The Sword of Trump Looms over Social Security

A huge number of elderly people and others depend for their very lives upon social security,  While fact checker says Trump did not say he has a moral obligation to cut Social security. (According to Snopes.com, but they go on to discuss plans to scuttle it by Sam Johnson ranking Republican on ways and means committee).There are several ways it is endangered by the Republican agenda,



Fact Sheet by Social Security Administration

https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/basicfact-alt.pdf

In 2016, nearly 61 million Americans will receive approximately $918 billion in Social Security benefits. 

Snapshot of a Month: June 2016 Beneficiary Data ο Retired workers 40.7 million $55 billion $1,348 average monthly benefit dependents 3 million $2 billion ο Disabled workers 8.9 million $10.3 billion $1,166 average monthly benefit dependents 1.9 million $0.7 billion ο Survivors 6.1 million $6.8 billion  

Social Security is the major source of income for most of the elderly. 

Nearly nine out of ten individuals age 65 and older receive Social Security benefits. ο Social Security benefits represent about 34% of the income of the elderly. ο Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 48% of married couples and 71% of unmarried persons receive 50% or more of their income from Social Security. ο Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 21% of married couples and about 43% of unmarried persons rely on Social Security for 90% or more of their income.  

Social Security provides more than just retirement benefits. 

 ο Retired workers and their dependents account for 71% of total benefits paid. ο Disabled workers and their dependents account for 16% of total benefits paid.  About 90 percent of workers age 21-64 in covered employment in 2016 and their families have protection in the event of a long-term disability.  Just over 1 in 4 of today’s 20 year-olds will become disabled before reaching age 67.  67% of the private sector workforce has no long-term disability insurance. ο Survivors of deceased workers account for about 13% of total benefits paid.  About one in eight of today’s 20-year-olds will die before reaching age 67.  About 96% of persons aged 20-49 who worked in covered employment in 2016 have survivors insurance protection for their young children and the surviving spouse caring for the children.
Read More

SS also gives life insurance and disability

http://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/policy-basics-top-ten-facts-about-social-security

About 60 million people, or more than one in every six U.S. residents, collected Social Security benefits in June 2016.  While older Americans make up about four in five beneficiaries, another one-fifth of beneficiaries received Disability Insurance (DI) or were young survivors of deceased workers.In addition to Social Security’s retirement benefits, workers earn life insurance and DI protection by making Social Security payroll tax contributions:

• About 96 percent of people aged 20-49 who worked in jobs covered by Social Security in 2015 have earned life insurance protection through Social Security.

• For a young worker with average earnings, a spouse, and two children, that’s equivalent to a life insurance policy with a face value of over $600,000, according to Social Security’s actuaries.

• About 90 percent of people aged 21-64 who worked in covered employment in 2015 are insured through Social Security in case of severe disability.

The risk of disability or premature death is greater than many realize.  Some 6 percent of recent entrants to the labor force will die before reaching the full retirement age, and many more will become disabled.

read more

AARP has an excellent fact sheet on  who is dependent upon social security. They make the point that it is funded for another 24 years. The idea that we need to wipe it out or cut back now to save it is nonsense,

Social Security Benefits Are Fully Funded for Another 24 Years. The Social Security trust funds have accumulated more than $2.6 trillion in assets, and their value is estimated to peak at $3.7 trillion in 2022. After that year, the trust funds assets will begin to be drawn down in order to pay full benefits. Beginning in 2036, according to the Social Security trustees, the Social Security trust funds will be exhausted. Without any changes, Social Security

read more

Despite the immediate soundness of the program, into which most America s have paid throughout their lives, Republicans can't wait to gut it and there are several ways it is endangered, Even though Trump himself did not say, his movement helped build the congressional support and it;s certain will not block their moves to gut the program,




reps plan to gut
http://www.motherjones.com/contributor/2016/12/republicans-want-to-cut-social-security

Josh Marshall warns, "Republicans apparently aren't going to be satisfied with phasing out Medicare. They're going to try to pass huge cuts to Social Security this year too. Not Bush-style partial phaseout but just big, big cuts. And you're out of luck even if you're a current beneficiary. "
The Washington Examiner describes it thusly:
The bill…would reduce costs by changing the benefits formula to reduce payments progressively for high earners. It would also gradually raise the full retirement age from 67 to 69 for people who are today 49 or younger. Lastly, it would change the inflation metric used to calculate benefits to one that shows lower inflation, essentially slowing the growth in benefits, and eliminate cost of living adjustments for high earners.

MORE

If the left leaning Mother Jones is too radical consider the extremely conservative and highky repected source Forbes magazine,

John Wasik ,  

 CONTRIBUTOR

This blog is about financial deceptions, swindles and costly untruths.

