#i have a whole univers constructed in my mind around him

[emmg]

Emmrich: *sees a filthy hole*

Worne: ?

Emmrich: *starts weeping*

Worne: ??

Emmrich: it’s just like you, dearest *sob* *sob*

Worne: ???

🕳️ WIP Wednesday (on Thurs) 🕳️

Tagged by @heylittleriotact

WELL this one was supposed to be released by now but I have had the absolute delight of needing to write confronting truths to the worst sorts of people. Menace is a way of life. I bring you this. I don’t know what to title it. Weeping Lizards? Sodden Hole? Muddy Salt? Help. I blame @emmg for its creation this is your fault. We’re in Hossberg and Emmrich is crying over a muddy hole that reminds him of Worne (Rook).

———-——-

“Now, please, I have to see to Emmrich, shoo. Everyone’s off.” Rook motioned it with a flick of his hands this time; well aware he might have better luck physically urging the ground below to trot on before budging the Qunari. Thankfully Taash needed no further encouragement and long strides were soon taking them past Emmrich. They paused at a shout from behind.

Rook, calling like a concerned parent, “And get something nice for Lace first!” Taash waved back, looked over their shoulder, regretted that once the Warden started mouthing further instructions, what was he saying? “Floooowers.” And he was pointing at himself, and at Emmrich and. Taash rolled their eyes. Took a moment to turn and mouth back an exaggerated but silent, “Nooooo.”

Rook flipped them off, they sent two back. Rook’s eyes went wide, and he pointed a stiff finger at them. Taash groaned and rolled their head full round. Mouthed a “Fiiiiine.” And finally disappeared down the path back to Lavendell.

The Warden quickened his step. Emmrich hadn’t moved in the time it took to send Taash away for errands. The mage remained locked in place, red and wet faced, staring long at a muddy hole.

Rook didn’t question it, did his best to not startle him, that hazel gaze was far, far away. “Emmrich.”The hushed tone was followed by a soft touch. Fingers entered at waist, trailed up the spine until they went up to hold that opposite shoulder steady, gave a firm grip, a gentle pull towards the rogue. The necromancer was trembling, Rook eased into a shape that fit close, that first touch a needle of first stitch, and like thread he pulled them flush together.

Emmrich didn’t startle, seemed to expect him, subtle movements meeting Rook as he settled into the Warden’s hands finding their way to their places. Still, he kept a bit tense, hands tight together in front. White knuckled as he spoke sniffing,

“Rook. Darling, it’s…look, I…” and then Emmrich laughed, piercingly loud, a wincing crack that made Rook flinch to a confused smile. But the noise was manic prelude, and it was swallowed in the sob that drove it free. The mage’s eyes welled, wet trails provided easy paths for fresh tears as flood resumed. He turned his head down and into Rook, lips quivering to recall words. Shine on his face wrenching the rogue’s gut, Rook listened, attentive as possible, but the necromancer’s trembling smile stretched the sounds.

Emmrich’s hands unclenched from each other and dove round Rook in a desperate clinging embrace. The Warden answered with whispered soft ‘shhhh’s’ and diligently caressed the tall man’s back. They held there for long moments, Rook bearing their weight as the quivering necromancer eased into fewer wails and more whimpers.

Blubbering, mumbling, further shuddering chuckles, but eventually, helped by Rook’s firm embrace, calming touch, and steady pace of lungs, the breaths came even enough for thoughts. Emmrich squeaked out, “...it reminded me of you.”

He gestured towards the filthy hole. And then a lizard popped its head out. Mud obscured its sight, some kind of weed stuck to its chin, and its big dumb face was wide, letting nary a thought bother its whim. Emmrich snorted. Then started weeping again.

—————

tagging: @caffeinatedmunchkin @thepalehorsevictoria @ollypopwrites (look I know you’ve likely been tagged but this is me saying tag me on all your writing updates because imma miss it if you don’t I’m staying away from this place as much as possible to write. Sincerely haha I’ll catch up on commenting when I caaaaan because holy shit all the writing is so good. I’m forgetting people TAG ME I need to post or imma edit the whole thing again.)

[is-god-real-blog]

Can you logically prove that God doesn’t exist, Bill Cravens

Bill Cravens, BSMME, Univ. of Mich. 1978, MSMME, Illinois Institute of Tech, 1997

I am a former atheist (admittedly in my youth) and am now a Christian. I will answer the question by posing another question... one that I feel is not given nearly as much consideration today as it properly was in the past.

"What is proof?"

Technically, it is a philosophic and mathematical term. "Proofs" are evidence, arguments, and analysis, etc. that are held to lead any objective and rational mind from a condition of doubt or skepticism to acknowledgement of the thing that is alleged to be "proven". Obviously, once one leaves the realm of mathematics, geometry, and pure logical analysis, this word becomes a very "tall order"!

History provides excellent examples. "Prove" to me that the Roman Empire ever existed. I see some ruins in today's Rome, and elsewhere around the Mediterranean, etc. I see some written records (mostly copies of copies of copies), professing to have recorded them. I see Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" (which, so I am told, was supposedly a dramatization from Plutarch's records.

