Tuesday
Squats 3x10x100kg, 12x80kg -- low bar, belted
Rack Quarter Squats 2x20x120kg -- probably should have slowed down the eccentric; I'm sure I put a bit more effort in than this, but it kinda felt like I was just dropping the weight with each rep.
Deadlifts 3x12x100kg -- belted
Block Deadlifts 3x5x150kg -- with straps
Calf Raise 4x10x90kg
Tony will like this:
This morning, over at bb.com, a kid asked for the best arguments/evidence for God so that he could refute them for an assignment. I walked him through the cosmological, teleological and ontological arguments. There are both powerful and powerfully stupid versions of each.
Now, when I was 18 I went from atheist to deist on the cosmological and teleological arguments. 8 years later, I realise that the cosmological argument (done properly) goes beyond deism to theism, while the teleological argument only really works if we accept Aristotelian metaphysics. At its heart, the teleological argument argues for a first cause based on final causality. We can easily prove final causality amongst living creatures, but proving it amongst laws of nature isn't really possible, so I openly showed him that the teleological argument rests on unfalsifiable premises, making it moot until further notice. Arguing against myself like a pro

(that's the part I figure Tony will like the most).
I broke down what good versions of cosmological and ontological arguments are doing, and what they aren't doing.
Cosmological arguments do not attempt to reveal who God is. Ultimately the goal is to show that there's either an infinite regress of causes and effects; there's an uncaused first effect; or there's an eternal, personal cause behind the cosmos (eternal to avoid that infinite regress; personal to explain why the universe began to exist, rather than either being caused eternally or never coming into being). To disprove this, we can can do one of the following: 1) show that either an infinite regress or an uncaused effect is plausible; 2) show that eternal, agent causation is implausible; or 3) provide a viable 4th, 5th, etc option. At this point, I'm not exactly arguing against myself, but I was quite comfortable telling him that if he wants to disprove this argument, here's how to do it.
The modal ontological argument is only compelling when we understand it on its terms. It's normal not to understand what the argument refers to when it speaks of God, and if you insert anything else into the argument in God's place, then the argument looks profoundly stupid, because it doesn't work for entities that are defined differently to God. God, in the argument, is defined as a maximally great being. There are various great-making properties, but the most important one for the argument is existing necessarily. Something can be impossible (ie cannot exist in any possible world), but it would be greater to be contingent (ie could exist in some possible worlds but not others), and it would be greatest to be necessary (ie must exist in all possible worlds; could not fail to exist). So, if a necessary being can exist, then it can't fail to exist in any possible world, and therefore actually exists. The solution for the atheist isn't an easy one to achieve -- one needs to show that there can't be a maximally great being, which, if possible to achieve, is done by showing that a maximally great being is incoherent.