Dec 14,2016

The latest GOP proposal, which flies in the face of Donald Trump's campaign promises to protect the program, is more of the same. Cut benefits and harm retirees who depend upon it.
Although arguably the GOP plan could put more money back into the Social Security Trust Fund, it does so at an extreme cost. And since there are other funding alternatives, it's a cruel way to save the program.

forbes gop ss cuts will hurt You

Here's how the GOP cuts would work, according to the Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank:
-- Workers making around $50,000 would see checks shrink by between 11% and 35%.
-- The first year for receiving full benefits would climb to 67.
-- Nearly every income bracket would see a reduction, save for the very bottom.
-- People making around $12,280 in 2016 who have worked for 30 years would see an increase of around 20%.
-- But young people making the same amount would be hit hard by the changes. If they had 14 years of work experience by 2016, they would see their benefits cut in half.
-- The plan would also cut entirely cost of living adjustments (COLA) for retirees earning above $85,000.
That last item on killing the COLA would hurt the most. Keep in mind that Social Security is the only government retirement benefit that adjusts payments based on inflation. If the cost of living goes up, you can keep up with rising prices -- somewhat.
There is no COLA for 401(k) or IRA withdrawals. And private, inflation-adjusted annuities are the exception, not the rule.
Moreover, there's a better way of funding Social Security, which will begin to trim payments in 2034 if nothing is done. Simply raise the earnings cap subject to Social Security taxes, which is set artificially low at $118,000.

more

see also CBS news article on cuts

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gop-social-security-funding-plan-cuts-benefits/




list of things you can do on twitter for political action to be part of the resistance,

https://twitter.com/slpng_giants/status/809563352204591105


Call your Congressman!

I saw on facebook someone said "I am not going to ask them for anything," but that is self defeating. Not only is it our right (they are supposedly there to represent us) but is is also one of the most effective things we can do, even if we don't expect them to listen, It's a great organizing tool and get';s people involved and it can be effective, There was a point in 19989 when the government almost invaded Nicaragua, we put up a massive effort of contracting congress and they backed down,


* Although you may find it easiest to always call the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121 to reach your senators or representative, you can also find the direct number to any member's office by consulting the Senate phone list or House phone list.

Tips on Calling Your Member of Congress

When you dial 202-224-3121 you are directed to an operator at the Capitol switchboard. This switchboard can direct you to both senators as well as representatives.

Once the operator answers, ask to be connected to whomever you are trying to reach. They will send you to your senator's or representative's office line, and a legislative assistant will answer the phone.

It is important to let them know why you are calling and what issue you are calling about. You will sometimes be able to speak directly to your senator or representative, but more often you will speak to a staff person in the member's office. This person keeps track of how many people called and their positions on issues, and provides a summary to the member. Be assured that your call does count, even if you are not able to speak directly to your senator or representative.

It is usually most effective to call your own senators and representatives, as each is primarily concerned with residents from his or her district. However, you may occasionally find it useful to call other members, if they are on a certain committee or in a particular position to help get a bill passed.

* Although you may find it easiest to always call the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121 to reach your senators or representative, you can also find the direct number to any member's office by consulting the Senate phone list or House phone list.

Review of Transcending Proof by Don McIntosh

Don McIntosh, Transcending proof: In Defense of Christian Theism, Houston Texas, Christian Acre Publishing, 2016.


Don McIntosh is a member of the Christian Cadre one of the foremost apologetics groups on the net. He's also published the Transcending Proof blog. He's written a fine book, Transcending Proof[1] that serves as a good introduction to the major issues of apologetics today. The book also contains some of Don's answers to more advanced issues that apologists of all levels will find interesting and useful.

McIntosh begins with the problem of evil. He argues that the reality of evil is a bigger problem for metaphysical naturalism than it is for Christian belief. [2] He deals with Godel's completeness theorem.[3] He summarize arguments by Swinburne,[4] The issues made this connection are similar to the argument I made about accepting a partially proven hypothesis, We can 't expect human observations to be compete thus we can;t expect a theory to appear complete outside it's own language game,

Playing off Bertrand Russell McIntosh argues "why I am not a Metaphysical naturalist and why I am a Christian." That is a prelude to his god arguments, McIntosh stabs at the validation of naturalistic claims,but goes beyond that to attack the coherence of it's world view.[5] I think I would be remiss if I did not point out that he argues that evolution is not proven, He's skeptical about it being a fact, He talks like the votes are not all in and if evolution has been declared a fact it's just something that happened yesterday. But really it's just propaganda by the drop of evolution rowdies. Evolution has considered a scientific fact by science since the nineteenth century,

