keith1y Blog TV log

Some ideas for songwriters

Wed, 06 Feb 2013 22:26:00 +0000

These are messages that would help people, if only they knew. Each one is simple, but potentially deep, and could be expanded in many different directions.

Message: When you pray - tell God/Jesus how you feel

When I pray I tell Jesus… I feel lonely…

Message: God Cares

Message: If I ask Jesus why I feel the way I do, he will show me

…he will understand me
…he will restore me

Message: Jesus will take the anger that I have if ask him to.
[ alternatives: confusion/pain/hurt/sadness/shame ]

Message: Quiet voice in my heart is God/Jesus… the loud voice isn’t

Listening to my heart I hear… the loud voice says do it, the quiet voice says don’t. The quiet voice is strong, firm, parental… the loud voice is a rebel. The quiet voice is mindful, thoughtful, sensible… the other voice is doesn’t care about the consequences. The quiet voice loves me, protects me… the loud voice lives for the moment. The quiet voice is always with me…

…more to come

I won something!

Wed, 06 Feb 2013 21:45:09 +0000

I just met Monique Thomas, and won her CD. http://www.moniquemusic.com/

My last desparate word to atheists

Mon, 05 Nov 2012 22:28:00 +0000

I am telling you that God, in the person of the Christ, Jesus, is the best thing you have ever known, the best person you will ever meet, he is happy, joyful, loving hopeful, kind and gentle. He loves you and thinks you are the best. He would willingly heal every pain you ever have in your life, and he will personally take any suffering you have onto himself instead of you. He has been present with you in every single second of your life in good times and bad times, he has been alongside you, when you hurt he cries with you. He can answer any question you have, and he can converse with you to explain to you what the truth is so that you will never have any fears worries or self-esteem issues ever again. (the truth shall set you free) When he came to earth as Jesus of Nazareth he commanded the weather, healed ALL the sick, confronted hypocrits, and he hung out with people like you and me (not jumped up religious types), he called everyone he met to a higher standard of behaviour than anyone thought possible. Jesus taught those who followed him how to heal the sick as well, and He even raised people from the dead that had been dead and stinking for 4 days! He has a purpose for your life and he has a role for you in eternity. You are invited to be a King in heaven and to rule with Him as a friend and partner, there are a certain number of thrones available for those who are genuinely worthy, and he thinks you are worthy, so worthy that he himself would give everything he has just to know you and be your friend.

So, there is nothing better than Jesus who is God, and He says there is nothing better than you. You can have all of this simply by changing your mind about sinning, if you say to God you dont want to sin, you want a pure heart, then your heart can become a dwelling place for his spirit, his divine nature can be in you and work through you, he can pickle you in his love, so that you actually take on his loving nature into your body (a real experience) and then you are empowered to love others as they deserve to be loved, people are Kings in Gods eyes and deserve to be treated like kings and honoured, every single one.

I myself have met THIS GOD, the one I describe above, and I witness to you that every word of the above is TRUE, that I have witnessed him do all of these things. When I have had these experiences, I look at them as a practical person living in the real world, as an engineer, a computer programmer, with a background and understanding of science (my dad was a physicist), I am not some airy fairy philosopher type. The reality of the God I speak of in my experiences I can liken to the reality of running full speed into a brick wall, thats how you know a brick wall is real. You too can meet God.

So, atheist person, there is nothing you can imagine that is better than the real creator God who made you, for the purpose of loving and being loved unconditionally. Everything I have described is all on offer to you. There is nothing you can imagine that is better than this, and it is all on offer to you. AND IF YOU DONT WANT IT……

There is nothing more to be said.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iRCvDwF26Q

Greenbelt talks 2008 (length 47 min) Keith Ward taught...

Wed, 15 Aug 2012 02:23:00 +0100

Greenbelt talks 2008 (length 47 min)

Keith Ward taught philosophy at Glasgow, St. Andrews, King’s College, London and Trinity Hall, Cambridge.

