Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is the USA going over the edge as we speak?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Scott Adams, American cartoonist and commenter on events with a particular view to persuasion and narrative dominance seems to agree. Transcript of key comments:

I think I’ve been telling you for some time the obvious way that these protests/riots/looting episodes were going to go. There was only one way that these would go under the assumption that the police would not get more aggressive and that the local government would not let the federal government come in and take care of the violent stuff. There was going to be no adult supervision and that was intentional. The local leadership decided to not have any adult leadership during the protests/riots/looting. So it was obvious that the locals would end up arming themselves because what else would happen? Could you think of any other outcome? It was obvious this would be the outcome. And this is just the beginning, not just a one-off. It’s pretty obvious that more militia or more citizens are going to bring heavier arms…and they’re going to start showing up…. There’s probably no way it’s going to stop.

The worst case scenario is if the protesters [–> further?] arm themselves…ultimately this is the way it had to go. I feel bad for anyone who gets hurt and I don’t encourage any violence but as a prediction this was the way it had to go. It will end, but with more of this.

Sobering, and familiar.

Regulars at UD will know that I have long been very concerned about a kinetic escalation/spiral in an ongoing 4th generation culture revolution style, Red Guards driven civil war in the USA, geostrategic centre of gravity of our civilisation. Events over the past few days in Wisconsin (U/D: additional, here also see background here with here, here & here, contrasting what is not seen here) underscore that concern, to the level of juggernaut– out- of- control. (The first just linked seems to be at least a good point of reference for thought on a very regrettable but all too predictable event; the second gives background on the metaphor.)

Let me hark back for a moment to my 2016 global geostrategic framework shared here at UD (after public presentations here in the Caribbean):

That is deep backdrop, as we ponder where our civilisation is in the case of the lynch-pin state, the USA.

What happens to the US over the next six to eighteen months is fraught with global consequences that the general populace is at best dimly aware of; but, bet your last cent that movers and shakers behind the scenes have these considerations (from whatever perspective) in mind.

Now, too, for twenty years, I have often used a representation of sustainability-oriented strategic decision-making tracing to/adapted from the Bariloche Foundation of Argentina, set in the context of Environment Scanning and SWOT analysis:

(This is of course precisely the decision theory model which has led me to point to a serious ethics-epistemology breakdown in managing the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and how treatments are evaluated.)

Further to such, there is a more stringent version, in effect the challenge of the juggernaut i/l/o Machiavelli’s hectic fever model of political disorders:

Warning-signs, there have been in abundance, complete with many blood-dripping lessons of history. However, in a deeply polarised polity, building critical mass . . . “consensus” is implausible and half-measure compromises will predictably be built-to-fail . . . in good time to avert going over the cliff is hard, hard, hard. Such, is the nature of problematiques.

Perhaps, the problem can be recast instructively in terms of the dilemmas implicit in the Overton Window:

What happens when the acceptable limit imposed by dominant factions and their narratives locks out good solutions? What would shift the window?

The answer comes back, pain; pain and shattering from going over the cliff.

Or, if we are lucky, enough see the signs in time to act as a critical mass towards sound change before the cliff-edge collapses underfoot.

History, however, is not on the side of prudent foresight, and the history of radical revolutions has been particularly bloody and predictably futile. Never mind the pipe dreams sold by tenured profs and promoted by pundits and community organisers. As just a warning, let us compare a fools-cap image from the 1966 Mao-backed Red Guards:

. . . and a notorious recent incident in Washington DC:

. . . not forgetting the tragedy of the man who refused to salute in 1930’s in a Germany ruled by the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (and yes, contrary to the dominant narrative, they meant the “Socialist” part and the “Worker’s” part):

We need to pause and think again, I am somehow unable to take it for granted that we cannot turn back, even at the brink. Maybe, I am being irrationally hopeful for reprieve; but, let us at least ponder a case from an often overlooked classical report:

Ac 19:23 . . . [c. AD 57] there arose no little disturbance [in Ephesus] concerning the Way.

24 For a man named Demetrius, a silversmith, who made silver shrines of Artemis, brought no little business to the craftsmen.

25 These he gathered together, with the workmen in similar trades, and said [–> behind the scenes manipulative plotting], “Men, you know that from this business we have our wealth. 26 And you see and hear that not only in Ephesus but in almost all of Asia this Paul has persuaded and turned away a great many people, saying that gods made with hands are not gods. 27 And there is danger not only that this trade of ours may come into disrepute but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis may be counted as nothing, and that she may even be deposed from her magnificence, she whom all Asia and the world worship.”

