Wednesday, November 30, 2016

What "Something?" Answering Bede Rundle's Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing



 Photobucket







Bede Rundle in his book Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing makes a detailed case for matter's necessity. He also gives some good arguments for why it is to be preferred over the position that God is "the" necessary being. There is no way I can do justice to a whole book in one or two blog posts. I will mist hit a couple of highlights that I thin k undermine his thesis. This is just my mistaken rendition of his argument but essentially I think he is saying this:

(1) there is no something from nothing so something must always have existed

(2) That something must have been material existence, the universe or some form of it.

(3) this is to be preferred to belief in a deity because we know matter exists and there is no empirical evidence of anything beyond the  physical so, therefore,  the necessary being must be the psychical universe. [a more complete version of his argument appeared in his obituary and was posted on Secular Outpost.I will discuss that in the comment section. [1]

Highlight 1: the problem of uncertainty due to lack o direct empirical observation

Premise 1 which I assigned to him not his own premise, I agree with, So No need to examine his arguments here it;s mot in contention. P 2 I will take issue with, even though he doesn't present it directly in this way it's clearly crucial to his argument, The first couple of chapters deal with this concept and related issues. I will reduce  to issue that I think is the real ferment of those chapters: it could be characterized by the issue of how can there be a mind without a body? Leslies comment on the opening chapter question of mind with no body, he terms it the chief error of theology; [2] Rundell actually makes this argument obliquely. (13) What he's getting at is a bit more involved. we don't have the precision of analogy to reflect actually upon a coherent notion of God because there is nothing to grab hold of. since god is not given in sense data there is no way to base an analogy on anything. Leslie relates references this argument a phrase he makes on page 13 about no body,"much of the difficulty with talk about God likewise derives from our insistence in making him in our likeness and so attributing to him a mind and even a personality--everything needed except the body to give it all sense." [3] He's is  saying more than 'there can't be a mind without a body' but reflecting upon the larger problem  that imn an absence of any empirical data we impose our own ideas. 


The problem of meaning is sometimes overlooked by those who seek to make theistic hypotheses more acceptable  by expanding the range of  allowable proofs. Thus it is acknowledged that a rigorously deductive demonstration proceeding from observed phenomena is powerless to establish, such a hypothesis, and the regularities required to sustain an inductive proof are simply not there to draw upon. However, while other approaches, such as inference to the best explanation, cumulative case arguments, probabilistic reasoning, or locating the hypothesis in a coherent set of beliefs may in general offer a broader range, they do nothing to remove the uncertainties in the meaning of the conclusions which they aim to support.[4]
This supports P 2 because it forms the basis of the preference for material universe over God belief.

Highlight 2: All that is solid melts into air 

Marx said that although in a very different context. It applies here because Rundle deals with the issue of the new physics and the seeming unreality of the physical world which turns out to be a form of energy and energy turns out to be field and strings and things that can't be touched. He makes the point that this is the true nature of physical, or matter, doesn't make it any less real. It also means we do not have to argue for the eternity of solid objects, "matter" and "the physical" are forms of something places in reference by these more theoretical things. "In quantum field theory solid matter has been supplanted by the energy of the field, and in superstring theory the reality is submicroscopic loops of invisible string,"[5] These theoretical references are not, as Rundle says "the matter of common sense," Yet thy do set up a framework in which the matter of common sense spells out reality in a meaningful way. His point is material universe universe need nit mean solid objects. All these strings and fields can be called "material," He says:


so broad is the notion of being or existence the only limit that can be imposed upon what can be is to be found is to be found in the demand for consistency for coherence that any such existential claim must satisfy...weather in the genus of material or immaterial..." The thesis that nothing can exist in the absence of a material universe does not imply the nonsensical view that everything is material but we can hold if anything exists, matter exists on the grounds that it  is only in m matter that the necessary independent exitence is to be found.[6] (emphasis mine). 
By independent existence I gather he means matter doesn't require a cause it just is. I think he justifies that by accepting Hawking Hurttle hypothesis.[7] That was big in 2004 when the book was written. He does demand some from of trance some effect some empirical indication of existence for a reality and refuses God on that basis,

