Monday, December 11, 2017

we have only a week to save the internet


Trump' FCC Plans Destruction of Net Neutrality

This is a disaster, It would be bad enough if raising fees to use the net meant I can't read comic books or looking at little You Tube things,No more music,That's my  major connection to the music I love. But the move means much more than curtailment of pleasure surfing,It's the blow to the resistance,Its closing of the only sources of information for countering Trump's lies and it's the only way to fight by spreading the word, Also for me it means no more books. No more blog n o more theological research,

We only have until early December to act!

ALYSSA NEWCOMB "THE END IS NEAR FOR OBAMA ERA NEW NEUTRALITY RUELES," NBC NEWS
(NOV 21 2017, 4:51 PM ET)
 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/end-near-obama-era-net-neutrality-rules-n822901

Everything from the way you use banking apps to the speed of your Netflix stream could soon be changing, if all goes to plan for the Federal Communications Commission.
The FCC's mission — essentially gutting the internet as we know it — would allow service providers to create so-called fast and slow lanes for subscribers.
Commission Chairman Ajit Pai, a Republican, announced on Tuesday a plan to put an end to what he called the federal government's "micromanaging" of the internet. Details of the proposal will be released on Wednesday, three weeks before it will be put to a vote by the FCC on Dec. [read More]

SIGN PETITION tell congress
https://savethenetfromtrump.com/

CALL YOUR MEMBER OF CONGRESS 202-224-3121
Republican Senators* at (844) 241-1141 

Share this on social media put it on your blog,send links, Tell everyone, this is a disaster, This will kil all resistance to Trump, this is nothing less than control of the media,


sources

[1] 

[2] ALYSSA NEWCOMB "THE END IS NEAR FOR OBAMA ERA NEW NEUTRALITY RUELES," NBC NEWS
(NOV 21 2017, 4:51 PM ET)


Metacrock down

I am sick unable to post. sorry, back soon,pneumonia. was in hospital per weekend, home now still don;t feel lie posting, back soon talk among yourselves,

Monday, December 04, 2017

More about the Course of Human Events

Image result for when the government tells you who to fight it;s war when you figure it out for yourself its revolution

 It;s time to strip away the illusion that there are Republican stateswomen (Susan Collins) and statesmen (McCain) who actually care about people. Look at the overall historical record of their party:
Throughout 2017, President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans have continually taken aim at the health, well-being, and independence of Americans with disabilities. From repeated attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and end Medicaid as we know it to budget proposals that slash Social Security disability benefits, disability employment services, Meals on Wheels, and more, the agenda Trump and his colleagues in Congress are on Wheels, and more, the agenda Trump and his colleagues in Congress are pursuing would be nothing short of a disaster for people with disabilities. The latest attack comes in the form of their partisan tax plan, which passed the House on November 16 and is set to be voted on in the Senate as soon as this week.Although they have sold the plan as a Christmas present for the middle class, under the Senate bill, a staggering 87 million* middle- and working-class families would see their taxes rise by 2027. Meanwhile, the top 0.1 percent would receive an average tax cut of $208,060. Furthermore, by repealing the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) individual mandate, the tax plan would also undermine the individual insurance market, driving up premiums and leaving 13 million more Americans without health insurance by 2025...[Read More][1]
Collins and McCain put on a big show, They were the saviors of the common people, They saved health care, With this bilk, whch they voted form they went around back and murdered the very innocent people they got thorough waving. I say snuck around back because voting for the tax scam is a less direct but just as effective way of taking health care away from people, Most voters may not know the connection this is taxes not health care, Also, they can say protections were written into the bill.

