Kenyan Forum at Skyscrapercity

Skyscrapercity is one of the biggest forum when it comes to Pictures of Skylines in the world.It has pictures of almost every city in the world.Kenya recently got its own forum at Skyscrapercity.There are tons of pictures of Nairobi,Thika, Nakuru,Eldoret Kisumu ,Mombasa and many other towns in Kenya.I doubt there is any other website with such an impressive collection of pictures of various parts of Kenya as Skyscrapercity.The kenyan posters in the forum are an active bunch.

So why don't you take a look and hopefully become a member and join the growing number of kenyan posters in the Kenyan Forum at Skyscrapercity.

Kenyan Forum at Skyscrapercity

A Great Article about Nairobi

A few times you come across travel stories of your country that make you smile and deeply patriotic.This is one of them.Taken from this blog ADAM LEAVES THE NEST
Adam chronicles his experience in Nairobi,Kenya.

"Awolio eoŋ! I am lost! Life was busy: finishing up collaborations with Term One’s focal schools, writing a grant for US AID Small Project Assistance (accepted!), co-facilitating Peace Corps Life Skills workshops, attending my mid-service conference, and then . . .


“Obi!” The words became concrete as I stirred to life, my body contorted in the uncomfortable “luxury” chair that bound me for fourteen hours, save for passing through customs and waking to find the bus driver asleep at the wheel of our cruiser, in the middle of a sorghum field. “Nairobi. Hapa! Nairobi,” the conductor shouted like an alarm clock.

I quickly found my feet and struggled to unlock my bursting backpack from the overhead rack where I chained it. One cannot be too careful with a suitcase of clothes worth approximately $3000 (all secondhand, of course). Stepping out onto the sidewalk, I turned in a circle to gain my first vision of Nairobi. It looked a lot like Kampala: stucco shops that reach two or three floors max. Immediately, I felt deflated with the familiarity surrounding me; I booked a week in Kenya’s capital city for its reputation: “Manhattan of East Africa.” True, a Eurocentric notion forced upon an African metropolis but I needed a drastic holiday from the bush: a city with substance and order. My shoulders slumped under the weight of my backpack and the defeat of failed expectation. Then, I turned westward.
Soaring up from the usual African shops were crystal skyscrapers. Loads of them; well, at least enough to make a proper skyline. Like a moth drawn to a flame, I started walking towards the city centre, humming “Wonderful Wizard of Oz” the entire way. I crossed River Road, a shady thoroughfare in the old part of the city, headed down Latema until I hit Moi Avenue. I could feel the electricity of the city nearing as I turned left and joined the rapid current of urban dwellers on their morning commute. For a moment, I thought myself in an American city, only with a significantly increased Black population. I was immediately blissful.



There were no greetings, no shouts of muzungu, no beggars on the street, no motorcycles harassing me with “you sit, we go.” Only a crowd of people, individuals turning off sporadically as their journeys differed from the majority. Not paying attention, I collided with a man who stopped suddenly in the middle of the block. He turned around and immediately saw my confusion, “Bus stop.” I smiled, trying to seem like bus stops were a part of my everyday life.

I quickly apologized and continued down the street to the intersection with Mama Ngina. As the first and most exciting stop in Nairobi neared, my blood quickened and my eyes searched the storefronts for a sign. Halfway down the block I turned around to make sure I hadn’t already passed it when a door swung open and released the aroma of freshly ground coffee beans: Nairobi Java House.

I caught the door before it could close and walked in to find a proper coffee shop with café tables and fashion forward bohemians sitting next to businessmen reading the daily news. I ignored feeling awkward in my travel clothes with a huge backpack; instead, I grabbed the last available table. Within five seconds a barista approached, “Morning, something to drink? Maybe a bite to eat?” I quickly ordered a regular coffee, neither cream nor sugar, and a healthy stack of pancakes, already tasting a little slice of heaven. After taking my order the barista turned to walk to the service station but doubled back, “Where are you from?”

“Oh. I’m American but I stay in Uganda,” I answered.

“Really? My mother is from Tororo.”

“Cuti? Ijeni ijo Ateso? Really? You know Ateso?” Automatically, I began speaking Ateso. Even on holiday from my village, I couldn’t help but grasp onto all ties to my African life.

“Eebo. Ai bo iboiei ijo? Yes. Where to do you stay?”

“Buka ŋaren na Soroti. Ejai ocaalo. I’m from near Soroti. It’s in the village.”

“Wonderful! You are a true Itesot, then. I’ll be right back with your coffee. I’m sure you’re looking forward to it. Not a lot of coffee in the village.”

