Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Ontological Argument: The Final Word?

Mirror link

MYTH
The Ontological Argument for the existence of God is moot

William F. Vallicella = The Man
1. The Ontological Argument of Anselm is a treasure chest, for it contains the gold which proves God’s existence. Halleluyah! William F. Vallicella, the Maverick Philosopher, knows the type of key needed to open it but has not found the key itself. I believe I have found the key in St. Thomas Aquinas’s invaluable Summa Theologica. The key is proving that to exist is good…

Ontological Argument of Vallicella
2. William F. Vallicella outlines the Ontological Argument in his 11/27/2007 post "Deontic Ontological Proofs and Disproofs for the Existence of God":{1}
1. If a maximally perfect being is possible, then it is actual.
2. A maximally perfect being ought to exist.
2.1 A maximally perfect being ought to exist because It is deontically perfect.
2.1.1 It is absurd to say that a being can be perfect in every respect yet that it ought not to exist.
2.1.2 A being that ought to exist is greater than a being that neither ought to exist, nor ought not to exist.
3. Whatever ought to exist is possible.
3.1 It is absurd to say that there are things/states of affairs that ought to exist yet are impossible.
4. Therefore a maximally perfect being is possible.
5. Therefore a maximally being is actual; i.e. God exists.

Key to OA: To Exist is Good
3. Vallicella points out that for the argument to be successful, we must "justify the assumption [integral to premise 2] that to exist is good." St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 3/7/1274), Doctor Angelicus, has done this in his magnum opus, Summa Theologica. The following is how we prove that existence is good:{2}
1. That greatest of heathen philosophers,{3} Aristotle (Ἀριστοτέλης; d. 3/7/322 B.C.), says [Ethic. i], "Goodness is what all desire."
2. Something is desirable only insofar as it is perfect.
2.1 All things desire their own perfection.
3. Everything is perfect as far as it is actual.
4. Something is perfect as far as it exists.
4.1 Existence makes all things actual.
5. Therefore goodness and being are really the same (they differ only in idea).
6. Therefore to exist is good.

Conclusion: Ontological Argument Triumphant
4. Thus we have proven conclusively the truth of the three-step basic Ontological Argument:
1. If a maximally perfect being is possible, then it is actual.
2. A maximally perfect being is possible.
3. Therefore a maximally perfect being is actual (i.e., God exists).

5. Q.E.D. Praise the Lord YHWH, for His greatness knows no bounds!

Notes and References
{1} Vallicella, Dr. William F. "Deontic Ontological Proofs and Disproofs for the Existence of God." Maverick Philosopher. 27 Nov. 2007. 26 Mar. 2008 <http://maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com/posts/1196185577.shtml>.
{2} St. Thomas Aquinas: ST I, q. 5, art. 1: "Whether goodness differs really from being?"
{3} William Turner (3/1/1907) for the Old Catholic Encyclopedia: "Aristotle" @ http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01713a.htm.

Friday, March 21, 2008

Purple or Scarlet Robe?

MYTH
The Bible contradicts itself on the color of the robe the soldiers put on Jesus