Make no mistake this travesty of legislation will destroy health care for the common person,The very 13 million Collins claimed to be protecting on  Obama care are going to lose medicare and medicaid, a huge short fall in revenue (1.5 Tillion dollars) means cuts to social programs. AARP has denounced the Tax Scam will resulting in huge cuts to medicare.[2]
The republicans give us an indication of hat they do with funding short fals, They ctake life saving services away from helpless people.Robert Reich :
Since September, Republicans in Congress have refused to reauthorize funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program, which provides coverage for 9 million kids. The cost of the program is roughly $15 billion a year. By contrast, the Trump-Republican tax plan will cost the country $1.5 trillion.This is what we've come to: Trump and Republicans in Congress are willing to deprive children health care to enrich their wealthy donors. Have they absolutely no shame?[3]
Rubio admitted that after the Tax scam passes the next target at which the GOP marauders will take aim and seek to destroy are Medicaid and Medicare,[4]
The Center forAmerica Progress argues tha the tax scam is a tax on disapbility. it copies this list"

 (1) Eliminates affordable care act's individual mandate

(2) Raises Taxes on people Facing high medical bills

(3) Makes research for drugs for rare conditions more expensive

(4) Makes Disability accessibility ore expensive for small businesses

(5) raises taxes for People with student loans


(6) Ends Tax credit that spurs development in small communities

(7) Automatic cuts to medicare disability and other such programs (which means I will die)[5]

As for this last one: 
On top of these direct attacks on people with disabilities, congressional Republicans’ tax plan would also quietly result in deep cuts to a whole range of programs that are critical to people with disabilities. Since the tax bills’ giveaways to millionaires and wealthy corporations are not fully paid for, they would jack up the deficit by about $1.5 trillion over the next decade, not including interest on the debt. And under the Statutory Pay-As-You Go Act, any legislation that increases the deficit triggers automatic cuts to various federal programs. In fiscal year 2018 alone, Medicare would see automatic cuts of $25 billion, and it would be slashed by more than $400 billion over 10 years.A host of other programs would face devastating automatic cuts or even outright elimination. They include Vocational Rehabilitation Basic State Grants, which fund state programs that help people with disabilities prepare for, secure, regain, or retain employment; the Social Services Block Grant, which funds critical services for adults and children with disabilities as well as Meals on Wheels; and affordable housing programs that subsidize low-income housing and home ownership. Certain higher education programs also could lose funding, such as those that support historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, and tribal colleges, as well as grants that help the children of service members who lost their lives in Iraq or Afghanistan afford college.[6]
All of this treachery against the American people casts the all searching light upon two dark corners where lurk the woefullest of republican lies, First it makes a total lie of the Republican fear of deficits How may wonderful programs have been sacked on the grounds that we dare not grow deficits? The whole Reagan candidacy was predicated upon the idea that deficits were the bane of national existence. Turns out they create a huge deficient at the drop a hat. Watt they really hate is taxes and that only in so far as they touch the rich, The will tax the stuffing out of the middle class, Taxation with representation but what do you do when your representation sees you as fodder for their true masters the rich?

The second lie exposed is the heart of the whole Republican ideology: the great lie of trickle down, The whole Rep answer to any of the surmounting problems incurred by the revenue short fall is :we wills stimulate business and that will mean economic growth and we will out grow the deficit, Time and time again we should have leaned they  never put that money into employment. It's never worked that way, this time it will because these wonderful heroes like McCain are for it. But history says it never does. The Reason tax cuts, for example, did not translate to jobs. [7] A 65 year study shows tax cuts don't lead to economic growth,[8] The Republicans and Trump have provided all the explanation we need. what they have not given us and they do not have is Data backing the lies about the tax scam producing economic growth on that point the experts agree it;s a dud.[9]

Of course this invalidates the entire principle of the republican policy making. But then evren a casual observer can see this generation of GOP legislators are not serous abut policy-making They clearly don't give a damn about the consequences in terns of adverse effects upon the poor vermin who are so stupid they chose not to be rich. Look at the process, They crammed promises scrawling on paper by hand --promise anyone anything to get the vote--we'll iron it all out in committee, The problem is how do you know you will still have your special little promise after the committee is done? So most of them sold their souls for assurances they aren't going to get.