“You have no idea,” I smiled and rubbed my hands together as I looked around at the red wine walls, the cedar wood countertop, people rushing to the register leaving moments later with a cup of energy in hand. I closed my eyes and listened to the fuzzy chatter of coffee beans grinding, steam machines, conversations in English, Swahili and Luo. City living, indeed.

* * *

“Morning, Adam. Going out for the day?” Angela, at the hotel’s front desk, asked as I walked towards the main entrance.

“Mmhmm. I think a little exploration is necessary,” I smiled back as I plugged in my earbuds and pressed the play button on my Ipod, feeling the total invisibility surging forth from the street.

“I can call a taxi for you it you want—“ she began.

“No need. I’ll take the bus.”

“Oh, my. Okay,” she said in disbelief.

I stood at the corner bus stop for ten minutes before my bus came. No. 24 pulled up to the curb and barely stopped as I jumped on and took a seat next to an older gentleman reading Barack Obama’s Dreams of my Father. I giggled to myself and took out my copy of the same book, a last minute decision at the Peace Corps library the day I left for my trip.

“Good read?” I asked the man as I showed him my copy.

“Yeah. Loads better than the rubbish he wrote in his second book, The Audacity of Hope. You can tell which he wrote while a politician.”

“I won’t bother with the sequel, then. I haven’t started this yet.”

“Well, a good place to read it. A whole section of the book takes place in this very city,” the man said as he spread his hands to the window’s view of the cityscape in the distance. “I’d ask if you were on your way home to Karen but white people in Nairobi don’t often take the bus.” Karen is a neighborhood within greater Nairobi that houses most of the white Kenyans who decided to stay after independence, named after Out of Africa’s author Karen Blixen. “Which begs the question, Where are you from?”

“I’m American but I currently live in NE Uganda with the Iteso people,” I gave the standard response even though most don’t have any knowledge of the Iteso people, a tiny population compared to Luo or Kikuyu.

The man digested my response with a furrowed brow and made his next question, “Did you vote in November?”

“By way of post,” I answered.

“I trust by your choice of reading that you made a smart decision. Where are you off to today?”

Just as I was about to answer, the conductor shouted the stop for Hardy, which was my destination. I stood up and quickly answered as I climbed down the stairs, “I’m going to kiss a giraffe. Doing something memorable for my 25th birthday.”

“Well, just remember to wash your face. Happy Birthday,” the elderly man waved from the window as the bus pulled away. “Enjoy the city.”

“I plan to.”

* * *
“So, you been to Masaai Mara?” Andy, my guide for the afternoon, asked as we walked to the car that would take us through Nairobi National Park.

“No. I’m not much of a nature person.” As soon as the words slipped out of my mouth, I felt their dishonesty. Now a year into village life, nature wasn’t as scary as I once thought, just not my cup of coffee. “I thought if I were to go on safari, it would be within the confines of a city.”

“Well, good choice, then. You can see the skyline of Nairobi in the distance. Most strange thing you’ll ever see. Animals running around with skyscrapers in the background. Crazy sight, indeed. You . . .” And so it went for the next five hours. Andy loves to talk about any subject. I learned his mother was from Seychelles and his father was from Uganda but he grew up in Mombasa, hunting warthogs in his boyhood.

Arriving at the vehicle, I laughed at the hybrid before us. Seeing my response, Andy harped in, “Well, as a city person, I thought you’d prefer the greenest vehicle we have. She runs like a bull, swear my life on it.”

“It is perfect. I guess green would do me well. I burn my trash in a rubbish pit. Not sure how eco-friendly that may be. This may forgive some of my Earthly sins. Off we go, then.”


“Damn lions. Making their kill before we arrive. Wish ‘em to hell, I do,” Andy swore as we finished hour four of our adventure. I lost interest after the third hour but Andy was hell-bent on finding a cat. So hell-bent that he off-roaded after passing Leopard Cliff, voyaging through mud for thirty minutes before we met with a buffalo. “This isn’t good. Let me see if I can turn around.”

“Really? The thing can’t be scared off?” I asked quietly.

“Nah, it’ll charge. Worst thing to do is piss it off. Shit, another behind us. What do we do now?”

“Wait it out? What more can we do?” I offered, the words of a true villager. Waiting for things or people is second nature now.

So, we sat in the middle of the park for an hour, waiting for something to scare the buffalos away. Being off the path, nothing came by to assist. Andy became anxious after thirty minutes and when the hour hit, he could take no more. He started to exit the car when the buffalo walked forward. I turned the key in the ignition hoping the sudden noise would startle the beast. Before I could jump the engine, the fan kicked on in a silent roar and the buffalos screeched and started running down the hill towards the ravine.