1. Was Jesus clothed in a purple or scarlet robe? The following quotations of inspired passages come from the Dhouay-Rheims Bible translation @ Kevin Knight's http://newadvent.org, as is customary for this blog's Scriptural citations. Witness the following beautiful depiction of the Lord Jesus, which shows Jesus robed in the color purple, which is based on a misunderstanding of the words of St. Mark.
2. Matthew 27:27-31 says,
Then the soldiers of the governor, taking Jesus into the hall, gathered together unto Him the whole band. And stripping Him, they put a scarlet cloak about Him. And platting a crown of thorns, they put it upon His head, and a reed in His right hand. And bowing the knee before Him, they mocked Him, saying: Hail, King of the Jews. And spitting upon Him, they took the reed and struck His head. And after they had mocked Him, they took off the cloak from Him and put on Him His own garments and led Him away to crucify Him.
3. Mark 15:16-20 says,
And the soldiers led Him away into the court of the palace: and they called together the whole band. And they clothed Him with purple: and, platting a crown of thorns, they put it upon Him. And they began to salute Him: Hail, King of the Jews. And they struck His head with a reed: and they did spit on Him. And bowing their knees, they adored Him. And after they had mocked Him, they took off the purple from Him and put His own garments on Him: and they led Him out to crucify Him.
So are the Evangelists saying that Jesus was clothed with a garment that was the color scarlet and not the color scarlet at the same time? No. That would violate the law of non-contradiction: a and not-a cannot be true in the same sense at the same time. On the contrary, the Bible is completely inerrant; error is not compatible with inspiration. The color of the robe was scarlet, but Patriarch St. Mark I the Evangelist of Alexandria used "purple" because "purple" was the type of dye used to color the robe, as J.P. Holding of the exemplary site http://tektonics.org observes,{1} citing Acts 16:14: "And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, one that worshiped God, did hear: whose heart the Lord opened to attend to those things which were said by Paul." Thus the following depiction of our Lord Jesus is accurate:
Notes & References
{1} http://www.tektonics.org/uz/wally01.html. God bless you and yours, Mr. Holding, and I pray you enter the Catholic Church in the near future!

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Jack the Ripper Identified

PROBABLE FACT
Joseph Barnett was Jack the Ripper

My assumptions/Presuppositions: Jack the Ripper is not some unknown suspect,{1}but one of the suspects named by various authors.{2} The victims are the canonical five. The Lusk letter is genuine, not a macabre practical joke, and contained the kidney of Ms. Catherine Eddowes.{3}

Joseph Barnett was Jack the Ripper. He got away with the murders during his lifetime but several brilliant researchers, such as Bruce Paley, Dr. Frederick Walker, and Peter Underwood, have proven that he is almost certainly, that is, beyond any reasonable doubt, the savage serial killer Jack the Ripper. If it weren’t for the clues from the murder of Catherine Eddowes and the murder of the final canonical victim, Barnett's girlfriend Mary Ann Kelly, we might not have been able to connect the dots and show that Joseph Barnett (1858-1926) was Jack the Ripper. Here I will explain the powerful case for Barnett’s guilt and information which rules out many other suspects.

Catherine Eddowes stated that she knew the identity of Jack the Ripper, and she was murdered two days later.{4} This is not very likely to be a coincidence. Jack the Ripper must have found out that Eddowes was about to out him. But who could Jack the Ripper be such that he was able to learn that information? Jack the Ripper must have known Eddowes or friends of Eddowes in order to find out this information. Contemporary press reports stated that Annie Chapman and Mary Ann Kelly (the last victim and Barnett’s girlfriend) were good friends and that Catherine Eddowes and Mary Ann Kelly had lived in adjoining rooms.{5} Thus Mary Ann Kelly knew at least two other victims and Joseph Barnett knew at least three of the victims. This is intrinsically more probable when you recall that all of Jack the Ripper's victims were alcoholics who drank at the corner pub called Britannia.{6}

Catherine Eddowes was found dead with a torn envelope that still had the initials of an address. Since the sun was rising in that densely populated area, Jack the Ripper had to make a quick escape and could not risk that much more time.{7} Thus it is very instructive that he tore up the envelope. If he took the risk of doing that then the address on the envelope must have been very important. The most probable way it would be important is that the address of the envelope was the address of Jack the Ripper himself. The initials of the address on the envelope, i.e. the initials of the address of Jack the Ripper, are compatible with only one known suspect. The initials are M, Sp, 26.{8} These initials are compatible with only one suspect's address, Joseph Barnett's, whose address was Miller’s Court, Spitalfields, 26 Dorset Street.{9} Miller's Court is the geographical center of the addresses of the victims, the site of the murder, and the location to which Jack the Ripper likely fled after two of the murders.{10}

The consensus of the witnesses was that Jack the Ripper was an approximately 30-year-old 5'7" stout man with a small, light moustache who wore a decent suit and deerstalker hat.{11} This matches Joseph Barnett perfectly.{12}

Taking into account aliases and real names, all of the victims except Elizabeth Stride had some variation of Ann and some variation of Mary in their name. Jack the Ripper wanted to murder Mary Ann Connelly.{13} He murdered Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Mary Anne Kelly, and Mary Ann{14} Kelly, Joseph Barnett's girlfriend. It becomes apparent that Jack the Ripper was obsessed with Marys and Anns, and especially Mary Anns.

