A while back on this blog, I blogged about a case where a Canadian homeowner was awakened in the middle of the night by an armed intruder. The homeowner defended himself from the armed intruder. The intruder was air-lifted to a hospital, and the Canadian police arrested and charged the homeowner with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon.

Not content to have banned self-defense, but now they want to ban possession of bolt-action rifles and shotguns.

Here’s the story from Daily Signal:

Gun control in America’s northern neighbor has moved into confiscation phase, as Nova Scotia, Canada’s east coast province, kicked off a pilot program of “voluntary” gun buybacks in September, while the western provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan say they will not comply.

The national ban was originally decreed by then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government in 2020, covering 1,500 models of rifles, but has since been expanded to include more than 2,500 models. And while the ban is purported to cover “semi-automatic firearms with sustained rapid-fire capability,” the list of prohibited firearms also includes more traditional bolt-action rifles and shotguns commonly used in hunting.

[…]The program will go nationwide later this fall.

[…]Canadians gun owners have complied with strict regulations but accepted the government’s pledges that it would respect the rights of hunters and sports shooters, he said. That compact has now been broken.

Naturally, the criminals aren’t going to turn in their guns. It’s just the law-abiding people who have to.

The article notes that failure to hand over your guns to the federal government is a criminal offense, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. This applies to people who live in rural areas who might have to deal with dangerous wildlife, as well. So it’s not just threats from violent rapists and murderers, it’s threats from animals that could literally kill you. The government just tells people “call the police” and “comply with the criminal’s orders”. I am not joking.

Colion Noir has actual video of the Canadian police explaining:

The article also notes that this ban on bolt-action rifles and shotguns was actually enacted by executive order. It was not passed through the House and Senate and signed into law. It’s just the command of the dictator who runs the poorly-named Liberal Party of Canada.

Look at what the criminal justice system is like in Canada:

A British Columbia court sentenced a 24-year-old refugee to probation and a suspended sentence on Wednesday over a violent stabbing incident in Vancouver last November.

Mohamed Abdalla Mohamed Elbahloul pleaded guilty to assault in connection with the stabbing and slashing of one man, and a minor charge related to the assault of another.

[…]Elbahloul was provided with a knife by one of his companions and used it to stab the victim’s stomach and then proceeded to also cut his legs. The victim required medical attention as a result of the fight.

Elbahloul also admitted to kicking another victim who was on the ground during the altercation.

[…]Judge Kathryn Denhoff acknowledged the seriousness of the crimes but noted that neither victim provided an impact statement.

She also considered what she called the challenging circumstances of Elbahloul’s background.

Displaced by war in his home country of Libya at a young age, Elbahloul experienced significant violence and loss, Denhoff argued in her decision.

This story reminds me of my recent blog post that talked about the consequences of having a feminized legal system. Compassion for criminals, and too bad for their victims.

This happens all the time, actually:

Recently, a Pakistani national narrowly avoided deportation due to a last-minute intervention by the Liberal government, despite participating in infrastructure blockades alongside climate extremist groups.

Do you think that it’s safe to travel to a country like this? I would avoid traveling to Canada at all costs. It’s not a safe country. And the police and criminal courts have zero liability for the results of their pro-criminal, anti-self-defense policies. You pay them, you are raped and murdered, and they don’t face any consequences for it. And the majority of their voters are OK with that.

On this blog, I have said repeatedly that I keep three examples of the fine-tuning in my back pocket, ready to go, because they are the ones that make the most sense to me, based on my memory of taking physics and chemistry courses. I thought it might make a good post to just write about them, and you can see if you want to memorize them, too. It’s a good argument, and non-theists respect it.

So, first, let me just explain what the argument is. Basically, if you remember in your high school physics textbook, there were lots of numbers for well-known constants and quantities, such as the speed of light and the gravitational constant. What they never told you was that if you change most of those quantities and constants, then the universe would not be able to support life. Not just life as we know it, but any conceivable kind of complex life.

It’s not as though you can change these constants, and you will just have Spock-ears, or green skin, or nose ridges. No. If you change these constants and quantities, terrible horrible things will happen to your universe. Maybe it recollapses into a hot fire ball. Maybe you have no galaxies. Maybe you have no stars. Maybe you have no elements heavier than hydrogen. Or maybe you have no hydrogen. All bad things! All the bad things that wreck the ability of your universe to support life.

So, without further ado, let me tell you THREE of the best evidences for fine-tuning that even a child can understand. Well, maybe not a child, but you can understand them, OK?

Here they are:

Amount of Matter in the Universe:

The universe’s total stuff—stars, galaxies, gas clouds, dark matter—sets its expansion path. Too much stuff, and gravity would’ve crushed the universe into a hot dense fireball after the Big Bang. Too little, and matter in the universe would scatter, never forming galaxies or stars. The universe has the perfect weight to create galaxies and stars. This balance lets stars and planets form stable homes for life.

Strong Nuclear Force:

This force binds protons and neutrons in atomic nuclei, forming elements like hydrogen, helium, and carbon, vital for human bodies. If 2% stronger, protons would stick too tightly, depleting hydrogen, so stars couldn’t burn properly, and water wouldn’t form. If 5% weaker, only hydrogen would exist, like a chemistry class with one element on the chalkboard. The precise setting that we have ensures the a diverse variety of different elements, allowing stars to shine and life’s chemistry to work.

Cosmic Expansion Rate:

The universe expands at a speed set by the cosmological constant’s dark energy, like a balloon being carefully inflated. If slightly faster, matter would scatter too thinly, preventing stars or galaxies. If slower, gravity would clump everything into black holes. The universe grows at the ideal speed to allow galaxies, stars, and planets to form a cosmic stage where life can thrive.