28 When they heard this they were enraged and were crying out, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”

29 So the city was filled with the confusion, and they rushed together into the theater, dragging with them Gaius and Aristarchus, Macedonians who were Paul’s companions in travel. 30 But when Paul wished to go in among the crowd, the disciples would not let him. 31 And even some of the Asiarchs,5 who were friends of his [–> they had charge of the very Temple in question; obviously, Paul’s lectures in the Hall of Tyrannos and his reaching out to people had won him respect and even friendship], sent to him and were urging him not to venture into the theater.

32 Now [in the unlawful assembly] some cried out one thing, some another, for the assembly was in confusion, and most of them did not know why they had come together. 33 Some of the crowd prompted Alexander, whom the Jews had put forward. And Alexander, motioning with his hand, wanted to make a defense to the crowd.

34 But when they recognized that he was a Jew, for about two hours they all cried out with one voice, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”

35 And when the town clerk had quieted the crowd ] –> doubtless, sent by the Asiarchs], he said, “Men of Ephesus, who is there who does not know that the city of the Ephesians is temple keeper of the great Artemis, and of the sacred stone that fell from the sky?6 [–> apparently a meteoritic object turned into an idol] 36 Seeing then that these things cannot be denied, you ought to be quiet and do nothing rash. 37 For you have brought these men here who are neither sacrilegious nor blasphemers of our goddess. 38 If therefore Demetrius and the craftsmen with him have a complaint against anyone, the courts are open, and there are proconsuls. Let them bring charges against one another. 39 But if you seek anything further,7 it shall be settled in the regular assembly. 40 For we really are in danger of being charged with rioting today, since there is no cause that we can give to justify this commotion.” [–> in effect he hinted of the regiment doubtless camped not too far away; cf. the Nika riots under Justinian]

41 And when he had said these things, he dismissed the assembly. [ESV]

How easily, the democratic impulse deteriorates into the raging, out of control, manipulated, riotous, destructive mob!

And if there was no excuse for rioting under a lawful oligarchy (what the C1 Roman Empire had become, after failure of the Republic through envy, selfish ambition, assassination and civil wars leading to the rise of Octavian as Augustus), how much more so, is it inexcusable in any reasonably functional modern constitutional democracy?

I give a bit of context:

U/D: context:

U/d b for clarity, nb Nil

Further U/D, Sep 5, context of the seven mountains model for mapping society/culture/ civilisation and its main pillars of influence:

Governance is visibly failing, some think the mob will be appeased (it cannot), we are at cliff’s edge, with alarming cracks.

Can’t we stop before we go over the cliff?

Please . . . ? END

F/N, Sept 4: FTR, here is a clip of the actual transcript in the context of an incident where Mr Trump is routinely and falsely said to have endorsed Neo-Nazis etc as fine people:

It is obvious that this is precisely the sort of condemnation of neo-nazis that it is suggested Mr Trump has failed to give. That such tainting misrepresentation continues to be routinely promoted speaks volumes on disregard for truth and fairness. Notice, too, how he anticipated the progression from attacking statues of confederate leaders to American founders, with the obvious extension that cancel culture has no limits.

F/N2: Anatomy of a Red Guards Brigadista hit team/swarm in action, Portland USA:

(I add, Sep 6, while the above photo is already demonstrative of a coordinated murderous ambush, there is a video analysis here, UD can only embed YT. This event likely shows that both major front groups involved in the Red Guards brigadista insurgency are joined at the hip. For instance, the shooter had a BLM fist tattoo on his neck and declared himself 100% Antifa. His later suicide by shootout likely shows commitment to not be taken alive, i.e. he had knowledge of key information he judged worth guarding at the cost of his life. Modern interrogation techniques will credibly eventually “break” anyone.)

