The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

Talk Among Yourselves

October 4, 2009 | 586 Comments

The video below has been making the rounds of the atheist blogosphere lately. However, I don’t think that strictly speaking it is an atheist video. The focus is largely epistemology, and virtually any word could be substituted for “God” in the narrative. Theologians and believers can agree with a good deal of it, and with minor adjustments, turn many of its arguments against atheism, or at least certain forms of it. Much of the ground I covered in this post a few years back, albeit without the emphasis on civility.

Regrettably, time constraints preclude me from expounding upon the foundations of my own faith here although I do hope to get to it eventually. In meantime, talk among yourselves. Below the video I provide transcriptions of the video, one with a description of the graphics accompanying the spoken narrative, and one without.


TRANSCRIPTION OF “PUTTING FAITH IN ITS PLACE” VIDEO

[Man Facing Room; Screen with Cube Appears]

Imagine you enter a strange room where a computer tells you that hidden somewhere in the building is a cube. Then it asks you, “What does the cube contain?”

Most of us would recognize this to be a futile question. The cube could be large or small. It could be a solid block or a vacuum chamber of nothing but sparse particles of gas. [Cube changes to reflect these possibilities]. Or it might contain any one of billions of permutations of familiar or novel objects. [Objects such as milk, container of blood, key, matches, skeleton with pumpkin head, alien creature, weird signs appear in cube]. You could never give a precise, justifiable answer.

But if you were asked, “What does the cube NOT contain?”, you could give many answers. For example, the cube could not possibly contain the Amazon River, the planet Mars, or absurd objects such as “a bed made of sleep”. In fact, there would be more perfectly valid answers to this second question than you could list in a million lifetimes.
[Words “Does Not Contain” appears on cube, with arrow pointing to words setting forth those non-possibilities outside cube, followed by the following scrolling list:


Cats made of airport
Iron Gold
The 17th Century
Frozen justice
A human sun
1-dimensional cubes
1-dimensional swans
1-dimensional hips
The DNAof 1.10pm
A fossilized flame
The heliopause
The colour of up
The back of love
The uncontainable
My unbirthday
Music made of doubt
An inert explosion

[Words “Countless possibilities” and “Countless impossibilities” appear on either side of cube; Words “we can't know was IS in the cube appear below with arrow pointing to “Countless possibilities; words “We know these are NOT in the cube appear below word “Countless impossibilities with arrow pointing to scrolling list of alleged imposssibilities].

This illustrates an interesting asymmetry concerning the contents of this cube. Despite there being countless possibilities and impossibilities, without evidence from the cube itself we can only ever make valid, justifiable statements about what is NOT inside the cube, not what IS.


It’s true that someone claiming, for example, that the cube contained nothing but a wooden spoon might be right, but since, without evidence, they could provide no valid justification for such a claim, there would be literally no reason for anyone to accept it.
[Woman appears with cartoon speech bubble indicating she's saying “It contains nothing but a wooden spoon”; rest of words of narrative appear beside her].

What if we were talking about a realm of existence independent of our universe that like the concealed cube is physically inaccessible to us? [Words “Inaccessible realm of existence” appear above oval labeled “our universe”].Would things be different? Would we be able to deduce precisely what occupied such a realm, such as a divine being? [Words “Divine Being” appear outside  universe oval, and are crossed out by diagonal red line]. No, there’s the same asymmetry as before. Countless kinds of beings might exist independently of our universe. Countless logically impossible beings cannot. [Words “countless possible beings” and “countless impossible being appear on either side of words “inaccessible realm of being” with arrows pointing to them]But while we can list many kinds of beings that can’t exist there because they violate logic, [arrow point from words “countless impossible beings” to words “we can list beings which CAN'T exist,” which in turn have arrow pointing to the following list:


An omniscient being capable of choice
A perfect being that needs to be worshipped
A non-spatial omnipresent being
An all-loving omnipotent being that allows eternal agony]

we can’t list those, if any, that do[Arrow points from words “countless possible beings” down to words “we can't list beings that DO exist”, with arrow in turn pointing down to word “UNKNOWABLE.”] Any attempt to argue that a specific divine being exists in an inaccessible realm of reality is an attempt to argue for either the impossible or the unknowable.[Angry-looking man appears in middle of screen with cartoon speech bubble saying “Divine Being X exists in an inaccessible realm of being!”].