In Leslie's reading of Rundle it's not merely the unproven nature of ideas like God, the lack of empirical data, but the logistical problem of locating non physical things in existence. I would term it existential topos. Leslie says the contradiction of a universe with nothing is like a vegetarian cannibal.[8] Leslie pin points this issue as the crux of the argument. [9] Leslie argues Plato's notion if existence as an ethical requirement in terms of an alternative account to Rundle. He also reaises the issue of Quine's idea about abstract objects, which Rundle dismisses as a matter of course.[10]

This raises another issue that undermines the entire argument. Rundle opens the door himself to burring the distinction between physical and non physical. I've already quoted the place where he puts it most succinctly: "so broad is the notion of being or existence the only limit that can be imposed upon what can be is to be found in the demand for consistency for coherence that any such existential claim must satisfy...weather in the genus of material or immaterial..."[fn6] He opens the door to the immaterial in that statement, he even refers to angles as "immaterial.." So he has opened the door to the immaterial and spirit is immaterial so he;s opened the door to spirit., That means there is no reason to exclude God from the requirement that "something must have been" so why could not God have been that"something?" 

Now of course he said that in  covering the argument that solid matter is not the origin, but energy and  things we can't  prove except theoretically such as strings and fields. Those are the immaterial he meant but as they used to say on Perry Jason "the door being opened let us walk through."  There are no little balls that things are made out of, The little balls we use as models of the atom and sub atomic particles are only theoretical. Those things are charges they are not solid. What are charges? Science has terms for the things that make them up, but when we strip away those terms (electron,proton) we find charges are made of more charges: 



We keep talking about "particles", but this word doesn't adequately sum up the type of matter that particle physicists deal with. In physics, particles aren't usually tiny bits of stuff. When you start talking about fundamental particles like quarks that have a volume of zero, or virtual particles that have no volume and pop in and out of existence just like that, it is stretching the everyday meaning of the word "particle" a bit far. Thinking about particles as points sooner or later leads the equations up a blind alley. Understanding what is happening at the smallest scale of matter needs a new vocabulary, new maths, and very possibly new dimensions.

This is where string theory comes in. In string theory fundamental particles aren't treated as zero-dimensional points. Instead they are one-dimensional vibrating strings or loops. The maths is hair-raising, and the direct evidence non-existent, but it does provide a way out of the current theoretical cul-de-sac. It even provides a route to unifying gravity with the other three fundamental forces - a problem which has baffled the best brains for decades. The problem is, you need to invoke extra dimensions to make the equations work in string-theory and its variants: 10 spacetime dimensions to be precise. Or 11 (M-theory). Or maybe 26. In any case, loads more dimensions than 4.[11]
Rundle himself is aware of the immaterial nature of these theoretical constructs or he would not have made the argument, that they still constitute "the material." 

With the lines blurred we can understand the possibility of other forms of existence that are immaterial. We can equate spirit with mind since the Greek pneuma used in the NT does not just mean break or wind but also mind.[12] We know mind is something, it exits. The minds of biological creatures seemed based in biological housing but why can;t we take the same kinds of liberties with theoretical assumptions that science takes with string theory or that Rundle takes with such theoretical construct in defining them as "matter" to at least hold out a possibility for spirit. There is more than just a theoretical possibility there is empirical data that would help motivate the case for God, such as the vast body of empirical scientific work around the issue ofrelifious experience,k as demonstrated in the book The Trace of God: A Rational Warrant for Belief (my your truly) but that's for another time,

Now of course many skeptics are going to argue that my answer is leaves many gaps of ambiguity and that it requires mostly theoretical assumptions that they don't want to make, I admit that is so but it seems that mot for Rundle's argument comes down to a fear of ambiguity. Remember above where he says: "...cumulative case arguments, probabilistic reasoning, or locating the hypothesis in a coherent set of beliefs may in general offer a broader range, they do nothing to remove the uncertainties in the meaning of the conclusions which they aim to support.[4]" uncertainty is his real issue it may be so or many atheists and skeptics. Thus they cling to the dichotomy between the empirical and the unproven or material and the spiritual. yet all life of the mind, as well as life itself, is fraught with uncertainty, The likes of string theory,k being unprovable, are no less uncertain. Abraham Maslow, though an atheist, said of mystical experience: "...My feeling is that if it were never to happen again, the power of the experience could permanently affect the attitude toward life. A single glimpse of heaven is enough to confirm its existence even if it is never experienced again." [14] The real contest is between warrant in the face of uncertainty, Something has to exist, there is no something from nothing, It could be God or matter, The matter is not settled, there are still valid empirically backed reasons to go with God. Experience is only one such reason.