Let’s clip:

Portland Police are seeking help to identify a possible accomplice pictured here in the Portland Patriot Prayer member shooting. Here is a picture of the moments before the shooting. Notice the shooter is beginning to move as he draws his weapon, even though he does not have a sightline to the targets yet, and his position behind that cover would seem to be far enough back he could not otherwise have known his targets were hitting that position at exactly that moment. How did he know his targets were about to enter the killzone right then, and he needed to draw and begin moving? Even more interesting, in the criminal complaint on page 17, it points out he was initially walking with a woman in a white T-shirt, coming from one direction to that corner, and both were staring down the street at the targets who were a ways away, coming from a completely different place, as if the shooter and his partner had been told over the air to go there, and the targets they were about to shoot were coming from that direction, and they were identifying them. Once they got a bead on the targets, the woman stopped at the corner and loitered as he continued on and took cover in that alcove. Taking a corner gave her sightlines up and down all streets there, which would be second nature to the trained surveillance operative. And yet not having a sightline to the shooter, how would she communicate with him?  They were linked by radio. Look up behind the targets in the picture above, and you will see a lone guy who looks like the guy they are looking for. Notice his hand is covering his mouth just as the shooter begins to move, and the shooter is not holding a walkie talkie to receive any broadcast. It looks an awful like the guy behind the targets had taken surveillance command of the targets, he was trained enough that casually covering his lower face as he whispered into his chest was second nature, and he was radioing to the shooter who had an earpiece to receive, and probably a chest mic to transmit, triggering his movement at that moment, coordinating it to the targets. Also interesting, this new character may be surveillance aware enough he turned away from the surveillance camera as he came into view of it.

It takes a lot of time, recruitment effort, ideological motivation/desensitisation to morality, tactical training by experienced experts and rehearsal to run a complex hit like this. (For sure, this is no hothead running up to someone they hate and shooting in a rage, the surveillance cam shot demonstrates an orchestrated hit of the type used by Intel agency wet work teams or sophisticated terrorists. “mostly peaceful” and “protest” are off the table.)

That has to have a significant, years-long logistics trail, with face to face and communications networking, yielding traffic patterns.

So, this one case may be a break into what is now clearly a terrorist network.

Take it as a yardstick indicating the extent and depth of what is going on, a full-orbed 4th generation war insurgency backed by years of organisation and serious logistics, with carefully laid plans and organisation.

F/N3: And yes, “NAZI” lives don’t matter:

Clear intent to slander, brand and rob of right to life. Instead, we must recognise that life is the first right, without which there are no other rights. Therefore, we start with mutual respect and go on from there.