Logic alone can refute impossible beings, [arrow points down from those words to list of allegedly impossible beings] but it can’t show that possible beings actually exist, without evidence. [Those words appear on other side of screen].   If you can’t at some point provide measurable, verifiable evidence for the specific being you claim exists, all the argument in the world won’t establish your claim as fact. [Cartoon speech bubbles with words “Argument A”, “Argument B”, “Argument C”, “Argument D” appear above angry man, only to be popped by hand with pin]. This is one reason why as soon as anyone claims they have a logical requirement that requires the existence of one personal creator of our universe we know it will be fallacious [Cartoon speech bubble above angry man says “I have a logical argument that requires the existence of one personal creator of our universe”, with words soon covered with words “will be fallacious”].because they’ve failed at a basic level to understand what’s required to establish such an existence claim.   It’s just a question of identifying where the errors are.

For example, the theologian William Lane Craig has asserted that our universe had an original cause which, because it created our time and space, had to transcend time and space. Transcending our time and space doesn’t necessarily mean somethin
g transcends all time and space. [Craig is pictured with various words from the narrative popping up beside him].

However, his conclusion that this non-temporal, non-spatial cause would have to be a changeless disembodied mind is more seriously flawed. A changeless mind is by definition non-functioning. Minds and purposeful creation depend on change. Craig’s changeless creator is self-contradicting and belongs to the category of the logically impossible.

However seemingly plausible they may sound to the unwary or the already persuaded, all popular arguments for the existence of specific gods are based on false premises and/or conclusions and unjustified presuppositions, and a hundred invalid arguments don’t accumulate into one valid one. [List of the following arguments appear on screen:


Cosmological argument
Arguments from complexity
Argument from contingency
Moral argument
Ontological argument
Argument from degree
Mind-body problem argument
Argument from beauty
Anthropic argument
Transcendental argument
Argument from reason

Words “Doomed Arguments” superimposed over list].


Many people with theistic beliefs don’t get tangled up in pursuing doomed arguments like these. They know they can’t prove gods with logic and have no need to do so. They realize their beliefs are personal and that others are entitled to different views.

However, when you’re not so willing to respect differences, when you disparage, attack, or work to create disadvantage for others because they don’t share your beliefs, it shouldn’t surprise you when those you try to oppress object to this unreasonable attitude and expose the flawed arguments that shore it up. [Cartoon speech bubbles from speakers off screen say “You're worthless,” “Your lives are unlivable,” “This is a nation of Religion X,” “You're amoral,” “I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens,” You're human garbage” and are then flicked off screen by two hands]A belief in one or more gods might sustain you in your own life, [women pictured praying at table with her speech bubble saying “What's the harm in saying grace”] but when you pressure others to adopt your beliefs and participate in practices associated with those beliefs, you give up the luxury of not having to explain yourself. [second aggravated-looking woman revealed to be at table; her speech bubble says “Please, either prove your God exists or stop nagging”] You give yourself the burden of proof, and certain reasons that might seem sound when justifying a belief to yourself are simply not valid when you’re trying to justify existence claims to other people, however passionately you express them. [speech bubbles appear above praying woman which say “But OBVIOUSLY He Exists,” “He cured my illness,” “I feel His spirit inside me,” I have FAITH!”; red rectangles with word “invalid” superimposed over each bubble].. You can’t pester and bully people and then retreat behind faith when challenged on your behavior. And if you can’t demonstrate that gods exist, resorting to emotional blackmail to try to get people to believe is a dishonest tactic. [Praying woman cries, with speech bubble saying “Why are you trying to upset me?; companion responds, “You're upsetting yourself.”]

When those who don’t believe in gods show theistic claims to be invalid,
[companion from table now standing next to a man, and pops his speech bubble which says “Complexity proves God”] it’s often claimed that they’re trying to prove gods don’t exist. [Man's speech bubble says “Why do you need to prove God doesn't exist?” to which woman responds “I'm just exposing your flawed reasoning.”] In fact, all they’re doing is exposing flawed reasoning and encouraging intellectual honesty. It’s understandable that when some have their claims debunked it’s an uncomfortable feeling, and employing red herrings becomes an attractive way to wriggle out of admitting their mistakes. [Man's speech bubble morphs into fish shape]But debunking claims about the existence of gods is just showing those who make such claims that they can’t assert what they’re trying to assert. [Woman's bubble says “you can't assert what you're trying to assert”].