Sources



[1] Bede Rundle,  Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing,Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1 edition (April 8, 2004)
I read the book in online copy:
their page 128 is thev book's page-166

[2] John Leslie, review of bede rundle's Why there Is Something Rather Than nothing," Oxford Journals, PHD
URL http://www.stafforini.com/txt/Leslie%20-%20Review%20of%20Rundle's%20Why%20there%20is%20something%20rather%20than%20nothing.pdf
quotimng Rundle 13
[3] Rundle 13
[4] Ibid
[5] Ibid., 166
[6] Ibid
[7] Ibid. 168

[8] Leslie, Op cit 453
[9] Ibid
[10] Ibid
[11] STFC “are there other dimensions,” Large Hadron Collider. Website. Science and Facilities Council, 2012 URL:http://www.lhc.ac.uk/The%20Particle%20Detectives/Take%205/13686.aspx
[12] The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon
see URL:http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/pneuma.html


Strong's Number: 4151Browse Lexicon
Original WordWord Origin
pneumafrom (4154)
Transliterated WordTDNT Entry
Pneuma6:332,876
Phonetic SpellingParts of Speech
pnyoo'-mah Noun Neuter
Definition

  1. the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son
    1. sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his personality and character (the \\Holy\\ Spirit)
    2. sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his work and power (the Spirit of \\Truth\\)
    3. never referred to as a depersonalised force
  2. the spirit, i.e. the vital principal by which the body is animated
    1. the rational spirit, the power by which the human being feels, thinks, decides
    2. the soul
  3. a spirit, i.e. a simple essence, devoid of all or at least all grosser matter, and possessed of the power of knowing, desiring, deciding, and acting
    1. a life giving spirit
    2. a human soul that has left the body
    3. a spirit higher than man but lower than God, i.e. an angel
      1. used of demons, or evil spirits, who were conceived as inhabiting the bodies of men
      2. the spiritual nature of Christ, higher than the highest angels and equal to God, the divine nature of Christ
  4. the disposition or influence which fills and governs the soul of any one
    1. the efficient source of any power, affection, emotion, desire, etc.
  5. a movement of air (a gentle blast)
    1. of the wind, hence the wind itself
    2. breath of nostrils or mouth
NAS Word Usage - Total: 380

[13] Joseph Hinman The Trace of god: Rational Warrant for Belief. Colorado springs: Grand Viaduct.
2014.
[14] Abraham Maslow,  "An Example of B-Analysis, C. Knowledge ganed in 'speak Experience self validating," Religions, Values, and Peak-Experiences, Appendix I, New York: Penguin, 1972.




Sunday, November 27, 2016

Epircurean Cosmological Argument for Matter's Necessity

Photobucket



The Ex-apologist makes a kind of cosmological argument that asserts the necessity of matter,this is supposed to crowd out reasons for belief in God, Epircurean Cosmological Arguments for Matter's Necessity:
One can find, through the writings of Lucretius, a powerful yet simple Epicurean argument for matter's (factual or metaphysical) necessity. In simplest terms, the argument is that since matter exists, and since nothing can come from nothing, matter is eternal and uncreated, and is therefore at least a factually necessary being.[1] 
The fallacy here is obvious. If God exists then matter is not coming from nothing it's coming from God. His mistake is in thinking that Creation ex Nihilo means creation by nothing rather than from nothing. In other words God does not use pre existing matter to create matter,m he creates it out of his own being, or energies, "Energies" is a good term here because the Orthodox Church says that God is present in the world though his energies while his essence transcends the world.[2] Be that as it may God is something rather than nothing so matter is not created out of nothing,