F/N4: U-Haul a Riot, Sept 2020

Comments
John_a_designer/904
Naturalism (or materialism) cannot provide: *1. An ultimate explanation for existence. Why does anything at all exist?
The existence of this Universe may be caused but does the existence of anything have a cause? As we have noted before, if there had ever been truly nothing, there would still be nothing. By that argument, if there is "something" now, there must always have been a "something" and an eternal "something" does not need a cause.
*2. An explanation for the nature of existence. Why does the universe appear to exhibit teleology, or Design and Purpose?
Maybe appearances are misleading?
3. A sufficient foundation for truth, knowledge and meaning.
We are a sufficient foundation for truth, knowledge and meaning since they describe ways in which we relate to the world around us.
*4. A sufficient foundation for moral values and obligations.
You cannot logically derive "ought' from "is"
*5. An explanation for what Aristotle called form and what we call information. Specifically how did chemistry create the code in DNA or RNA?
Agreed, we don't yet have a naturalistic explanation for how these arose.
*6. An explanation for mind and consciousness. How dose mindless matter “create” consciousness and mind? If consciousness and mind are just an appearance how do we know that?
Agreed, we don't yet have a naturalistic account of consciousness or of how it arose
*7. An explanation our the apparently innate belief in the spiritual– a belief in God or gods, and the desire for and widespread belief in immortality and transcendence
These could have arisen out of a need for personal survival and a paternalistic protector figure to bring that about.
Of course many atheistic naturalists will dismiss numbers 6 or 7 as illusions or make up a just-so story to explain them away. But how do they know they are illusions? The truth is they really don’t know and they certainly cannot prove that they are. They just believe. How ironic to be an atheistic naturalist/ materialist you must believe a lot– well actually everything– on the basis of faith.
We all have to take a lot if things on faith. That isn't the issue. When you point out that there is an awful lot science/naturalism/materialism can't explain, you are quite right. But neither can theism. You accuse naturalistic science of being unable to explain the "how" of all these things but all you can offer as an alternative is a "who" - an intelligent designer or deity, which is not the same sort of explanation. You have no more an idea of "how' than we do.Seversky
September 30, 2020
September
09
Sep
30
30
2020
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT
__________ The Materialist Superstition Materalism's Epistemological Nightmare Materialism’s Epistemological Blunder Materialism’s Encroachment on Science Materialism’s Evident Falsity Yet Another Materialist Fiasco: No Substantial Forms Materialism's Unnoticed Achilles' Heel Truthfreedom
September 30, 2020
September
09
Sep
30
30
2020
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
John_a_designer/904
A few years ago I gave the following list of reasons as to why I DO NOT think philosophical naturalism is sufficient as a world view.
On the question of "worldviews", I tend to align myself with philosopher of science John S Wilkins as expressed at a debate with evangelical Christian students:
Worldviews. Both pro speakers made mention of the fact that "atheism/agnosticism is a worldview of naturalism". Now this is a theme that is repeated so often one might start to believe it if not for the fact that it licenses the following argument: Christianity is a worldview that rests on a set of presuppositions. Atheism and agnosticism is a worldview that rests on a set of presuppositions. One's choice of presuppositions makes one's worldview reasonable. === Ergo, Christianity is a reasonable belief (at least as rational as agnosticism/atheism) Similar arguments are put that "belief" in science is on a par with belief in Jesus or the Bible, and so this is really about duelling worldviews. That is, about which religion is correct. But there's a couple of deep flaws here. Agnosticism is the absence of knowledge about a god-claim. Atheism is the absence of a god-claim. Absences, although they may make the heart grow fonder, have no other implications. They cannot, for they are not-things, not things, and for something to have a property or implication it has to be a thing. In simpler terms, as the old saying has it, bald is not a hair colour. Not believing in some religion is not a religion. It may be that those who are either agnostic about Christianity, or atheist about it, have some other set of commitments that might qualify as a religion, but they do not need to, just in virtue of being a not-theist or a not-knower. So the choice is between believing in Christianity or not-believing in Christianity. It is not a case of commensurable religions, but a religion and no religion. This is the privative fallacy, from the old term for a lack of something. The other error is more widespread. I was in effect accused of having a worldview that precluded the existence of God, and the audience was invited to compare that with my opponents, who had one that permitted God. But the simple fact is, I don't have a worldview. In fact, neither do they. I don't think worldviews exist. They are a gross oversimplification of what is actually going on inside people's heads, and are mere abstractions. If one believes in God, one might still believe things that are inconsistent with a belief in God. Intellectual schemes are not whole cloth, and you can entertain incompatible ideas, and in fact I think you must, because nobody gets a simple set of coherent ideas handed to them at birth, free of all confounding beliefs. Christians, who have an extensive body of traditional dogma which they like to reassure themselves is true and consistent, like to think also that everybody has something like this. Religions are "rationally reconstructed" as sets of dogma by the Christian tradition (e.g., when doing anthropology by missionary) when in fact there is no dogma at all, just stories, rituals, and ways of life. The idea that one has a worldview by necessity is one that is made by analogy with a false view of themselves. The worldview tradition comes out of the propositional view of beliefs that ultimately found its best expression in Wittgenstein:
