Leaving Microsoft

 This is arguably out of order. I have one or two posts which should probably go before this (namely, why I am starting with Microsoft, why it isn't JUST Microsoft, and what brought me to this point), but I am feeling a bit cowardly about posting them. Perhaps later. We'll see.

But I have reached a threshold of tolerance for poor social, political, and economic behavior, from certain organizations, and the social and political structures they are building, and I have decided to do something, even if it is only removing myself, my labor, and my personal information from the equation (a drop in the ocean, admittedly).

I recognize a certain amount of inconvenience will come from this effort. But as a wise farm-boy-turned-pirate once said, "Life is pain...".

Weak humor aside, life is often difficult, and sometimes you have to "Choose your hard." Switching away from all Microsoft products will be hard, but I feel it a better choice than remaining under their thumb.

But as I noted at the start, this post isn't intended to enumerate my grievances, rather it is to work through the technicals.

There are three (four, technically) facets to this endeavor, which must each be considered.

1. Operating System - Currently running a mix of Windows 10 and Windows 11 in my home. Microsoft allegedly plans to bully people into moving off 10 (not practical from a couple of my systems which are too old to run 11). And I have mostly regretted upgrading to 11 on the systems where I did. More clicks to get the same work done, and I am no longer to organize resources in a way which is practical for me.

This will be the focus of this post.

2. Applications - This is a big topic and may be a couple of posts. From a Microsoft perspective. I have already moved off MS Office (to LibreOffice) and OneNote (to Obsidian - I did this after OneNote unrecoverably corrupted a large number of documents roughly a year ago. Obsidian works in plain text files, with Markdown, so eliminates that likelihood as well as dependence on a single, proprietary application).

3. Data - This is heavily tied to applications - for my purposes, it is a factor to consider from the perspective of file formats (mostly Office files - Word, Excel, etc... Which Ironically, LibreOffice was able to recover legacy versions of MSOffice files, that Office could not), to make sure my data is accessible and protected.

4. Configurations - This is very heavily tied to applications. Often Configurations are splattered across various files and/or scattered throughout the Microsoft Registry. This is a significant frustration for me. Application configurations should be kept in a file, or a specific folder structure of files, and preferably in a plain text format (YAML, or similar). This way you can move to a new computer, reinstall the application, copy the configs, and voila! All are personal tweaks and preferences are 'magically' there. It is absurd to me that this isn't the default way of doing things.

I will only be focusing on the first item in this post. I may address the others in later posts, depending on interest, personal momentum etc...

So, Operating System.

There are a few key requirements for this:

Price - It needs to be affordable. As I have limited budget. but I also don't want "free". "Free" tends to come with strings. Price also includes cost of hardware, I want something that runs on my existing hardware, so I don't have to spend a fortune on new gear.

Stability and Ease-of-use - I own a car to get me from point A to point B, not to work on the engine. I respect people who do that, and am not disparaging them, but for me, the operating system is just the platform for running applications, which are used to get stuff done. I am reasonably competent, technically, and can dig into the code a bit if needed, but I don't want to spend all my time fiddling with the operating system.

Applications - I need to be able to run my applications, or an alternative application which meets my needs. For the most part, I have been preparing for this for the past couple years. Most of the applications I use are cross-platform (i.e. have versions for other operations systems), the rest, I believe I can live without.

There are really only a handful of options for operating system.

Windows - Which is what I am seeking to leave. So, obviously it's out.

Apple (MacOS) - I have ruled it out based on cost, proprietary hardware requirements, and the closed ecosystem - which I do recognize is a plus for the fiddling, however they have taken it a step too far - I don't want to spend all my time tinkering with the engine, but I also don't want a car with the hood welded shut, so to speak. Also, I have a long-standing beef with Apple, due to their founder's poor behavior, and concerns they are still supporting slavery (specifically Uighurs, and political dissidents in China).

Linux - This seems to be the winner. There are of course, thousands of Linux distributions, and this is really the meat of this post, evaluating the myriad options. Though most can be discarded as too niche.

Linux is not without flaws of course. The thousands of different distributions for example. Linux tends to be very fragmented. It is open source, which means anyone can look at - and work on - the code. This has some benefits.