Exapologist goes on: "A stronger version of Epicurus' core argument can be developed by adding an appeal to something in the neighborhood of origin essentialism. The basic line of reasoning here is that being uncreated is an essential property of matter, and thus that the matter at the actual world is essentially untreated."[3] Who says matter is uncreated? That is begging the question, and I assume it is predicated upon the mistake about ex nihilo above."Yet stronger versions of the argument could go on from there by appealing to the principle of sufficient reason to argue that whatever plays the role of being eternal and essentially uncreated does not vary from world to world, and thus that matter is a metaphysically necessary being."[4] Of course if matter is uncreated and eternal it would be necessary by virtue of being non contingent. But as we used to say in the 650, "that's a big if."  He is actually reckoning backwards assume necessity. Possible worlds are not real, It;s  ot that being the same in all of them makes it necessary but that if it is necessary it must be the same in all of them if they existed. Matter is still the province of empirical proof. There is no way to prove empirically that matter is un-created in every possible world or that it is un-created this world.

It seems to me that this broadly Epicurean line of reasoning is a cosmological argument of sorts, but one that concludes that matter, and not an immaterial creator, is the uncaused cause of contingent concrete reality. Let us therefore call any argument that deploys the principle ex nihilo nihil fit to infer the factual or metaphysical necessity of matter (or matter's ultimate constituents) an Epicurean Cosmological Argument.  
That is predicated upon the mistake in the first paragraph confusing ex nihilo with something from nothing, Moreover, there is no reason to assume that matter is anything but contingent since it is dependent upon the laws of physics. So that would mean whatever produces the laws of physics would be necessary and matter contingent upon that, This depends upon the understanding of necessity/contingency,I contend that the Atheists have changed the rules  to alter those terms so they they no longer serve their purpose in God arguments, My understanding of those terms is more causal than modern philosophers are willing to admit.

Just being eternal doesn't make matter necessary. An eternal object could be contingent if  it is contingent upon an eternal necessity, Aquinas saw not contradiction in a universe that was both eternal eternal and created. Accordig to william Carroll:.
As I have said, Thomas Aquinas saw no contradiction in the notion of an eternal created universe.(51) For, even if the universe had no temporal beginning, it still would depend upon God for its very being. The radical dependence on God as cause of being is what creation means. The kind of contingency which creatures quacreatures possess extends to necessary beings, that is, those which, although created, do not undergo corruption or change. [5] 
Now I also seem to have implied That god has some kind of energy., The Eastern Orthodox call it energies that doesn't mean it's like electricity. But they do mean some from of acting. This issue opens up a completely new can of worms.

The distinction between energy and matter is antiquated, In saying we have q physical world we are saying we have world that is made out of energy and much of that energy is in the from of matter, Energy and matter have an exchange; the are the  same things in different forms. A material universe does not have to be made out of solid objects. Why should there be a strict dichotomy between spirit and matter? We assume they must be vastly alien to each other, atheists refuse to consider the possibility of spirit merely because we do not have an clearly definable and detectable physical assistance that can be labeled as such. It stands to reason that if  some form of spirit does exist it might be a form  of energy,

There is ample reasom to think of spirit as mind. or one thing the Greek term penuma means Mind as well as breath. I wont go into that now but when I do critique Bede Rundell's book either Wednesday or next Monday I will show that he opens the door to the possibility of destroying the sharp dichotomy between spirit and matter,

Another problem for the atheist is that science does not think of energy in the big bang as eternal .It thinks of it as being created in the big bang, conservation of energy does not apply there because it's a quantum state.[6] Energy is not eternal, and atheist philosopher Quentin Smith wrote an article in which he argued that matter could not be eternal having to do with life of background radiation, He argues that the universe is un-caused yet finite.[7]

The Epicurean Cosmological Argument fails to put a dent in belief in God. God and eternal matter are compatible and God's status as creator is not diminished. Yet scientific evidence argues against such as notion as eternal matter. God is still a viable alternative e to matter and explanatory of it's cause. The reasons offered by this argument for preferring  matter as an exclusive alternative are ideological don't up.


Sources [1]ex aoologist, :"Epicurean Cosmological Arguments for Matter's Necessity," ex-apologist blog, (Nov 10,2016) on line resources URL:

[2] Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, New York Pemguime books, 1964, 65.