Licensed under a Creative Commons 3.0 license

Dawkins doesn’t like philosophers or physics
Materialism is old-hat for physicists
Imaginary time, superstrings, electrons
Colours do not exist until you look
Mathematics tells us what the world is really like
Defining “create”, what is beyond time?
Materialism is outdated for philosophers
Daniel Dennet and consciousness
The brain is in the mind
Complexity and consciousness
Occams razor vs the multiverse

Looks like kidneys are mending for other people too!

Wed, 08 Aug 2012 02:41:00 +0100

Looks like kidneys are mending for other people too!

Atheism and Morals

Fri, 03 Aug 2012 23:31:00 +0100

I struggle in debating atheists, simply because they lack the ability to think logically.

“Atheism” as a world view, logically, and absolutely can be proven without doubt to provide no basis for defining morality. The “atheist” retorts emotionally, “How dare you insult me, of course I have morals!”. This is a classic case of missing the point, and as usual, ignoring incontrovertible logic.

If a person identifies themselves as an atheist, namely that they do not believe in an ultimate, eternal, transcendent, supreme being and creator, they are saying that atheism as a way of looking at the world is “liveable”, that it is possible to live according to and limited by the tenets of atheism. I think that they believe this to be logically possible without living a lie, without being deceived, and without it being possible to be found wrong. They delight in telling me that atheism is correct, and that the conclusion “atheism is correct” has some intrinsic value, to them and, by inference, also to me, if I would only “follow their logic.”

Many identify themselves as not believing in God, but do not really care if their view is correct or not. They are happy to say they do not know, perhaps they see no consequences to their decisions either way, despite what we saints tell them. They are happy to moralise with the best of them but really have no logical reason for the morals that they espouse, but they do not appear to be bothered. However, if you engage in debate, they suddenly care a great deal, since to them it is a great, if pointless, sport.

In the Beginning There was Logic

My experience of debating this topic endlessly and unproductively shows that we really have to start at the beginning, right at the beginning. At the risk of being patronising, atheists do not seem to understand the most fundamental or basic of the tenets of logic, science or mathematics.

It seems a shame to have to say this, but honestly we need to start by understanding:

“what does it mean to define something?”

There are three fundamental laws of logic, and the first and most fundamental of these is the “law of identity”, which may be stated as:

X is X

This really is going back to the basics!

Morality is concerned with defining the distinction between right and wrong or if you prefer good and evil. The key word there is “DEFINING”.

In a dictionary it is common for one word to have several meanings, in swahili, “ndege” means aeroplane, it also means bird! However, for the purposes of philosophy, science, and logical argument, defining something requires that definition to be entirely unambiguous, and this is what is meant by the statement:

X is X

Anything which is described ambiguously cannot be said to be logically defined. It is also implicit in the law of identity, that when applying logic in our thinking the identity of X is also immutable; it remains constant and does not change mid-discussion.

X is X and it remains X (always)

A corollary of the law of identity, is that until something is adequately defined, and that definition is unambiguous, it is not possible to apply the tenets of logic to it. The tools of reason, the process of science and the clarity of mathematics all rely on the practical application of the law of identity from the outset, and at every step.

If someone holds to a view of morality that they are unable to define unambiguously, then this so called morality lies outside of the bounds of analysis by logical thinking, outside the bounds of experimentation and verification by science and outside the realm of modelling with mathematics. It is in fact, surprise surprise, a blind-faith position. If, given a set of axiomatic assumptions that are inherent in a particular worldview, it is not possible to define morality unambiguously, then the word and the concept it attempts to describe are nebulous, it does not logically mean anything, it is literally meaningless, within the context of that worldview.

Detecting Logical Baloney

The atheist might object to my requirement to define morality unambiguously, to answer this we have to be on the look out, not just for their usual loose definitions, but rather for entirely meaningless reasoning, for example:

If I say red is morally good, and you say blue is morally good, we are both expressing opinions which are equally as arbitrary, and we can see clearly, in this example, that “moral goodness” being ascribed to colours is entirely meaningless.

If I say that a Hydrogen atom is “morally evil”, and you say that a Carbon atom is “morally evil”, again ascribing “moral evil” to an atom or atoms is totally meaningless.

Our logical baloney detector should be tuned to look out for statements which, when examined in detail, turn out to be as utterly meaningless as ascribing “moral goodness” to colours or atoms.