But Don is not so naive., What appears to be first sight a typical creationist rant about the insufficiency of the evidence is in actuality a cleaver attack upon the hypocrisy of atheists claiming empirical empirical grounds while being willing to rule in evolution desire not having empirical grounds. He's not attacking evolution as true per se, He's attacking the rejection of God on grounds that the road to belief is not paved with empirical data, while accepting evolution as a substantiate when it has similar empirical limitations,[6] I thought at first I was going to have to pan that part of the book, seeing as how i see creationism as regressive.. But I appreciate the cleverness of the approach,

He deals with several other issues that I want go into, I have to talk about the swipe he takes at the boy wonder Richard Carrier. Carrier has claimed that God's nonexistence is provable. Don talks about this fallacious aspect of Carrier's ideology, I'm not going to give away the arguments. Transcending Proof is well worth reading and even the old campaigner can find many interesting arguments I recommend the very highly. Don has a Masters of Divinity degree. He is not a professional scholar and the book is published by the Cadre not by an academic publisher,It is still a fine book and is of interest to anyone doing apologetic,




Sources

[1] Don McIntosh, Transcending proof: In Defense of Christian Theism, Houston Texas, Christian Acre Publishing, 2016.
[2] Ibid., 14
[3] 22
[4] 23
[5] 29
[6] 39

Causality in Miracle Hunting.

Causality in Miracle Hunting.

In the discussions of miracles several atheists have made some big misconceptions.

(1) mistaken assumptions about my knowledge of correlation and cause.


some assume that since they are clever enough to know the very basic information, the difference in correlation and causality, that I must not know that because I'm a Christian and Christians are stupid, and they are so very clever to know some basic fact that all high school kids should get, correlation is not causality.

But what they don't get is that just as I argue inductively that correlation is indicative of a cause if certain conditions obtain, that doesn't mean I don't know the difference.

(2) Correlation is indicative of Cause.


What these very clever atheists don't get is that correlation is indicative of cause. part of the problem is that certain people don't seem know whatindicative means. Be that as it may, there is an epistemological gap in our knowledge it is a problem at the most fundamental philosophical level. We can only establish causality in one way, buy making very tight correlations and eliminating alternate causes. This is the only way there is, and that's what Hume really proved with the billiard balls.

Science can't prove causes. We can only prove correlations. When I assume causes on miracles, it's the only way we ever establish cause. Hans (HRG the atheist guru on CARM) says "only if we eliminate the alternate causes." Yes, that's true, but it also leads to recursion of the original problem. Because if we can't observe causality and it must be inferred from correlation, then you can't say "I have eliminated an alternate cause by showing causality and eliminating it." That's just a repeat of the same problem. The alternate causes are only possibilities, they are not proven either. What it boils down to is in the final analysis a really tight correlation is the only way to determine cause. Although it is important to eliminate the alternative possible causes, essential in fact. What this means is I am right to assume causes from correlations, given that I can eliminate alternatives, and I usually can. There is also the need to show a mechanism. Yet causes have been inferred without knowing mechanisms, as with smoking = cancer, but mechanism is also inferred from correlations. That is what we always come back to.

All of this means that medical evidence showing the disease went away, when examined by scientific medicos is good evidence for miracles. It's not absolute, there is no absolute. There will always be a gap in our epistemology. We will always have to make epistemic judgment.


(3) Don't need to show hit rate


The argument is made we must show the percentage of those healed vs not healed.

That's ridiculous. The reason is because we do not know the reason when someone is not healed. We cannot assume "O not being healed means there's no God, because some are healed." Knowing the hit rate is important in many cases. such as prophesy, "so and so is a true prophet he predicted x," but how many predictions did the make that did not come true?

Knowing the hist rate is not true in terms of empirical evidence of healing because:

(a) We don't know if the not healing is the result of no God, or God just didn't want to heal. Because a will is on the other end of the prayer we cannot treat it like a natural process and expect it to behave like a drug in a field trial.

(b) Miracles are supposed to be impossible. they violate natural law. that's the whole theory of naturalism in a nut shell; nothing happens apart form natural law.

Thus if one miracle happens that proves miracles and all it takes is one. proving that x% are not healed doesn't prove anything. miracles are supposed to be impossible and can't happen, if one of them happens, or we can assume it happened, then that proves they do happen. We don't know the rate because God is not a drug. Divine healing is a matter of God's will.


(3) God's action in healing is not indicative of God's feelings about those healed or not healed.

This is the whole fallacy of the God hates amputees thing. You might as well say God hates breakfast because not once in my Christian walk has God ever made me scrambled eggs in the morning.