[3] ex-apologiostk op ciot

[4] ibid, all quotes by this ex-aopologiost from this source,
[5] William carroll, "Thomas Aquinas and Big Bang Cosmology."  Jacques Maritain Center: Thomistic Institute,no date given, online  resource, URL:
https://www3.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/ti/carroll.htm  accessed 11/27/'16

he cites (fn 52) "Aquinas distinguishes the necessary from the contingent by noting (following Aristotle) that to be necessary means "cannot be otherwise." In fact, Aquinas generally distinguishes between necessary and contingent beings in the created order: "Among the parts of the whole universe, the first distinction to be observed is between the contingent and the necessary. For the highest beings are necessary, incorruptible, and immobile." Summa contra Gentiles III, c. 94 and (n 53) "Aquinas, following Aristotelian cosmology, thought that the heavenly bodies were necessary beings: they are neither generated nor destroyed, although they are created."

[6] Physics of the Universe, "Main
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang.html
Therefore, to those who claim that the very idea of a Big Bang violates the First Law of Thermodynamics (also known as the Law of Conservation of Energy) that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, proponents respond that the Big Bang does not address the creation of the universe, only its evolution, and that, as the laws of science break down anyway as we approach the creation of the universe, there is no reason to believe that the First Law of Thermodynamics would apply.
[7] Quentin Smith, “The Un-cuased Beginning of the Universe.” The British Journal of the Philosophy of Science, (1988, Vol., 55, no. 1), 39-57.


Friday, November 25, 2016

Don Macintosh's review of My book

from CADRE blog



The Trace of God 



[My recent review of our own Joe Hinman's book at Amazon, slightly edited here.]
The Trace of God: A Rational Warrant for Belief
Joseph Hinman
2014, Grand Viaduct 
418 pages

by Don  Macintosh

back to theology on monday

In The Trace of God, author Joe Hinman has presented a sophisticated argument for rationally warranted belief in God, on the basis of religious and mystical experience. As an avid reader of all things theological, apologetic and scientific, I found The Trace of God both illuminating and compelling. It quickly became evident to me, as it should to any reader, that Hinman has done his homework (and then some) in order to lay out a fresh and powerful presentation of the old argument from religious experience to the existence of God for a twenty-first century readership.
Hinman constructs his case like a high rise, meticulously laying his foundation and building on it layer by layer. He thus begins with a very useful and interesting explanation of “Preliminary Concepts and Definitions,” introducing readers to technical concepts (the “religious a priori,” religious experience and mystical experience), found throughout the book but not likely to be encountered often outside the fields of theology, psychology or sociology. This is followed by a discussion of his “Decision Making Paradigm,” one tailored for the subject at hand: Given that God is (by definition) not an object of empirical knowledge, we must decide whether belief in God (as opposed to empirical confirmation of God) is rational. Hinman proposes that in principle the evidence of religious experience is sufficient to meet a prima facie burden of proof – that is, on the strength of these experiences belief in God should be deemed rationally warranted until and unless someone presents reasons or evidence to overcome the warrant.  In the process he offers a keen analysis of Thomas Kuhn’s depiction of scientific revolutions and an insightful critique of the logic behind a concept often used (and abused) by science-minded naturalists: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
From there specific arguments are presented, of two distinct types: “the argument from co-determinate,” and “the argument from epistemic judgment.”  The argument from co-determinate is roughly analogous to an inference from footprints in the snow to people having been present recently. Evidence of God’s activity in the form of very basic and culture spanning religious experiences leaves a psychological imprint upon the human psyche, leaving recipients of the experience in turn understandably, and quite rationally, inclined to believe in God as a result. This, essentially, is the trace of God. Experience of the numinous – of the holy, transcendent, awe- and fear-inspiring presence of God – has been recorded at all times and cultures, and therefore constitutes empirical grounds for belief. Moreover, these experiences confer universally beneficial effects upon those who have them: an enhanced psychological outlook, physiological health, and hence overall well-being. The related argument from epistemic judgment concerns the reliability and validity of the experiences reported. These experiences are consistent in character, regular in occurrence, and shared by a majority of people. And again the effects upon the persons who have them are demonstrably and overwhelmingly positive. 
Having presented the arguments, Hinman bolsters those arguments by revisiting the studies used to derive the data for human religious experiences. Here the book takes a decidedly technical turn, examining the criteria for identifying religious and mystical experience, then the methodology chosen to elicit and record human responses to those experiences, for a large and wide-ranging number of studies. This for me was the least interesting portion of the book, but for the serious-minded atheists Hinman intends to challenge it may be the most important. By carefully describing the empirically focused instruments and methods used to collect the data, Hinman preempts any objection to the effect that the argument from religious experience can be reduced to so much unscientific subjective tale-swapping. Along the way various other objections are considered and rebutted, e.g., that emotions are unreliable indicators, or that religious experience is mental illness.
The way I see it, the remainder of the book consists of mopping-up operations in the form of rebuttals to actual or potential objections and counterarguments. This includes a review and defense of the idea of “religious a priori” as a rational default position for believers to take. With direct experiences of God at hand believers have “no need to prove” – that is, no burden to justify – their faith, either to themselves or to others. Also in this part of the book is a critique of Wayne Proudfoot’s skeptical arguments against an inference to theism from  religious experience, arguments which (per Hinman) proceed from a faulty assumption that the experiences are purely subjective and ineffable. This is followed by consideration of various other forms of “alternate causality” other than the presence of God: brain chemistry, as postulated by researchers like Michael Presinger (this recalled a fascinating online debate I had years ago involving what we called the “God module” part of the brain); the effects of drugs; evolutionary mishaps; and the like.
Reading The Trace of God was for me decidedly positive. This is not to say that the book will be a page-turner for everyone. The material is highly technical in places, even if well-researched and erudite, and the presentation almost unfailingly methodical. Those accustomed to popular-level inspirational writing, theology or apologetics will need to buckle down and concentrate to take in the information and appreciate the arguments. And whereas in the interest of disclosure I should mention that Hinman is a friend of mine, I should also mention that I do not agree with everything he has to say in this book – particularly his take on New Testament atonement and soteriology. Still, he comes close to my own view with this: “…(T)he universal nature of mystical experience does not invalidate either religious truth in general or the Christian tradition. God is working in all cultures, and what he’s doing in all the cultures of the earth is moving people toward Christ” (p. 365). Amen.
All in all, this book has more than earned its place on my shelf. Much like the life-transforming religious experiences it describes with such meticulous care, The Trace of God left me with not only better informed, but with a strong desire to seek God in my experience and to share the good news of that experience of God with others. For this believer that makes The Trace of God a worthwhile spiritual and intellectual investment.   