Then there was trutleman , McConnell saying "It's the losers who whine about the process." You know like wanting a fair trial, a democratic election, and no taxation without representation. They are all utter liars, and pernicious blood sucking leaches.They cannot be trusted,It is a matter of life and death,I've already documented 13,000 deaths every year from now on due to Trump's one action on coal fired plants, and now this tax scam causes suffering and death for  millions. We are fools if we don't fight back. Drop everything you live for and live to win the mid term elections.we absolutely must, We need to go back to the kind of passionate intensity the resistance had on inauguration day and when we shouted at reps in public meetings,
remember the words of that old familiar "communist" document:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.[10]
I think in this revolution they will know our reasons  before we state them.



Sources


[1]  Center for American Progress (
(access 12/4/17)

[2] Staff, "The AARP Just hit the GOP a Crippling Blow"
Real Time Politics (Dec 2, 2017)
(access 12/4/17)

[3]Robert Reich face book 12/3/17
(access 12/4/17)


[5] Rebecca Vallas,et al op cit.
(access 12/4/17)

[6] Ibid.
(access 12/4/17)

[7] Derek Thompson, "Tax Cuts Did Not Pay For Themselves." The Atlantic (JUN 17, 2011
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/06/tax-cuts-did-not-pay-for-themselves-under-reagan-and-they-wont-under-pawlenty/240616/
(access 12/4/17)

[8] Derek Thompson, Tax Cut's Don;t Lead To Ecnoic Growtha 65 Year Study..."
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/tax-cuts-dont-lead-to-economic-growth-a-new-65-year-study-finds/262438/
(access 12/4/17)

[9] Eric Zorn, "Actual Experts Agree GOP Tax Plan is a Dud." Chicago Tribute,(Nov 28, 2017)
(access 12/4/17)


[10]"Declaration of Independence"UShistory org
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/
(access 12/4/17)




Friday, December 01, 2017

emergency call now!!!





We have to beat this Tax scam now today! the Votes today,It was going to pass yesterday and thank God (answer to my prayer) some deficit Hawks started making noise,
The bill will raise the deficit a trillion dollars then hope that it stimulates growth and we out grow, When has outgrowing the deficit ever worked? That's a huge gamble, If it doesn't work it will take down medicaid and other social programs, Riders in back that will destroy Obama care, it also has riders that destroy public lands, This is the most important thing the resistance can do,please stop everything NOW and call, share this with everyone.
CALL YOUR MEMBER OF CONGRESS 202-224-3121
Republican Senators* at (844) 241-1141

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

What is Panentheism? Does it require an impersoanl God?

Image result for Metacrock' blog Panentheism


Panenthism* is the idea that God is both in creation and beyond it (emphasis mine) The Westminster dicitionary of Christian theology defines it thus:


panenthism, the doctrine that all is in God. It is distinguished from pantheism which identifies God with the totality or as the unity of the totality, for it holds that God's inclusion of the world does not exhaust the reality of God.Panentheism understands itself as a form of theism, but it criticizes traditional theism for seeing the world as external to God. [1]
Charles Hartshorne is one of the most famous panentheists. He juxtaposes the monopolar God of much of the theistic tradition with his from of mulit-polar (di-polar) theism (process theology). God is inclusive of the world God is also changing in his consequent or concrete structure, yet unchanging in his absolute or potential structure, thus "God is in process" and is di polar. [2] "Hartshorne argues that this conforms better than traditional theism or pantheism to the Biblical understanding of the living God who loves and knows, the world, acts within it and shares the joys and sorrows of the creatures."[3] Hartshorne takes the mono-polar view of God as based upon the Greek prejudice agaisnt time and change.[4] Cobbs articles only with Harshorne's view of panentheism but Paul Tillich is also Known as a Panentheist. David H. Nikkel provides an indepth comparision between the views of Hartshorne and those of Tillich on panentheism. Tillich is understood as arguing that God is not a thing in creatin or along side other thing in creation but is the basis of all that is. To that extent God is not a being but is being itself. That means that God is manifest in the beings. God is part of creation but also goes beyond it. That doesn't mean creation is divine it doesn't mean we are Gods or any such nonsense. Hydrogen is part of water but it's not indistinguishable form water.[5] 

