rejected components, it must have the ability to remember that the manner in which a previous part was constructed was improper, and thus should not be used as a template for the part in the future. But where does natural selection get this memory from? Without some idea of what the part will even be, how does natural selection maintain the memory required for knowing that any previously deficient part is in fact, deficient?

And finally, since natural selection rejects and eliminates what isn’t functional or doesn’t provide some kind of essential survival benefit (which wouldn’t be a benefit if “it” wasn’t functional), how did any fully functional mechanism like the flagellum or any of its parts arise at all if natural selection relies on gradual processes? If the metal flap on the carburetor took a billion years to get right, but then took a billion more years to develop the spring with correct tension to ensure the metal flap properly opens and closes to allow proper fuel ratios, wouldn’t the metal flap have been a failure in the first place since it was impossible to determine whether the flap functioned correctly without the spring and hence rejected by natural selection? Why did natural selection keep that part in the first place? Without the concurrent functioning parts, natural selection should have rejected the very part that it “saved” since it is implausible that a billion years should expire without any evidence that the metal flap was an actual functional part. Naturalists would have to create an arbitrary standard (that begs the question and affirms the consequent) for why natural selection can preserve one part over billions of years but yet reject others parts as non functional when neither part can show that at the moment natural selection “decides” to save something, that it SHOULD BE saved at all.

Because natural selection as interpreted by materialists, naturalists, and Darwinian atheists can not account for the memory of natural selection, it’s amazing foresight, how it decides whether a functional part is actually functional, on what basis does it determine that a part should be saved for future usage, or why natural selection didn’t reject the very part it preserved, I am arguing that this type of selection is self-defeating, and Darwinian natural selection is false.

ATHEIST EQUIVOCATION ON INFORMATION
James A, Ph.D

I will say more about the following in an upcoming article but I noticed something interesting about debating atheists on mutations one hand (as to whether mutations produce new information sufficient to prove particles to people), and information theory on the other (that information itself in DNA/RNA and protein sequences shows an intelligent programmer behind their coding systems).

When atheists/naturalists/materialist argue in favor of mutations, they attempt to show that mutations do add new information (whether they are arguing from insertions, or bacterial resistance, etc…). Of course, they are wrong about their assumptions and conclusions, but that’s not the point. They must concede to a common sense definition of information to even begin to argue that their view of mutations adds new information.

However, when arguing about information theory, their first line of attack is to challenge the definition of information! Now think about that:if the atheist isn’t settled on what exactly “information” even means, then why would they be comfortable in their conclusions that, for example, insertions show evidence of new information? Why is it that the atheist/naturalist/materialist needs a functional definition of information* (since they know they are at a loss to explain the origin of information in DNA) when they don’t need a definition for information when arguing for new information in mutations!

This is just one more example of how atheists/naturalists/materialists use dishonest tactics to defend their a priori bias against a Creator.

_______
*When it comes to a thorough definition of information, I have always relied on the 5 levels explicated by Werner Gitt (In the Beginning Was Information). The atheists will always erect their straw man arguments against Shannon’s Theory of information even though I’ve consistently made it clear that SHANNON isn’t my source.

Why I Voted For Trump-Part 1

Posted: April 8, 2018 in Uncategorized

Why I Voted For Trump
James A., Ph.D

I’ll make this simple enough a liberal can understand it. We’ll start with a story.

In Afghanistan, there was a SGT leading troops away from an ambush. Only two people knew the escape route, the SGT, and the female CORPORAL that tipped off the enemy to their location. If the unit wants to survive they need to make a choice as to which person is going to lead them to the safe passage.

However, there’s a snag. Ms CORPORAL tells the group that SGT can’t be trusted because he’s immoral and he cheated on his wife. So the soldiers make a decision. They don’t like what the SGT did, and are personally mortified by it, but in this situation, they can either do nothing, in which case they will still die, trust CORPORAL who they know sold them out, which means they will die, or follow the SGT.