[Heading on page: “Defining the Divine (where the problems begin”]

The question of defining divine entities is where the problems begin. As soon as you define any god you must justify why you’ve defined it that way, giving a valid reason for each quality you’re attributing to it.
[Speech bubble says “God X has attributes A, B, C & D”; each letter is then circled with arrow pointing to words “Need justification”].Many who realize they can’t justify any particular definitions avoid them altogether, [words “God 'Y' is an energy which defies definition” appear in speech bubble], but without definition there is no adequately formed concept to have a belief about, [those words then appear beneath bubble] and this is the stumbling block when people are asked to define the gods they claim exist. As their divine definitions become more specific they have more to justify, the flaws in their logic become more numerous and there arguments become easier to refute. [Illustrated with a meter's needle pointing toward word “Specific”].  Conversely, as their definitions become more vague the entities they are proposing cease to have any practical relevance. [Meter needles points to “Vague”]. Ironically, the way many people define gods means that as well as having no logical support, they can’t be supported with evidence either. [Words from narrative appear on screen].


For example, as soon as you say ‘God X’ is non-physical, you’ve proposed a being that can’t be quantified, tested, or perceived even in principle. You literally have nothing to work with. When trying to justify non-physical entities people will often point out that we can’t see the wind but we still know it’s there.
[Various words from narrative appear on screen]. However, this analogy is flawed – we know the wind is there because it IS physical. Not only can we measure it and perceive it directly through our sense of touch, it can knock us off our feet and destroy buildings. [Pictures of weather vane, woman with hair blown back, and tornado appear on screen]. The physical force it exerts could hardly be more dramatic. Indeed, we use that force to generate electricity. [Windmill appears on screen]. By contrast, it’s not even clear what a being with no conceivable physical characteristics is supposed to mean.[Words from narrative appear] Even if you were proposing a being that had a different type of physical existence, making it undetectable to humans, you’d have enough trouble explaining how you could know it was there.
Many claim that the existence of particular gods CAN be demonstrated, that their powers can be manifested physically and that these physical manifestations count as evidence. [Words from narrative appear on screen in speech bubbles]. But even if we were to witness an event that genuinely challenged our understanding, that wouldn’t justify inferring any specific divine agency. [Picture of moon saying “Jeremy Brett was the definitive Sherlock Holmes”]. At most it could indicate power, intelligence, and/or technology that was unknown both in its number and its nature. [Words from narrative appear]

Imagine a group of people unfamiliar with electronic technology being duped into watching a carefully staged CGI animation of a man turning into a lion. [Man/lion transformation depicted]. If they thought they had just seen evidence of divine magic, we would know that conclusion was false and due to an illusion of technology beyond their experience. Likewise, if you were to see something genuinely jaw-dropping, like stars spelling out words in the sky, [stars form words “Stop fighting!”; man on earth points up and says “Look! A message from God X!] you’d have no basis for drawing any reliable conclusions about the specific causes of what you were witnessing. You could be having your brain expertly controlled by aliens. [Second man appears saying, “No! It's a message from God Y!]. You could be having a psychotic break from reality. [Men fight, with first man clutching second's throat and saying “It's MY God!”]. We already know that brains can conjure up richly detailed worlds when we dream, and that their dysfunction can cause us to hallucinate. If some kind of intelligence was responsible, anything with the ability to manipulate physical matter or our perceptions to that extent could easily disguise itself so we could never be sure of its identity. With such fallible brains and such limited technology, a spectacle like this would be beyond the scale of what we could comprehend or investigate. [Words from narrative appear].

Could life forms of vastly greater intelligence and power exist beyond the current reach of our perception and technology? Certainly. But even if we were ever to find evidence of greater intelligence that still would not constitute evidence of specific gods. Even if some kind of intelligence initiated the existence of our universe, there’s nothing to say what the nature of that intelligence was; whether it was a single or a collective intelligence; whether or not part of that intelligence remains interested in the universe, let alone the affairs of humans; whether or not that intelligence is aware of our tiny planet, let alone capable of communicating with its inhabitants; or even whether or not that intelligence still exists.

