God Vs. Science and the Limits of Logic

[ad_1]

The Issue at Hand

How did our universe arise?

From the Big Bang, one might reply. Or from a multiverse, one could theorize. Or from the action of a First Cause, often identified with a God, or a particular God.

Where did those causes arise, you press on.

The Big Bang emerged from nothing, one might reply. Or the multiverse never emerged, but rather has eternally replicated with no beginning in time. Or the First Cause needs no explanation, as the First Cause created itself.

We could press on, such as how can something emerge from nothing.

At this point, let’s step back. Let’s step back from the question of how did our universe, our actuality, how did that arise. Rather, let’s ask whether the logic we use, the rationales with which we attempt to answer the question, whether those are sufficient to the task.

We can use logic to deduce the chances in Blackjack, or figure out why the light in the bedroom doesn’t go on, or more globally engineer the great infrastructures which underlie our modern societies.

Can we use logic, however, to discern the greater question of the origins of our actuality, to understand that which caused our fundamental existence?

Let’s offer an answer to this greater question, then look at some possible issues with that answer, and finally work to draw some conclusion.

An answer

If our issue centers on the sufficiency of logic, where does logic come from? Let’s start with the proposition that logic emerges from the existence in which we find ourselves. We observe our world, and record through our senses and our instruments, the actuality around us. Then with our intellect we fit our observations into patterns and rules and create logic to formalize and validate the rules.

Take circles. The logic of circles emerges from the presence of circles in our actuality. Certainly we have extended logic of actual circles into esoteric realms of analytic geometry, topography, manifolds, Hilbert spaces and beyond. But the logic, math and science that built those realms remain grounded in the core attributes of actuality.

In short then, in this view, our logic emerges from, and remains connected to, our existence.

But what question lies before us? What do we seek to answer? Existence itself. The how and why of existence, or in other words what came before or outside of or around or at the genesis of existence.

I have just offered, though, that the origin of our logic is our existence. Our question, though, asks what enabled existence. If we bring logic to bear on the enabler of existence, we ask, in effect, that logic discern and elucidate that from which logic itself came, to turn back on itself and explain itself.

That descents into circularity. Existence explains logic, and now we ask logic to explain existence. In other words, A explains B, but now we want B to explain A.

Take causality. Causality underlies in essence our basic ability to live. That water grows food, and lumber supports structures, and electricity operates machines and lights, in short that nature follows a highly predictable pattern, reliably, permits life. That our core existence relies on causality gives rise to the logic of implication, in other words, that if A, then B.

Now step outside our actuality. Does causality still apply? We might answer of course it does, causality lies at the core of everything. But we have just accepted, for this line of argument, that logic emerges from within existence. When we step outside our actuality, what status does causality have? By the line of thought here, that our logic applies only within the bounds of where it emerged, we cannot make any definitive statement on the applicability of causality to the origin of existence. Or for that matter about the applicability of any element of logic.

Questions That Arise

That gives the argument, or an argument.

But as formulated, questions arise.

Could we not extend logic, extrapolate, so that logic provides explanatory power on the genesis of existence? Would we not take an acceptable leap, for example, to extrapolate that if causality underlies the actuality we observe, that causality also applies to the process that created our actuality?

And do we stand correct on a basic proposition here, that our human logic emerges from existence? Rather, might logic precede existence, might logic dwell independent of any actuality?

And do not science and religion offer explanations on the origin of existence, which regardless of this theorizing on the status of logic, provide real hypotheses that we can discuss and analyze?

We thus should continue on.

Extrapolation

We extrapolate, successfully, all the time. We extrapolate, generalize, that the sun will rise in the morning, that leaves will fall in autumn, and that temperatures will drop in the winter. Athletes extrapolate the flight of the ball, industrial quality inspectors extrapolate the number of defects from a sample, and epidemiologists extrapolate the harm (or benefit) of toxins (or medicines) from experiments.