Atheism posits materialism, the notion that the universe, being atoms and energy, comprises the entirety of existence. Thus within this worldview, a human being is a collection of atoms, nothing more and nothing less. For an atheist to say that a person, an assembly including both hydrogen and carbon atoms is morally evil, is both pure nonsense, and an explicit admission that materialism is not the true paradigm.

When a debater’s statements posited can be identified as logically meaningless all arguments are off. Obviously anyone one making and believing meaningless statements concedes not only any debate, but also admits to being self-deluded, even mad, conceding any right for any opinion to be heard or given credence. Imagine a lawyer standing up in court and saying “as my concluding argument, I am baloney”. Meaningless statements are meaningless, the exact wording may vary, but the inference is the same.

Detecting Logical Sandcastles

If a logical argument includes a chain of reasoning, where one logical statement builds upon another, then one end of that chain must be anchored in a statement of clear absolute and immutable definition. There have to be some fundamental definitions somewhere, otherwise the argument is said to be logically baseless.

A logical sandcastle such as this, with no foundation, falls down of its own accord. It is not even possible to argue against it, because a logical argument against it would need to be based upon some shared fundamental definitions which are not present.

The most obvious types of argument which are logically baseless are those which:

boil down to mere opinion
comprise a series of genuinely logical statements which are self-referential, in other words they expound circular reasoning.

Debating is Futile

It may be news to some that it is not logically possible to formulate formal arguments to arbitrate between two different worldviews. This is because they do not share the same axiomatic assumptions and definitions. The viability of a worldview entirely stands or falls on its own internal logical consistency, and its ability to provide meaningful definitions. This is necessary to assert that certain things are meaningful in the real world, and to know things for sure. Once it is possible to know things for sure we can build up our knowledge base applying a chain of logical premises, constructed from our axiomatic starting point.

Recently it has become trendy, in certain quarters, to not know anything for sure. This is not evidence of superior reasoning, superior curiosity, or intellect, rather it is an admission that the world-view being offered lacks the fundamental basis for logical reasoning needed to make any meaningful conclusions. It is great sport to attack a theist by saying, “you cannot know anything for sure”, but in that case how can they be so sure they are right? As is so often the case ‘atheism’ when examined logically, is not just logically inconsistent, it becomes a self-refuting argument.

You can bet that if it was possible to know something for sure they would tell you right away, because it would strengthen the case for their personal worldview, but they can’t. This just informs us that logically speaking an atheist has nothing useful to say.

When I say that I do know something for sure, I base this on different axioms, a different logical basis. The scientific laws based upon observations tell me that the fact that the universe has a source is self-evident. I am also able to logically derive necessary characteristics of that source. One characteristic is that it must exist and be non-physical. I observe morality to exist, and logically this can only be so IF and only if there is on existence an entity to BE the definition of good, in and of itself. Thus knowing that such an entity exists enables me to search for it, and once found, I can apply the engineering methodology, “find the guy who knows the answer and ask him!” Thus when you find God you can know things for sure concerning morality.

A purely logical debate between Christianity and Atheism is not only a waste of time, but is technically impossible. To evaluate the validity of an argument of an opponent, you must adopt their worldview, and look to see if it is internally consistent, then it is possible to check if the reasoning is sound.

I find it highly ironic, that these basic explanations of how logic works have to be pointed out, while at the same time I am told by atheists that my worldview is irrational.

Naturalism-Deluded Science

Since it is not possible to debate the validity of one world view, using the axiomatic definitions of another, their vehement disagreement just serves to show their basic ignorance of logical reasoning principles. It also shows that they are ignorant of the need to step into the axiomatic shoes of those who hold different worldviews in order to understand and evaluate their validity.

Any scientist that does not take this step to test out ideas and evaluate observations within the different paradigms, is not really doing science.

It is not possible to prove that God does not exist, therefore a genuine scientist, even an atheistic one, must consider and publish what their discoveries mean within other alternative paradigms, the most obvious being the creators creation.

