Friday, February 10, 2006

The Existence of Chuck Norris

Objection 1. It seems that Chuck Norris does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "Chuck Norris roundhouse kick" means that it is infinite painfulness. If, therefore, Chuck Norris existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore Chuck Norris does not exist.

On the contrary, It is said of Chuck Norris: "He hath counted to infinity - twice." (www.chucknorrisfacts.com)

I answer that, the existence of Chuck Norris can be proved in five ways . . .

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world roundhouse kicks are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of Chuck Norris’ enemy from actuality to potentiality. But nothing can be reduced from actuality to potentiality, except by something in a state of actuality. Therefore, roundhouse kicks must be put in motion by another. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first kicker, and, consequently, no kicked. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first kicker, kicked by no other; and this everyone understands to be Chuck Norris.

The second way is from the nature of the roundhouse kick. In the world of bar fights we find there is an order of roundhouse kicks. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a roundhouse kick is found to be able to hurt Chuck Norris; for so it would be kicking himself (resulting in the destruction of Chuck Norris), which is impossible. Now in roundhouse kicks it is not possible to go on to infinity, because the universe cannot contain more than one Chuck Norris. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no Chuck Norris, there will be no ultimate roundhouse kick, nor any intermediate roundhouse kick, nor anyone’s butt to receive the kick; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first roundhouse kicker, to which everyone gives the name of Chuck Norris.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be roundhouse kicked and not to be, since they are found to be angering Chuck Norris and not angering Chuck Norris, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to be being roundhouse kicked, for that which is possible not to be roundhouse kicked at some time is not being roundhouse kicked. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be roundhouse kicked, then at one time there could have been nothing being roundhouse kicked. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing being roundhouse kicked, because that which does not get roundhouse kicked only begins to be roundhouse kicked by something already existing. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own roundhouse kickedness, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity (and pain). This all men speak of as Chuck Norris.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in roundhouse kicks. Among roundhouse kicks there are some more and some less good, true, noble and painful. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being roundhouse kicked; and this we call Chuck Norris.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with the ability to kick its butt. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom these things are directed to their end; and this being we call Chuck Norris.

Reply to Objection 1. As Chuck Norris says: "I don't step on toes, I step on necks!” Since Chuck Norris is the hardest kicker, he would not allow any evil to exist unless his roundhouse kicks were such as to bring good even out of evil. This is part of the infinite badassness of Chuck Norris: that he should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good – the good of having something to roundhouse kick.

Read more!

Monday, February 06, 2006

Highly Effective Ways to Argue Theism #106 :The "I've Written on this Topic Elsewhere" Argument

I will now present a completely undeniable argument that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exits.

I’ve written exhaustively on this very topic elsewhere.

Therefore, God exists

Read more!

Saturday, February 04, 2006

J.P. Moreland and Metaphysics

I would love to get some feedback from the moldy thomists of Tu Quoque. J.P. Moreland holds to a univocal view of being. His reasoning for this may be summarized as:

1. Being is either univocal or equivocal.
2. Being is not equivocal.
3. Therefore being is univocal.

Of course our first response is to deny the first premise because there is a third alternative, namely that being is analogical. Dr. Moreland holds that the analogical view is contradictory and he bases this on the principle of identity. According to Moreland, the analogical view holds that there are different levels of existence. By this I think he means that the analogical view holds that things can "sort of" exist. For example, somethings partially exist while other things have full existence. Moreland states, "Something either does or does not have being and everything either has or does not have being." I could be wrong, but I think what he calls the "modes of being" view is an attempt to express the view of us moldy thomists.

So without an analogical option, we are left with a univocal view of being or an equivocal view. Obviously an equivocal view is absurd, therefore we are left with the univocal view. When we say that "Joebob exists" and "My Isuzu Rodeo exists" we are saying the same thing of Joebob and my Isuzu Rodeo. None of us think that "exists" in the first instance means something entirely different from the "exists" of the second instance. And given the fact that a thing either exists or does not exist, it follows that being is univocal.

I don't know how many of you have read "Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview" but for those of you who have, I would love to hear your thoughts on Morelands treatment of ontology in general and on the univocity of being in particular.

Moreland also defines existence as follows:

"Existence is either the belonging of some property or the being belonged to by a property or, more simply, the entering into the nexus of exemplification."

He elaborates saying:

"Consider the statement 'Tigers exist.' This would appear to assert the following: (1) The property of being a tiger (2) belongs to something (an individual tiger, say Tony) ... The claim that tigers exist is the claim that the essence of being a tiger (the what of being a tiger) is actually exemplified by or belongs to something (the that or fact of an individual tiger existing)."

Honestly, I do not get this. I understand the terms and have something of a basic understanding of the metaphysical background here, but to define existence as "the entering into the nexus of exemplification" appears to be riddled with problems. In order for something to enter into a nexus of exemplification doesn't there have to be a "nexus" to enter into? Does this nexus exist? If so, did the nexus enter into the nexus of exemplification? If the nexus does not exist, then how is it meaningful to talk about "something" existing by virtue of its entering into "nothing"?

I would love to discuss this more and bounce some criticisms of this view off of someone. I would be particularly interested in bouncing some idea's off of someone that holds this view.

Read more!