When you impartially review a factual claim, that, for example, one divine universe creator currently monitors and judges every human life, the lines, the layers of unjustified assumptions needed to make such a claim become starkly apparent. One would be no less justified in proposing a race of aliens, that created our universe with an advanced machine and annihilated themselves in the process. [Alien finger depicted pushing red button]. As soon as you propose any specific being, the nature of whose existence can’t be reliably examined and quantified, even in principle, you’re talking about a non-scientific concept that’s unsupportable by either logic or evidence. [Block containing words “God X” falls when supporting blocked titled “Logic” and “Evidence” disappear].Without logic or evidence at your disposal you have no grounds for demanding that anyone agree with you. [Angry woman says “Agree with me” and “You're not part of this family!”] You certainly have no grounds for bullying and ostracizing them when they don’t. [Red lines cross out woman's words]. But if that’s the way you deal with independent thought, your fallacious arguments will continue to be exposed until you grow out of your need for everyone to subscribe to your faith-based ideas. [Arguments “A” though “G” appear over woman's head and are popped by pin-wielding hand].

When you start being honest with yourself about what you know and what you don’t know, you’re likely to realize that you’re in no position to be shouting the odds. And when you understand that it’s behavior that has the practical impact on our lives, you may realize that it’s not whether we believe in gods, but how we treat each other, that says the most about our character. If you attack, condemn, or use emotional blackmail on people because they don’t share your belief in one or more gods
[Angry couple pictured shouting at startled woman: “Non-believers are human rubbish!” and “Join our religion of love and peace or go to hell!], you’re invited to consider what that says about you[magnifying glass appears over shouting couple] and how it squares with the values you claim to embrace.

[Pink cube appears on screen; opens up releasing the words “Omne ingnotum pro magnifico [“Everything unknown is believed to be magnificent”].


______________________________________________


TRANSCRIPTION WITHOUT PARENTHETICALS


Imagine you enter a strange room where a computer tells you that hidden somewhere in the building is a cube. Then it asks you, “What does the cube contain?”

Most of us would recognize this to be a futile question. The cube could be large or small. It could be a solid block or a vacuum chamber of nothing but sparse particles of gas. Or it might contain any one of billions of permutations of familiar or novel objects. You could never give a precise, justifiable answer.

But if you were asked, “What does the cube NOT contain?”, you could give many answers. For example, the cube could not possibly contain the Amazon River, the planet Mars, or absurd objects such as “a bed made of sleep”. In fact, there would be more perfectly valid answers to this second question than you could list in a million lifetimes.


This illustrates an interesting asymmetry concerning the contents of this cube. Despite there being countless possibilities and impossibilities, without evidence from the cube itself we can only ever make valid, justifiable statements about what is NOT inside the cube, not what IS.

It’s true that someone claiming, for example, that the cube contained nothing but a wooden spoon might be right, but since, without evidence, they could provide no valid justification for such a claim, there would be literally no reason for anyone to accept it.

What if we were talking about a realm of existence independent of our universe that like the concealed cube is physically inaccessible to us? Would things be different? Would we be able to deduce precisely what occupied such a realm, such as a divine being? No, there’s the same asymmetry as before. Countless kinds of beings might exist independently of our universe. Countless logically impossible beings cannot. But while we can list many kinds of beings that can’t exist there because they violate logic, we can’t list those, if any, that doAny attempt to argue that a specific divine being exists in an inaccessible realm of reality is an attempt to argue for either the impossible or the unknowable.

Logic alone can refute impossible beings, [arrow points down from those words to list of allegedly impossible beings] but it can’t show that possible beings actually exist, without evidence. If you can’t at some point provide measurable, verifiable evidence for the specific being you claim exists, all the argument in the world won’t establish your claim as fact. This is one reason why as soon as anyone claims they have a logical requirement that requires the existence of one personal creator of our universe we know it will be fallacious because they’ve failed at a basic level to understand what’s required to establish such an existence claim.    It’s just a question of identifying where the errors are.

For example, the theologian William Lane Craig has asserted that our universe had an original cause which, because it created our time and space, had to transcend time and space. Transcending our time and space doesn’t necessarily mean somethin
g transcends all time and space.

However, his conclusion that this non-temporal, non-spatial cause would have to be a changeless disembodied mind is more seriously flawed. A changeless mind is by definition non-functioning. Minds and purposeful creation depend on change. Craig’s changeless creator is self-contradicting and belongs to the category of the logically impossible.

However seemingly plausible they may sound to the unwary or the already persuaded, all popular arguments for the existence of specific gods are based on false premises and/or conclusions and unjustified presuppositions, and a hundred invalid arguments don’t accumulate into one valid one.