Some charge that this makes Tillich sound pantheistic. It's the pantheistic aspects that sound pantheistic. They are not the same. Tillich gives three caveats about pantheism that must be remembered.There are three negative side affirmations that pertain to pantheism (in terms of Tillichian theology: “Not Universal essence,” “Not found in totality of beings,” “Not Pantheistic.” There are two kinds of pantheism in general, the first kind I will discuss is daubed by Tillich as “not true pantheism” but I can tell you most message board opponents of Christianity calling themselves “pantheistic” will disagree. That is the version that says God is the essence of all things, the abstracted amalgam of everything that is; God the collection of the world as a whole. Weather true pantheism or not, this is not the concept Tillich has of God and he repudiates it specifically. This is what he means by “not universal essence” or “not found in the totality of beings.” When he says “not pantheistic” he means the other kind, because he’s already nixed the first kind, the “other kind” (what he calls “true pantheism”) is sort of a personification or deification of nature. There’s a power of nature, a collection of laws of nature and that collection is revered in the way a god is revered. Though Tillich describes God as “the power of being” he does not mean the power of nature alone. Tillich rejects both forms of pantheism.


Smith contrasts Tillich with Moltmann and protrays Molatmann and much more orthodox in terms of Trinity and Chrsitoloogy.

Chris Smith's Carrel
Readings on religion, Politics, and...
Jan 14, 2008
http://chriscarrollsmith.blogspot.com/2008/01/two-very-different-panentheisms-of.html

Moltmann’s panentheism is considerably different than Tillich’s. Although I think Moltmann would technically agree with Tillich’s statement that God is the Ground of Being, he prefers tospeaks of God in more personal, redemptive terms. For Moltmann, God “created” space and time within himself in order to make room for the universe. He withdrew from this space, and it became the Godforsaken place. Thus while the universe remains contingent upon God (meaning that its existence depends upon him), it is not as ontologically identical with him as in Tillich’s thought.[6]

I question smith's understanding of these theologians. He wants to go beyond Panentheism and tack Trintiaian and Christilogical doctrines on to laud Moltmann and chide Tillich.

Where Tillich would likely agree with Aquinas that God only appears to suffer, love, or have any emotion at all, Moltmann declares that God actually feels emotion. He is its creator, but all the same he chooses to subject himself to it. This likely would not be possible for Paul Tillich’s Ground of Being. The difference between the two in this regard is best demonstrated by a comparison of their Christologies: Tillich denies any real incarnation of God in order, presumably, to maintain his transcendence. Moltmann, however, believes that Jesus Christ was actually God.[7]

He's just reducing the issues to Chrsitology and Trinity as a red flag on Orhtodoxy rather than confronting the issues about the intrinsically Christian nature of the concept of panentheism itself. I don't know what Smith's view point is. I don't know that he is evangelical. There are evangelicals who are highly critical of panentheism.


Evangelicals are so deeply afraid of pantheism they keep trying to force penentheism into a mold of pantheist likeness. It's almost as though they are hedges their own saftey, they wont be mistaken for patheists themselves, if they  accuse panentheism of being pantheism and reject it. One such example is that of Roger E. Olson.[8] He points out being panentheist is the kiss of death for teaching at an evangelical seminary. I have a easy remedy for that one. Don't teach at one. This is especially good if you are a panenthist. He also points out the the meaning has changed to the extent that one can't be sure what is meant by it. The same things happens with all view points that become popular. People always enlarge upon terms and change various nuances about them until you can't know what they really mean. This happened with existentialism it happened with Postmodernism, and so on. It's going keep happening. it's just the way it works when one is overly concenred with labeling everything. I am opposed to labeling. I'm not concerned with doctrinal labels people put on ideas, that's becuase I'm a existentialist. Want to know what kind? The kind that doesn't like labels. Also the kind whose witting style is too cute and who labors to make obvious jokes.