Sunday, November 20, 2016

Hey, I told you The Richestag was Burning! Reflections on The Catastrophy

 photo 2016-05-20T122456Z_01_PXP13_RTRIDSP_3_JAPAN-OBAMA-HIROSHIMA_zpss0vifl8j.jpg

the day after


My internet went down election day as a  result of computer issues. I saw before the commentators that we would not win. I kept turning away, ranting and raving,and turning back only to get more upset and turn away for more ranting. Then spent the whole night shouting at God. Why? Why? God always wins those shouting matches without uttering a word, I am heavily reminded of Judy Collin's song "Nighinggale I" from Whales and nighinggales[1]


A friend said I have God to make me feel better or words to that effect., But I also agonized over God's role in allowing it to happen. I spent that whole night all night long (election night) shouting at God and going why? why? why?

All I got out of it is if my talk about free will is meaningful then I must accept that God has to allow people to make their own votes. They want to believe a lie. They want to think that the idiot will make them rich and that serving the rich will make them millionaires. Millions will be horribly disillusioned when they see their precious social security is taken away and they thought Trump would either protect or make them rich. They will blame Obama of course, it;s the dems fault for making things so bad the Republicans are forced to make them worse.

just a couple of brief thoughts on the disaster, the deluge, whatever. it ranks up there with 9/11 or the Paris attacks. It's the dawn of a new Reagan era but this is much worse. It's the rolling back of all the progress made since Reagan era ended. People who voted for Trump have no concept of progress. Those are people for human the concept of progress is foreign.

I have my doubts about this being a fair and democratic election. The democratic process is tainted in 3 major ways:

(1) Trump himself tainted the process and cast doubt upon the outcome when he asserted claims that the system was rigged, Then he backed that up by implying that he would not accept the outcome unless he won, So yet Trump supporters expect us to just accept it now,.


(2) The evidence is strong that Russia manipulated the outcome by helping Wilki leaks and hacking the Dems and the FBI helped them.l The system really appears to have been rigged in Trump's favor.[2]


(3) Trump's dog whistles to suppress votes paid off big time,.