“Good thinking. Well, you may not have seen a lion, but you came face to face with a pissy buffalo. What now?”

“Take me back to the city. I’m not a nature person,” I said, this time seeing the truth in my words."

PS: All credits go to the original author of the article.Images have been replaced with these from Skyscraper to enhance the story.For the Original article in its original form.Check it out here

Wish we had more positive stories like this one, about Africa.

Why Atheists seem to lose most debates with Theists Philosphers

There have been numerous debates between Atheists and Christian Theists regarding various topics such as,"Does God exist","Can We be Moral Without God and The Problem of Evil.
Anyone who is unbiased will without doubt agree that Theists Philosophers seem to come out on top of most debates.

The most notable Christian Philosopher who most people will agree has never lost a debate is William Lane Craig.Craig has many debates.(over 40) during his 20 years career in apologetics.

If you ask me why most Atheists who have debated William Lane Craig have lost:

1.Presenting invalid arguments
2.Lack of proper rebuttals to Craig's argument.


Presenting Invalid/unsound Arguments

This is the most common mistake atheist philosophers make.It is rather shocking that people who teach logic would commit obvious mistakes in their argumentation.Take for instance John Shook (who is a philosopher) debated William Lane Craig.Frankly he has to be the worst of all Craig's opponents.They debated Naturalism/Theism.

John Shook after being pressed by Craig to present an argument for naturalism,goes ahead and presents this:

1.Nature Exists
2.We don't have evidence for the supernatural
3.Conclusion:Therefore Naturalism is true.

You are left in awe at this kind of amature mistake.The conlcusion does not follow at all.
The theme is prevalent in most of Craig's oppenents.

Craig can simply win most of these debates by default,sincfe the Atheist usually present unsound arguments.

Lack Of Proper Rebuttals

Craig has been presenting the same 5 arguments for Theism for 20 years.And yet all his opponents fail to present convincing rebuttals to his arguments.

A classic example is Craig's recent debate with Christopher Hitchens.Hitchens is used to his British rhetoric.And he thought that was enough to win debates.He had no coherent argument or rebuttal for any of craigs arguments.It was like he came to his senses too late."
Ohh,you mean i really have to present an argument in these debates instead of my usuall jabs at religion and rhetoric about imaginary gods?"

In my opinion,the best Atheist debators who really challenged Craig are: Walter Amstrong Sinnot and bradley.(all on the problem of evil).These were intellectual stimulating debates.

The problem is that,most Atheists prop themselves in high stools and think that Atheism is a given.That it should be obvious to people that Atheisim is true.but when put on the spotlight,most of these Atheist philosophers cannot defend their positions.John Shook was unabel to present a sound argument for naturalism,Luois anthony was unable to present a coherent atheistic ethical system with her debate with Craig on Morality,Hitchens was just a total mess.

Perhaps we should be listening to Theist vs Theist debates.Such as Wes Morristons Vs William Lane Craig on the Kalam Cosmoligcal Argument.Which was a very stimulating debate by the way.Or maybe William Lane Craig vs Richard Swirnburne on either the nature of God(Swirnburne holds the poistion that God can be contigent) or a debate on Moral ontology(Richard Swirnburne holds the view that Morality can exist outside of God.)

Or is there an Atheist Philospher who can fair better than the previous predecesors?We can just wait and see.

William Lane Craig and Me Dialogue on Divine Simplicity

So I'm proud to announce that this weeks question of the week at reasonable faith,i.e William Lane Craig's website, is mine.I mailed in the question a couple of weeks ago.For those who do not know,William Lane Craig is a leading Christian Philosopher and Biblical Scholar.He has written many books and articles and held many debates and conferences with Atheists all over the world.

This was my question:

Hello Dr. Craig.

Thank you very much for your enlightening work in Philosophy of religion. I am writing all the way from Malaysia! so you know your work has touched a lot of people globally.

I am a student in Computer science just reading up on Christian Apologetics. My question regards the doctrine of Divine Simplicity. I have not yet read any articles that you have written about Divine simplicity so i am not aware of your stand on this doctrine.

Someone however does quote you and JP Moreland as basically being opposed to the doctrine:

The doctrine [divine simplicity] is open, moreover, to powerful objections. For example, to say that God does not have distinct properties seems patently false: omnipotence is not the same property as goodness, for a being may have one and not the other.