St. Augustine proved that there is no correlation between worldly prosperity or success and God's love. Rome was sacked by the vandals and everyone was saying "this disproves Christianity." but Augie said "no it doesn't, divine favor is not based worldly success. Stuff happens to Christians too, God causes it rain on the just and unjust."


(4) No double blind


Lourdes evidence does not need to be double blind First of all these are not "studies." They are not set up as a longitudinal study to see if healing works. These are real people and their journey to Lourdes is part of their journey in life in a search to be healed, they are not white lab mice plotting world conquest.

Secondly, double blind is used as a means of control so we know data is not contaminated by the subjects knowledge of the test. People suffering from an incurable disease cannot cure themselves. So it doesn't matter if they know. If the data shows the condition went away immediately and it can be documented that all traces are gone, the of course can assume healing, provided there is no counter cause such as he took a wonder drug before he left for Lourdes; they do certainly screen for that.

Of course there are still epistemological problems. There will always be such problems. That's why you can't prove you exist. But just as the answer to that problem is "Make epistemic judgment based upon regularity and inconsistency of data," so it goes with miracles, proving smoking causes cancer or anything else.

Thomas Reid got it right, we are justified in assuming empirical evidence provided it's strong evidence.

One more problem. When I say "correlation" this invites the question "how can you find a correlation if you don't know the hit rate? A correlation implies X and Y are seen together a lot, not just in one instance. But we can't go around giving people cancer and praying for them over and over to see if they ar always healed. We have to let multiple cases stand for correlation. But since we can't say why healing didn't take place we have to use empirical means to assert on a case by case basis.

Joan Baez singing silent night

I will be talking tomorrow off from blog. Merry Christmas

enjoy the song, Joan Baez silent night

Dr. Strange-Trump or how to stop being angry at Trunp and love the bong

one of the greatest films of the 60s laughing at nuclear death,
Slim Pickens rides the bomb to ground zero over Russia as
 the world ends. "Dr. Strangelove" subtitle "How to stop
worrying and love the bomb."  I cahnged to "bong" because
we used to joke the mussels are on the way time to fire up
the bong.


see my review of the film

Donald J. Trump 

✔@realDonaldTrump

"The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes...."

10:50 AM - 22 Dec 2016

 
•  15,71115,711 Retweets
 
•  50,13050,130 likes

Russian President Vladimir Putin gave a speech Thursday in which he praised his country's military operations on behalf of the government of Syria and made a case for how Russia could become stronger.“We need to strengthen the military potential of strategic nuclear forces,” he said, according to an Agence France-Presse translation, “especially with missile complexes that can reliably penetrate any existing and prospective missile defense systems.” In other words, Russia needs to ensure that its arsenal of nuclear weapons can avoid interception by the enemy.The primary enemy that might intercept those missiles is, of course, the United States and its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.The language echoes old Cold War rhetoric: Our missiles must be able to serve as a deterrent to usage, by existing as a threat to enemies. If NATO and the United States felt confident that Russia’s incoming nuclear weapons could be stopped before reaching their targets, the weapons do not hold the same power for Russia.You can’t have a new nuclear arms race, of course, without someone to run against. Enter President-elect Donald Trump.[1]

 I saw this on the news. Why do they get out of it? Besides making it look like Trump is not Putin';s puppet, this fits Trump's agenda for manipulating the masses. Like professional wrestling, which he is into, a pretend conflict with nuclear stakes heightens fear level and creates a sense of urgency and a national security excuse for all Trump will do, That kind of thing woudl be a erect excuse to cancel the next election. So Trumps wants to drag us back 50 years and revive the most dangerous and backward thinking times in World history,Should be good for a couple of Vietnam wars.

Bill Moyers has good ideas aboiut how to challenge Trumpocradcy.

1. Don’t forget: Trump does not have a mandate. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by close to 3 million votes. Only 27 percent of the nation’s 231 million eligible voters voted for Trump. In the first election in 50 years without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act, Republicans intensified their voter-suppression efforts, targeting black and Latino communities in key battleground states. More than 40 percent of eligible voters did not vote; most non-voters were low-income, minority and/or young Americans who, had they gone to the polls, would have voted Democratic. Polls also show that even most Trump voters do not agree with much of his policy agenda. A CBS survey showed about one-quarter of Trump voters said he is not qualified to be president. Seventy percent of all voters said immigrants without documents should be able to apply for legal status rather than be deported.

2. Challenge Trump’s Nominees. Progressive activists, liberal watchdog groups and think tanks, congressional Democrats and responsible journalists have a rare opportunity, prior to and during the hearings, to challenge Trump’s Cabinet nominees and other high-level appointees as incompetent and unqualified. As a group, they represent a Hall of Shame of greedy billionaires, right-wing lunatics, scam artists and military mad hatters. Rather than see each nominee as an individual, they should look at the overall pattern of Trump nominees as lacking experience and caught in multiple conflict-of-interest webs, like Trump himself.