1. It likely won't disappear onto a shelf somewhere. Since anyone can pick it up and start working on it.

2. There is the potential for better security, based on the principle of "many eyes". With more people looking at the code, it is less likely a security flaw (intentional or unintentional) will stay in the code for long. I emphasize potentially however, as this only is the case if skilled people are actually looking at the code. This may or may not actually be happening, which can lead to a false sense of security.

But there are flaws as well - 

1. The people working on it are often... strong personalities. This leads to fragmentation as individuals split over differences of opinion on design and structure.

2. It is difficult to effectively monetize, when anyone can pick up your work and use it for their own distribution. So projects are often the result of someone following a passion. Passion doesn't put food on the table. This means some projects just... die. Projects often lack good documentation as well, as the people working on them are interested in solving a specific problem for themselves. (In an ideal world, people would acknowledge the work of individuals and make micropayments to them, which would add up to a reasonable living. I use the example of music artists. If there was an easy way for everyone to identify the artist who produced a specific song, and then pay the artist... say... 25 cents for the song - A million people doing that, and the artist just made a quarter of a million dollars!)

Still, given the tradeoffs I believe Linux is the best option. Now, which one... 

Redhat (/Fedora) - One of the oldest and most established distributions, with a solid company behind it. However, their pricing tends to be business-centric (i.e. too expensive for home users). They have free offerings, but they have been doing some weird stuff with those of late. Redhat is now a subsidiary of IBM, and while far from the worst, they are on my list of organizations to avoid, due to bad behavior.

Debian (/Ubuntu/Mint/)... - Debian is another old-guard. They are unique in that they are a non-profit, all-volunteer organization. Debian itself is very stable, albeit lags behind other distributions. It has become the foundation for numerous other distributions, Ubuntu being perhaps the most well-known.

Ubuntu has a for-profit model, though a home user can obtain it for free. They essentially take Debian's work and put their own polish on it (which in theory makes it more user friendly. This was most notable with respect to hardware support, as Debian had a strict policy of not allowing proprietary code, which meant some fiddly technical work during installation. As of version 12, they have relaxed this somewhat, allowing proprietary firmware.). 

Ubuntu and Mint (and other derivatives) will often fast-track key applications, making their distribution slightly more 'up-to-date' as well.

My general leaning is to go to the source, rather than a derivative work. So, Debian is my preference here, even if it lags behind a bit. They are well established, they have a solid governance model, and they are committed to openness and accountability.

It is not a purchased product, but as a non-profit, they are using me as a product, and perhaps there will be an opportunity for me to contribute to the community in time.

Arch - A (relatively) new distribution, Arch has one unique feature in that they don't release 'versions' of the operating system. It is always "Arch".

The benefit of this is you don't have that occasional, massive and painful upgrade. (Like going from Windows XP to Windows 8, or Windows 10 to 11, etc...).

The downside, it is constantly being updated. there is a greater risk of instability, and more fiddling is likely necessary to keep things working as you like. I have been testing it for a few months now, and thus far I have had no difficulties.

Arch has a reputation of being snobbish and "elitist". I can't say if this is true, as I have had almost no interaction with other arch users (again, no problems so far). They do seem to have very good documentation, should it be necessary.

NixOS - an even newer distribution. I know very little about this one, and what i have read suggest it is (at present at least) too fiddly to meet my ease-of-use requirement. I mention it because it is definitely on my "to keep an eye on" list - possibly for future consideration. The reason being their immutability design principle.

As I understand it, NixOS has a single YAML config file (though I believe it can be broken out into sub-files - a single file would be cumbersome), which has all of the system configuration information.  This means you can grab the installer, feed it this file, and rebuild your system from scratch at will, with all your tweaks and preferences intact. I would consider that ideal.

But, it sounds like, at the moment, it takes quite a bit of fiddling to get this working how you want. So, I will keep it in mind, but wait for now.

It is possible I can achieve the same result with Debian or Arch, using a tool such as Ansible, which allows you to build YAML documents to define your system, and then it idempotently applies the necessary changes to the system to achieve that state.

Again, this is fiddly, and Ansible is a RedHat product, so... We'll see.

Based on this analysis, my inclination is to Use Debian for my home server needs - and probably the family computers as well, and use Arch for my main workstation, where I will need to be a bit more cutting edge.

I also have a Microsoft Surface pro, which is my portable computer, and that one may be a particular challenge. Looking at online resources, it doesn't appear there is presently a "plug-and-play" solution to move off of Windows there. (Microsoft hardware, so I suppose that is to be expected). Still not sure how I will tackle that.