When two Principles really do meet which cannot be reconciled, then each man calls the other a fool and a heretic. On Certainty, §611
Seversky
September 30, 2020
September
09
Sep
30
30
2020
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
Materialism has failed as a worldview. It's patently obvious and it only leads to an unending chain of absurdities. The Ontological and Epistemological Superiority of Hylomorphism
"Materialism—the view that all of reality is wholly determined by the very, very small—and extreme nominalism—the view that properties, kinds, and qualities do not really exist—have been the dominant view in analytic philosophy for the last 100 years or so. Both views, however, have failed to provide adequate accounts for the possibility of intentionality and of knowledge. We must therefore look to alternatives. One well-tested alternative, the hylomorphism of Aristotle and the medieval scholastics, was rejected without being refuted and so deserves further examination. I will argue that Aristotelian hylomorphic provides a markedly superior account of knowledge, cognitive normativity, and intentionality."
Materialism, au contraire, has refuted itself. It's over. Materialism’s Failures: Hylemorphism’s Vindication. (Aristotle is back). Truthfreedom
September 30, 2020
September
09
Sep
30
30
2020
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus/890
Yes, we are all the way back to this now, if we are to undertake the needed reformation to minimise damage and set our civilisation back on a right path.
I would argue that, while we should certainly look to the past for any pertinent insights, that fact of the matter is that we are facing challenges today that are unprecedented in scale in human history, so we should also be looking for novel solutions.Seversky
September 30, 2020
September
09
Sep
30
30
2020
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
A few years ago I gave the following list of reasons as to why I DO NOT think philosophical naturalism is sufficient as a world view.
Naturalism (or materialism) cannot provide: *1. An ultimate explanation for existence. Why does anything at all exist? *2. An explanation for the nature of existence. Why does the universe appear to exhibit teleology, or Design and Purpose? *3. A sufficient foundation for truth, knowledge and meaning. *4. A sufficient foundation for moral values and obligations. *5. An explanation for what Aristotle called form and what we call information. Specifically how did chemistry create the code in DNA or RNA? *6. An explanation for mind and consciousness. How dose mindless matter “create” consciousness and mind? If consciousness and mind are just an appearance how do we know that? *7. An explanation our the apparently innate belief in the spiritual-- a belief in God or gods, and the desire for and widespread belief in immortality and transcendence. Of course many atheistic naturalists will dismiss numbers 6 or 7 as illusions or make up a just-so story to explain them away. But how do they know they are illusions? The truth is they really don’t know and they certainly cannot prove that they are. They just believe. How ironic to be an atheistic naturalist/ materialist you must believe a lot-- well actually everything-- on the basis of faith.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/no-really-bewitched-is-superior-than-brute-fact/#comment-631160 Seversky responded @ 16,
No, there are no ultimate naturalistic or materialistic explanations for any of those phenomena – not yet, at least. Does that mean there never will be? We have no way of knowing so why shouldn’t we keep working away at them to see how far we can get?
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/no-really-bewitched-is-superior-than-brute-fact/#comment-631208 To which I replied @ 19:
In other words, according to Sev even if, as a world view, naturalism or materialism completely lacks any explanatory scope or power… It could still be true, That’s what he believes, Therefore, no other worldview is warranted. That appears to be Sev’s reasoning: He believes it that settles it.
[BTW the discussion between me, Baryy and Sev carries on a little further.] In the logic text I cited earlier @ 868 Nolt et al. suggest a way that we can break the apparently logical deadlock when we are confronted with competing world views, such as naturalism and theism. Logically speaking they argue, “A [truth] claim may be true even if our evidence for it is inconclusive. In the absence of proof the rational approach is to weigh the available evidence, and, if the preponderance of evidence favors one conclusion, to adopt that conclusion tentatively. Sometimes, however, the available evidence is not sufficient to favor even a tentative conclusion. In that case, it is best to simply suspend judgement.” So what have we discovered from our atheist interlocutors over the years? Do they have any basis to make an argument that their naturalistic/ materialistic worldview is true? Not from what I have seen. Like Sev none of them have been able to muster together any “naturalistic or materialistic explanations” as to why anyone should believe that any kind of naturalistic world view is true. The preponderance of evidence in this case then favors some form of theism. So should I accept theism tentatively? Actually no because the term tentative is much too weak. The evidence for theism is very compelling. But that’s just my opinion, no doubt because I am biased.john_a_designer
September 30, 2020
September
09
Sep
30
30
2020
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus/879
Now, the firestorm is upon us as a civilisation, with the ongoing holocaust of our living posterity in the womb as exhibit A we need to ponder how justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities, how these four key terms are grounded and infused with meaning, and how the underlying moral government we cannot effectively deny is itself rooted.