Many people with theistic beliefs don’t get tangled up in pursuing doomed arguments like these. They know they can’t prove gods with logic and have no need to do so. They realize their beliefs are personal and that others are entitled to different views.

However, when you’re not so willing to respect differences, when you disparage, attack, or work to create disadvantage for others because they don’t share your beliefs, it shouldn’t surprise you when those you try to oppress object to this unreasonable attitude and expose the flawed arguments that shore it up. A belief in one or more gods might sustain you in your own life, but when you pressure others to adopt your beliefs and participate in practices associated with those beliefs, you give up the luxury of not having to explain yourself. You give yourself the burden of proof, and certain reasons that might seem sound when justifying a belief to yourself are simply not valid when you’re trying to justify existence claims to other people, however passionately you express them. You can’t pester and bully people and then retreat behind faith when challenged on your behavior. And if you can’t demonstrate that gods exist, resorting to emotional blackmail to try to get people to believe is a dishonest tactic.

When those who don’t believe in gods show theistic claims to be invalid,
it’s often claimed that they’re trying to prove gods don’t exist. In fact, all they’re doing is exposing flawed reasoning and encouraging intellectual honesty. It’s understandable that when some have their claims debunked it’s an uncomfortable feeling, and employing red herrings becomes an attractive way to wriggle out of admitting their mistakes. But debunking claims about the existence of gods is just showing those who make such claims that they can’t assert what they’re trying to assert.

The question of defining divine entities is where the problems begin. As soon as you define any god you must justify why you’ve defined it that way, giving a valid reason for each quality you’re attributing to it.
.Many who realize they can’t justify any particular definitions avoid them altogether, but without definition there is no adequately formed concept to have a belief about, and this is the stumbling block when people are asked to define the gods they claim exist. As their divine definitions become more specific they have more to justify, the flaws in their logic become more numerous and there arguments become easier to refute. Conversely, as their definitions become more vague the entities they are proposing cease to have any practical relevance. Ironically, the way many people define gods means that as well as having no logical support, they can’t be supported with evidence either.


For example, as soon as you say ‘God X’ is non-physical, you’ve proposed a being that can’t be quantified, tested, or perceived even in principle. You literally have nothing to work with. When trying to justify non-physical entities people will often point out that we can’t see the wind but we still know it’s there.
However, this analogy is flawed – we know the wind is there because it IS physical. Not only can we measure it and perceive it directly through our sense of touch, it can knock us off our feet and destroy buildings. The physical force it exerts could hardly be more dramatic. Indeed, we use that force to generate electricity. By contrast, it’s not even clear what a being with no conceivable physical characteristics is supposed to mean. Even if you were proposing a being that had a different type of physical existence, making it undetectable to humans, you’d have enough trouble explaining how you could know it was there.
Many claim that the existence of particular gods CAN be demonstrated, that their powers can be manifested physically and that these physical manifestations count as evidence. But even if we were to witness an event that genuinely challenged our understanding, that wouldn’t justify inferring any specific divine agency. At most it could indicate power, intelligence, and/or technology that was unknown both in its number and its nature.

Imagine a group of people unfamiliar with electronic technology being duped into watching a carefully staged CGI animation of a man turning into a lion. If they thought they had just seen evidence of divine magic, we would know that conclusion was false and due to an illusion of technology beyond their experience. Likewise, if you were to see something genuinely jaw-dropping, like stars spelling out words in the sky, you’d have no basis for drawing any reliable conclusions about the specific causes of what you were witnessing. You could be having your brain expertly controlled by aliens. You could be having a psychotic break from reality. We already know that brains can conjure up richly detailed worlds when we dream, and that their dysfunction can cause us to hallucinate. If some kind of intelligence was responsible, anything with the ability to manipulate physical matter or our perceptions to that extent could easily disguise itself so we could never be sure of its identity. With such fallible brains and such limited technology, a spectacle like this would be beyond the scale of what we could comprehend or investigate.

Could life forms of vastly greater intelligence and power exist beyond the current reach of our perception and technology? Certainly. But even if we were ever to find evidence of greater intelligence that still would not constitute evidence of specific gods. Even if some kind of intelligence initiated the existence of our universe, there’s nothing to say what the nature of that intelligence was; whether it was a single or a collective intelligence; whether or not part of that intelligence remains interested in the universe, let alone the affairs of humans; whether or not that intelligence is aware of our tiny planet, let alone capable of communicating with its inhabitants; or even whether or not that intelligence still exists.