The same goes for any media presentation, tv or magazine article. Nature programmes viewing the wonders of the world must not be allowed to present narration representing only one worldview, otherwise they are simply propagandising. Once you realise this, you see that this is precisely what they are doing, relentlessly propagandising, rather than honestly exploring possibilities for answers. Propaganda ceases to be interesting, and when propaganda builds on propaganda it is inevitably difficult to discern fact from fiction.

Those I find myself debating with, your average armchair atheist, is a victim of relentless brainwashing with media propaganda, they have never been exposed to other worldviews to any serious degree. They barely understand the logical realities implicit in their own worldview, such as the inability for materialism to provide a logical foundation for morality. They always make the mistake of arrogantly assuming that believers in God are ignorant, while being unaware that their own worldview legislates ignorance. I.e. it is very difficult to have a coherent library of logical thought on the subject of morals, morality, or law if you have no logical basis for defining right from wrong.

While the “can’t know, won’t know” worldview is barely out of its philosophical nappies being less than 200 years old, their scientific paradigm was made possible by three thousand years worth of earlier work by theistic scientists, philosophers and theologians, who worked within a paradigm in which it was possible to know stuff for sure.

Building Sandcastles in the Air

All atheists that I have met are very fond of building sandcastles in the air. They do not seem to hesitate to say that they are moral and murder is wrong. Looking for the foundation of this argument, I ask for a definition of moral, and I may be told that it is the opinion of society that life is valuable. I attempt to follow the chain of logic and ask the obvious questions, all the while seeking clearer and less ambiguous definitions. I ask:

“what is the definition of life and why is it intrinsically valuable as compared to non-life?.”

Some reply by telling me that life is valuable because of its rarity in the universe! I am unconvinced as this appears to be an arbitrary opinion, rather than an absolute definition. Why does rarity matter? For example, if every atom in the universe was part of a living thing, would life be less valuable, and murder more acceptable? Who decides on the value? Is this “value” numerically quantitative or arbitrarily qualitative?

Must I then suppose it is morally wrong to crush a sapphire based upon the idea that they are far more rare and therefore more valuable than even life.

Does this notion of value apply to all life, or just some life? Cancer kills patients, doctors kill cancer, which of these “murders” is morally wrong?

You are logically at sea until you drop anchor

If I say swatting flies is good and you say swatting flies is evil, whether or not to indulge in “fly murder” is merely a personal preference. Goodness or evilness being ascribed to fly murder is basically meaningless, until someone can give us a logical reason that one of us is right and the other is wrong.

So you see that any conclusion about morality depends entirely upon the words “logical reason”. If a second person comes along and says I agree that fly murder is right, then we have a two to one vote. Do two personal preferences, or even two thousand outweigh one? The argument from majority is never a basis for determining truth, because it only provides opinions, we need a genuine logical reason which will eclipse all opinions no matter how numerous.

Logical reasons are built on the laws of logic, and the fundamental law of logic is the law of identity. We are looking for reasoning based upon clear unambiguous definitions, and we are back to where we started.

“Subjective Morality” is an Oxymoron

Oxymoron: A figure of speech in which incongruous or contradictory terms appear side by side; a compressed paradox.

mo·ral·i·ty/məˈralətē/ 1) Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

For morality to be anything other than a sandcastle in the air, for it to have actual logical existence and relevance to anyone, it must be definable, using clear unambiguous definitions and without using circular reasoning.

According to the dictionary definition, morality concerns the distinction of good and bad behaviour, and so concerns the definition of what is good and what is bad. For the word morality to be of any logical or practical use in life, in argument, in science, or in philosophy, it must have an unambiguous definition, and the definitions of good and bad must be equally unambiguous.

If a society defines their own moral framework based upon the majority opinion, this is not providing unambiguous definitions of “good” or “bad” behaviour, thus any moral framework representing a “societal norm” is logically baseless.

Secondly if you accept for the sake of argument the common idea that different societies may have different moralities, then, when you are called upon to decide whether “nazi morality” is good or better than “greek morality” you will only have the arbitrary indoctrinated definitions of your own society’s morality with which to arbitrate. This boils down to a form of circular reasoning, since I could equally call upon a “greek” to judge your morality.