Extrapolation can work wonderfully, effectively, efficiently. But caution must reign. Extrapolation does not work universally. We can not extrapolate from the physics of falling apples to the gravity of black holes. We can not extrapolate from the dynamics of billiard balls to how atoms operate in semiconductors. We can not extrapolate from the changing speed of sound as a car passes to the nature of the speed of light. We can not extrapolate from the nature of matter that we touch to the mass composition of the universe. We can not extrapolate from how helium works in our holiday balloons to the conditions inside our sun. We can not extrapolate our sense of our bodies to the totality of our biology, i.e. can you feel your muscles grow, or your liver extract waste, or hemoglobin absorb oxygen?

Extrapolation of what appeared sound logic fails in these cases. As they developed the laws of gravity, philosophers and scientists from Euclid to Newtown extrapolated the orthogonal three dimensional reference frame we experience on Earth out to the wider universe. Seemed reasonable, actually almost obvious. But that logic failed. Einstein discovered that mass and energy curve and warp space, and make time relative.

In its treatment of the atoms, classical statistical mechanics first extrapolated our experience with solid objects down to the atomic level, to treat atoms as tiny oscillating objects. That logic failed. Planck and others overturned that logic with quantum mechanics.

In these cases, extrapolation of what appeared sound logic failed (or more appropriately lost applicability) as we reached further into the universe. That extrapolations do not work universally, and that learned individuals can toil centuries to locate when and where extrapolations stop working, should give us pause. We should exercise restraint in extending what appear as solid concepts, like causality, to questions in areas beyond the known applicability of those concepts.

Existence Precedes Logic

But doesn’t logic precede the universe. Do not ideas and concepts exist independent of any particular actuality? None other than Plato thought so. And his viewpoint has merit. No actual circle, or no one set of actual objects, represents the complete and permanent essence of a circle or of a set. Circles, and sets, and for that matter numbers, and logical operations, might they in their essence exist as concepts independent of the transitory nature of items in actuality.

As noted, Plato and others posited such.

But that Greek philosophers heralded an idea does not assure it correctness.

In Greek times a philosopher might, based on experience, conclude that for objects to stay in motion, a force must be applied. Now since no force appears to be applied to the Earth, the Earth must be motionless. Another Greek philosopher might determine, based on experience, and given the nature of triangles and parallel lines, that the angles of a triangle always sum to 180 degrees.

Now Newtown showed the first item on motion incorrect, and Riemann invented a geometry where the second item was not true, and Einstein used Riemann’s geometry to show that Newtown showed great insight but Newtown’s laws applied only in approximation, or in cases not at all.

I do not seek to discredit Greek philosophers, but rather to show how ideas in philosophy, math, science, metaphysics and logic stand subject to revisions and amendment. If logic preceded existence, then we might expect that logic to exhibit more stability, and not be subject to revision.

Maybe it is our understanding of logic that undergoes revision, not logic itself. Logic remains consistent and stable, its independent and timeless structure remains solid and immutable, but humanity evolves in its grasp of the Platonic forms and rational logic.

To examine this, let’s do a thought experiment. Picture we consist of just consciousness, and nothing else, and no objects exist, no space exists, and the “we” actually consists of just one of us, nobody else. This one individual is alive, certainly, and experiences, deeply, feelings, feelings of joy, elation, pain, horror, stress. The mental experience remains rich, but without any sense of time, space, matter, objects, i.e. nothing other than the mental experience.

Does logic exist in the world of this thought experiment? Well, this individual’s experiences provide no basis for their discerning logic. The individual only encounters feelings. Nothing else, not causality, not physical objects, not time, not space, language never arises, the person never designs or creates anything, makes no plans, solves no problems, faces no challenges. But as noted above, the inability in this thought experiment to discern logic, either correctly or at all, does not imply the lack of such a logic.

We now have reached the crux. Let’s assume a logic exists independent of any particular actuality. But we see both in our current actuality, and in the thought experiment, that human limitations could likely make us unable to discern that logic. The result? We cannot know to what extent the logic we do discern matches the “true” logic.

Thus we do not know whether our discerned logic applies outside our actuality. A “true” logic may govern creations of actualities, but our inability to discern the “true” logic leaves us unable to apply the logic we do know, to the question of the genesis of our existence.

Another thought experiment may illustrate this. Assume I exist as a fish in a huge, completely dark sphere of water in deep space (a sphere so large I never reach the wall). I would discern some laws of physics, for example that I must exert a force to move. I might generalize my experience to a law that objects in motion will stop in the absence of a continuously applied force.