One, Trump’s nominee for treasury secretary, banker Steve Mnuchin, purchased a bank, OneWest, through a sweetheart deal with the federal government; it then repeatedly engaged in predatory lending, racial discrimination and aggressive foreclosures, earning censure by judges and government regulators and Mnuchin the nickname “foreclosure king.” Senate Democrats have launched a website asking people who were hurt by OneWest Bank’s foreclosure practices to share their stories.

Commerce Secretary-designate Wilbur Ross “made a fortune purchasing bankrupt businesses and flipping them for a profit,” according to Forbes, which earned him a reputation as a “vulture investor.” In 2006, after Ross purchased the International Coal Group, 12 coal miners suffocated after an explosion at its Sago coal mine in West Virginia mine, which had a history of safety violations. Earlier this year, his private equity firm, WL Ross & Co., agreed to pay a $2.3 million fine to the Securities and Exchange Commission for failing to properly disclose fees it charged investors. 

Puzder, CEO of the company that operates Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s restaurants, is Trump’s pick for labor secretary. The Department of Labor found violations — including wage theft offenses such as failing to pay the minimum wage or overtime — in 60 percent of its inspections at these two fast-food chains. Puzder has opposed raising the minimum wage, enforcing Obama’s overtime rules and mandatory sick leave. He’s blamed Obamacare for causing a “restaurant recession” even though, as The New York Times noted, “there is no evidence that health care reform has harmed job growth, and there is certainly no evidence of a restaurant recession.”

Besides having absolutely no experience in government, much less with housing policy, HUD Secretary-designate Ben Carson opposes one of HUD’s key missions: to challenge racial segregation and discrimination. Last year he denounced a HUD plan with Dubuque, Iowa to ensure the city didn’t discriminate against African-Americans in distributing federally funded housing vouchers as “what you see in communist countries.” He mocked a HUD rule designed to help municipalities use data to “overcome historic patterns of segregation” as “government-engineered attempts to legislate racial equality” and as “failed socialist experiments.” But what’s really dangerous is Carson’s opposition to gay rights (he compared homosexuality to bestiality), and his support for lunatic conspiracy theories, such as his contention that President Obama and former Attorney General Eric Holder were part of a communist conspiracy to subvert America. He claimed Darwin’s ideas about evolution were part of Satan’s plan and at the 2016 Republican convention he said late community organizer Saul Alinsky (about whom Clinton wrote her senior thesis in college) was a follower of Satan. For over a decade Carson shilled for nutritional supplement company Mannatech, whose illegal marketing schemes claimed its products help overcome ailments including toxic shock syndrome, heart failure, asthma, arthritis, Lou Gehrig’s Disease, Attention Deficit Disorder and lung inflammation, as well as AIDS and cancer. Even after the company was sued, Carson continued to speak at company meetings and appear in commercials. But in a GOP debate, Carson claimed he had no affiliation with the company.

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, a close ally of the fossil fuel industry, is Trump’s nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency. Pruitt is totally in sync with Trump’s views about climate change, which Trump has called a “hoax.” Both would like to severely weaken if not entirely dismantle the EPA and cancel America’s commitment to the Paris climate change accords. In an article in the right-wing National Review earlier this year, Pruitt wrote: “Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind” — a view that flies in the face of the scientific consensus. Pruitt joined with other state attorneys general who worked with the nation’s energy companies to fight Obama’s environmental regulations. A coal lobby spokesperson called Pruitt a “defender of states’ rights and a vocal opponent of the current administration’s overreaching EPA.” 

Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, Trump’s pick for national security adviser, was fired as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. For years he has promoted what The New York Times called “unsubstantiated claims about Islamic law’s spreading in the United States and about the attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.” He has used Twitter to push crazy conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton, including a fake news story claiming that New York police and prosecutors had found evidence linking Clinton and some of her top campaign staff to a child sex trafficking ring, money laundering, perjury and other felonies. Flynn’s penchant for lying led his one-time employees at the DIA to call his falsehoods “Flynn facts.”

READ MORE

[1] "Trump and Putin agree to resume the cold war, Washington post, Dec 22 2016

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/22/donald-trump-and-vladimir-putin-agree-lets-revive-the-nuclear-arms-race/?utm_term=.97dd5ef7412f


[2] Bill Moyers, Preparing for Trump. Moyers and co. DECEMBER 22, 2016

https://www.facebook.com/lesfox/posts/10153988649182413?from_close_friend=1&notif_t=close_friend_activity&notif_id=1482477489503358

Is God Toxicity Itself?