The only letter that can actually be pinned on Jack the Ripper is the letter to George Lusk, which contained half of Catherine Eddowes's kidney; Eddowes had Bright's disease and so did the kidney.{15} Joseph Barnett was an Irishman who lived in an Irish neighborhood, and the letter was written in an Irish dialect.{16} We already mentioned how the evidence of the envelope found by Catherine Eddowes is strong confirmation that Joseph Barnett butchered her.

Barnett is fully consistent with the FBI psychological profile of Jack the Ripper.{17} The FBI profile says that the Ripper had either no father figure or a passive father figure, and Joseph Barnett was six when his father reposed.{18} The FBI profile adds that JTR most likely worked in an environment in which he could lawfully carry out destructive behavior, and Joseph Barnett was a fish porter with a great deal of experience at gutting and boning fishes.{19}

Elizabeth Stride spent her last night on earth with an English-speaking fellow who looked like Joseph Barnett and was dubbed "Leather Apron."{20} The original JTR suspect was John Pizer,{21} and, before he was proven to not be JTR, was accused of being Leather Apron, a man who scared prostitutes.{22} John Pizer had a friend named "Joe" who scared witnesses{23} and it is possible that this man Joe was Joseph Barnett, and that Joseph Barnett was in fact Leather Apron but was confused with John Pizer by witnesses.{24}

The nail in Joseph Barnett's coffin is the circumstances surrounding the murder of the last victim of Jack the Ripper, Barnett's girlfriend Mary Ann Kelly. Mary Ann Kelly did not die at 4:00 A.M., when somebody yelled, "Oh, murder!"{25} JTR is not the person whose footsteps were heard in the court at 5:45 A.M.; that was Elizabeth Prater.{26} Maurice Lewis and Caroline Maxwell saw Ms. Kelly alive between 8:30 and 10:00 A.M.{27} Caroline Maxwell conversed with Kelly,{28} thus destroying the theory that a midwife "Jill the Ripper" murdered Kelly and was mistaken for Kelly because she stole her clothes.{29} Caroline Maxwell saw Kelly talking with a man who was dressed like a market porter, which description matches only Joseph Barnett.{30} The murder of Kelly occurred between 10:00 A.M. and 10:45 A.M., most likely shortly after 10:00 A.M. The physical evidence included the stomach contents of Ms. Kelly, who thus must have eaten within three hours of her death according to the known effects of human metabolism.{31} It is more parsimonious to say that Kelly had breakfast at 7:00 A.M. than to say that she had dinner at 1:00 A.M.{32}

Mary Ann Kelly was found horribly mutilated in a locked room. That means that Jack the Ripper had a key.{33} There would only be two keys for the room: the one for the tenant, and the one for the landlord, whose name was John McCarthy.{34} Mary Ann Kelly did not have a key, and she kicked out Joseph Barnett at the same time she lost her key.{35} So either John McCarthy or Joseph Barnett was Jack the Ripper. We can positively rule out John McCarthy because he was managing his store when Ms. Kelly was butchered.{36} Thus, Joseph Barnett used the key he stole (he was fired as a fish porter for theft){37} to lock the room after he murdered Mary Ann Kelly. With Joseph Barnett as the killer we can most parsimoniously explain the facts of the still-glowing{38} embers of the fireplace, the unlit candle (it was 10:00 A.M. so it wasn’t dark so he didn’t need to light it), and the presence of Joseph Barnett’s pipe on the mantelpiece.{39} On October 30th, 1888, Joseph Barnett and Mary Ann Kelly argued viciously at 13 Miller's Court such that a drunken Mary Kelly ended up breaking a window.{40} The most probable proposed reason for this altercation is that Ms. Kelly was letting a prostitute live with them.{41}