That is where I am at this point. The idea is not fully baked, but I intend to make significant progress in May and June to eliminate Microsoft products and services from my life.

Why am I even posting this? Partly for accountability. Now that I have said it out loud, I am less likely to chicken out. Also partly, in case others have gone down this path, or are considering it, this provides a chance to connect and share knowledge.

Wish me luck...

Making Sense of Old Testament Slavery Laws

 The Old Testament has always been something of a challenge for me. The apparent inconsistencies in comparison with the message of the New Testament are troubling to say the least.

How does one reconcile the message of love, mercy, justice, and forgiveness presented by Jesus Christ with many of the Old Testament stories?

Under God's direction, The Israelites attack Jericho, and slay every man, woman, child and animal. Why would a loving God do this?

God instantly kills Uzzah for attempting to steady the Ark - an act that would seem to be a reflexive attempt to prevent it from tipping over after the Oxen carrying it jostle it. Yet David remains alive and King for some time after committing adultery, and murder. How is this fair?

One prophet lies to another prophet and gets him killed by God.

Some youths tease the prophet Elisha for his bald head, and his response is to curse them, causing them to be torn apart by bears.

I can accept (though barely) that the world is unfair, but in these events, God himself seems to be a participant, even an instigator of unfairness. How does this make sense?

I generally cope by assuming there is an issue with incorrect translation, or missing context, or that the story morphed over time. Someday, we'll learn that the youths were twenty-somethings, and they were dragging the prophet into the woods to lynch him, and they got too close to a mother bear with cubs, and God intervened so that Elisha wasn't also killed.

There is one issue which I recently managed to logic through in a way that made sense.

That is the issue of laws governing slavery.

Slavery is wrong. Forcing another person into bondage is wrong. Why then did God give laws governing slavery, seemingly condoning it? How does the existence of these laws fit with the idea of an unchanging, perfect God?

First, in brief summary, the laws set a maximum term of six years of service, after which the slave goes free, along with their spouse and any children - families are kept intact. There is a provision that if they don't want to go free, they are permitted to remain as a servant.

So, the laws, in essence, provided protection from hardship for slaves. They ensured a certain quality of life.

Now, under what circumstances would an Israelite obtain a slave? 

The commandments "Though shalt not murder" and "Thou shalt not covet" would eliminate a war of aggression as a possible avenue.

According to Jewish scholars, the commandment "Thou shalt not steal" was actually "Thou shalt not kidnap", when correctly translated.

What does that leave then?

Individuals who were unable to repay debts, and the spoils of a defensive war, are the only two I can think of.

If that is the case, then these are individuals who are in a state of extreme hardship. Either they lost a war they started, meaning they are likely wounded, widowed, or orphaned, in a kingdom (or tribe) which has just been decimated, or they are deeply indebted, and impoverished.

Either way, they are likely homeless, and with little to no prospect of being able to feed, clothe and shelter themselves.

So, considering the time period, this six-year sentence of servitude provided a degree of security for the servant, while at the same time allowing some means of recompense for outstanding financial or war debts. Thus, there is both justice AND mercy in these laws, when considering the period in history, and the interaction of other laws.

No, I don't think this justifies slavery, nor would it be applicable in our times (however, had the spirit of these laws been applied after World War One, it is quite likely World War Two would not have happened).

But there is a way in which it at least makes sense, a way in which there is congruity.

Christian Misconceptions: "Christian"

 Recently I saw a conversation in a social media thread, in which a person was accusing a number of religious groups of not being "technically" Christian. The rationale for this claim was that the groups in question didn't adhere to a certain, specific set of tenets, or interpretations which are held by a large number of other groups, generally considered "Christian".

There was of course the usual, pointless back and forth, people talking at each other. But consider this:

Christian, Christ - ian. Meaning (etymologically) related to, belonging to, or after the manner of - Christ.

The Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus' time would have considered themselves "Christian"

No, they didn't recognize the name "Christ." But their religious beliefs, their doctrine was founded on and looking toward the coming of Messiah, the one true God and Savior.

But, they didn't recognize him when he came.

You see, they were so entangled in the minutiae of the rules, policies, doctrine, and interpretation of scripture, that they were neglecting the things which truly mattered.

They were so busy chastising their brethren for failing to be proper followers because they took too many steps on the sabbath, or failed to precisely adhere to this or that law, they forgot to care for the poor, the sick, the widow, the bondsman.