This was already set up by Republicans who passed laws in several states limiting voters by demanding ides and so on.,Throwback to Jim Crow days, Trump supporters organized voter intimidation squads. This may have  been responsible for the low black turnout in North Carolina that cost Hillary the state,

I know Trump will be called President(but not by me) and people will act as though he is but as far as I'm concerned he's is not. There's enough there to raise doubts about the process.

corruption and fascism/racism: As the bogus administration stacks up so far it promises to be the most corrupt administration in history, The three major issues so far:

(1) qll of his  prospective appointments so far  are either relieves or  lack experience imn the fields they are selected for.,  The nation is going to be ran by idiots who don[t know what they are doing it.

(2) many of his top people are racists his to adviser is almost a  Nazi,.

(3) Muslim registry is one step removed from making them Jews wear gold stars pom their shirts., If that applies to all Muslims then he will be impinging upon freedom of religion and creating second class citizens among American citizens.


The F├╝hrer takes office in 65 days. They will set to work destroying social programs immediately, they said so. They are going to be putting old people out in the street to die.


I am terrified. i think it has to be the end times. Maybe not by the numbers in the Revelation but the end anyway, the end for me anyway, But I don't want to get carried away with fear, But He had surrounded himself with idiots. He's talking about some pretty bad people around hi in the cabinet and as advisers including white supremacist. The new big phrase is a"alt right" meaning racism and sexism and fascism but in a more sophisticated package.

I can barely stand to watch the news we are all upset. No one you know is not upset now, that's all i can bear to think about right now.


He is not my president nor will he ever be. I will; I will never use the P word and the T word together in the same sentence.

 Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson received a torrent of right-wing flak for posting a column in which he expressed his hope that Trump fails. Perpetually missing the point, the right-wing media propaganda machine promptly lost its mind at the apparent double standard of the left refusing to support President Trump when we condemned the right for refusing to support President Obama’s agenda.
While the comparison between President Obama’s desire to bring healthcare to millions and Donald Trump’s desire to deport millions is outrageous, Robinson took to his column to pen a response to his critics, and it’s an exceptionally powerful piece of writing.  
[Robinson says]
The people chose Hillary Clinton. But it’s the electoral vote that counts, not the popular vote, so Donald Trump will be president. And no, I’m not over it.No one should be over it. No one should pretend that Trump will be a normal president. No one should forget the bigotry and racism of his campaign, the naked appeals to white grievance, the stigmatizing of Mexicans and Muslims. No one should forget the jaw-dropping ignorance he showed about government policy both foreign and domestic. No one should forget the vile misogyny. No one should forget the mendacity, the vulgarity, the ugliness, the insanity. None of this should ever be normalized in our politics.[3]
The only thing w can do is to fight. But we need to fight non violently and ber prepared top sacrifice. The most effective weapon we have against Trump is intelligence, We need to develop counter culture like in the 60s. We need to be prepared to die fighting for our ideals. those of us, a little over a quarter of the country who saw what Trump is and voted against him we need to work together and keep learning and thinking alive and keep peace, freedom, and justice as our goals.




[1] 



[3]





Buy MY BOOK!


 photo frontcover-v3a_zps9ebf811c.jpg 

Order from Amazon 
Ground breaking research that boosts religious arguemnts for God to a much stronger level. It makes experience arguments some of the most formidable.Empirical scientific studies demonstrate belief in God is rational, good for you, not the result of emotional instability. Ready answer for anyone who claims that belief in God is psychologically bad for you. Order from Amazon 

Monday, November 07, 2016

Death thread from Trumpie



:I got a death threat and racial attack from a Trump guy because I defended Hillary, bellow is my post on Face book that precipitated it and the childish exchange ai had with this guy,