I wonder what exists outside my water world, and use my generalizations to create theories. I would of course be in error. Outside my water world, the laws of motion differ, and gravity exists, and stars produce light, and life flourishes not just in water, but on land and in the air. Any laws I discern bear no resemblance to the large, actual laws.

So again, caution should reign. Even if universal logic exists independent of any actuality, we cannot know if the logic we discern matches whatever universal logic reigns.

Concepts for Existence

Okay, maybe, but both science and religion have offered hypotheses or beliefs on how existence came to being. We should examine these. Let’s take three, specifically: 1) our actuality came from nothing, 2) our actuality results from a continuous series of multiverses extending back infinitely and 3) a First Cause, say a God, or the specific Christian God, created our actuality.

Nothing – Could our actuality have emerged from nothing?

An immediate logical quandary arises. Nothing means nothing. Nothing here means more than just no air, or no objects, or no mass, or even no space or time. Nothing means no attributes, no characteristics, no description, no properties.

But when we consider nothing as the origin of existence, we endow nothing with a property, i.e. that from which existence arose. Nothing then becomes something. So we fall into a logical trap that we cannot study nothing as the origin of existence since when we do nothing becomes something.

Wait, you say, this trap just presents a sort of semantic sophistry, turning a word on itself. But not really. A sound theory on nothing as the origin of existence, and in particular our actuality, would involve an explanation, a description. For example, maybe nothing could spawn existence since positive attributes of our actuality, like mass, or energy, or space, have corresponding negative attributes, say anti-matter, or negative energy, and so on, summing to zero.

That however, assigns a zero state to nothing. Is a zero state equivalent to nothing? Likely not. I can envision physicists, in building a theory of existence from nothing, assigning a variable to this zero state, since a theory would need to show how the somethings in our actuality sum to this zero state. This variable imbues a property to nothing, at which point nothing converts to something.

You disagree, stating zero doesn’t imply a property. Maybe with enough discussion we can climb out of this logical quandary, but I offer we are at the edges of what words mean, at the edges of what logic can discern, and certainly beyond the edge of anything we experience (i.e. we have never encountered nothing.)

If we encounter this level of problems considering nothing as the origin of existence, I would offer that our logic falters.

Infinite Existence – Unlike “nothing,” with its ephemeral absence of anything, an infinite sequence of predecessor multiverses, or just universes, provides a rich palette of somethings from which our actuality around us could emerge.

No need to fret over properties. With this infinite sequence, we seek to logically explain the origin of existence by endowing that origin with an ultimate property, a property of never starting, but rather always existing.

We again, though, hit a logical snag. An infinite sequence of existence provides a causal foundation for our particular actuality, our universe. That infinite sequence, however, would represent a fairly amazing entity. It never started, it continues on with amazing dynamic stability, it generates new universes, by appearances it will continue forever.

Truly amazing. So amazing that its origin, the origin of the multiverse, presents as great or greater a question than if we consider just our humble local universe. Wait, you say, we don’t need to consider the origin of the infinite sequence, since that sequence never started. That response, however, defines “origin” too narrowly, as meaning only origin in time. We can properly consider origin in a broader sense of “what gave the sequence its properties?” not in the sense of time but in a sense of possessing.

Thus, rather than explain the origin of existence, a sequence of universes simple moves the question one step backward, or in some sense makes the question more confounding. A sequence of universes leaves us to wonder how existence came to exhibit such a complex, intricate and unending set of properties.

That such a questions arises, that we seem to fall into an infinite regress where each explanation requires another, speaks to our logic faltering when considering an infinite sequence.

God – When we considered nothing as the source of our existence, we found that “nothing” possessed too few (actually no) properties to analyze via our logic. When we considered an eternal string of multiverses, we found that such a string would contain properties sufficiently amazing, that the eternal sequence approach just creates a new question as to the origin of the properties of the eternal sequence.

When we consider now a Supreme Being as the origin of our existence, we do not lack properties (as with nothing), nor do those properties simply shift the question to a different existence (as with the infinite sequence). So can we bring logic to bear to discern and understand the origin of our existence by a Supreme Being?