Justice only obtains where the rights, freedoms and concomitant responsibilities apply to all equally. If there are some who are deprived of said rights, freedoms and responsibilities, in whole or in part, then there is no justice and those so deprived have a right and, I would argue, a duty to protest against that deprivation.Seversky
September 30, 2020
September
09
Sep
30
30
2020
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT
Seversky, as a quick initial note. Possible worlds discourse is a way to conceive of ways this or another world might be. Accordingly, a PW is a sufficiently complete, coherent description thereof. Instantiation as the or an actual world is another level, where possibility is actualised. As a result, a possible being or entity is thus something that does or would exist in a relevant instantiated world. This is why framework entities required for any world to be are of particular note. It is in that context that we can look at candidacy and apply reasonable filters to identify serious candidates. For example, a square circle is impossible of being in any world. A flying spaghetti monster is a composite, caused, assembled entity so cannot be more than contingent. A unicorn is possible and in my opinion will be on the pets market within 100 years. A winged, flying horse does not seem to be dynamically possible as a physical, biological being but might be in another sort of world. And so forth. As this world contains responsible, rationally free morally governed creatures, it constrains candidates to be the necessary being world root. And more. All of this connects to the nature of law and society, to rights and justice and much more so is highly relevant to observing the onward disintegration of the American experiment. KF PS: Necessary being is not an arbitrary stipulation. Once a candidate has good reason to be taken as framework to worlds being actualised, then the big point is that such might fail due to hidden contradiction. If possible then coherent and indeed part of the framework of one possible world. Where part of that is causal independence so coeval with the roots of reality. Thence, framework to any world with capital example being core elements, quantities, relationships and structures of Mathematics. This is the answer to the Wigner puzzle on efficacy of Mathematics. Notice, twoness never began nor can it cease, it is integral to the framework of any world and comes out in the transworld relevance of mathematics and the core principle of logic, distinct identity. Non contradiction and excluded middle are "mere" corollaries. This example was given for a reason to help develop understanding.kairosfocus
September 30, 2020
September
09
Sep
30
30
2020
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
John_a_designer/868
My argument as to why atheism is logically fallacious is really very basic and straight forward. It appears to me that most of our naturalist/materialist interlocutors seem to think that their world view (WV) somehow wins by default. But does it really? When have any of them ever been able to prove their WV to be true? (If any of them have, I apparently missed it.) It appears to me that the only argument that they have is a fallacious argument from ignorance: No one has ever proved that God exists, therefore, God does not exist. However, the argument from ignorance is a two edged sword which cuts both ways.
That is a misrepresentation of the atheist/agnostic position. What they argue is that theists are claiming that a god exists so, if they want others to be persuaded the claim has merits, it is for them to provide evidence and arguments to support it. Theists have been unable to provide arguments and evidence sufficient to compel belief in their god so atheists/agnostics find the claim to be unproven and that is where the matter rests. Theists have been unable to meet their burden of proof we withhold belief, which we believe to be the most rational position.Seversky
September 30, 2020
September
09
Sep
30
30
2020
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus/866
In which context, God is patently a serious candidate NB, which entails, either impossible as a square circle is impossible of being (mutually inconsistent core characteristics) or else present in at least one possible world.
Why couldn't God be only a possible being in all possible worlds? Lord Sauron or Gandalf might exist only as fictional characters in all possible worlds. There is no reason to think they must be actual in one or more of all possible worlds. The same may be true of God.
Once possible, actual.
Not necessarily.Seversky
September 30, 2020
September
09
Sep
30
30
2020
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus/859
.. .we have to account for the first duties of reason and the existence of a world in which there are responsible, rational, morally governed creatures.
We start from what we find in our immediate vicinity and work outwards. We find ourselves as ordered beings in an ordered world. We want to continue to exist, since for most, that is better than not existing. Our chances of survival are improved if we have an understanding of how that world works as we will be able to identify threats and predict how to avoid them. Developing languages we can use to model and explain the causal relationships of the objective world led us to logic. Reason is a powerful tool for survival. That is ultimately why we have it.
Where, over three years we have sufficiently hammered out that the world cannot reasonably have traversed a transfinite past succession of cumulative, causally-temporally successive stages to reach to now. (That would be atheists end up implying such a bizarre claim as a past-infinite causal-temporal succession of cumulative stages [let’s call them years for convenience] is already a red flashing light.)
We have also agreed that if there had ever been absolutely nothing, there would still be absolutely nothing. Since there is something, there must always have been something . At this time we have no knowledge of what that might have been. If you want to postulate it to be a god, I cannot deny the possibility but neither do I believe it.