By the way, the first and the third are distinct constants that work together, like ingredients in a recipe.

Conclusion

So, there are the three I have memorized. If you have time for discuss one, use the strong force. And by the way, if you are dealing with an atheist, you can give him the book “Just Six Numbers” by the famous atheist astronomer Martin Rees. Rees talks about several instances of fine-tuning, including the strong force. To escape the evidence for a Designer, he has to invent a multiverse (for which there is NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE). There’s actually evidence against the multiverse, and we talked about it in our podcast episode on the cosmic fine-tuning (transcript here).

If you want a good introductory book about this topic, I like Dr. Mike Strauss’ “The Creator Revealed”. And he’s a real experimental particle physicist, too. I’ve met him in person! Anyway, I hope you have fun with this list. According to the Bible, the Boss used evidence when appealing to skeptics, and so you must use evidence, too, if you want to follow the Leader.

In 2018, I wrote about a 54-year-old feminist who spent her entire life savings on a dating agency to find a rich husband. Kate spent her entire life writing columns to tell young women to live feminist lifestyles: get easy degrees, work easy jobs, spend money on fun and travel, get cosmetic surgeries, disrespect male leadership, and have lots of casual sex. How is she doing at age 63? Let’s find out.

Let’s first review my post from 2018, in part, and see what this woman was all about.

A couple of years ago, I too joined an expensive matchmaking agency. I had just come out of a seven year relationship, and was on the wrong side of 50.

I soon tired of online dating and receiving messages from over weight baldies who peppered their emails with childish emojis. I hankered to find Mr Right-for-me, a man who was suitably educated and a successful professional.

And so this is how I found myself, throwing money (my entire savings to be precise) to an upmarket matchmaking agency in central London. The agency claimed to filter out the undesirables, the mediocre and give clients the personal touch, so I handed over the hefty sum of £6,000.

So, just a few things about this lady Kate Mulvey. She has made some decisions that I find very unwise.

I documented my findings in my previous post:

• she has no useful degrees – she paid for useless degrees in Italian and French, instead of studying something useful, like computer science or nursing or petroleum engineering. Her “writing” is all about fashion, dating and “lifestyles”
• her opinion on children: “uppity children take your time, emotions and energy” – she sees children as a detriment to her highest priority (her career). She says “I, however, have lived a life of unfettered freedom to take on projects, write books and travel”
• she had loads of entertaining men “beating a path to [her] door” when she was younger
• she spend thousands of pounds on plastic surgery
• she blames her lack of marriage success on her being “brainier” than men
• she turned down men who wanted to marry her, as late as age 33
• her book is called “Accidental Singleton” because her approach to life – anti-marriage hedonism – has accidentally left her single and penniless at age 54

So, this woman, who scorns the leadership of men, made very bad decisions. Her columns are filled with constant bragging about how much smarter she is than men – men who have made far better decisions and achieved much greater prosperity than she has.

Here is the latest article, in which she explains what feminism told her to do with her life, and what that got her.

She writes:

I’m convinced that the reason I’m still booking a table for one at the age of 63 instead of having settled with a significant other is because, like so many women of my generation, feminism has ruined my love life. Instead of empowering us, those ideals of the second-wave feminists made us believe marriage and domesticity were to be avoided like the plague and that men were competition rather than partners.

[…]I had always imagined I would end up married with two wonderful children and living in a house in the countryside. I have paid a hefty price for my so-called liberation.

Act like men – demonize housework and family:

I was 17, and a pupil at Godolphin and Latymer – one of Britain’s most academic institutions – when I was introduced to the Women’s Liberation movement. It offered such hope and excitement, and we spent our lunch breaks soaking up the feminist mantras of Germaine Greer and Betty Friedan: “Act like men,” they cried as they burnt their bras and demonised housework and the family.

Recreational sex with hot pro-abortion bad boys who don’t judge:

Another thing I regret deeply is my tally of one-night stands when I was younger.

[..]My generation of women were encouraged to “have sex like a man” – in other words have casual sex…

The number of partners that a person (man or woman) has had before marriage is related to their likelihood of initiating divorce. So, someone like Kate Mulvey would be a high risk of divorce. Also, smart men don’t sign up for marriage to women who tell them that “my money is my money, and your money is our money“.

So, she spent her life telling young women to follow feminism, like she did. But are Christian leaders telling young women anything different? Many socially conservative Christian leaders believe in “servant leadership”, which means that men serve, and women lead. Instead of confronting lies and evil, men have to take out the trash, and dispense cash on demand for his wife’s handbags and travel.

Many social conservative Christians define masculinity as “men using their strength to benefit women”. In contrast, my wise advisor Dina taught me that masculinity is demonstrated when a man opposes lies and evil, and doesn’t let a woman distract him from those goals with her sex appeal. Dina would say that Christian men should only protect and provide for Christian women who are helpful to men, and led men take the lead to product results for the Boss. So, men should judge women. They should measure them, and choose good ones. And the job of Christian leaders is to produce women that good men want.

As I’ve blogged about before, there are many reasons why good men will be cautious about marrying feminists. Men are realizing that women today are not the same as their mothers and grandmothers. They don’t offer the same value to a marriage-minded man. They don’t respect men as much, and they don’t want to help a man who leads as much. Not only is there the problem of young women being extremely leftist, but there is also the problems of feminized laws, policies and courts being hostile to men. We need Christian leaders who fight against young women’s feminism while they are still young enough to have 4+ children. And we need leaders who fight against laws, policies and courts that are hostile to men.