On Secular Outpost, I was asked to define by terms about God and clarify what I believe about God. I did that only to be told that my terms are totally inconsistent and meaningless and incoherent ect. ect, This is just another anti-intellectual attack of gnu: atheism, I will use the opportunity to explain my views on Tillich and theology better. That attack was made with an anti-intellectual attitude that is typical of the gnu atheism. It;s an opportunity, The inconsistency is clearly theirs. The discusssion started with one of them saying:

bikerjon  Joe Hinman • 4 days agoHow about *you* simply and clearly define what *you* mean by the word, 'god'? I could not care less what Mr. Tillich, or any other dead Christian apologist wrote. If you have a coherent 'god' definition, what's preventing you from posting it?[2]

I did then they sway i'ts not clear and simple because they don't know what the terms mean the way I use them.,, It's only clear and sprinkle if I use their terns and reduce my concept of God to the conept they want to attack.

Here is the definition I gave,

Metacrock:

Belief in God is not merely accepting one more thing in the universe, It's a world view involving the basis of reality. So to say:I believe God is...is also saying: I believable reality involves and an understanding of x y and z, that's going to get complex.
Ok with that understood, to satisfy the urge for a brief description: I do think God is not another thing in the cosmos but is the basis of all reality and thus a framework in which reality happens. That framework is analogous to mind in certain ways but can also be understood as the eternal and necessary aspect of being. In any case the important thing to note is that it is beyond our understanding but not beyond experience, therefore God cannot be a subject of empirical knowledge except indirectly, It is a subject of intimate existential and phenomenological apprehension.

There was a fuss made over my suggestion that they read Tillich I'll skip that issue. Here was their first attack.

bikerjon

Comparing a philosophical debate with a demand for an explanation of a speculative sub-atomic theory is a false equivalence. If you made a claim regarding an alleged real-world phenomenon, I would by justified in not accepting your claim until you provided some form of real-world verification. Again, if this were something you did understand, you would be expected to explain it to me, even if by analogy. If you didn’t understand, you ought rightly to say so, but that as far as you were able you accepted that the alleged phenomenon was scientifically verifiable, and that tests had demonstrated such. Do you see the difference?

That appears to be a question begging argument that essentially says no terns that refer to God can be meaningful because there is no God. Of course that is not meaningful until he knows what I'm calling God so it seems he is predisposed to reject any notion of god out of hand.

Ibid.

‘Belief’ is a word that requires context, and when the words, ‘in God’ are appended, it takes on a special meaning. It becomes a reality claim that there exists a concept, ‘God’, and that concept is real, valid, and true, but is not falsifiable. In contrast, it is not necessary to ‘believe’ in reason or logic. We *use* reason and logic.

“It’s a world view involving the basis of reality”
Belief in the untestable may indeed encompass a world view. Hence religions and various other toxic ideologies. However, the phrase, ‘basis of reality’, requires some expansion. ‘Basis’ usually means the support, foundation, system of principles, justification or reasoning underlying an idea, activity or ‘something’. That something could even be a concept. This seems to say that reality is wholly dependent upon an undefined principle(?), and that this undefined ‘thing that isn’t a thing’, is God.

He's already got it all figured out it's a toxic ideology even he doesn't know what it is. Before I even define it he knows its toxic because anything labeled "God" is toxic since Gods the big nightmare against which he struggles. That is anti-intellectual and shuts any  discussion. Why discuss anything with someone  who is predisposed to regard anything you say as "toxic?"

Playing off my use of phrases like "basis of reality" (I think is more illuminating than ":ground of being").,  he attacks reality.

Is belief in reality required? What would happen if I were to cease believing in it? I personally don’t believe in reality, in the sense that events seem to occur with or without my belief in them. Again, belief in the sense of faith in the untestable, seems hardly necessary. But perhaps that’s not what you’re talking about.

Now he's actually defending solipsism to ward off God. If we cam't assume reality (like truth) as a basic staple that we agree with the there is no point in discussion.

Now under the guise  of "unpacking" my talk about God not being a thing in creation, he's going to tell me what it means. So before I actually define my own views he's going to "unpack them." But if they are so incoherent how can he do that?

Unpacking:

Meta: “God is not another thing in the cosmos,”

God does not exist as a definable entity. Check.

Tillich equates existence with contingency. So Tillich says God does not exist he does not mean there is no God. I would shy away from saying God is not an entity because people tend to think of that term as anything definable. God is definable along certain lines even though he transcends our understanding.

Meta“…but is the basis of all reality…”

Ibid:God is the underlying principle upon which the Universe depends. Is that what you mean?