Likely not. The properties we imbue into our Supreme Being differ in their basic substance from our actuality. They must, if we posit a God as the origin of existence. As we saw with the infinite sequence, any theorized origin with attributes resembling our local universe, for example as soon as we give this origin time, or energy, or change, or composition, we beg the question.

That difference in basic substance, I offer, deals our logic a debilitating blow in discerning, definitively, the Supreme Being.

God self-causes. God lacks composition. God exists everywhere and nowhere. God operates in time, and outside of time, and created time. Our logic, and our existence, embodies, centrally, the contrary, embodies implication, separation, location, change.

To envision a God sufficiently distinct to originate our existence, we must envision an entity sufficiently far from our logic that such a God escapes the scope of our logic, and thus we diminish the power of our logic to discern and understand that God.

Conclusion for Humbleness

What can we conclude? After all, this presents no formal proofs, lists no rigorous axioms and definitions, and employs no symbolic operators. So by strict logic, no deductive conclusion has been reached.

So what can conclude? Not a logical deduction in formality, but an admonition on conduct. And what is the admonition? To proceed with humility. Humility on what? On the issue of God vs. Science. Not on common or familiar issues like evolution, or miracles, or the date of the Shroud of Turin.

Rather, humility must reign on the basic question of God’s existence, and on the core ability of Science to explain all our existence.

But we have discussed the origin of our actuality? What links that to this basic question of God or this core ability of Science.

Very simply, implicit in our beliefs about God and Science rest statements, logical statements, about our origins. Statements such as “God must exist or else how did everything get here”, “We don’t need God since Science can explain things”, “God created in intelligent universe so mankind could understand it.” And so on.

In other words, core to our foundational beliefs about Science and God lie logical arguments on how God originated our existence and/or how Science can or will explain it. Almost unconsciously, we buttress our beliefs with this logic on existence.

But I offer here that logic falters on the question of existence. And, to the degree our logic falters, and I argue that it does, our logic on this matter does not buttress our beliefs. No, it can give rise to a false sense of security in them.

However, did you not state in your own words that you did not prove that logic falters.

Yes, I did not prove logic incapable of deducing the origins of existence. But I have laid out issues, deep issues, on the capability of logic to do so, and thus call into question assurance that logic can so discern. Thus, while I have not proven logic incapable, we must show caution and reserve on stating logic is so capable. Maybe it can. But I offer we have no assurance.

In what way must caution and humility reign, then? Can one not believe, or have a conviction, or act with passion concerning God and Science. Certainly. But, in our convictions on God and Science, we may, and may likely, state that we “know,” that we stand certain, that no doubt exists, that we can show clearly the truth and validity of our convictions.

I offer here, though, that to the degree that questions of existence stand open to hard logical questions, our certainty that we “know” with logical certainty the truth of God or the ultimate ability of Science also stands open to hard questions. We can believe, we can proclaim, we can act with conviction, but we must be humble and circumspect in stating we logically and rationally know, for certain. Because, I offer, we likely, no almost certainly, do not “know.”

And further we must refrain branding others “illogical” or “unthinking” or “wrong” or “confused.” Not about evolution, or miracles, or archeological findings about sacred sites. No, those appear to be bounded questions within the scope of logic. Rather, we must exercise humility about God vs. Science in the ultimate.

We can with high certainty agree on the logic of Blackjack, or of a computer algorithm, or of the operation of the electrical grid, or many other items of bounded scope. We can even logically explore and discuss the details of evolution and the nature of consciousness and the physics of time and space.

But at the core, does a God exist, and/or can Science explain everything, logic falters. Logic falls into circular catch-22’s, infinite regresses, and definitional quandaries, possibly with solutions, but I offer that no such certain solutions exist at present.

This should not undermine anyone’s faith, or beliefs, or convictions about existence and the nature of reality and the presence of God and the ultimate reach of Science. Rather, this implies, since we do not know with logical proof, that truth about the ultimate requires our taking a journey into the unknown, not standing in a place of certainty, and that finding truth requires walking, continually walking, past the edge of the known to discover what lies beyond.