My questions therefore are:

1. Are you for or against DS?

2. Would it be correct to assert that your understanding of the doctrine of divine simplicity as characterized by the above given quote (if indeed its yours) is wrong given that Nicholas Wolterstorff Noah Porter Professor Emeritus of Philosophical Theology, and Fellow of Berkeley College at Yale University, thinks that medieval Christian thinkers like St. Aquinas conceive of predication in terms of subjects possessing constituents. Whereas contemporary philosophers think of predication in terms of subjects exemplifying properties.

This makes all the difference on someone's view of DS.

Instead of God merely exemplifying eg Omnipotence, we can say that Omnipotence is a metaphysical constituent of God. And therefore it is not distinct from God. The same applies to Omnibenevolence. Instead of God just simply exemplifying goodness, we can say that goodness is part of God's nature, and thus not distinct from him.

Can't we then be charged with reducing God to an abstract property? I believe not. Since we have clearly indicated that we are talking of God's-goodness, which is a metaphysical constituent of God. If God's goodness is part of god's nature, then god's nature is surely identical or equal to God, God's-nature is just the same as God.

An objection can be raised that, We do know that there is a conceptual difference between God's nature and eg God's justice. Since God's nature is that which makes him God, and God's justice is that which makes him just. Therefore this seems to refute the doctrine of DS.

To me, this does not seem to defeat DS since DS does not claim that God's properties are conceptually similar, rather they are metaphysically similar.i.e the claim that God is identical with His nature becomes that God is identical with that constituent which makes him divine, i.e with his divine-making constituent. And the claim that God is identical with his Justice will amount to the claim that God is identical with that constituent that makes him just (just-making constituent).

I know this topic can get rather long, and i apologise for writing such a long post. I would love to hear your view on the issues i have raised.

Ernest

Dr.Craig's Response:

Dr. Craig responds:

Thank you, Ernest, for such a stimulating and profound question concerning divine simplicity! I've addressed this doctrine briefly in my second chapter on "The Coherence of Theism" in my and J. P. Moreland's book Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (IVP, 2003). The passage you cite appears on p. 524.

As I explain there, the classic doctrine of divine simplicity holds that God is an absolutely undifferentiated unity Who has no distinct attributes, stands in no real relations, Whose essence is not distinct from His existence, and Who just is the pure act of being subsisting. As such, the doctrine of divine simplicity is one that has no biblical support at all and, in my opinion, has no good philosophical arguments in its favor. Moreover, it faces very formidable objections. So in answer to your first question, I do reject the traditional doctrine that God is absolutely simple.

Now as for your second question, I assume that you're referring to Nicholas Wolterstorff's very interesting article "Divine Simplicity," in Philosophical Perspectives 5: Philosophy of Religion (Atascadero, Calif.: Ridgeview Publishing, 1991), pp. 531-52. There Wolterstorff argues that the doctrine of divine simplicity has been misconstrued by moderns because we fail to understand the medieval metaphysical framework of that doctrine. The problem, he argues, is that we moderns work with a "relation ontology," according to which a thing's nature or essence is a sort of abstract object to which the thing stands in a relation of exemplification. For example, a cat is thought to exemplify the property being feline, which is an abstract entity to which the cat is related. But medieval thinkers were working with a "constituent ontology," according to which natures were actual constituents of things. In fact, an individual nature was more like a concrete object than an abstract object. Thus, Plato's humanity was not, in this sense, the same as Aristotle's humanity; each had his own individual human nature which was individuated by the matter out of which each man was composed. (I think Wolterstorff seriously downplays the extent to which the medievals also recognized a common nature shared by all things of a certain kind, but let that pass.) Now for entities which are immaterial, like angels, for example, there is no matter to individuate their natures. So each one just is its nature. Each angel is therefore literally one of a kind! Moreover, created things have in addition to their natures certain additional properties, which are called accidents, for example, being brown, being intelligent, being good, and so on.

Now in the case of God, God is immaterial, so He just is His nature. Moreover, the claim of the doctrine of divine simplicity is that God has no accidents; He has only His essence. Finally, in the case of God alone, His nature involves existence. He exists by His very nature. So understood, the doctrine of divine simplicity does not commit one to the absurd notion that God is a property and, hence, an abstract object, as modern critics of the doctrine have sometimes alleged.

Wolterstorff's corrective of the modern reading of divine simplicity is welcome. Certainly medievals would not have thought of God's identity with His nature as His being an abtract object. But this mistaken critique is not the one I offer in Philosophical Foundations.

Rather Wolterstorff has really watered down the classic doctrine of divine simplicity. On his explication God could have a very complex nature and yet count as a simple being. The traditional doctrine is much more radical. It makes four identity claims:

i. God is not distinct from His nature.
ii. God's properties are not distinct from one another.
iii. God's nature is not distinct from His existence.
iv. God has no properties distinct from His nature.