Liberals would’ve rather that conservative Christians did nothing in 2016, which is still a choice. So they constantly point to Trump’s past immoral behavior (and blatantly obvious, patently false accusations) in an attempt to guilt Christians into not supporting religious freedom, second amendment defense, freedom of speech, economic stability (which has a direct impact on churches, pastors earn their salaries from their members- if the economy is bad, the pastors suffer, and liberals are well aware of this. Why do you think Obama sicked the IRS on churches?), and a secure border. In other words, liberals think you should give up your constitutional freedoms because the man currently enforcing them is immoral. Never mind the double standards among liberals who defended Bill Clinton which is sort of telling: liberals know intuitively that objective moral values and duties exist, they simply choose to hate God and live like moral relativists (although they live like objectivists when defending THEIR actions and opinions) while expecting the Christian to maintain their standards. Of course, a Christian should live according to God’s standards whether a relativist does or not, but do so according to what’s actually in the Scripture, not according to the straw men and misguided arguments used by liberals. It’s a standard leftist tactic to attempt to polarize Christians and make them back down from politics by using some reductio ad absurdum logic to reduce any flaw in a politician as a reason you as a Christian shouldn’t support them. This way, they can have their cake and eat it, too.

Granted, I’d prefer someone else (sorry Trumpers). Knowing someone believes in objective moral values that are derived from our Creator makes it a little easier to believe someone is being honest and sincere which is important to politics. But the anomaly here is that while I don’t believe Trump is a serious Christian, he’s at least a theist that is at least striving to protect God-given rights, and he’s surrounded by good influences like Mike Pence. The alternative was to follow a communist/socialist witch who put our national security at risk by giving Russia nuclear bomb material (which they sold to Iran), and whose policies have always been aimed at destroying America and facilitating a coup that leads to America joining a satanic globalist one world order and began criminalizing Christianity (which has been in the works for decades under both Democrats and establishment Republicans).

So no, I don’t support Trump the person, but I do support a free market, strong economy, border security, freedom of religion and speech, conservative justices and judges being appointed, restrictions on abortion, deregulation, etc..and I will vote exactly the same way in 2020 if my only options are SGT and CORPORAL again. And whether the liberals like it, accept it, or believe it, we care enough about them to do what’s best FOR THEM, not their best interests (we’ve seen what their interests are and it’s not pretty), even if they don’t get it, and even if they hate us for it.

 

__________________

For some more detailed explications of the above arguments, see my article on Why Liberal Media Censors Fundamentalists

James A., Ph.D, Paralegal

In my professional opinion, the following is what I believe happened:

Daniels knew the risk of a defamation suit, so she never wanted to say she slept with Trump. She approached Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, first, and said she MAY HAVE slept with Trump (she was quite evasive on Jimmy Kimmel so she has a pattern of this kind of elusive ambiguity and ‘read-between-the-lines’ gimmicks). Daniels knew that with the media hosting several ‘sexual assault victims’ against Trump during the election, this would be a hot story, but it’s better to try getting a pay day then to have to prove the story if challenged.

Cohen then took it upon himself to offer her a pay day ($130,000) thinking he’s doing Trump a favor, and would foolishly think that Trump would reimburse him for being such a fine, thoughtful lawyer. So Cohen offered to pay for her silence over a story that was likely a bluff to begin with. That Cohen acted on his own explains why Trump’s name was not used in the non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”), and why there was no signature (not even of the supposed alias, David Dennison). Why any lawyer would think that using an alias would constitute a binding contractual obligation is beyond me, but I digress.

As a year passes, Daniels thinks she can get more than $130K because several media outlets are now offering her a lot of money to dish on Trump, but she acts as if she can’t speak of “it”, she can simply give the IMPRESSION that something happened without ever having to actually confirm it. To bolster this impression even more, her lawyers then sue Trump over the NDA, not because Daniels actually plans to tell a story, but because the lawsuit actually puts the NDA in the public. Hence, Daniels can speak through her lawyer without Daniels actually confirming the affair so as to not violate the NDA, but it’s not quite defamation against Daniels if it’s the lawyer saying “it” and not Daniels (the lawyer can simply say he “thought” that’s what his client meant), and by putting the NDA in the spotlight, it gives the appearance that SOMETHING must have happened or there wouldn’t be an NDA in the first place. In other words, Daniels and her lawyers have constructed a slick legal maneuver to get around the NDA, while at the same time, using the NDA as the ‘evidence’ that an affair actually occurred because the NDA makes it appear as if Trump has something to hide. It’s a way of making petitio principii a bona fide legal maneuver.