[ad_2]

Creativity As a Key to Success: Cultivating and Tapping Into the Spirit Within

[ad_1]

I believe that creativity is an attribute that many leaders desire, fewer leaders believe they have, and in reality, even fewer leaders exercise in practice. Creativity, as an intentional process that can lead to doing or producing new things and current things differently in the future, is a key ingredient to success. Moreover, I believe that each of us has an outlet for creativity to come to life, kindle, and burn.

The brilliance in the documented history of society’s geniuses is found at the crossroads of the art and science of the phenomenon in which they are studying. The fact that the boundary pushers and creative destroyers of our past and present have been equally concerned with the art and science of the problem they are addressing demonstrates their seemingly innate appreciation and comfort with the unknown.

For example, on their pursuit of man-powered flight, the Wright brothers spent as much time studying books on ornithology (the scientific and empirical study of birds) and observing soaring birds as they did studying texts on aviation, mechanical engineering, and man-powered flight. Moreover, it was their obsession with and courage to invest their time observing soaring birds in flight that inspired them to develop the core element associated with their 1903 flier’s success – the patented hip cradle system. Simply stated, the hip cradle system provided the opportunity for the pilot to literally roll left and right and by doing so flexing the tips of the left and right (top and bottom) wings of the flier in order to respond to the ever-changing winds and unpredictable drafts (McCullough, 2015).

This changed the game of man-powered flight and was directly inspired by their observation of soaring birds (e.g., eagles, buzzards, falcons, sea gulls, etc.). In turn, this informed the way they designed their flier and reframed their appreciation for flexibility in their approach and in their actual design (McCullough, 2015). Finally, it was their commitment to respecting and taking pause at the crossroads between the art and science of their field that led to their world changing ideas. To think that the key to understanding a fundamental aspect of man-powered flight had always been there for all aviators and innovators to observe and re-engineer is both confounding and inspiring.

As we begin to think practically about what this means to us as creators, innovators, and ideators it is important to consider where we might start. For me, the creative process follows these five practical, applicable, and transferable steps:

1. Stop and observe the world within your immediate surroundings around you with a heightened sense of awareness. This can include asking questions, making observations, and reviewing artifacts in order to inform, complement, or contrast with what you think about the world. Lead with the question: what do I care enough about to do something about in this world?

2. Intentionally decide to find comfort in and understand the borders and ambiguity of a blank canvas. Lead with the question: how have my observations shaped or framed the way I view this particular challenge or topic?

3. Adopting and applying divergent thought practices to generate ideas by exploring various explanations and opportunities in a free-flowing, deviating manner (e.g., list concepts, ideas, and responses). Lead with the question: in what theoretical ways can we address this topic?

4. Adopting and applying convergent thought practices to refine ideas from a free-flowing divergent exploratory process into the criteria-driven narrowing and joining of ideas to address a challenge or topic. Lead with the question: of the ideas or responses generated, which seem to fit and directly support the challenge or topic being addressed?

5. Post-convergence, develop a plan that includes a simple project statement, which includes scope, schedule, and resources needed. Lead with the question: now that I have an idea how will I pursue and achieve it?

Perhaps most important is that each of us, as leaders – not as human beings – realize that we have access to reservoirs of creativity and innovation. It is up to us to find ways to tap into that creativity and convert it into transformational initiatives. Go for it, find yourself, tap into your creativity, and transform the world you live in for the better!

[ad_2]

Your Miracle of Love, Happiness, and Comfort

[ad_1]

All the craziness in the world boils down to the desire of the heart which, if you dig down deep, is tied to the search for love, happiness and comfort – both here on earth and in the hoped-for life after death, when decayed bones rise to unite with revived rotten flesh.

So, in a continuous stampede to secure affection now, and guarantee a posthumous pleasure in the future, we run after one another, and like a rooster on the chase of an elusive hen, come back empty-handed.

But how is it that in a universe full of abundance people lack love, happiness and comfort? Where did love go? Two thousand years ago, the earth was filled to capacity with miracles. What happened?

In one Bible narrative, a particular woman suffered public humiliation because her bleeding wouldn’t stop for months and then years. After 12 years, as Jesus passed by one day the woman said to herself, ‘If I could touch his garment I will be healed.’ And she reached out to touch the corner of his clothes and was healed of her blood loss.