Jesus didn't call sinners to repent, he invited them to follow him. He lifted, he encouraged, he served, he healed, he mourned with those that mourned, he fed the hungry. In fact the only groups he spoke ill of... were the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

In fact Mark Chapter 9 records an instance when his disciples, adopted similar behavior, forbidding a man from casting out devils because he "followeth not us." (Mark 9:38)

To which Jesus responded "Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part." (Mark 9:39-40).

"Christian" isn't a specific set of rules agreed upon by some group of people. It isn't a club, a dogma, or a church. 

There is no organization which is "Christian", but there are Christian people in most every organization.

"Christian" is a person. A person who - to the best of their ability - follows, emulates Jesus Christ.

"By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." (John 13:35)

"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;...  For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?" (Matt 5:44-47)

Mormon Misconceptions: Heaven

 A joke a non-denominational Christian preacher told me:

One day a group of people arrived at the gates of heaven. They were greeted by St. Peter, who welcomed them to their new eternal home, and invited them to take a tour. Naturally they all agreed, so St. Peter led them along a path to a wide, lazy river, where a boat was waiting for them. 

Everyone boarded the boat and found a seat.  two angels on the docks cast of the lines, and the boat pulled away, moved by some silent propulsion system.

As they rounded the first bend in the river, an enormous cathedral came into view. It was a beautiful structure of stone, with ornate, stained-glass windows everywhere. The sound of a regal choir poured from an open doorway, into which people were reverently entering the building. A few turned, and seeing the boat, waved in greeting.

"Those are the Catholics," St. Peter returned the wave of greeting as the boat continued upstream.

The next bend opened on a giant, outdoor amphitheater. A large crowd was gathered, listening to a band perform, there were drums and guitars, and the crown swayed to the music, their arm raised high.

"And these are the Pentecostals," St.  Peter smiled, his foot tapping to the beat. Someone in the crowd noticed the boat. He let out an enthusiastic yell, and the entire crowed turned, shouting in greeting. The people on the boat waved to the crowd, who returned to their worship.

"They are a lively bunch," St. Peter observed with a grin.

Around another bend, the newcomers observed a large meadow, dotted with picnic pavilions. Where people sat in small groups, conversing as they sampled the smorgasbord and read scripture.

"These are the Baptists," St. waved cordially at a nearby by group, who shouted a greeting to the newcomers.

"Wow!" one of the passengers exclaimed, "I had no idea heaven was so huge!"

"In my father's house are many mansions," St. Peter quoted the scripture with a smile.

Just then, one of the passengers pointed at the opposite bank, a look of alarm on her face. The others followed her gaze to a tall, fortified barricade, with caution signs posted at frequent intervals, warning all to 'keep out.'

'Oh, yes,' St. Peter seemed startled, "I almost forgot. Everyone please be quiet until we are past this area. no noise."

The boat floated on in dreadful silence, the passengers not daring to breath.

As the barricade finally faded in the distance, one passenger turned to St. Peter.

"What in heaven is so dangerous it needs to be walled in like that?"

"Oh, no," St. Peter shook his head, chuckling. "It's nothing dangerous. Those are the Mormons. They think they're the only ones here."

As a twenty-year-old hearing this, I politely laughed at his joke, but I found it not even slightly amusing. A few decades of human interaction later, and I have come to appreciate the humor in his joke. Though I will say it is applicable to any number of people from any number of faiths.

In reality however, I think most people, me included, tend to misrepresent the scope of heaven from the perspective of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I say that having recently re-read section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants.

(I feel I should probably post a disclaimer here - I am not authorized to speak for, or on behalf of the church, the following is my personal opinion.)

Doctrine and Covenants (or D&C - a collection of latter-day revelations, held as scripture in the Latter-Day Saint faith) Section 76 includes several verses which describe, at least in part, the concept of the "many mansions..." spoken of by Jesus Christ in the New Testament (John 14:2). It accounts a vision seen by Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, in which they were shown certain aspects of the resurrection of the dead.

During that vision, they saw three "worlds" or "glories" (Both terms are used in this section. People often refer to them as "kingdoms" as well, though that word is not used as such in this section.)

And this becomes a point of contention for many Christians (and others), who see this as some sort of grading system. That is another topic, which I might address in a separate post, if anybody is particularly interested.