Daniels’ lawyers have thrown a monkey wrench into the plot, though. Perhaps inadvertently. They publicly claimed that Daniels can speak about the “affair” without being in violation of the NDA because Trump never signed the NDA which makes the contract void. The question then remains, if that were true- WHY HASN’T SHE? I believe she’s simply waiting for the biggest offer from the likes of CNN, MSNBC or Megyn Kelly and the highest bidder gets a (not THE) story. Think about it, what’s the real risk in speaking out? If these allegations were true, do we REALLY think that Trump’s going to enforce an NDA that he claims no knowledge of? Daniels’ lawyers have surely thought of that as well. If Trump litigated a breach of contract, it would be a tacit admission to the allegations. The smartest thing mainstream media could do to implicate Trump would’ve been to pay Daniels millions of dollars to breach her NDA and dare Trump to sue her over it. So then why hasn’t she spoken? Because Trump was never involved in the first place, and the agreement was solely between Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels without Trump ever being privy to the NDA. To speak out over a story that she knows is false would give her and the mainstream media a bloody nose. But as long as she can continue to play a game of well placed ambiguities she stays protected…and gets paid for it.

Trump probably first found out about the NDA when the FEC questioned Cohen and it was leaked to the media. Trump would’ve likely then called Cohen to his office and asked him why he did such a stupid thing like let some porn actress dupe him into a settlement when what Cohen should’ve done was brought this to the attention of the president and called her bluff. It wasn’t an accusation of sexual assault so it likely wouldn’t have affected the campaign. If the other 13 accusers and the Billy Bush tape didn’t slow the campaign down, one has to wonder what Cohen was thinking here. Cohen panicked.

The media will do anything to sabotage Trump’s presidency even if that includes trying to destroy all of his family members and his marriage. There’s even the possibility that the Deep State and the media want to create a scenario where after Trump hides an affair after the birth of his son with Melania, Melania becomes so enraged that she wants Trump dead; the Deep State then arranges the assassination and blames it on the First Lady.  (Think about the speculation surrounding the Kennedy assassination regarding Jackie Kennedy’s motive for supposedly assisting in the assassination of her husband after discovering JFK’s multiple affairs, including one with Marilyn Monroe.) Granted, I believe the initial motive of the Democrats is to link the payment of this NDA to an election campaign issue as a grounds to impeach Trump, but they know they can’t prove Trump knew about it, so I believe there’s a much bigger, long-game with this Stormy Daniels issue.

I believe Cohen made a foolish choice and expected to get compensated for it. I’m reminded of a time where I bought my mother something expensive for her car that I thought she needed without getting her permission first. My mother didn’t want the item and certainly it was unreasonable to ask for reimbursement because I made the decision on my own (a refund was not an option). Cohen owns this, and there’s no evidence that Trump actually did what Daniel’s said, or that he knew about the claims that made up the substance of the NDA. But I’m sure at this point, Daniels will come up with a Stephen King novel if she gets paid enough.

On a personal note, as a Christian I am disgusted by many of Trump’s past trysts, and I don’t think Trump has a very knowledgeable spiritual life. But the reality is actual conservatives had a Hobson’s choice: elect an immoral boss who at least wanted to honestly help the country with policies that we agreed with, or express our outrage over his immoral behavior by letting a murdering, deceitful Communist/Socialist in office that would’ve destroyed what’s left of any freedoms America had. Those Never Trumpers who call that an erroneous ‘lesser of two evils’ argument are…well…idiots.

UPDATED: 2/8/18

Dr. James A

Twitter has for the first time placed restrictions on my account. I exposed Twitter’s Shadow Ban in 2017 by acquiring a list of accounts Twitter had on a black list. Project Veritas also recently exposed Twitter for targeting conservatives in an undercover operation that was caught on camera.  I have also shown that Twitter was responsible for compromising Sara Carter and Sean Hannity’s accounts these last few weeks. Thus, I’m not surprised that Twitter has finally censored me. I now have legal standing to sue them! Thank you Twitter, see you in court.

This is what Twitter suspended me over

That AIDS was initially called “Gay Related Immune Deficiency” is a historical fact. Of course, I get called names on an hourly basis on Twitter, but because the accusers/harassers are liberals, Deep State sycophants that worship the ground George Soros and Hillary Clinton walk on, they get away with it. And naturally, you don’t see the context of the conversation, nor the vile things that were being said to me in that thread.