Through the miracle of the bleeding woman, Jesus showed how barriers could crumble and doors open when conviction is coupled with sincerity of mind. The woman knew no self-doubt. Doubts would have instructed her to change her clothes, put on a new hair scarf and a pancake on her face before camping out for Jesus.

What if the hemorrhaging woman had, like people do nowadays, analyzed Jesus before she met him, had a patch of distrust sowed at the corner of her heart or had totally dismissed him as an itinerant preacher, the poor son of a carpenter?

Faith and belief was what the woman had going for her. Cynicism and doubt blocks the mind from accessing the blessings of the universe. How many times have we, because of cynicism or suspicion, walked past an angel of salvation deliberately waiting, with wings spread?

There are folks whose entire life centers on maligning their fellow-men and women. They harbor an attitude in which only weeds will grow. They make wrong judgments on people around them, including those barely known to them – cutting people down to size because of the way they walk, where they live, how they talk, who their parents are, the shoes they wear and the style of their hair.

It is difficult to resist comparing the woman’s approach to that of the tax collector, a short man by the name of Zacchaeus, who climbed a sycamore tree in order to see Jesus. ‘You didn’t have to go that length,’ Jesus admonished Zacchaeus; ‘today I am going to your house.’

Sometimes we think that to succeed we need to do extraordinary things. Like use long words to communicate, pray for days that God will hear us, jump great heights to reach our goal, bend over backwards to be loved, cry out loud to get attention or travel vast distances to have a breakthrough.

No, we don’t.

Is a grandmother who dances gingerly, placing the right leg to the right and the left leg to the left, any less compelling than a break dancer who jumps three feet into the air, back pedals and spins on ten toes?

Simplicity rather than severity is the key to the matters of the heart and mind. Smiles have ended wars between foes. One respectful bow has swayed kings into giving out daughters in marriage.

On one side of my office wall is a 12 by 18 inch poster made by my son when he was six years old. In the middle of the poster are these words, ‘I love my dad because he is my best friend.’ My heart leaps each time I read those words. No gift can bring such joy – not a football-field sized yacht, not a mansion and not a Corvette.

In 2017, try to let go of the usual scapegoats in your life upon which everybody chooses to hang their faults. Quit blaming parents, teachers, friends and relatives, and take time to examine yourself instead. Not an easy task, but it gets easier with determination. Untie tangles of cynicism and malice from the mind. Make room for a new beginning, where flowers of love, streams of happiness and provisions of comfort can bloom in abundance.

End

[ad_2]

7 Things to Do Before You Move To a New House

[ad_1]

So, you have completed and signed the important documents to move to a new house. But the one thing that might be bothering you is the packing up of your stuff. On top of this, you may have a lot of important things to take care of. Here are our 7 tips that will help you make necessary arrangements and get ready to move.

1. Pack Your Stuff The Smart Way

Don’t just run around to collect your stuff and put it in random boxes. What you need to do is do the packing the smart way, not the hard way. With planning, you can get the packing done more easily. Everything should be done according to a plan. This will save you a lot of time and energy that you can use for unpacking the boxes later on.

2. Use Sturdy Boxes

Instead of using the expensive cardboard boxes, we suggest that you go for sturdy boxes that come with attachable lids. The beauty of these boxes is that they are eco-friendly and cost-effective. You can find them on some online stores as well.

3. Use Wardrobe Boxes

Professional movers can help you take your stuff to the new house in a professional manner. If you have made your mind to hire movers, we suggest that you ask them to use wardrobe boxes for your clothing. This will keep your clothing free of wrinkles and you won’t need to spend one full day to iron your clothing.

4. Switch Services

For switching service, we suggest that you contact your utility service providers. This is important, especially if you are moving into a house that is vacant or newly built. It’s also a good idea to make a maintenance call for reestablishing the service.

5. Record a video

You may have emotional attachment with your home, and leaving this house forever will be a painful decision. To make it a bit easier, you can start a Pinterest board with a list of things that you are going to do in your new house. Moreover, if you have kids, make sure you record a video of them in the home to preserve the moments.