This plausibly requires a finitely remote being of a different order from the familiar, composite, contingent entities, a necessary being world root.
That depends on what you mean by "world root". If something has always existed then there is no requirement for an explanation of how it began. This universe, however, seems to begun at some point and that does require an explanation but that need not be the necessary being you posit.
This brings us full circle to the implications of the widespread breakdown of reasoning and recognition of first duties of reason that has led our civilisation to our present peril.
I see the current civil unrest as being rooted in a significant part of the US population who believe that their interests are largely being ignored by the powers-that-be and that those powers are now in the hands of a man who is showing alarming signs of playing only about his base. As evidence, I refer you to the recent debate in which he refused to condemn right-wing extremist groups saying,
Who would you like me to condemn? The Proud Boys? Stand back and stand by. But I’ll tell you what, I’ll tell you what. Somebody’s gotta do something about antifa and the left, because this is not a right-wing problem, this is a left-wing problem
I think this man would trigger a civil war if he believed it would get him re-elected or continue his hold on power.Seversky
September 30, 2020
September
09
Sep
30
30
2020
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
KF, I read through your posts, and I'm realizing I don't have much to say except "ok". I might even say similar things if I were arguing for your position. This sentence puts things into focus for me:
I think it is noticeable that you have not been able to propose an alternative _____ and warrant _____ .
That's correct. I not engaging in comprehensive "system building" here. That's way above my pay grade. I am quite interested in specific issues, the existence of abstract entities in particular. Currently some topics around logic are on my reading list: Automatic Theorem Proving, Lambda Calculi, Type Theory etc. Not that I'll ever know a great deal about them, but they are fun to play around with. I'm not going to be rolling out an extensive worldview for comment; my aims are much more modest.daveS
September 30, 2020
September
09
Sep
30
30
2020
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
895 Kairosfocus
a serious candidate (not a flying spaghetti monster . . . composite),
At least it sounds tasty :) (although profoundly irrational). Truthfreedom
September 30, 2020
September
09
Sep
30
30
2020
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT
TF,
Then don’t get angry when I (and others) point out that you’re not offering a coherent worldview. Not to be disrespectful.
That's fine, I'm not angry. I just am not that interested in materialism/idealism/hylemorphism.daveS
September 30, 2020
September
09
Sep
30
30
2020
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
DS, First, all views are partly subjective for we are subjects. The issue is balance of the case on merits. That is where objectivity enters. I have long since noted on possible worlds speak, that we can classify candidate entities: some things like square circles are impossible of being as proposed core characteristics are mutually incompatible. Other entities are possible, i.e. were this or some possible world in a certain state, they would exist. Of such, many beings are contingent, i.e. there are also worlds that would not have them, e.g. a fire. Contingent beings are subject to enabling causal factors and require a sufficient set to be or to remain in being, this including all necessary factors. For instance consider the fire tetrahedron and how we fight a fire. If something begins or ceases or may cease, it is contingent. If in two closely neighbouring possible worlds such that W + dW = W', where some c is in W' but not W, dW is causally connected to c. Other entities, such as twoness, are in every possible world; easiest understood as being framework for a world to exist. Such are the necessary beings. A candidate necessary being is possible or impossible. If impossible, in no world. If possible in at least one world. However, if a serious candidate (not a flying spaghetti monster . . . composite), then if possible, in at least one world but also having characteristic of being framework for worlds to exist so in every world. Notice, this points to features of such a being, there must be reasonably good cases for such to have world framework character. Now, above, we have noted that this world has morally governed, rational creatures us. Indeed, absent the freedom that is basis for moral government we cannot be rational. Hence, all claimed arguments would fail, a self-referential absurdity. We have excellent reason to see ourselves as rational, responsible, governed by first duties of reason. The objector, to try to persuade has to appeal to the same duties. Inescapably, self-evidently true. This surfaces challenges, particularly the is-ought gap. Anywhere after the root of reality and the guillotine applies, ungrounded ought. Where we cannot ground ought in is unless the world root entity is an adequate ground. That is, we see inherently good and utterly wise with power to create. Neceesary, as an infinite past implies traversal of transfinitely many finite stage causal temporal to now. That breaks down. retro-, circular cause is a world from the not yet, and were there ever utter non-being such would forever obtain. If a world was, something of transcendent, necessary order always was, hence reality root. And we just saw, adequate to ground moral government. Such is a God-shaped bill of requisites. I think it is noticeable that you have not been able to propose an alternative _____ and warrant _____ . As a corollary, to deny or dismiss the existence of God is to imply belief that he is impossible of being. Post Plantinga, the key argument purporting to so justify has collapsed. All of this is foundational to sound law and sound ethics and government. KF KFkairosfocus