The second tweet is another historical fact. The Jews were enslaved by the Egyptians for 400 years. Even those who don’t follow the Bible know this fact. So now, it’s “hate speech” to give Bible and History facts! This fact is always forgotten about whenever liberal media wants to constantly vilify ALL white people (and the fact that I am an Indigenous American from the Chumesh Tribe makes this even funnier!)

Furthermore, these 2 tweets are nearly A YEAR OLD.

It is interesting though that some people from the James White Cult (Twitter.com/DrOakley1689, director of Alpha & Omega Ministries) threatened to report me for being “anti gay”, because they don’t like me exposing him for the hypocrite and lying wolf in sheep’s clothing that he is. So, there’s that, too.

Twitter has turned into the very Nazis that they claim they are censoring. If you are conservative politically, and Christian, expect Twitter to throw you in the Gulags. However, now you have to beware of these radical Calvinists who stoop so low as to act like they’re gay in order to silence their theological adversaries.

 

*UPDATE 2/8/18 I was sent a screenshot of a devout James White sycophant who admitted to reporting me. ffff

Dr. James A., PhD

Following yesterday’s article on the Trolley Car, we follow up with the other atheist who offered the following objections to the moral argument for the existence of God. Mind you, the presentation is quite childish, which follows the rhetoric of Richard Dawkins who encourages his followers to insult and mock Christians. As I’ll demonstrate, such an attitude is quite presumptuous given the utter vacuous nature of the following arguments.

Just to recap, the moral argument was stated in 2 ways: If God does not exist, objective moral duties and obligations do not exist. Objective moral duties and obligations exist. Therefore, God exists. And the second that a moral law implies a moral law Giver. If the premises of the first argument are true, then the conclusion necessarily follows. The arguments below from Tony Murphy did nothing to attack the premises of either argument.

  1. To start, Tony commits the fallacy of appeal to the stone. He gives no value for x or y so one can’t really determine what kind of argument he’s referring to because he can’t possibly claim that I gave no grounds for my argument given that he’s ignored the major and minor premises of the moral argument. His argument is a mere assertion that no argument was given because he disagrees with the conclusion. In fact, the rebuttal itself is “ex recto”.
  2. The second opening argument appeals to the stone as well, not to mention, is questing begging (asserting swaths of evidence without citing any, not that he even offered just what this swatch of evidence is supposed to support).
  3. In his argument against the terms “subjective” and “objective”, he is punting to the either/or verses the both/and system of logic, as well as the old arguments against the meaningfulness of language (although doesn’t specifically make that argument, it’s clearly implied by the silly semantic attack on the distinctions between these terms, and how they apply to moral arguments). First, I assume that Tony expects me to believe he’s making meaningful statements about the lack of meaningfulness of language, so that part of his argument is self-defeating. Secondly, in attempting to eliminate the existence of dichotomy by punting to both/and version of logic, he makes the fatal mistake of maintaining that this is the only correct view of morality. However, that creates its own dichotomy because he posits that either his view is correct to the exclusion of all others, or my view is correct. If his view is merely subjective, then there’s no reason for me or anyone else to take him seriously. If it’s objective, then it needs to provide an ontological explanation for its grounding.
  4. Empathy and Solidarity. First of all, his statement that “rules are the antithesis or morality. Real morality requires thought, and fixed rules prohibit thought” is sheer sophist nonsense. He assumes that there is a proper way to think in reaching the right conclusions which is itself, a RULE of thought that follows basic principles and rules of logic. Furthermore, this statement does nothing to explain the foundations of morality. It simply describes certain behaviors, and posits them as a ‘just so’ morality. Moreover, by assuming there is a “real” reality, there must be a “fake” or lesser morality. No foundation is offered as to how the difference was determined, so where exactly the mind hides while it waits for the standard to give him something to think about is a mystery.
  5. The ad hominem attack about what he knows today about our “idiot mythology” isn’t even worth addressing. The arguments used by atheists against the stoning of rebellious children in the Old Testament has been addressed thoroughly by Paul Copan in Is God A Moral Monster? so I won’t belabor the argument here. However, given that Tony never raised the issue of the Old Testament setting, God’s right to judge evil, nor any explanation at all as to what standard he is relying to determine that any act was evil to begin, this amounts to merely argumentum ad misericordiam.
  6. Morality is a simple contract, says Tony. What determines whether the person drafting the contract is right about his/her terms? Where there’s a social contract, there’s a social contract writer, and that writer must have had some premise on which to ground the rules for the society to live by. And just how does one go about determining which society’s contracts should be followed? Are these rules only right for that society, or are they binding on all people at all places and times? If they are only proper for our society, then aren’t we guilty of imposing our morality on Nazi Germany for condemning the murder of Jews? The majority of their culture “signed a contract” that tolerated and encouraged the murder of Jews (we’ll not mention Hitler’s argument from Darwinianism as to why Jews were an inferior race). Thus, on what basis does Tony condemn Nazi Germany? If culture decides its own morality, then the atheist can’t claim that the Nazis were objectively wrong.
  7. Moreover, the idea that we “rewrite and modify” the contract presumes that some transcendent standard exists outside of the herd. If moral obligations exist prior to the natural selection of these somehow crafted genes of morality, then evolution itself can’t serve as the explanation. “New situations” and “new understandings” are quite arbitrary given that the fittest of the culture could  simply decide that continued care of the elderly is a financial burden on the herd, so it’s best to just euthanize him. With no objective standard that transcends the herd that applies to all people in all situations and places and times, there’s no reason why such a decision can be deemed “evil” (in fact, it’s being practiced in Norway).