For now, I just want to look at a few of the verses describing these three glories, and dig into my most recent observations:

First, the Celestial:

D&C 76:69 "These are they who are just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood."

Seems pretty straight forward. The contention many have with this is the implication that we earn our way into heaven by our works. And many in and out of the Church interpret it this way. Though I think this verse quite clearly calls out the atonement as the vehicle which makes entry possible. 

But this is is the least interesting one, so, moving on...

The Terrestrial:

D&C 76:74 "Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it."

Now this one troubled me on first read. It seems to say, that Mother Theresa, and Mahatma Ghandi can do no better than this, but several politicians and businessmen (who shall not be named), who have been caught publicly lying, but have temple recommends can fare better in the afterlife.

That doesn't make sense. Not if God is truly just and merciful.

There is a footnote in this verse which cross references D&C 138:2 which includes this elaboration.

"...those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets."

I read this as the same statement, made twice. They died in their sins (or, transgression), Without a *Knowledge* (not faith) of the truth (or, they rejected the prophets).

So, this isn't talking about people like Ghandi, who didn't have sufficient opportunity to learn about and accept the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is talking about people who learned it, understood it, and rejected it, but then came around in the afterlife.

Now here's the real kicker.

The Telestial:

82 "These are they who received not the gospel of Christ, neither the testimony of Jesus."

84 "...are thrust down to hell."

85 "...shall not be redeemed from the devil until the last resurrection."

103 "These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie."

89 "And thus we saw, in the heavenly vision, the glory of the telestial, which surpasses all understanding."

This is where heaven gets bigger in Latter Day Saint teaching. Among the inhabitants of this Glory - A glory which "surpasses all understanding" - are those who reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Not just in this life (That's already been covered by the Terrestrial), but also in the afterlife. In any other Christian doctrine, that qualifies you for hell. End of story.

But the way I read these verses, those people - the worst of the worst - some of whom refuse to accept Jesus Christ as their Savior, not just now, but after they die, still get to go to heaven! An Infinite Atonement indeed.

The Authenticity Fallacy

(This post is part of series of posts, beginning here. It is recommended they be read collectively, and in order.)  

"Be Your Authentic Self"

This has become a popular phrase of late.

There is just one problem. You don't know yourself well enough to be your authentic self.

Consider the case of "Joe".

Joe is an individual whose corpus callosum was cut, severing the left and right hemispheres of his brain, in an attempt to control severe epileptic seizures.

Some interesting observations came from experiments performed with Joe. Having him focus on a dot in the center of a computer screen they would display words or images to either the right or left side of the screen. Anything which appeared on right side, he could verbally name. If it was on the left side, he could not. He could, however, with his left hand, draw the object.

Taking it a step further, they would show different objects in each side at the same time. He would draw object on the left side. But report seeing the object on the right.

In some instances, when asked about the disparity between what he said he saw, and what he drew, he provided a believable (albeit false) explanation. For instance, he reported seeing a hammer, but drew a bell, he would report having passed a church while driving to the facility and must have seen the bell in the steeple. Note he wasn't lying, he was creating a false memory to justify the disparity, to make sense of it.

Which side of Joe's brain is his authentic self?

It is noted that women, every month, go through a series of four hormonal phases (menstrual, follicular, ovulatory, luteal), during which significant changes in various hormone levels occur. These changes vary in effect from one person to the next, but in some instances, they very drastically alter mood, to a nearly Jekyll and Hyde level in some cases. Recent studies suggest there is also an impact on decision making (specifically, higher estrogen levels reduce impulsivity). At what point on the Menstrual cycle, then is a woman her "authentic self"?

(Men experience something similar, though not nearly so drastic, and on a 24 hour cycle, but this too may alter mood and decision making to some extent, so again, what time of the day is the man being his "authentic self?")

In the previous post, "The Invictus Illusion", I noted a report on instances of drastic personality change occurring in victims of brain trauma. Further, consider the instances of dissociative identity disorder.

Putting that together, I wish to propose a theory.

Each and every one of us consists of multiple "personalities".

Perhaps our brain is in fact a distributed system, with each region having its own personality. For most people, we are unaware of this due to one or more mechanisms which coordinate those separate personalities. If this is the case, then dissociative identity disorder is the failure of this mechanism, causing a person's separate personalities to manifest independently.