Likewise for Ancient Egypt... Babylon... Old Testament Israel... Alexander... the Christian Church, the entire Medieval Period. All of it is "inferred", by taking written testimony and then trying to build a "collage" of sorts. A "reasonably accurate picture" of how "scholars think the history of our world unfolded up to the present day. Clearly, there is much that is subjective. Historical "proofs" are not at all "rigorous" like those of the Mathematicians.

In Science, on the other hand, we are often told that "science proves" this or that. But let's keep clear what "that kind of science" means. It is an attempt to ascertain "how Nature normally works". To determine "Natural Laws" that are the same at all points in time and space. Physics, Chemistry, Electromagnetics, Gravity... the study of "universal forces" and how they function. Time and again, scientists will state that, if we ever do encounter intelligent aliens from elsewhere in the Universe, they will at least have this in common with us... that they understand the same natural laws.

But this is built on a very strong assumption that "Science" is purely the study of universal Natural Law. Many things other than that get called "science" today, simply because their study uses scientific devices and refers to natural laws. History, Archaeology, Paleontology, Evolution, Psychology and Sociology etc. all claim to be "science", even though (as of yet) none of them can reproduce their primary effects in a test tube. They simply "assume" the existence of their subjects, or infer them from indirect observations, and then use "nature language" to put a "scientific decoration" on their fields. But Culture, "The Past", the Soul, and Society... these are "constructs", not rocks on a table to be weighed and chemically analysed.

Now then..."Proof of God"? First, although I am a Christian, one must note that it is somewhat unfair to ask that an atheist "prove" that Something "does not exist". Proofs of negatives are not "absolutely impossible". Mathematicians and students of Geometry are quite familiar with them. But get outside of the purely analytical realm and they become extremely difficult to come up with, very quickly. For "contingent" items and events, such as History deals with, one must start from the assumption that the thing or event COULD HAVE happened, but did not HAVE TO HAPPEN. Hence, "contingency". Under those circumstances, one can imagine an awful lot of things being "possible" or "conceivable", which by no means makes them "certain". It would be very hard to PROVE that Abraham Lincoln lived and did and said what is recorded of him, if one did not start out simply assuming that the records of him are "reasonably accurate" up front. Not really "proof" at all. (Or, for that matter, "disproof".)

But God? God Himself?? I'm thinking of the Cabby in the Emerald City in 'The Wizard of Oz'. "We want to see the Wizard!" "The Wizard?? Well, I uh... er, um, uh... well... !" Pray tell, just what kind of "Proof" (or "Anti-Proof") would you have in mind?? God is held (by most Monotheists today, and for the last 2000+ years) to be not a "material being" that you might come upon at a particular location in Time and Space. He is held to be "Self-Existent" and Eternal. The "First Cause"... the "Unmoved Mover"... the "Uncaused Cause of All Things". As such, it seems (to monotheistic philosophers) intrinsically unreasonable to ask to "see God, directly". What Light would you shine on the Father of Light? With what eyes would you look on Him Who made your eyes? And if, somehow, you could "see God"... what is it that you suppose you would see?

For this reason, we (who believe in the biblical God) believe that it is not relevant to the subject, when atheists demand "proof" that God "exists", and justify their platform on the grounds that we cannot give them that. The expectation of "physical proof of God's existence" is simply and inherently unreasonable. There are "arguments" for God's existence, but not evidences of the sort that, say, persuaded scientists that there were planets beyond Saturn, or that might eventually convince them that there is life on Mars. We are not speaking of biological life, or of Mars, but of Him Who made both.

Ironically, this leads me to come to their defense if someone should demand that atheists "prove" that God "does not exist". Just how, exactly, would one have them do that? God is, by His Nature... Well, one must balk at speaking of God's "nature". Perhaps we should say by the "unavoidable status of the relationship between God and His created things. In any event, He is invisible. One does not "ask God for His credentials", to quote Dr. McCoy from what is without a doubt the worst of the various Star Trek movies. Or, if you did decide to ask for them, He might smile and respond by saying "What credentials would you have?"

That, truly, is the problem. One must, in some sense "already know what one is looking for"... what would constitute "proof"... before one can even begin to look, yes? Otherwise, it's sort of like Barbossa said of the "Isle de la Muerta" in 'Pirates of the Caribbean". "Can only be found by them as already know where to look for it." Well.... that certainly tells me a lot, doesn't it??

My own "argument"... admittedly limited... is this. The Bible does indeed give us at least some limited philosophical "ground" on which to stand. In Genesis, God says "Let Us make Man in Our Image". What this "means", of course, has been debated for millenia. But the general consensus is that God did not simply "make humans", but rather intends that we (somehow, at least) "reflect His own Internal Views and Conditions. Again, it is very hard to know exactly how that "works" in detail. But humans regard themselves as having:

1) Valid conscious awareness. We see the observable world as being "outside" our minds. Thus, though we usually don't look at it this way, we are in fact reserving for our conscious minds an "external status" that claims to be "objective" about the observed Universe. This is in direct refutation of Reductionism... the belief (prevalent among many scientists and neurologists today) that the "mind" is simply "what the brain does"... the result of complex electro-chemical reactions inside it. This is what "science" today mostly says (there are some outspoken exceptions) but, if it were taken seriously, it would undermine just about everything we do with or in our minds. Including Science, by the way.