Tony also accused me of committing the fallacy of “affirming the consequent”. This argument, is itself, fallacious because affirming the consequent is a FORMAL fallacy that has to do with the rules of categorical syllogisms, and Tony is using it as an informal fallacy. Affirming the consequent does not apply when the minor and major premise of an argument have been distributed properly, and avoids other rule violations (such as 4 term fallacies). The premises being true (and he never offered any objections to the premises raised by the moral arguments), the conclusion NECESSARILY follows.

Atheism has no explanation for why I ought to be moral because it can not explain how moral duties and obligations obtain from an evolutionary foundation. They can explain past moral behavior in a descriptive manner, but they can’t offer a reason why I should be moral in the future. Atheism consistently confuses the explanation of morality in terms of knowing how people react and behave and describing their outward conduct (epistemology) with the question of where did morality come from (ontology)? What gave morality it’s “oughtness”?If evolution is the explanation, on what basis did evolution “know” that there would be a herd that would need moral guidance so much that an uncaused, undesigned set of morals would show up in the gene pool that just happened to have the effect of a conscious aversion to murder, albeit, without even knowing yet whether propagating the species was even a good thing to begin with, or why punishing humans for willfully murdering another human would be different from punishing dogs for raping other dogs. As William Lane Craig stated, “it’s as if nature knew we were coming”. Not only is evolutionary explanations for morality beyond credulity, it claims a supernatural clairvoyance about the needs of the future species which is why even Dawkins admits that the universe “appears” designed.

Unfortunately, I stopped watching the NFL given that they’ve turned a sport into a cesspool of immorality, and recently, an arena for politics. So I won’t be able to see Tony showing his “arse” on television, although I think we’ve all seen enough of it in his writings.

 

___________________

For more on addressing the fallacious reasoning behind these social contracts, see Mark Linville’s, Moral Argument, Greg Koukl’s Relativism, Feet Planted Firmly In Midair, and J. Budziszewski, Is Morality Neutral?

Dr. James A., PhD

In having a small Twitter debate with about 10 atheists, we discussed the foundations of morality (or rather, I discussed their foundations, the others punted to evolution). When I demonstrated that morality is not something that can be empirically tested and therefore can not fall under the umbrella of scientism, the Trolley Car Problem was raised to show that science can offer laboratory level evaluations of morality, and hence, there’s no need to posit God as the ontological foundation of morals because science can explain them through natural means.

However, that objection is somewhat of a red herring and a category fallacy. The argument was about the grounding of morality, not what dilemmas can be trumped-up by hypothetical scenarios. A laboratory may conduct experiments that observe behavior, but it can’t tell you how much a moral decision weighs, or what color thoughts are. It also can’t give you a scientific explanation as to why the scientist ought be honest in his interpretation of the data (perhaps deceiving people is the greater good because the population is too ignorant to understand the experts).