Olsen does a good job in mentioning the historical background of the term. Apparently "it was coined by German philosophical theologian Karl Friedrich Krause (1781-1832) who invented the German word Allingottlehre which literally means 'the doctrine that all is in God.'" [9] Olsen comes to the real meat of the matter. In bring Hegel in to understand God and his relationship to the world in a dialectical fashion some assert as Hegel said "without the world God would not be God." That gives it a sort of pantheistic cast. It makes it seem that God is dependent upon the world. Or perhaps God is the world.

A consensus used to exist that panentheism is any view of the God-world relationship that portrays God and the world as essentially interdependent although God’s essence is not contributed by the world. One of the first whole books exploring the concept was Philosophers Speak of God by Charles Hartshorne and William Reese (University of Chicago Press, 1953). They defined panentheism as any view in which “To be himself [God] does not this universe, but only a universe.” (22) They asserted that, at the very least, panentheism denies creation ex nihilo (23).[10]

Olsen states that he can accept a view that asserts the world is in God in the sense that Paul said it in Acts, (in him we live and move and have our being) but the real issue is creation ex nihilo.[11] The I have a problem there. I agree with Olsen on that concern. I think Moltmann is right that the world as creation is distinct form God, I doubt that Tillich would have disagreed.

The problem is exnihilo means that God didn't use a pre existing material to create the world. But does it mean that he just zapped it out of true absolute nothing? I'm willing to believe that he could have, but it makes more sense to thin that he somehow created a sort of inanimate material out of his own thoughts. The doctrine doesn't really specify. If my view of the world as a thought in the mind of God is true that problem would be side stepped or resolved in the latter idea, since it would require that the world is a thought in the mind, thus God's actually thoughts provide the ground for matter. Does that satisfy the orthodox? If we dont' worship inanimate matter as part of God what difference does it make? Yet I do agree with the concern of honoring and staying in as par as possible the bounds of orthodoxy. Color in the lines.

That leaves the final issue as the one about the personal nature of God. Panentheism is often castigated as the belief that God is impersonal. Tillich does deny the notion of a personal God yet in so doing he is not choosing an inanimate God. He's just being aware of the term personal and how it reflects human personality and ego involvement. My views on this have been set down in this very blog numerous times. See "Paul Tillich and the Personal God." [12] (part 2).Tillich himself seems to refute this idea in Systematic Theology no. One where he says HE CARRIES WITHIN HIMSELF THE ONTOLOGICAL POWER OF PERSONALITY.he is not a person BUT HE IS NOT LESS THAN PERSONAL." [13] I've always thought of process theology has an impersonal view of God but the things Cobb (who is a major process theologian) says about Hartshorne's view in the article mentioned above, that doesn't sound too impersonal. Certainly Moltmann seems to be cast in the role of a panentheist yet one with a personal sort of view of God.[14]





*I put in the red "en" and balded and italicized it to distinguish it from pantheism at a glace becuase it is hard to see that "en" in there. It makes it easier to know at a glance which is being discussed. No one else does that it's my own idiosyncrasy.

Sources:


[1] John Cobb, "Panentheism," Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. Alan Richardson, John Bowden, ed., 1983, 423.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] David H. Nikkel, "Panenthism in Hartshorne and Tillich" Pdf Dissertation published by Lang Publishing 1995. pdf http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncp/f/Panentheism%20in%20Hartshorne%20and%20Tillich.pdf  (accessed 3/9/14).
[6]Chris Smith's Carrel,  Readings on religion, Politics, and...Jan 14, 2008
 http://chriscarrollsmith.blogspot.com/2008/01/two-very-different-panentheisms-of.html
[7] Ibid.
[8] Roger E. Olson. "What's Wrong with Panenthism," My Evangelical Arminmitian Mustings, August 7, 2012. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/08/whats-wrong-with-panentheism/
[9]Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11]
[12] Metacrock, "Paul Tillich and the Personal God: was Tillich's ground of being an Impersonal Force part 1," Metacrock's Blog,  March 14, 2011.
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2011/03/paul-tillich-and-personal-god-was.html
see also part 2
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2011/03/paul-tillich-and-personal-god-part-2.html
[13] Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology Vol 1, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951. 245
[14] Smith, op cit.