6. Get the Basic Stuff First

If your new house is a few minutes away from your current one, make sure you get your basic stuff over there at least 24 hours ahead of the day of moving. This can make the process of moving a bit easier.

7. Invite Your Neighbors

You can invite them to dinner a day or two ahead of the final day. But if you have interior walls to paint, you can have a graffiti party where you will give markers or paint samples to your guests to scribble notes on the walls. Again, this will preserve the golden memories forever.

So, if you have been looking for some good things to do before you move to your new house, we suggest that you check out the list of things given in this article.

[ad_2]

Healthy Lifestyle Choices: Air Fryer – A Healthy Way To Deep Fry Your Fries

[ad_1]

Eating fresh salads, sandwiches and choosing healthy food can be easy for some but difficult for many of us. The thought of not being able to eat your favorite wings or beloved French fries is a nightmare especially for those who have lived all their lives eating deep fried foods. For people who still want their deep fried food but wish to have a healthier lifestyle, they now have the option to do so, thanks to recent innovations such as the air fryer.

Air Fryer

The air fryer is just like your everyday kitchen appliance with one difference – it uses hot air to cook food. Instead of traditionally cooking up food by using oil, the fryer uses hot air, up to about 200 Celsius to cook the food. Latest versions of the fryer allow one to adjust the temperature ensuring precise and even cooking.

Advantages and Disadvantages

One of the advantages of air fryers is that it makes the cooked food healthier. By not using oil to heat and cook the food, it lessens the fat % of the meal. This is not the case with conventional fryers where the use of oil increases the saturated fat content and for some who like it double fried, the percentage of fat also doubles. Another advantage of using air fryers is that modern ones have an exhaust system in place which filters the excess air out. Since it is filtered, it is friendly to the environment.

Although the equipment is ideal for the healthy lifestyle, one disadvantage with using an air fryer is that since air is used to cook food, it is important not to overload the cooking area as this would result to uneven cooking. Thicker cuts of meat might also need additional cooking time to fully cook. Price may also be an issue as some models available in the market today are expensive.

Purchasing Your Fryer

If you do consider purchasing an air fryer, then you should take a look at the features of the fryer that you are purchasing. Price depends on the features of the equipment so some models maybe a bit cheaper than others. Features that you should look for include an automatic timer, a touch screen surface for easy navigation or an integrated dial, easy cleaning and space efficiency. Some machines can cook tons of food perfectly while others do not. If you always have a large group then opt for a bigger machine.

[ad_2]

Ashley Victory Chocolate 50700 Sofa Sectional Review

[ad_1]

Buying a new living room sofa is a major household purchase. That’s why when you do make a purchase, you want to do it right. The surest method of making sure you have made a successful purchase is by buying the finest product. When it comes to sofas it is difficult to beat the Ashley Furniture Victory Chocolate 50700 Sofa Sectional. This sectional by Ashley Furniture provides you with everything you could desire in a sofa: style, comfort, and durability.

Style

The Ashley Victory Chocolate Sectional is at the peak of modern styling. This is a two-piece L-sectional consisting of a sofa section and a corner chaise section. From the floor up, the sofa starts with short and wide square wooden legs, allowing just enough clearance to stash a book or lose the remote control under. Despite this horrifying possibility, the separation from the floor is more of a boon than a bane when it comes to style.

The bottom portion of the sections, the backs, and arms are made of a rich, dark chocolate faux leather. On top of this, are the thick seat cushions covered in plush, ultra-soft corduroy-style fabric of a slightly lighter tone. Finally, the sofa is topped with ten overstuffed pillows, half the same tone as the cushions and the other half a creamy off-white.

Comfort

The comfort of the Ashley Furniture Victory Chocolate 50700 Sofa Sectional is unmatched. The springs in the bottom layer perfectly enhance the seat cushions, which are neither too soft nor too firm. The overstuffed pillow system allows each person to adjust and fine-tune their seat as needed. This sectional comes in two configurations, LAF and RAF, so you can get the chaise section on either side of the sofa, depending on your room and whichever configuration you find the most comfortable. The corner chaise measures 44″ wide x 75″ deep x 38″ high and the sofa section is 82″ wide x 39″ deep x 38″ high. This gives you a choice on how you would like to relax: sitting upright or lounging with your legs up.