What then is our authentic self? The combination of all the personas? The command-and-control system, assuming one exists? Perhaps finding your authentic self is lifelong struggle in which one personality ultimately subdues the others?

This is of course a theory, but one which fits with what we know, and could possibly explain much of what we don't. It of course becomes a tricky talking point for people of faith - if you consist of multiple personalities, what then, is "the spirit", and what control does it actually exert on body and mind?

I don't know how close to truth my theoretical model is, but at any rate, who you are, and who you think you are, are likely much farther apart than you realize.

(Dis)Proving Evolution

 I created a series of posts on the topic of (Dis)Proving God quite some time ago. I believe I need give a similar exploration of evolution now.

I believe it is necessary to consider the concept of evolution in two separate categories:

1. Evolution as a mechanism utilizing natural (or artificial) selection to alter the characteristics of a living organism.

2. Evolution as the origin of life.

In the case of the former, this has been quite clearly observed and documented. The peppered moth is a key example of this. The moth was largely white in color with black spotting, which worked well as camouflage against lichen covered tree trunks. There were of course mutant variations of the moth which had less white and more black. They were easy prey for birds, however, thus rarely survived to procreate. 

As we humans constructed cities, and burned wood and coal to keep ourselves warm, we introduced pollution which blackened the nearby trees. Suddenly it was the black moths, not the white ones which had the advantage. Their numbers rose, while the population of white moths declined. 

We humans have been using this evolutionary process to our advantage for millennia now. We have carefully selected and breed dogs for specific characteristics. We manipulated evolution to create dog breeds specifically suited to heard and guard grazing animals. We created breeds to pull sleds or wagons, breeds to retrieve small game. Breeds to hunt and kill small rodents in and around our homes. Breeds to protect our families from potential threats.

We have manipulated various vegetation, selecting for sweeter, hardier, more visually appealing characteristics. Many of today's vegetables would be unrecognizable to those who first used them.

Evolution is a clearly observed mechanism. Only an utter fool would argue against it at this point.

What is not entirely clear is whether this scales beyond altering characteristics within a species. Certainly, it is reasonable to conclude that a new type of animal can be created through this process. I use the Mule (a cross between a horse and a donkey) and the Liger (a cross between a Lion and a Tiger) as observed examples of this. And though ligers are usually sterile, there have been instances where they have produced offspring.

It is notable a Liger is still a cat. We haven't observed the creation - through natural or artificial selection - of a 'cog' for instance (a hypothetical cross between a cat and a dog, though some might point to the fox...). 

There are two possible arguments to rebut this however:

1. Such drastic evolution takes more time than human history has yet had to observe. (i.e. men evolved from monkeys over millions of years)

2. Such drastic evolution does not directly occur; rather two different mutations in two different surviving species of a primitive organism lead to the two entirely different creatures. (i.e. men and monkeys both evolved from the same origin ancestor [a frog? an amoeba?]  over billions or trillions of years)

Each of these is a potentially viable possibility, based on what we have observed within natural selection. Or perhaps better stated, it is not an unreasonable theory to propose, based on what we have observed. Certainly not one which can be summarily discarded.

There is still that question of the first spark, the initial origin of life.

Now this one is arguably problematic for both evolution and intelligent design. If you are going to posit the question, "where did the first living thing come from?" it is equally fair to ask the question "Where did God come from?" And if you are willing to accept that God just always existed, why then is it not equally acceptable to claim the first living organism always existed?

(Perhaps my mind is simply too fettered by its finite limitations, but to me, both seem improbable).

But setting that aside for the moment, let's just consider this universe as something which came into existence. "Bang", and there it was. Either it did so because some external, intelligent entity acted upon it (perhaps even utilizing artificial selection to evolve it), or it did so through random chance.

There is a thought experiment which posits the argument, if you have an infinite number of monkeys banging away on an infinite number of typewriters, one of them will eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare. That is fundamentally what is at the heart of the random chance argument.

That is a probability problem. What is the likelihood of such an occurrence happening?

(Dis)Proving God

 This is an index for a series of posts I created titled "(Dis)Proving God".

1.  Dis/proving God: Math, Science and a Checkerboard

2. Dis/proving God: Logic, Anecdotes and Water

3. Dis/Proving god:The Facts

4. Dis/Proving God:Science and Faith

5. Dis/Proving God: Patterns

6. Proving God: Math and Personal Science