It has been remarkable the level of demonizing that has gone on. Part of the little private world mythology they have collected about her says that she murdered 45 people including their good friend Venice Foster, who was indispensable the Clinton's political career. It's much more likely the /republicans murdered him--if anyone murdered him at all-- the Clintons had no motive. It's obvious they have read "Macbeth" too many times and it's so convenient to paint her with that brush since her husband was the Democratic equivalent of king. Moreover, she has ambitions for her own power. There is no evidence of any kind to back any of that u and they are actually arguing something ,like whoever Hillary knew who is dead must have been murdered by her.
Then there are the constant allusion to how she is crooked and guilty, she is presumed guilty despite evidence of innocence.Through out this entire process I have insisted that they show me one thing of which she is guilty. They have the Republicans turned her down. I have documented how she is exonerated on that issue. I have also documented that she's not been found guilty of any wrong doing on the emails. The new batch of emails are not even known to the FBI to show any wrong doing.
As to Trump's big argument, she's been in power for a long time and she has not accomplished anything. In fact she started Isis. She's only had two big powerful jobs, senator and Sec of State. The latter doesn't make laws she was a good Sec of State. She's been in public life since college but that doesn't mean that most of that she was in a position to really change things.When she was in the senate she was not the whole senate. Most freshman terms in the senate are not fruitful because there;s a seniority system. The logic of the Issis argument is stupid. I'v e seen it done with Obama too, Obama has been in eight years and race relations have gotten worse so Obama did it, That is the fallacy know as argumnet from sign. Like saying all heroine addicts start out drinking milk, therefore, milk leads to heroin addiction. George W. Bush had more to do with Starting Isis than did Hillary. Not only did he lie about weapons of mass destruction to start the war but he allowed Cheney's policies of torture that led to the direct origin of Isis. Blaming Obama or the state of race relations is like blaming doctors for sickness because they closely associated with sick people, They blithely ignore their own culpability in the process. They fed racist dogma about Obama and nursed the birther lie and so many other things to foment racial bigotry and let's don't forget how Trump legitimized the expression of racism again. That's unconscionable to blame Obama when Trump has done so much to bring racism back into the lime light,
They seem brainwashed when it comes to Hillary. It's like sharks at feeding frenzy they are ravenous and the more ravenous they are the morose they become. She's been elevated to an abstract position where she represents all evil in the abstract.the obvious answer is that she's a woman, There's more to it than that. Some actually become offended when I say they can't handle a woman who seeks power. They want me to think of them as more sophisticated. Sorry if they are voting for Trump they are not sophisticated. But there is more to it than that.
Like
Comment
6 Comments
Comments
Linda Harris Axon As you know, I vote libertarian. But the hatred toward Hillary is so irrational, it is crazy. I talked to someone tonight who was sure she'd had Foster killed but couldn't tell me why he knew it was true.
Michael Salefsky Hey Joe-stop acting like an intellectual get off your fat ass and get yourself on a diet!!! Your bitchboy heart is what's wrong w/this country!!
Joe Hinman I am an intellectual idiot, of course you don't know what an intellectual is would you fatso? I/m thin you are fast ass.,i lost weight the hard way punk. Trump supporter and stupid are synonyms.
Michael Salefsky I fought you know "The hard way" about anything but you're dAmned lucky you're over 1,000 miles from me
Joe Hinman you resort to violence because you are athug and an idiot like the little Nazis for trump, the fact that you are brandishing your violence to intimidate me proves what i said you don't havethe intellectual power to fight with facts and logic, that's why you vote for stupid Donald.
Michael Salefsky Look here you ugly Jew fuck; next time you're in Baltimore look me up!!! Now go stick your head back in the trough w/the other hogs!!!!
Joe Hinman say it all, you admit it
Joe Hinman took the bait
Michael Salefsky I say whatever I feel like such as bait for you is every trash receptacle you pass since you probably have to be restrained from not diving headlong into them & rummaging for slop!!!
Joe Hinman du I say whartiwantg cdo du day u yes I do day u
Michael Salefsky ....and its a dAmned shame my people didn't destroy the lineage that seem to it a pig like yourself would be propagated into this world
Michael Salefsky Reciting the Talmud are we Jewboy??
Joe Hinman ahahahahahhah wahta fool
Kristen Rosser Michael Salefsky You are extremely offensive and racist. Go away.
LikeReply11 hrs
LikeReply2 hrsEdited
Michael Salefsky So who erased the sweet reply to Kristen about "Suck my German C**K!?
LikeReply1 hr
Michael Salefsky I am Racist and trust me I'm going nowhere Ni$$Er lover!!!
LikeReply1 hr
Joe Hinman
Write a reply...