Sunday, November 26, 2017

Review of Hermon Philipse's God in the Age of Science (Part 2)

He uses the issue of of explanatory power to justify using Bayes to establish the illusion of technique for deciding the matter.[24]Of course his explanatory power is a scientific explanation but he never bothers to justify it. A scientific explanation would have to be limited to the workings of the physical world and modern theology doesn't claim to answer that. Swinburne finds God probable in the prior[25] (Bayes works by establishing a prior probability as a basis from which to begin calculations). The problem is Swinburne uses simplicity as the criterion to set the prior. Philipse apparently can't dispute it. Thus, he objects to simplicity as the criterion rather than try to argue that God is complex as did Dawkins (see above). He argues against simplicity as criterion on the basis of lack of empirical evidence. He then takes up the issue of final cause. Theists sometimes use final cause as an “ultimate explanation.” “God forms a more natural stopping place [for theists] than, say, the existence of the universe.”[26] The existence of the universe is what is in question so of course that in itself can't prove its origin. He is calling into question the satisfying nature of final cause, apparently assuming that the infinite causal regress (ICR) is not unsatisfying. He asserts that defense of God as explanation can't be “full” and “final” because it doesn't answer the kinds of questions science answers. He couches this in terms of introducing “questionable metaphysical assumptions.”[27] It seems that they are talking at cross purposes because each means something different by “full” and “complete.” For Swinburne this is causal and includes motivations. Philipse contrasts motivations as part of the cause with naturalistic explanations which are about “causal laws of nature.”[28] So Swinburne is talking about “why” and Philipse is talking about how. It may be a matter of taste but it seems that asking after why is a philosophical view and more satisfying in some ways, whereas the scientific explanation has to exclude why as though there is not one and that seems less “full” as an explanation. If there is no why there is none but why should we just assume a priori there is none? If the explanation is only a scientific one then that is what we must do. That's why we should prefer the philosophical and asked “is there a why?” When we find one that should be it.

At this point he brings in what he takes to be the ultimate “brute fact” of God's existence as a negation of a complete explanation. In order to pull this off he establishes synchronic and diachronic both as requirements of a “complete” explanation.[29] The former refers to causes immediately temporal effecting the given outcome, while the latter entails causes perpetuated through time before the event. In other words, synchronic, the match burst into flame due to friction caused by the striking board. Diachronic, the match burst into flame due to the factory used to make chemicals, applied these chemicals to the match at a given time, and the store that sold the matches and every other aspect of buying the matches, up though the motion of my hand of running the match along the striking board. So he's saying that because we don't have that sort of knowledge about God then God can't be a full explanation. Then he's going to spend a lot of time picking apart the motivations of God, such as the motivation to create humanity.[30] Because we can't understand God's exact motivations, nor is there a set of diachronic explanations for God's being, then the explanation can't be full.

There are two problems with this argument. Philipse has defined “full explanation” and “ultimate” explanations in ways that favor scientific kinds of information. The philosophical understanding does not necessarily require the same kinds of explanation. Why do we need to know, for example, what exactly God's motivation to make man felt like or even what it was? We can understand the motivation of love, all of God's motivations can be summed up in love. The demand for scientific exactitude is a smokescreen. We might qualify “full” and “complete” and limit it to matters we can understand. God as the final explanation can be based upon both the final cause and the bestowing of meaning via reasons for our own existence; these have to be in general terms such as “love” because we can understand love (at least on an instinctive level). The second problem has to do with the idea of God as brute fact (BF).

The concept of brute fact turns upon the notion of their being no reason for the BF. A BF is a fact for which there is no reason at all. That's not to say no cause but no reason other than the naturalistic causal nexus of the physical world. The BF is a slippery concept because many philosophers mean different things by the term. John Hospers understands BF simply as something that can't be explained.[31] Does this mean we don't even know a scientific cause? For Some Philosophers it does and for some it does not. Eric Barnes lists several philosophers who use the term to mean no known explanation, not even a scientific one (Freidman, Kitcher, Lipton).[32]Barnes himself says “it is my view that brute facts need not be thought to represent any gap whatsoever in scientific understanding.”[33]We can side step the problem because we can't get a scientific explanation of God. God is not given in sense data, thus it is an a priori truth that we can't have a scientific explanation of God. To say that without a scientific explanation we have not a full or complete explanation is merely to exchange one set of metaphysical assumptions for another. Privileging science as the only valid form of knowledge is just as much a metaphysical assumption as is belief in God.