The objections raised in defense of Joseph against this powerful theory are exceedingly weak. None of them disprove that Joseph Barnett was Jack the Ripper. Though Swanson’s witness, who was most likely Mr. Joseph Lawende, ID'd Aaron Kosminski as the Ripper,{42} Barnett was not among his choices{43} and there is much information that makes Kosminski an implausible suspect (see below). The witnesses who thought Jack the Ripper was Jewish{44} could have been stereotyping Jews.{45} Joseph Barnett had an alibi for 4:00 A.M.{46} but that is irrelevant, since that was not the time of the murder of his girlfriend! But, you might urge, why did Bartnett stop the slaughter if he was Jack the Ripper since he had plenty of time and bloodlust to carry out more murders?{47} There are some plausible reasons. One is that he had started to kill all the women with names and other characteristics that reminded him of his girlfriend Mary Ann Kelly, and he finally murdered Mary Ann Kelly herself.{48} Add this to the fact that he was interviewed by the police for four hours and might have wanted to avoid any risk now that he had been under the radar.{49} There are serial killers who decide to stop killing, including BTK murderer Dennis Rader.{50}

Dr. Francis Tumblety (1833-1903) was not Jack the Ripper, though he was a misogynist. Police did not arrest him because they had no proof that he was Jack the Ripper.{51} He was too old.{52} He had no medical training,{53} there is no evidence that he was violent against women,{54} and homosexual serial killers usually attack their own sex.{55}

Michael Ostrog (1833-1904) was not someone with medical/anatomical knowledge.{56} He was too old and too tall (5'11"){57} to be Jack the Ripper and he was non-violent and had no record of assaulting or getting into fights with women.{58} During the spree of Jack the Ripper murders, he was jailed in France for petty crimes.{59}

Prince Albert Victor (1/8/1864-1/14/1892), a.k.a. Eddy, Duke of Clarence and Avondale, was not Jack the Ripper. He was non-violent,{60} lacked anatomical knowledge, and police never suspected him.{61} He was not in London at the time of the murders.{62}

Nor is Sir William Withey Gull (12/31/1816-1/29/1890), Queen Victoria's physician-in-ordinary, a credible suspect;{63} he was far too old at the time of the murders to be the man witnesses described.

John Pizer (1850-1897) was not Jack the Ripper. He was on the London Docks talking to a cop and watching a large fire during one of the murders{64} and was staying in a lodging house during the murder of Nichols, according to the house's owner.{65} He lacked the medical skill to butcher Annie Chapman and take out her uterus.{66}

James Maybrick (10/24/1838-5/11/1889) was too old to be Jack the Ripper and the entire case against him consists of a forged diary.{67}

Dr. Thomas Neill Cream (5/1850-11/15/1892) was not Jack the Ripper because he was incarcerated during the murder spree{68} and did not confess "I am Jack …" immediately before being executed, as is clear from the silence of police officials present.{69}

Walter Richard Sickert (1860-1942) was not Jack the Ripper and he was in France during most of the Ripper murders;{70} #1 best-selling crime novelist Patricia Cornwell's case against him is quite weak.{71}

There is no evidence that James Kenneth Stephen (2/25/1859-2/3/1892) was Jack the Ripper.{72}

Montague John Druitt (8/15/1857-12/1/1888) was not Jack the Ripper; no one has shown that he was "sexually insane"{73} and the most knowledgeable Chief Inspector Abberline dismissed him as a viable suspect.{74} Moreover, Druitt was of too small a build{75} to be JTR and was not foreign-looking;{76} also, he did not live in or travel to the East End{77} and he could not have committed the murders and then taken the train from his residence in Blackheath to London and back.{78} He could not have murdered Annie Chapman at 5:30 A.M., washed up, and boarded the train to Blackheath in time for an 11:30 A.M. cricket match.{79}

Colney Hatch medical superintendent said that Aaron Kosminski (1865-1919), who had lived near the Whitechapel murder scenes and fit some aspects of the FBI's Jack the Ripper psychological profile, was not suicidal or a hazard to those around him{80} and he spent the final quarter century of his life as a harmless imbecile at Leavesden.{81} Lawende's ID of Kosminski as Jack the Ripper is not credible because he saw JTR only briefly in but dim light and told police that he could not ID JTR if he saw him again,{82} but then probably at least two years after he saw JTR positively identified Aaron Kosminski as Jack the Ripper.{83} Kosminski was ignorant of anatomy{84} and, like Montague John Druitt, was of too small a build{85} to be Jack the Ripper. There are other factors which rule Kosminski out which are beyond the scope of this article summary.

