The Way Forward on This Blog

Posted on by
Reply

What I’d like to do with this blog is examine the writing life, share my findings with you, and get your comments back in return. We’re going to look at how to write fiction stories as well as non-fiction manuscripts. We’re going to look at how to publish through Create Space and Kindle, and how to do that on the cheap. We’re going to look at the traditional publishing industry and see what’s hot and what’s not and how to avoid getting ripped off, and hopefully, we will become the go-to website for all new authors.

In addition, I will be reviewing books. I will review mega-popular books when they come out, like Stephen King or John Grisham, but mostly I will review new authors or under-represented works, with special emphasis on those who publish themselves as independent publishers through Create Space and Kindle.

Obviously, this used to be a religious website, and I’m not going to go back and delete all those early posts. This website will still come up even if someone uses the http://www.veridican.com address. But unless I’m reviewing a book with a spiritual theme, I no longer have any intent of engaging in religious discussion or debate. Those who know me know that I am very religious in a New Age kind of way. They know I published The Veridican Gospel of Jesus Christ, and they engage me in some of the atheist forums and dream interpretation forums where we have spirited debates (pardon the pun:-).  If you would like to join in there, by all means let’s do.

As for here, if you think you have a book I should review, by all means, let me know about it. When I write a review, I will post that review here, on Amazon, and on Good Reads as well as other review sites as I ramp up this operation.

It’s time to move forward with this in this new age of publishing. I’m looking forward to meeting you all in here and listening to what you have to say about it. See ya ‘round,

Ed

Giving It Ten More Years

Posted on by
Reply

Like a lot of you, I’ve wanted to be a novelist—I am a novelist, but I mean a successful one, as I’m sure you do, too, when you think of yourself as a novelist. What defines success? I’m not completely sure, but for starters I would say it comes in a certain dollar amount.

I want to pay off the house I’ve got now; I want to pay off my car; I want to buy a second house up north (nothing fancy), and I want an RV to travel between the two as the seasons change, with my wife and three dogs of course. My day job will eventually take care of that, but I want to do it with my writing.

So, I’m giving it ten years. What happens after ten years, I’m not sure, but what I mean is that I’m going to give it ten dedicated years according to a disciplined plan. I’m going to try, even if that means I ultimately fail. No more back and forth; no more starting and stoping.

What about you? Are you an author? What’s your plan?

Are You Sure There’s No Consciousness?

Posted on by

Have you ever thought about how you know to fix a doorknob? Not specifically, but just in general, if you have a problem with a doorknob in your house, you’d probably be able to fix it one way or another. But to those who believe the mind is generated by the brain, this task should be impossible.

How could it ever be that all the motor functions you need in order to fix the doorknob are already in your neurons? They would have to be, and yet neurons don’t store memory—they only fire or don’t fire. That’s it. So how is it that a mind that is generated by the neural activity of the brain can figure out an original problem?

Atheists like to say there is no evidence for consciousness to exist outside of a living brain, but how would that ever be determined? If you need the brain to move the body to give the clues that a person is conscious, if that brain dies or is injured and can’t perform that function, how can you say the mind has evaporated? What meter, gauge, or scope would you use to detect a mind, other than when it acts on a brain?

Science is Safer for Atheists

Posted on by

I wonder exactly what atheists mean by “science.” They always embrace scientific reasoning as if anyone else is merely sacrificing humans at Stonehenge or throwing spears at the moon. You know, a lot of what we call science is really only a system of classification (archeology, botany or forming libraries). A lot more is really the field of engineering (making cell phones, software, and computers). The scientific method, if that’s what they’re referring to, is used by everyone. For instance:

- Tide seems to work better than Gain
- I will wash three loads using Tide and three using Gain and compare results.
- My results show that there is no real difference.
- Therefore, I can forget my theory that Tide is better than Gain.

But the scientific method is a very limited way of gaining knowledge. It can only be used if an experiment can be set up. A vast amount of human knowledge and understanding does not lend itself to the scientific method (e.g., literature, art, music, mathematics, theology, logic, philosophy, etc.).

So, I would like to make a hypothesis based on an observation. I would say that atheists embrace the scientific method of gaining knowledge because it is safer. Unlike theism, if atheism suffers even one blow, it falls down like a house of cards. It’s not that science is superior. That would be like saying a hammer is preferable to a screwdriver. Rather, for an atheist, science is safer for their world view.

My Problem With William Lane Craig

Posted on by
Dr. William Lane Craig

Of course I watch everything he has on YouTube, and I’m eternally jealous of his intellect and ability to deliver the contents of his intellect through his amazing ability to speak clearly and rationally to large numbers of people, but…

I think his Christianity robs him of his credibility. He will argue as strongly for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ as he will for the Kalam cosmological argument even though Christianity is not defensible when used as an argument for the existence of God. Christianity is faith; it is religion. The existence of God is logic and wisdom, the height of human understanding. The two are not linked.

So he will outline his reasons for the existence of God, detailing very clearly the elements of the cosmological and teleological arguments, and then he’ll throw in the New Testament version of the life Jesus Christ, only to come off sounding delusional. And that detracts from his credibility.

Understand that I say this with a complete and utter faith in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. I know that his way is the only way to a relationship with God, but I don’t use that way as an argument for the existence of a Supreme Being. There is God, and then there is the revelation of God to mankind through Jesus Christ. There is no point in talking to atheists about Jesus Christ, per se. One has to believe in God for Jesus to make any sense. Dr. Craig should realize this. Nevertheless, I realize it may be too late in his career for him to back off of the positions he has taken.