Moreover, these are two fundamentally different kinds of explanations, scientific and purposive. There is no purpose in naturalistic processes and forces of nature. If that is all there is then all reality is a brute fact. For me brute fact means no higher reason than just bare existential facts. There is no higher purposive reason for God than God. That is not the same as saying the world just happens to be here for no reason other than the natural causal connections involved in its coming to be. Naturalistic processes are all cause and effect, they are all contingent. That puts God on a different level than anything else. God is the only truly non contingent reality. With all temporal natural things necessities are themselves contingent upon higher necessities. That is until we come to God. We should expect that the process of necessity and contingency would keep on going, although that leads to questions about infinite causal regress (ICR). If there is ICR it's not there for a reason. But God gives us not only a stopping point for causes but also a higher purpose in life.

That explanation is more full in terms of purpose and more complete in terms of causation. This reasoning could be circular if one is not careful. It begs the question to assert that there must be a “higher level” reason. But the opposite is also true; the assumption that there isn't a higher reason also begs the question. One way around this is to embrace the final cause argument. Another way would be to take it as axiomatic based upon proper basicality or some intuitive sense or experience that there is higher purpose.

At this point Philipse turns to Bayes theorem as a means od proving God is not probable. So he moves from denuding the empitus for belief by calling it "unscientific" to a reason not to beliebe. I have shown that Bayes can't be applied to God.
My Answer to Lowder's attack on my Bayes article 
24 Ibid., 91

25-27 Ibid. 192

28 Ibid. 195

29 193

30 i95

31 John Hospers, An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis (1997) p. 211

32 Eric Barnes, “Explaining Brute Facts,” PSA: Proceedings of the biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association.. Vol 1994, Volume one: Contributed Papers, (1994), 64-68, 64.

33 Ibid. 

Tuesday, November 21, 2017

net neutrality in danger again,it;s Trump again!



Trump' FCC Plans Destruction of Net Neutrality

This is a disaster, It would be bad enough if raising fees to use the net meant I can't read comic books or looking at little You Tube things,No more music,That's my  major connection to the music I love. But the move means much more than curtailment of pleasure surfing,It's the blow to the resistance,Its closing of the only sources of information for countering Trump's lies and it's the only way to fight by spreading the word, Also for me it means no more books. No more blog n o more theological research,

We only have until early December to act!

ALYSSA NEWCOMB "The End is Near for Obama Era New Neutrality Rueles," NBC News
(NOV 21 2017, 4:51 PM ET)
 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/end-near-obama-era-net-neutrality-rules-n822901

Everything from the way you use banking apps to the speed of your Netflix stream could soon be changing, if all goes to plan for the Federal Communications Commission.
The FCC's mission — essentially gutting the internet as we know it — would allow service providers to create so-called fast and slow lanes for subscribers.
Commission Chairman Ajit Pai, a Republican, announced on Tuesday a plan to put an end to what he called the federal government's "micromanaging" of the internet. Details of the proposal will be released on Wednesday, three weeks before it will be put to a vote by the FCC on Dec. [read More]

SIGN PETITION tell congress
https://savethenetfromtrump.com/

CALL YOUR MEMBER OF CONGRESS 202-224-3121
Republican Senators* at (844) 241-1141 

Share this on social media put it on your blog,send links, Tell everyone, this is a disaster, This will kil all resistance to Trump, this is nothing less than control of the media,


sources

[1] 

[2] ALYSSA NEWCOMB "THE END IS NEAR FOR OBAMA ERA NEW NEUTRALITY RUELES," NBC NEWS
(NOV 21 2017, 4:51 PM ET)
 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/end-near-obama-era-net-neutrality-rules-n822901