2) Free Will. Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, and a host of angry Materialists and Atheists can grumble all they wish. But the vast majority of humans are steadfastly dedicated to the idea that humans really do possess the "Supernatural Power" of making uncoerced and unpredictable choices between equally-possible and mutually-exclusive alternatives, and then imposing said choices on our physical surroundings. In fact, we can "make the Future become something that it otherwise would not have become". We are NOT (so most of us hold) merely 'acting out' chemical reactions that were initiated long ago by naturalistic forces beyond our control. Again, this is something that rigorous Materialism absolutely denies. True Free Will (not just the illusion of it, but real free will) simply does not fit into a Materialist viewpoint. If we are "Sons of God", then perhaps we possess this Great Power. If we are just "complex collections of carbon-based molecules, subject to Natural Law, then we do not, and cannot. Myself, I believe in Free Will.

3) Rational Thought. Some excellent works on "What Rational Thought really must be, if it is to be rational", and what this means for Materialism versus the transcendent view of human nature that Religion supports. See C. S. Lewis's "Argument from Reason" in his essay titled 'Miracles'. Also current philosopher Victor Reppert has very effectively taken up Lewis's mantle and pushed the philosophical basis for the argument much farther. Basically, all reasoning requires that we attribute to our thought processes certain basic characteristics that a purely chemical and mechanical system governed by deterministic laws cannot actually provide. Chemistry and Evolution might be able to produce the "illusion" of Free Will and Rational Thought, but they cannot at all produce the Reality of them. With Free Will, perhaps Dawkins and others could just "blow it off". But with Rationality, they dare not. Their whole platform rests on their claim to Reason (as opposed to "Faith"). If they must admit that all Reason (including theirs) is just the pre-ordained outputs of a chemical mechanistic process, then their own thinking goes into the trash along with everyone elses.

4) Finally, Moral Perception. We all (most of us, anyway) believe that we know "Right from Wrong". Even the most hide-bound Materialist, claiming to accept Machiavelli's 'Prince' as his guide, declaring Darwin's Evolution to be the foundation, having no problem with Nietzsche and his "Will to Power"... perfectly happy with the "Realpolitik" of today's world... will, the moment his guard is down, turn around and express outrage and indignation at some immorality. We do often disagree with each other about which principles are more important. And about what methods to apply to achieve them. But all of this misses the point that, without God and His Authority, THERE IS NOTHING TO DISAGREE ABOUT. We all believe that there is a "moral direction to the Universe". We all believe passionately that there is in fact a "Right Way that Things Ought To Be", even if we disagree horribly with each other about what that "Way" is. This Moral Sense is one of those primordial things that points back to God, and to His creating us "in His Image". As C. S. Lewis put it so well, "If there were no visible light in the Universe, and therefore, no creatures with eyes, there would be no sense in saying that it was dark. 'Dark' would be without meaning." If the Cosmos itself is utterly indifferent to Morality... if our moral sense simply developed over time as an evolutionary 'survival tool'... fine, well and good. But then we can no longer take it at face value. No longer look to it as a source of Authority. It's real purpose is to help those in whom it is stronger to survive longer and bear more offspring. It is NOT a "real insight into the way things really OUGHT to be". There are no "oughts", "shoulds" or other "valid moral perceptions". Again, as with perception and reasoning, we have become so accustomed to making moral judgements that we no longer seem to realize what we are saying when we do it. If our thoughts and actions are "caused" by physical processes, how to physical processes come to be "true" or "false"? How do they come to be "evil" or "good"? There are no "good atoms" or "evil stars". Why do I care so much, when it is manifest that the Cosmos does not?

All of these things do not, of course, "prove that God exists" in the rigorous fashion that I described at first. But we all do them, every day, and they strongly point back to the idea that we are "more than meets the eye". Even more than meets our own eyes. This is a powerful, if indirect, basis for believing that we may indeed be "made in the Image of God". At the very least, I would insist that atheists consider what their position amounts to, as regards reductionism. I see a lot of statements to the effect that "we do not see any reason for believing in God", and "can you prove that God exists". I also see statements of the sort that "we atheists can be moral people too!".

My problem with that is that such logic seems to believe that one can just blithely "remove God from the shelves of your thinking", as though He were a particular concept, like "unicorns, dragons, Santa Claus, etc.", and decide "we don't believe in Him any more". "Not believing in God" requires also scrubbing away all of the things that depended on Him for their reality. This, I think, is MUCH harder to do, sincerely and completely, than most atheists realize.

Nonetheless, I will agree that, Whoever and Whatever God is (again, assuming He exists), He has certainly chosen to be Invisible. It is not "self-evident" that He is present in our daily lives. Apparently, if He is watching, He values a certain discretion in His dealings with us. Perhaps this is something He does want us to decide for ourselves. What will we "choose to believe"?