Once we have established that the atheists idea of morality is based upon ambiguous definitions or circular reasoning, morality ceases to have a definition in a logical sense. When something has no logical basis, it has no logical identity and it does not logically exist.

Subjective morality, according to the laws of logical argument and reason, does not exist.

Any atheist attempting to be moral or express morality in any shape or form, while believing that morality is subjective in nature, is self-deceived, and is living a delusion. This conclusion is arrived by applying the tenets of their worldview. In other words, they themselves do not find their worldview liveable and they are wrong.

To be more exact, there are two logically exclusive possibilities:

If atheism is true, then it is an incontrovertible fact that there is no such thing as morality at all, it has no actual DEFINITION. Therefore supposing that atheism is liveable, a society living within the bounds of the tenets of atheism must consider it illogical and abhorrent (dare I say immoral) to subject free people to the concept of morality in any form of law and order at all.
The other logically exclusive option is that atheism is not true.

It is not even necessary to argue the believers perspective because if you examine the first option, you will see that it is self-contradictory.

Therefore we have to conclude the only conclusion which remains, that being that atheism is not true.

Update to earlier situation.

Mon, 23 Jul 2012 23:25:00 +0100

Update to earlier situation.

Tony invited me to co-host and share the Love of Jesus during...

Mon, 23 Jul 2012 23:08:49 +0100

Tony invited me to co-host and share the Love of Jesus during his light hearted music show on religious themes.

Where are the evangelists?

Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:30:00 +0100

Prophetic word received: Tues 17th July 2012

I woke this morning with a question clearly on the front of my mind. The question was:

Where are the evangelists?

I feel the point being made is in relation to financial support for those who have a calling to evangelism. That a church could think about identifying people within their midst, and financially supporting them to be out there as evangelists, in the same way as a reasonably sized church would normally work to enable salaried “pastors”.

Much of what comprises the role of pastoring, is already fulfilled and recognised within the body, by those volunteering and being trained as house group leaders or on ministry teams.

Support for the evangelist, training and recognition is somewhat missing.

Where are the evangelists?

The evangelists will know who they are, the Lord has called many to be evangelists, but the church is not recognising or supporting them effectively.

This is the kind of down to earth conversation with Jesus I...

Tue, 17 Jul 2012 01:36:00 +0100

This is the kind of down to earth conversation with Jesus I like. This is Jesus speaking through a guy, about him in the third person. The guy is aware of what is being said to him and through him. The words have a noticeable, even measurable, healing effect.

Teenagers with anger problems… …its all the rage these days!

Sat, 14 Jul 2012 19:21:00 +0100

Teenagers with anger problems…

…its all the rage these days!

Jesus Answers Bullies

Tue, 03 Jul 2012 04:02:00 +0100

The most difficult counselling topic in the world, is back!

Abigail: I have 2 more ugly pictures you haven’t seen!
Keith: ok
Abigail: I’m not going to show you!
Keith: ok… heres my chance…
Keith: how do you feel about the idea of showing me those pics
Abigail: Chance for?
Keith: a chance to talk about feelings and stuff
Abigail: But i’m ugly…

Keith: ok, so “I am ugly”, how true does that feel out of 10?
Abigail: 7869786
Keith: uhuh, so this is a biggie then
Abigail: I grew up hearing it Keith.
Keith: Lord Jesus I pray for Abigail, so that we can both have insight to understand the source and origin of this feeling.
Abigail: I couldn’t even walk around middle/high school and someone not calling me ”fat”..”sl**”..”ugly’..”b***h”
Keith: and that made you feel?
Abigail: Like shit…….
Abigail: Like..I don’t belong on this earth.
Keith: ah!
Keith: does that fully express your feelings?
Keith: at the time
Abigail: Yes.
Keith: ok, lets go for it, Lord Jesus
Keith: I pray that whatever happens next is what you want to happen next
Keith: what would you like Abigail to know?

Abigail: That i’m loved..firstly.
Keith: yep
Abigail: And….Im not really ugly, i’m beautiful in my own way..
Abigail: ..But I cant see that.
Keith: ok, keep listening
Abigail: And my husband thinks i’m beautiful…
Keith: ok…
Abigail: A bunch of other people do to.