The reader can view the Wikipedia version of the Trolley Car Problem (since this was the reference cited by the atheist). It is called a “problem” because the solution appears to present an impossible conundrum that would demonstrate that there are no objective moral duties or obligations because nobody can point to a single set standard that would offer the right decision to make in the dilemma. However, there’s an enormous problem with this logic that serves to prove that objective moral duties and obligations actually do exist, and that the dilemma doesn’t serve as a valid rebuttal against objectivism (let alone as an objection against the grounding of morality).

First of all, whether the Trolley Car Problem attacks the grounding of morality is non sequitur. The dilemma merely shows that the expressions of morality, how they are implemented may be applied in different ways. But what’s overlooked is WHY this is even a dilemma in the first place! The dilemma actually presupposes that human life is valuable, and that regardless of what decisions CAN be made, the dilemma presupposes that some decision-whatever that may be- OUGHT to be made based upon some standard that saves the greatest amount of lives. Furthermore, it also presupposes that a decision that would result in the deliberate taking of a life would be objectively wrong in the event that killing one person to save another would be the “proper” choice. Any choice made is founded on the presupposition that human life has value. The dilemma does not posit that a person may make the wrong choice if the subject were a dog or porcupine. The dilemma is there because it is a HUMAN life at stake, which shows the innate recognition of the value of human life over animals. If a person were to pull the lever to save a wounded bird resulting in the death of children, we would conclude that person was insane.

 

The dilemma does nothing to refute that objective moral duties and obligations exists. Rather, it must presuppose them in order for this to even be accurately deemed a dilemma. If some transcendent standard of right and wrong does not exist, then why OUGHT I care who lives or dies in this dilemma? Perhaps the fat man is a serial killer and killing him would’ve been the right decision after all because it helps protect the species. But then again, why is protecting the species good in the first place?( The survival of the species presupposes that there is a good purpose for mankind, but even Richard Dawkins admits that evolution proves that we are made in a world that is purposeless. Even if these survival genes were naturally selected, how did natural selection know what would be good for the species in order to know how to craft the genes that would choose what is good? I digress.) Perhaps the serial killer only kills other sociopaths and in evolutionary concepts taken to their most logical conclusions, that helps propagate the species and is therefore a “good” thing. Atheists and evolutionists have no reasonable answers for why someone OUGHT to be moral, or why they SHOULD do what is right.

The Trolley Car Problem merely explains descriptions of different behaviors (or different possible behaviors), but this reduces morality to conduct, and that’s not the argument. It does not lead to a valid critique against the ontological foundations of morality, but rather, reinforces them. Thus, the Trolley Car Problem really isn’t a problem at all. It is merely a spin on the so-called problem of evil, which presupposes that there’s some standard of justice and righteousness that some action or inaction has deviated from. If there’s no God, objective moral duties and obligations do not exist. Objective moral duties and obligations exists, therefore, God exists. Where there’s a moral law, there’s a moral lawgiver, and this is a basic fact known to even the atheists that claim not to know so.

________________

I will address more on the difference between the order of knowing and being in part 2 of this as there is one more objection written by another critic in this same conversation. Atheists and evolutionists often confuse epistemology with ontology in arguing for the existence of morality, and that will be taken up in my next response.

 

The James White Cult-Part 1

Posted: September 3, 2017 in Uncategorized

[This is ONLY the rough draft, but I’m publishing some of it early since I said I’d have it by the weekend. There’s just too many screenshots to upload to make this a quick post, but there’s enough below that readers will get the point about why I refer to James White followers as the “James White Cult”. I will add to this post and fix errors later]

Dr. James A., PhD

Part 1 of this series will focus on the cultic mindset that the worshipful sycophants of James White of Alpha & Omega “Ministries” display in support of him. Scripture tells us that if a ruler hearkens to lies, all his servants are wicked (Proverbs 29:12). This is certainly analogous to the instant case where James White’s followers employ an “any means necessary” strategy to suppress dissent against White, rivaled only by the most vile social justice warriors like Antifa. These Saul Alinsky type tactics are indicative of White’s leadership.

White’s followers are made of mostly anonymous accounts. Those on the Twitter #Oldpaths hashtag are well aware of the years of harassment they’ve experienced from thousands of these accounts. Many of White’s supporters created parody accounts of his detractors to stalk them, and follow their every online move. Most recently, this has been done to me, Pastor Steve Camp, Brannon Howse, and several others who have opposed White’s recent participation in Islamic interfaith dialogues.