Durability

The Ashley Furniture Victory Chocolate 50700 Sofa Sectional is extremely durable. The stitching is strong and will not fray or come unstitched. If, by chance, you happen to soil the cushions or the pillows they use zippered covers so they can be easily removed and washed by hand or dry cleaned. The frames have also been rigorously tested to conform to GSA government standards. The corners use three-way connections using glue, blocks, and staples, while the spring rails are made from 7/8″ hardwood. In addition, the cushion fabric and faux leather have been tested for wear-resistance, meeting AHMA standards. The cushion core foam is also wrapped in low-melt fiber for added comfort and safety.

[ad_2]

Home Cash Code Review – How to Make Money Working at Home?

[ad_1]

Does the Home Cash Code guide really work, or is it another scam product? This is a product that I have personally tried, and it definitely works and I know is not a scam. It revolves around the concept of affiliate marketing, and the creator has put his course into a step-by-step action plan that is very easy to execute.

1. What Will You Find In The Home Cash Code Package?

The package consists of a written guide that teaches you the steps of this entire money making system, along with more than 3 hours of live demonstration video on how to setup the system. The amazing thing about this system is that you can easily copy it over and over again across different products, so your income is only limited by the amount of effort that you put in.

2. How Do You Make Money With The Home Cash Code?

You will learn how to build websites that help you earn commissions whenever you generate sales. You will learn step-by-step how to find the right products to sell to the right people, and how to build your websites starting from scratch. When you use the system over and over a few times, you will find it very easy to grow your income stream.

3. My Experience After Using Home Cash Code

This course has given me a very good understanding of internet marketing, and I am now able to confidently find and exploit profitable trends and opportunities when they arise. For example, the rise of fuel prices has created a growing demand for alternative energy solutions. This is a trend that I have been able to profit from using the steps in Home Cash Code, and you too can learn how to do this.

[ad_2]

Book Review – They Call Me Coach by John Wooden

[ad_1]

Coach John Wooden epitomizes what a coach should be. Earlier this year, he passed away at the age of 99. Back in the 60’s and 70’s, his UCLA team dominated the college basketball scene. The book,”They Call Me Coach”, is his autobiography.

Coach John Wooden was a rather soft-spoken. He was precise on his practice and games. Prior to becoming a coach, he was a great point guard at Purdue University. He became a Hall of Fame inductee both as a college basketball player and coach. When he speaks, he sounds like a poet or English teacher because he uses poems and quotes to make a point.

The book vividly illustrates how Coach Wooden had solid principles that he lived by. The two key source of his life and coaching philosophies comes from a Seven Point Creed from his father and his Pyramid of Success.

The Seven Point Creed states:

* Be true to yourself.

* Make each day your masterpiece.

* Help others.

* Drink deeply from good books, especially the Bible.

* Make friendship a fine art.

* Build a shelter against a rainy day.

* Pray for guidance and give thanks for your blessings every day.

The Pyramid of Success is a list of foundational principles that are layered by:

* Competitive Greatness

* Poise

* Confidence

* Condition

* Skill

* Team Spirit

* Self-Control

* Alertness

* Initiative

* Intentness

* Industriousness

* Friendship

* Loyalty

* Cooperation

* Enthusiasm

His story can help anyone in any field to become better and ultimately achieve their best. Coach Wooden’s story is success through solid core principles. He was a master of the details. In the book, there is a story on how important it was to put your socks on correctly. He even taught his players how to do that. Another key aspect of Coach Wooden is that he does not directly talk about winning. Instead, he teaches his players to do their best. If they do their best, then the result does not matter as much.

Coach Wooden coached a variety of great players including Lew Alcindor (aka Kareem Abdul-Jabbar), Bill Walton, Gail Goodrich, and many others. He treated each player fairly. Fairly is not the same as equally. He had to spend a bit more time with the star players, but he recognize and acknowledge the importance of every single player. Many of his former players succeeded in basketball at the professional level- but most of them succeeded in other areas including business, medicine, teaching, ministry, etc.

This book is a must-read for anyone who coaches which includes athletic coaches, parents, business leaders, supervisors, etc.

[ad_2]