Sure that will do.

Meta“… and thus a framework in which reality happens.”

Ibid:It seems to me, there is an implied distinction between the foundation, (God), and that which is founded upon it, (reality).

Put another way, you seem to be saying God is a required foundation *for* reality, but not reality itself - therefore accordingly, God is being defined as transcendent, above and necessary for the functioning of the Universe, but not contained within, or immanent.

Ok let's say the frame in which the observable qualia happens, Then he will probably say that I'm discounting that which we cant observe as not part of reality, Obviously the framework concept is analogy so it's silly to try to use that to discomfit the whole concept,.As though I can't include the framework in reality.

then he takes it up a notch:

bikerjon

But that contradicts your proposition that God is not another thing in the cosmos - does not exist as a definable entity.

He is the one who tagged on the "not a definable entity,?" that depends upon what we mean by entity. I will accept that concept iif entity does not rule out mind, does not rule out clear and distinct idea,. I would rule out an individual one of many, but it does not rule out mind itself, God is universal mid. I've already discussed that concept on the blog, See my article bout the Translator Rolt and is views on Dyonisius. [3] Edwin Rolt Tells us, in his introduction to his translation :

The basis of their teaching is the doctrine of the Super-Essential Godhead (ὑπερούσιος θεαρχία). We must, therefore, at the very outset fix the meaning of this term. Now the word “Essence” or “Being” (οὐσία) means almost invariably an individual existence; more especially a person, since such is the highest type that individual existence can in this world assume. And, in fact, like the English word “Being,” it may without qualification be used to mean an angel. Since, then, the highest connotation of the term “Essence” or “Being” is a person, it follows that by “Super-Essence” is intended “Supra-Personality.” And hence the doctrine of the Super-Essential Godhead simply means that God is, in His ultimate Nature, Supra-Personal.

Now an individual person is one who distinguishes himself from the rest of the world. I am a person because I can say: “I am I and I am not you.” Personality thus consists in the faculty of knowing oneself to be one individual among others. And thus, by its very nature, Personality is (on one side of its being, at least) a finite thing. The very essence of my personal state lies in the fact that I am not the whole universe but a member thereof.

God, on the other hand, is Supra-Personal because He is infinite. He is not one Being among others, but in His ultimate nature dwells on a plane where there is nothing whatever beside Himself. The only kind of consciousness we may attribute to Him is what can but be described as an Universal Consciousness. He does not distinguish Himself from us; for were we caught up on to that level we should be wholly transformed into Him. And yet we distinguish between ourselves and Him because from our lower plane of finite Being we look up and see that ultimate level beyond us. The Super-Essential Godhead is, in fact, precisely that which modern philosophy describes as the Absolute. Behind the diversities of this world there must be an Ultimate Unity. And this Ultimate Unity must contain in an undifferentiated condition all the riches of consciousness, life, and existence which are dispersed in broken fragments throughout the world. Yet It is not a particular Consciousness or a particular Existence. It is certainly not Unconscious, Dead or, in the ordinary sense, non-Existent, for all these terms imply something below instead of above the states to which they are opposed.[4]

He questions the concept of mind, I said“That framework is analogous to mind in certain ways…” he says:

What is ‘mind’? And please provide some of those ‘certain ways’ in which this alleged framework is analogous to it. One or two will do.

In a sense that is a reasonable question since we don't really know what mind is, But I think in drawing analogy to mind it;s pretty clear I am saying God is the source of consciousnesses and thus has consciousness. Like a mind thinking a thought God thinks the universe, This  is why I  speak of a framework. God frames reality thorough his consciousnesses similar to Berkeleys concept to be is to be perceived,

 Meta

“… but can also be understood as the eternal and necessary aspect of being.”

bikerjon

An aspect of something is a definable characteristic of something, yet you claim God is not a thing, so this ‘aspect of being’ must be a definable characteristic of ‘being-ness’, or reality/existence/Universe. An aspect can be described and defined, and in this case you have defined it as both eternal and necessary. Is that correct?

There is no contradiction that is totally a natter his refusal listen, I said God si not on  a part with individual objects in creation because he is more basic to the whole than that. in reality we have ships and strings and sealing wax and cabbages and kinds. God is not on that list,God is not a thing ALONG SIDE OTHER THINGS IN CREATION!!!! In no way does that mean that he is nothing at all. I said literally he is the aspect of being that is eternal, necessary, and the basis of the whole.