Now granted, under most circumstances it would be erroneous and fallacious to attribute to White actions that are merely done on his behalf (a sort of guilt by association). However, White has not only acknowledged these accounts, BUT ACTIVELY ENDORSES AND ENCOURAGES THEM

DrAchMonitor to whom White is responding along with my own Twitter account tagged (DortChristians) is a parody account made by Fred Butler of Grace To You Ministries. Although I have repeatedly emphasized that Dr. James Ach and Dr. James A (me) are not the same, White’s cult has found the accusation a useful gaff in trying to aggravate me. But nevertheless, all references the White cult makes regarding “Ach” are meant to identify me. Why that’s important to them is a mystery, but I digress.

It is also of interest that well it’s perfectly acceptable for White to consult with parody accounts, to point out White’s errors and hypocrisy is “stalking”. How one doesn’t see the irony in praising a parody account while in the same breath denouncing “stalking” is beyond me. But it does show quite a breach in White’s logic, or simply reveals his true motives in the lengths he’s willing to go to discredit his adversaries. But, since White has “single-handedly” saved the Muslim world, there is nothing off limits in protecting your Superman. 

Here are just a few examples of the most vile, vitriolic, nasty, and egregious posts from White’s cult. Once you have read them, you will be able to see right through the Alinsky tactics they use in accusing White’s adversaries of doing the very thing that THEY specialize in. It is ironic that when I opened the door to debate on of these parodies, Calvinist Fish, he would not answer whether or not Jesus is Lord, and I have long suspected that some of White’s most ardent supporters are atheists and Muslims.

First of all, White’s supporters brag out “trolling”. The following is from James White’s daughter’s best friend, Katie Boettcher (“Catbo222”) 

Here is “Pastor” Nick Johnson, making fun of the plight of my minor children. (Screenshot and explanation) It is one thing to point out a minister’s adult child involved in theological error or blatant unbiblical practices (as with James White’s daughter supporting Jesuit teacher and feminist, Karen Swallow Prior-whom James White himself has criticized for using ‘gay affirming’ language, and his daughter’s endorsement of an LGBT musical group, Pentatonix), but quite another to use a tragedy that has occured to your minor children not in your custody against you because you’re not adult enough, or Christian enough, to handle criticism of your favorite religious personality.

Next, we have the White Klan using some course homosexual jokes, and a song about “ding a lings” to describe me, which James White seemed to really appreciate

Of course, “The Monitor” tried to explain away the blatant sexual references of the Chuck Berry song, but any casual perusal of the lyrics can clearly see its not about high school bells.

White’s followers even stooped so low as to try and get my account suspended by saying that I was attacking LGBTs because I was criticizing them 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Fraudulent Codex Sinaiticus Defended By the James White Cult

Dr. James A., PhD

One of the most damning pieces of evidence against the Codex Sinaiticus is the evidence of its usage of anachronistic etymology that proves it is NOT a 4th or 5th century manuscript as contended by modern Bible “scholars”, but rather a modern forgery written by Constantine Simonides. James White, who defends the Sinaiticus, has never addressed this issue (not even in the debate with Chris Pinto where the White Cult claims victory because Pinto didn’t answer questions to their satisfaction that had nothing to do with the arguments Pinto raised in Tares Among the Wheat. Such red herrings are a standard Whitean debate tactic), so White and his cult who point to the only time in White’s history (the Simonides controversy isn’t argued in White’s book) where the Simonides controversy was ever addressed by White, can not merely point to this “debate” with Pinto as an answer to this charge of anachronisms against the Codex Sinaiticus.

A brief introduction to this controversy is as follows. Constantine Tischendorf, who claimed to have “found” the Sinaiticus touting it as an ancient manuscript, accused Simonides of lying about an ms he’d made known as The Shepherd of Hermas prior to Tischendorf’s publication of Sinaiticus. Long story short, Tischendorf had to retract his accusation and Simonides was exonerated. However, what snagged Tischendorf when he published Sinaiticus was that an exact match of the Shepherd of Hermas was contained in the so-called Codex Sinaiticus. When Constantine published the Sinaiticus, Simonides recognized his own work and markings, and called Tischendorf out on the lie that the Codex Sinaiticus was an ancient manuscript, the earliest among any known extant mss.