Keith: ok, so hearing that, how does that lead you to feel?
Abigail:Sad.
Keith: Lord could you help us to understand why Abigail feels sad ?
Abigail: Up until now..I thought I was ugly…but i’m not.
Keith: and that leads you to feel sad, why?
Abigail: Yeah.
Keith: sad that you did not know before?
Abigail: Yeah..
Keith: so, the memory in which you were called names at school, is there any pain or emotions left in there?
Abigail: I felt hated..
Keith: y?
Abigail: I got called all these names.
Abigail: I got beat up once in the boys bathroom..
Keith: and you felt?
Keith: do you still feel like “you do not belong on this earth?”
Abigail: Not really…
Keith: so we have “I am hated”
Keith: because….?
Abigail: I got called all these mean names….and got jumped by a bunch of jealous girls..
Keith: ok then, Lord Jesus what would you like Abigail to know about this?
Abigail: And they ripped my clothes off………and called me fat some more.
Abigail: [Jesus said:] They were jealous.
Keith: …
Abigail: That’s all..
Keith: how do you feel hearing that?
Abigail: I feel fine..
Keith: ok… “I am hated” in those memories, how true does that feel out of 10?
Abigail: 10.
Keith: does that feel painful now?
Keith: or just honest?
Keith: is there anything in those memories which does not feel peaceful and calm?
Abigail: No.
Keith: so, I am ugly out of 10?
Keith: ?
Abigail: I was thinking….
Abigail: About a 5 now.
Keith: ok makes sense
Keith: Lord are there any spirits to send away now?
Abigail: Spirit of abuse.
Abigail: Spirit of emotional pain.
Keith: will do!
Keith: Lord I ask that you will allow Abigail to know these spirits are going for good so she can have some closure. Spirit of abuse I send you to the Lord JEsus to be destroyed, go now.
Keith: did it go?
Abigail: Yes..
Keith: how do you know?
Abigail: You can feel the weight just leaving you..or i do.
Keith: cool
Keith: Spirit of emotional pain, I send you to the Lord Jesus Christ to be destroyed, go now.
Keith: ok, now the spirits have gone, does the score change?
Abigail: Yes.
Keith: it was 5, now?
Abigail: 0
Keith: yay!
Abigail: sent file *.jpg
Keith: ok “I am fat” out of 10?
Keith: hehe, you sent me the pics, thats the proof!
Keith: cool
Abigail: Yeah.
Keith: how about the other names you were called, they sorted?
Abigail: Not yet..and yes.
Keith: cool
Keith: you did great
Keith: the sadness? still there?
Abigail: No..
Keith: Abigail I am so proud of you
Keith: how do you feel about your healing tonight?
Abigail: My healing tonight…Can it go on your Tumblr …?? I only ask you change the name.
Keith: can do
Abigail: ..Im proud of it…

Healing one toe at a time! Isn’t God great, I think that...

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 22:00:00 +0100

Healing one toe at a time! Isn’t God great, I think that this is his sense of humour. (click to zoom)

I left the room and my empty sofa got featured on the front page...

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 20:19:00 +0100

I left the room and my empty sofa got featured on the front page of blogtv, 300+ viewers!

The Lord Jesus heals the deepest wounds quickly and easily.

Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:06:00 +0100

The Lord Jesus heals the deepest wounds quickly and easily.

"Trust is holding my hand, it’s talking to me, and it’s getting through things with prayer along the..."

Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:15:00 +0100

“Trust is holding my hand, it’s talking to me, and it’s getting through things with prayer along the way, together.”

- (via silent-words-from-the-heart)

Did I really say that?

oh well, no body is perfect.

Wed, 20 Jun 2012 05:00:00 +0100

oh well, no body is perfect.

A typical request for help. I did what I could, emotions were...

Wed, 20 Jun 2012 04:20:00 +0100

A typical request for help. I did what I could, emotions were running a bit raw tonight. Please pray for colt.

Photo

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 03:44:00 +0100

The most difficult counselling topic in the world! Every girl...

Sat, 26 May 2012 01:51:42 +0100

The most difficult counselling topic in the world! Every girl needs to know what Jesus thinks of them!