This book tries to explore, in language as non-technical as possible, the deepest philosophical problems regarding the logical status of empty (singular) terms such as `Pegasus', `Batman', `The impossible staircase departs in Escher's painting `Ascending-Descending'+ etc., and regarding sentences which deny the existence of singled-out fictional entities. It will be fascinating for literary theorists with a flair for logic, to students of metaphysics and philosophy of language, and for historians of philosophy interested in the fate of the Russell-Meinong debate. For teachers of these aspects of analytic philosophy this will provide a textbook which goes beyond the Western tradition (without plunging into any mystical Eastern `Emptiness', which is what some previous comparative philosophers did!).
"This book is about dying, not about death. We are always dying a big, always giving things up, always having things taken away. Is there a person alive who isn't really curious about what dying is for them? Is there a person alive who wouldn't like to go to their dying full of excitement, without fear and without morbidity? This books tells you how." -- Front cover.
Paralleling the discovery of HIV and the rise of the AIDS pandemic, a flock of naysayers has dedicated itself to replacing genuine knowledge with destructive misinformation—and spreading from the fringe to the mainstream media and the think tank. Now from the editor of the journal AIDS and Behavior comes a bold exposé of the scientific and sociopolitical forces involved in this toxic evasion. Denying AIDS traces the origins of AIDS dissidents disclaimers during the earliest days of the epidemic and delves into the psychology and politics of the current denial movement in its various incarnations. Seth Kalichman focuses not on the “difficult” or doubting patient, but on organized, widespread forms of denial (including the idea that HIV itself is a myth and HIV treatments are poison) and the junk science, faulty logic, conspiracy theories, and larger forces of homophobia and racism that fuel them. The malignant results of AIDS denial can be seen in those individuals who refuse to be tested, ignore their diagnoses, or reject the treatments that could save their lives. Instead of ignoring these currents, asserts Kalichman, science has a duty to counter them. Among the topics covered: Why AIDS denialism endures, and why science must understand it. Pioneer virus HIV researcher Peter Duesberg’s role in AIDS denialism. Flawed immunological, virological, and pharmacological pseudoscience studies that are central to texts of denialism. The social conservative agenda and the politics of AIDS denial, from the courts to the White House. The impact of HIV misinformation on public health in South Africa. Fighting fiction with reality: anti-denialism and the scientific community. For anyone affected by, interested in, or working with researchers in HIV/AIDS, and public health professionals in general, the insight and vision of Denying AIDS will inspire outrage, discussion, and ultimately action. See http://denyingaids.blogspot.com/ for more information.
Discussions about existence have generally come through the subject of philosophy. The thinking and thoughts about God's existence are well documented. Both sides of the standard arguments for God's existence have been presented. Current thinking has turned to evolutionary concepts that deny God exists or claims that God is a mere impersonal force. However, the time has come for a fresh look into how man can know of God's existence. A Conversaunt Existence is just such a look. Changes have been made to the standard arguments for God's existence. New avenues of thought have been incorporated to corroborate these changes. There are reasons for directing our thoughts toward God's existing: First, it's foolish to let others steer one's thinking into denying God's existence. Ultimately, God wants everyone to respond to His invitation, accept His lifesaving and life-giving message, and participate in writing His story. KIRKUS REVIEW A short treatise on existence with an emphasis on the existence of God. Nelson harkens back to a premodern era by using the archaic word "conversaunt" in place of "conversant" in his title. In doing so, he honors the fact that humankind has always experienced existence as a common form of knowledge. Nelson's work, though deeply philosophical in content, is meant from the beginning to have a personal impact on the reader and not just be merely theoretical in nature. Moreover, his overarching goal is to demonstrate the existence of a personal and involved God. Such authors as C.S. Lewis and Soren Kierkegaard help lead the way. In order to show that the human race is capable of understanding and even connecting with a God figure, Nelson coins a new term intercomplexicate which describes a self-consciousness that is able to make quick evaluations of complex ideas, leading to moral understanding. The author discusses both the strengths and weaknesses of ontological arguments for God's existence and also attempts to disprove popular scientific arguments against the existence of a deity. The idea of contingency (that existence can only occur due to a prior cause) is of great importance in later chapters, as Nelson argues that existence must be contingent on a "necessary being," such as a primary mover or first cause. In closing, the author provides a case not merely for a creator ("watchmaker") God, but for a personal God who continues to be involved with creation. Nelson has a penchant for mixing theoretical and philosophical verbiage with nonstandard language (such as using "by da vey" instead of "by the way" or comparing God with Jean-Luc Picard of Star Trek: The Next Generation). He seems to be seeking a balance between the often opaque material he presents and the personal effect he hopes to have on readers. This balance, unfortunately, is rarely found. Nevertheless, Nelson provides sound arguments worthy of further reflection. Review questions after each chapter are helpful for guiding and focusing the reader. A thoughtful, refreshing argument for God's existence.
Reflecting on the development of atheism from the beginnings of modernity to the present day, the author suggests that atheism originated in the denial that the various forms of interpersonal religious experience possess any cognitive cogency.
Does science deny God? Did the Universe and life appear by chance or is there evidence of a bigger scheme of thing behind them? In this context, I am concerned with answering these questions. This problem is addressed using knowledge in cosmology, physics and biology. The initial part describes the stages of the 'Genesis' according to physical cosmology from the Big Bang to the appearance of life on Earth. It will touch on problems of why the universe is dominated by matter, the theory of inflation, the limits of our knowledge on the early Universe, the lack of a theory that can allow us to study the phases immediately after the Big Bang, the relation between the concepts of quantum mechanics and the existence of God. It shows how the Universe is finely regulated, that is, the physical constants have been chosen so that life appears in the Universe. The regulation is so strong that we are forced to think the existence of a great designer who has created a particular Universe like the one we are observing. This conclusion can be avoided only if there is an infinity of universes, a multiverse. We ask ourselves if science can create the Universe from nothing and using the same arguments of cosmologists such as Krauss (author of The Universe from Nothing). It is now known that the current science does not allow the creation of a Universe from absolutely nothing. Physics and cosmology do not deny God. Indeed, the argument of the fine adjustment of constants is strongly indicative of the existence of a great designer. Other evidence confirming this comes from biology. Thousands of experiments in recent decades highlight the impossibility of generating life in the laboratory. There is an intrinsic order in life encoded in DNA that is not present in experiments. Simple calculations show that the 'blind and aimless' evolution described by neo-Darwinists such as Dawkins does not allow the generation of life.