He actually got the point above where he says:  "God is the underlying principle upon which the Universe depends. Is that what you mean?" That should cancel out his argument that God is in addition reality,a founding principle is part of the things it founds.There's no reason why a principle can;t be mind, the only problematic concept is that it is universal mind(see fn 3)

 Meta

“In any case the important thing to note is that it is beyond our understanding…”

bikerjon

If so, in your own words you clearly state your God-concept is not only unfalsifiable, but also undefinable, nor is it comprehensible or coherent.

Fist of all I didn't say belief is falsifiable, I said it's not directly empirical. That doesn't mean there aren't ways to get indirect verification. Fallibility is possible in regard to certain aspects of belief. But there's no reason why that should be a criterion for belief when its a phenomenological and existential matter. Religious experience (mystical or peak experience) is the co-determinate or God correlate. That's where the indirect verification comes in. The co-determinate empirical and falsifiable. 

I was planing on using an analogy for my argument about phenomenology. It ws the logic of the lampe post. That's the idea that you drop your car keys in the dark, where do you start looking? Under the light. But if you didn't drop them under light, why would you look there? Because that's the only place you could find them. That would have fit the situation thus: my approach to God arguments is to claim the idea Schleiermacher's "co-determinate." That is, a "trace" or "finger print" or some aspect that goes along with God, but is not but which will be indicative of God. We can't prove God in an empirically verifiable way, so we do the next best thing, we "prove" the co-determinate.Of course, the 64, Million dollar question (yea,it's supposed to be 64,000,but inflation...) how do we know what the co-determinate is? But let's bracket that for now, I'm still working on what's wrong with the analogy.

So the idea is we prove what we can, we look under the lamp post. The problem is, the lamp post is also what empiricism is doing. The empiricists,the scientific reductionists, (ie skeptics) are looking at what they can see and nothing more. The conclude on the basis of a limited and narrow range of data that there can't be anything else out there in the dark but that which they see in this mall patch of light. I was in a quandary. Should I re-shape the analogy? Should I find a new analogy, does this mean that there is no real difference in the phenomenological approach and the empirical scietnific (skeptical) approach? Before I go any further let me qualify that I use the term "scientific" operationally. I am not saying that all scientific thinking is skeptical and anti-religious. I am just using that phrase here for the purposes of describing the opposition in terms they like to see themselves.

Now how do we know the co-detemrinate? Schleiermacher saw it as the feeling of utter dependence, because the object or corollary of having such a feeling was the thing that evokes the feeling. Just feelings of sublimity imply that one encounters the sublime, feelings of love imply that there is a beloved, so feelings of utter dependence imply that there is a universal necessity upon which the live world and worlds are supremely utterly dependent. We can also include mystical experience and life transformation because these are part and parcel of what is meant by the idea of religion and the divine. As far back as we can dig for artifacts we seem to find some form of mystical experience at the heart of all organized religion. So we can conclude that God, religion, and life transformation always go hand in hand. The studies themselves tell us that life transformation always accompanies dramatic experiences which are understood as and which evoke a strong sense of the Holy. Is this really phenomenological? We can screw up our phenomenological credentials by responding to it in a non phenomenological way. But it is the product of the phenomenological method, because it derives from observation of the phenomena and allowing the phenomena to tell us what categories to group the data into.

As Tillich tells us

The name of infinite and inexhaustible depth and ground of our being is God. That depth is what the word God means. And if that word has not much meaning for you, translate it, and speak of the depths of your life, of the source of your being, of your ultimate concern, of what you take seriously without any reservation. Perhaps, in order to do so, you must forget everything traditional that you have learned about God, perhaps even that word itself. For if you know that God means depth, you know much about Him. You cannot then call yourself an atheist or unbeliever. For you cannot think or say: Life has no depth! Life itself is shallow. Being itself is surface only. If you could say this in complete seriousness, you would be an atheist; but otherwise you are not.[5]

[1]  Bradley Bowen, "Geisler’s Five Ways – Part 11: The Structure of Geisler’s Case,"Secular Out Post, (Dec 16,2016) blog, URL

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/12/16/geislers-five-ways-part-11-structure-geislers-case/#disqus_thread

[2] bikerjon Ibid., comment section,

[3] Joseph Hinman, "The Super Essential Godhead," Metacrock's Blog (May 3, 2016)blog URL

http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-super-essential-godhead.html

[4] Edwin Rolt, "Introduction,"Dionysius the Areopagite: on Divine names and the Mystical Theology, trans. Clearance Edwin Rolt , New York, New York: Cosmio 2007, from original 1920 publication.  see also online versionChristian Classics Ethereal Library, on line version, The Author and his Influence, trans by, 1920  website URL:  by http://www.ccel.org/ccel/rolt/dionysius.iii.i.html

visited May 13,

[5] Paul Tillich, The Shaking of the Foundations. New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1948.