Claim (i) is not unique to God. Angels, too, are identical with their natures. So this claim is not problematic when understood in the medieval metaphysical framework.

Claim (ii) remains problematic, however. Existence is part of God's nature. But existence is not the same property as, say, omnipotence, for plenty of things have existence but not omnipotence. It remains very obscure, therefore, how God's nature or essence can be simple and all His properties identical.

Claim (iii) is misrepresented by Wolterstorff, I believe. His is what Thomistic scholars call an "essentialist" reading of Thomas Aquinas' doctrine: Existence is a property that is included in the divine essence. But many Thomists insist that the correct reading of Thomas is an "existentialist" one: existence is not a property at all, but is the act of being which instantiates an essence. Everything other than God is composed of an essence to which an act of being is conjoined to make it exist as a concrete particular thing. But in a sense, God has no essence on this view, rather He just is the pure act of being unconstrained by any essence. He is, as Thomas says, the pure act of being subsisting. The problem is, this doctrine is just unintelligible.

Finally, claim (iv) runs into the severe problem that God does seem to have accidental properties in addition to His essential ones. For example, in the actual world, He knows, loves, and wills certain things which He would not know, will, or love had He decided to create a different universe or no universe at all. On the doctrine of divine simplicity God is absolutely similar in all possible worlds; but then it becomes inexplicable why those worlds vary if in every one God knows, loves, and wills the same things.

This is not to say that the doctrine of divine simplicity is wholly bereft of value. On the contrary, I have elsewhere defended the view that God's cognition is simple. But I do think that the full-blown doctrine in all its glory is philosophically and theologically unacceptable.

Boston Lose to Orlando and get eliminated.

It was a painful game to watch.Orlando Vs Boston game 7 at the TD banknorth.In the First Quarter,Orlando were up by 10 points.With 4 out 4 shooting from the 3-point line.I squirmed every time i saw Hedo or Alston rise to shoot a 3-point.It ws almost always,a swish.

Boston tried to come back,but it was Orlando's night.Everything was going in.At the end Boston lost 101-82.A decisive 19 point win.

As for me,I am done watching the playoffs.My team is out and its not worth it anymore.

I am now rooting for Denver.I hate the Cavaliers,and I hope they get bundled out somewhere along the way.

Next year,Boston will be a better team with KG and Leon Powe back.And hopefully a new fresh power forward and point guard.Please Doc rivers,get rid of Stephon Marbury and Mikki Moore.

Boston win Game 5 to go up 3-2

It was one of the best comeback in the series.At one point Boston trailed 14 points at the end of the third quarter and the only person who was scoring was veteran Paul Pierce who finished with 19 points.

With 5 minutes to go Orlando were still up 11 points.But all of a sudden the tide started changing and Boston made an 11-2 run.Ray Allen who had a cold night made a 3 pointer with less than 2 minutes left to give the Boston Celtics the lead.Orlando could not Capitalize on 3 open 3 point shots.They tried to foul Boston players to stop the clock,but Paul pierce,Eddie House and Big baby Glen davis sunk all the free throws to give Boston a 92-88 win.

Now Celtics lead the series 3-2 heading back to orlando for Game 6 on Thursday night.Its a do or die game for Magic since if they lose,they are knocked out of the series.

Meanwhile,several Orlando Magic fans have been crying foul after the game 4 loss in Orlando.Some bloggers insist that the NBA corporate would want a Boston/Caveliers Eastern Conference final.Game 5 also had its share of conterversial calls.One being what looked an airball shot by Rondo which was ruled to have hit the rim giving Celtics possesion at the closing seconds of the game.Another call is the ball tussle with Big baby glen davis with Rashard Lewis.The Magic team wanted it to be called a jump ball,but instead it ended up being a foul for Davis who sunk the two winning free throws.

Game 6 is on Thursday night 8 pm at the Amway arena in Orlando,Florida.

Watch Game Highlights here

Boston Sinks Orlando Magic in Game 4.

So if you are a fan of basketball then you probably have been watching tthe NBA playoffs which are on the second round.Yesterday night Boston were hosted by Orlando down in Orlando, Florida for game 4.Orlando were leading 2-1 in the series and this was a must win for Boston.

Boston played well from the start and led most of the second half.But squandered a lead at the final seconds.Magic went up 94-93 with 16 seconds left.But surprise surprise! big baby davis hit the game winning jumper at the buzzer to give the celtics a 95-94 winner.The series now heads to Boston for Game 5 tied at 2-2.

Watch Highlights here