When you impartially review a factual claim, that, for example, one divine universe creator currently monitors and judges every human life, the lines, the layers of unjustified assumptions needed to make such a claim become starkly apparent. One would be no less justified in proposing a race of aliens, that created our universe with an advanced machine and annihilated themselves in the process. As soon as you propose any specific being, the nature of whose existence can’t be reliably examined and quantified, even in principle, you’re talking about a non-scientific concept that’s unsupportable by either logic or evidence. Without logic or evidence at your disposal you have no grounds for demanding that anyone agree with you. You certainly have no grounds for bullying and ostracizing them when they don’t. But if that’s the way you deal with independent thought, your fallacious arguments will continue to be exposed until you grow out of your need for everyone to subscribe to your faith-based ideas.


When you start being honest with yourself about what you know and what you don’t know, you’re likely to realize that you’re in no position to be shouting the odds. And when you understand that it’s behavior that has the practical impact on our lives, you may realize that it’s not whether we believe in gods, but how we treat each other, that says the most about our character. If you attack, condemn, or use emotional blackmail on people because they don’t share your belief in one or more gods
you’re invited to consider what that says about you and how it squares with the values you claim to embrace.

Home

July 3, 2009 | 106 Comments

Ashli at home, receiving a visit from her personal hair stylist:

Going Home!

July 2, 2009 | 7 Comments

Ashli was discharged from the hospital this afternoon and is on her way home.

Checking Out Soon

July 1, 2009 | 7 Comments

From Ashli’s brother Shane tonight:

Hello All,
 
My eyes are tearing as I write this email – not because it is my last email (Ashli is going to take over doing her updates) – but because your prayers for her bowels to wake up have been answered.  :)
 
It has been another good day.  The surgical drain has been removed.  The only tube remaining is an IV line.  So far Ashli has been doing well with her clear liquid diet and walking up a storm.  I expect she will be getting out of here soon.
 
I’ve given Ashli the password to this email account.  Feel free to keep the emails coming. 
 
Thank you everyone for your prayers and support,
Shane

Up and Around

June 30, 2009 | 11 Comments

Ashli taking a stroll following today’s good news:

Good News!

June 30, 2009 | 8 Comments

I just received this message from Ashli’s brother Shane:

Hello All,
 
Ashli’s doctor came back and gave her the results of the pathology report.  It was a neuroendocrine tumor but looks as though it was non-aggressive.  They are still doing a couple of studies to verify this but he feels like her chance for a completely cured recovery is in the 90% or more range.
 
Also of note, the NG tube is out.  Ashli’s mood has improved by about 100%.
 
I’ll try to get her to do another video tonight, but wanted to share this news now.

Thank you all for your prayers!
 

Special Prayer Request from Ashli

June 30, 2009 | 10 Comments

Hey, all. It’s Ash. Not feeling well enough to type one of my usual long missives, but I wanted to write real quick and thank everyone for praying for me and my family. I am praying for all of you daily.

We were told we would probably be able to get the results on the nature of the tumor 72 working hours after the surgery, but that didn’t pan out. Then we were told that we would most likely have them on Monday, but that also didn’t pan out. This morning the doctor seemed a little curious as to why it is taking so long and said he would check on the results again today. I’m getting increasingly worried. I also don’t understand why it’s taking so long.

Please pray for very conclusive, very benign results. Please appeal to our Father over and over and over again until we get word.

I am hanging in there and hope all of you are doing well. Thank you, everyone, for everything.

More later.

Much love,
Ash

Midnight Message

June 29, 2009 | 12 Comments

To relieve her pain and nausea, the doctors yesterday re-inserted Ashli’s nasogastric tube. Although this was not unexpected given the usual downs of recovery from such traumatic surgery, the procedure is not a pleasant experience. By midnight, however, she felt well enough to sign you the following message:

Message from Ashli

June 28, 2009 | 8 Comments

From her hospital bed, last night:

Greetings from Ashli

June 26, 2009 | 8 Comments

A couple of pictures from Wednesday. However, yesterday and last night were a bit rough on her — fever, abdominal bloating and a lot of pain. Please keep the prayers up!

ashli1

ashliday2

keep looking »
  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links

    Switch to our mobile site