Both the Shepherd of Hermas and Sinaiticus contain Greek words that were not in use during the era in which Tischendorf and his ilk claim for the age of the codices (not to mention the sheer coincidence that Codex Sinaiticus just happened to contain the two Greek copies of Hermes and Barnabas known to have been previously attributed to Simonides).

From The Forging of the Sinaiticus, William Cooper, citing Greek scholar, James Donaldson notes,

“The late origin of the Greek is indicated by the occurrence of a great number of words unknown to the classical period, but common in later or modern Greek. Such are Βουνος, συμβιοσ (as wife), με (for μετα), πρωτοκαθεδριεις, ισχυροποιω κατεπιθυμω, ασυγκρασια, καταχυμα, εξακριβαζομαι, and such like. The lateness of the Greek appears also from late forms; such as αγαθωτατης, μεθισταναι, οιδας, αφιουσι (αφινουσιν in Sim. Greek), καπεκοπταν, ενεσκιρωμενοι, επεδιδουν, ετιθουν, beside ετιθεσαν, εσκαν, λημψη, ελπιδαν, τιθω, επεριψας and ηνοιξας, ειπασα, χειραν, απλοτηταν, σαρκαν, συνιω, συνιει; and some modern Greek forms, such as κραταουσα for κρατουσα, have been corrected by the writer of the manuscript. The lateness of the Greek appears also in the absence of the optative and the frequent use of ινα after ερωταν, αξιω, αιτουμαι, εντελλομαι, αξιος, &c., generally with the subjunctive, never with the optative. We also find εαν joined with the indicative. Εις is continually used for εν, as εχουσιν τοτον εις τον πυργον. We have also παρα after comparatives, and peculiar constructions, as περιχαρης του ιδειν, σπουδαιος εις το γνοναι, απεγνωρισθαι απο. And we have a neuter plural joined with a plural verb, κτηνη ερχονται. Most, if not all, of these peculiarities now mentioned, may be found in Hellenistic writings, especially the New Testament; and some of them maybe paralleled even in classical writers. But if we consider that the portion which has now been examined is small, and that every page is filled with these peculiarities, the only conclusion to which we can come is, that the Greek is not the Greek of the at least first five centuries of the Christian era. There is no document written within that period which has half so many neo-Hellenic forms, taken page by page, as this Greek of the Pastor of Hermas.”

Cooper, Bill (2016-04-08). The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus (Kindle Locations 898-907). Kindle Edition.

To bring this down to laymen’s terms, let’s use a simple analogy. If Pope Gregory XVI (who paid Tischendorf for his endeavors, which is a little odd given that Tischendorf was supposed to be a Protestant, and Pope Gregory is notorious for burning such “heretics” in a dungeon) had written a letter claiming that he never met Tischendorf, and in that letter, said that he was drinking Pepsi when he learned about the Codex Sinaiticus for the first time, we could safely infer that this letter was not really written by the pope given that we know when Pepsi was invented. Rather, the letter would have been written by someone in recent times. The Codex Sinaiticus and Shepherd of Hermas both have “Pepsi” spilled on them (and in many places, the authors had write AROUND the “Pepsi”. More on the “wormhole” problem at a future time).

There is even far greater evidence extant that the Codex Sinaiticus is even more recent than the 5th century, but the standard paradigm that surrounds the modern version controversy rests on whether or not Codex Sinaiticus is a 4th or 5th century production. If it is not-and it isn’t-every modern version onlyist is defending a lie when they point to the so-called “oldest and best” manuscripts in support of their Westcott & Hort Onlyism defense of modern translations, and their attacks against the King James Bible.

The anachronisms contained in both the Codex Sinaiticus and Shepherd of Hermes give not only credibility to Simonides claim of authorship, but at most, prove that both manuscripts were not/are not early manuscripts as claimed by modern version onlyist “scholars”, but rather a modern hoax. The entire modern version debate builds its house of cards on the Codex Sinaiticus. With the foundation being built on a lie, every manuscript that bootstraps its relevance to the Sinaiticus falls, and thus the question James White asks in his book, The King James Only Controversy, “Can You Trust the Modern Translations?” is a resounding “absolutely NOT!”.