George Chapman (12/14/1865-4/7/1903), though a misogynistic murderer with surgical experience, was most likely not Jack the Ripper. In fact, there is no evidence{86} that he was. Chapman's known victims contrasted starkly with Jack the Ripper's version in age and class.{87} It is rare for serial killers to change their modus operandi,{88} though it does happen;{89} it is thus unlikely that George Chapman went from savage mutilations to poisonings with antimony. Chapman was much younger (age 23) than the man seen by witnesses,{90} but it is possible that he looked older than he was to witnesses if he was JTR.{91} Police did not suspect Chapman was JTR during his lifetime,{92} and it is highly unlikely that the Polish immigrant George Chapman would have been able to talk eloquently in English with the victims as Jack the Ripper did, according to witnesses.{93} It is safe to put George Chapman, a.k.a. Severin Antoniovich Klosowski, aside because he is not a viable suspect.

The murderous Frederick Bailey Deeming (7/30/1842-5/23/1892) was not Jack the Ripper because he was in South Africa during JTR's killing spree.{94}

Although Carl Feigenbaum told his lawyer that he hated women and wanted to kill and mutilate them, leading the lawyer to think that Feigenbaum was the Ripper, Feigenbaum was much older than Jack the Ripper{95} and there is no evidence putting him in London during the Whitechapel murders{96} or that he was a contemporary suspect.{97}

[UNDER CONSTRUCTION!!!]

Sunday, March 09, 2008

Human Evolution is a Lie

Abstract: All hominids are either fully human or fully ape and there is no evolutionary path from monkey to man; as can be seen from the consistent testimony of the Fathers and Popes, God created humans miraculously, forming Adam from the dust and Eve from Adam’s rib, and did not simply pick soulless hominids and give them a soul; the falsehood of polygenism and the dangers of compromise.

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

Evolution's Information Problem

The biological evolutionary theory has an insurmountable problem of information.{1} There is no, in the words of Timothy Wallace, "specific, empirically evident original mechanism/process and pathway of specific, empirically evident mechanisms/processes have led from zero genetic data in raw matter to the vast array of voluminous genetic data inherent in living organisms as we know them."{2} The theory of evolution requires an increase in information over time. But the mechanisms said to increase information, viz. Mendelian inheritance, polyploidy, hybridization, and (accidental) mutations{3} do NOT result in an increase in information. We observe ONLY conservation or loss of genetic information.{4} Antibiotic resistance is not due to an increase in information,{5} nor do new plant colors stem from an increase in information,{6} nor does the adaptation of bacteria to feed on nylon waste constitute an informational increase.{7} It is a shame that the patently absurd theory of evolution has so many people deceived; people just seem to take for granted that it is true!

Notes and References
{1} Dr. Royal Truman (2001): "The Problem of Information for the Theory of Evolution: Has Tom Schneider Really Solved It?" @ http://trueorigin.org/schneider.asp.
{2} Timothy Wallace (4/2000): "Tim Wallace Answers Wayne Duck" @ http://trueorigin.org/ca_tw_02.asp.
{3} Dr. Carl Wieland: "Variation, information, and the created kind" @ http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v5/i1/kind.asp.
{4} Dr. Gary Parker: "Mutation, yes; evolution, no" @ http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/docs/cfl-pdfs.asp.
{5} Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (10/22/2001): "Is antibiotic resistance really due to increase in information?" @ http://answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/negative_22October2001.asp.
{6} http://answersingenesis.org/docs2/4343Critics_Plantcolour.asp.
{7} Don Batten (12/2003): "The adaptation of bacteria to feeding on nylon waste" @ http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp.

Tuesday, March 04, 2008

Roc

Abstract: Is the Roc an historical bird or merely an exaggeration or legend?