Philosophy class leaves me thinking long past the 2:20 end time, and provides an easy distraction in my review of a calculus class. In our reading (Aristotle's Physics), we are treading in the touchy gray area of the existence of a god figure. Book VIII of Physics contains Aristotle's "proof" of the existence of god. As this material cannot to be classified as light reading, I will provide a summary. Aristotle believes that an event can only be understood if the causes of an event are understood. The basis of this thesis is that there are two ways things happen: the natural and the unnatural. Aristotle also believes that things happen for a reason, and that things must have a purpose to exist. In a roundabout way, Aristotle's view on the existence of a god is this: for the universe to exist, an initial cause must have been there. Aristotle places this upon a god figure. I ask, "Why must the universe have a purpose?" That really is the central question surrounding the existence/non-existence of a god. If the universe is without an overarching, unifying purpose, a need for a creator is removed form the picture. If the universe is content to expand slowly, birth new stars and kill the old, and all its other exercises without lumbering toward some infinitely far-off goal, there is no plan. And if there is no plan, there is no need for some higher power to be there to create/enact that plan. But if indeed the universe is moving toward some cosmological end, something must have created this plan, something with influence over the stars, planets, galaxies, and innumerable life forms. I hate to think that the American Christian God is the figure in question. But that is not the question at hand. Does the universe have a purpose? If so, what is it? "To please the Creator" or any variation of that general sentence structure is not an acceptable answer, as that answer assumes a god figure is already in existence, when that is indeed the deeper answer these questions seek to answer, which would be circular logic (the purpose of the universe is to please God, and that is the reason God created the universe).

I am currently in the middle of reading the apocrypha of the Bible. This book consists of all the books that didn't make it into the Bible, reasons varying. The Council of Trent met between December 13, 1545, and December 4, 1563, and it was at these meetings that the Biblical canon was established. Reasons spanning from heretical authorship to association with the wrong sect (Gnostics) to not being written in the same language (Protestant Bibles apparently must be written in Hebrew to be authentic). Personally I believe the entire book (Bible) is a bunch of garbage and the "good, acceptable stuff" is already riddled with enough holes, contradictions and just plain bad logic. And the Protestant reasoning gets even more insane. The book of Tobit is not included in the Protestant Bible because of one instance of "magic." Um, what? What do Protestants believe that raising men from the dead is? Under what do Protestants file walking on water? By what terminology is the mass replication of food labeled? The blatant contradictions presented here are easily swept aside by the mainstream religious as "miracles." Miracles, as in, the good form of MAGIC. They both both employ superhuman elements and events. Hmm. The clear equivocation here is quite annoying to me, but maybe I'm just nit picking. Miracles are nothing more than magic performed by Jesus and his associates. Jesus, the son of a magic sky wizard, sent on a suicide mission to save humanity, was nothing more than a medium for the magic sky wizard. His magic was nothing more than the "magic" described in the book of Tobit. Curse your slight erroneous mistakes, Catholics!

The air in this college town is hopelessly idiotic. Last Friday night, I rode a bus with a man so drunk he threw up all over himself. His comrades hastily laughed it off and assured everyone on the bus the man was fine. College perpetuates the idea that one does not fit in if one does not consume alcohol. And the more one does consume, the more one will fit in. This is a ridiculous thought process, one that is not only false in its logic, but dangerous. What person in their right mind can watch a clearly over-intoxicated man vomit on himself on bus and not care about and say he is ok? Oh right only other people that are clearly intoxicated. Granted I respect the rights of others to do as many ridiculous things as they want, but there comes a time when public intoxication goes past the point of personal wants into the realm of being offense to the mass public.

In the mean time, read my personal info and start gathering followers. Posts to come tomorrow.

First time blogging and here it goes. It is way too late at night to start this fully and with any meaning, so it will probably be put off until I get bored in class tomorrow.