September 30, 2020
September
09
Sep
30
30
2020
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
874 DaveS
I said above that I don’t know enough about the issue to choose a position. If I devoted a lot of time to studying it, I might end up in one of those categories, but I have other interests.
Then don't get angry when I (and others) point out that you're not offering a coherent worldview. Not to be disrespectful. :)Truthfreedom
September 30, 2020
September
09
Sep
30
30
2020
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
JAD, It is true that my curiosity regarding the existence of god is waning with age, so I'm not that enthusiastic about all aspects of this debate. I am interested in a few things, such as Plantinga's modal ontological argument, necessary beings, abstract entities. I'd like to be clearer on such things, although I doubt a conversion is in my future. And yes, I'm not making an argument here at all. Rather, I'm responding to statements such as these by KF:
Nor are such things outside of familiar everyday experience, e.g. twoness.
In context, the pretence or suggestion that in our civilisation God is a novel, strange concept is absurd.
Well, I find the Christian God quite "strange". That is, completely unlike anything in my experience, literally incomprehensible in fact. Twoness is trivial in comparison. KF is sharing his (partly subjective) views on the nature of necessary beings, and I'm responding with some of my own subjective views. I'm aware that my subjective views don't prove anything. The goal is to get to objective truths. But this process is not a simple matter of deductive reasoning. One person proposes something, and another person's reaction could be "That's outrageous! How can you believe such a thing?" (and then attempt to isolate the point of disagreement), or, "Yes, that's reasonable, let's stipulate that and go from there". KF, I'll respond a bit later when I have more time.daveS
September 30, 2020
September
09
Sep
30
30
2020
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
Kf, Incurious Dave’s “argument” is nothing more than a subjective appeal to personal incredulity. Something that Richard Dawkins has described as a logical fallacy. I would agree that it is under certain circumstances… Frankly, Dave is going to believe what he believes because he believes it. That’s fideism or epistemological subjectivism. What Dave personally believes or disbelieves proves nothing.john_a_designer
September 30, 2020
September
09
Sep
30
30
2020
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
F/N2: Now, let us turn to the great synthesis of the heritage of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome that shaped our civilisation. To do so, we can note the languages of the inscriptions above jesus' head as he hung on a Roman cross outside the capital of Israel, as a victim of judicial murder by machination of both Jewish and Gentile power elites. However, the focal point is twenty years later when a tent-making Jewish Rabbi and Roman Citizen by birthright, from a Greek University Town, spoke with the Athenian Elites, the Areopagus Council:
Acts 17: 18 Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, “What does this babbler wish to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities”—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. 19 And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20 For you bring some strange things to our ears. We wish to know therefore what these things mean.” 21 Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new. Paul Addresses the Areopagus 22 So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,3 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for “‘In him we live and move and have our being’;4 as even some of your own poets have said, “‘For we are indeed his offspring.’5 29 Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. 30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” 32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, “We will hear you again about this.” 33 So Paul went out from their midst. 34 But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.
With his opening words he shattered the facade of knowledge, by pointing to how they had had to build and maintain a monument to their ignorance on the pivot of knowledge, the root of reality. he proceeded to give them a better vision of our state as creatures then noting that we are God's offspring, he pointed to the end of the day of ignorance. Of course, they were too wedded to crooked yardsticks to wait to learn that there were 500 witnesses to the resurrection of the judicially murdered messiah, including the man in front of them. they laughed him out of court. But that day was kairos, and the future belonged to the gospel preached by the apostle, not to the philosophers, cynical pols and superstitious common, ill-educated people. A lesson we need to heed again in our day. KFkairosfocus
September 30, 2020
September
09
Sep
30
30
2020
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
F/N: Plato in The laws Bk X, on the Soul:
Ath. I fear that the argument may seem singular. Cle. Do not hesitate, Stranger; I see that you are afraid of such a discussion carrying you beyond the limits of legislation. But if there be no other way of showing our agreement in the belief that there are Gods, of whom the law is said now to approve, let us take this way, my good sir. Ath. Then I suppose that I must repeat the singular argument of those who manufacture the soul according to their own impious notions; they affirm that which is the first cause of the generation and destruction of all things, to be not first, but last, and that which is last to be first, and hence they have fallen into error about the true nature of the Gods. Cle. Still I do not understand you. Ath. Nearly all of them, my friends, seem to be ignorant of the nature and power of the soul [[ = psuche], especially in what relates to her origin: they do not know that she is among the first of things, and before all bodies, and is the chief author of their changes and transpositions. And if this is true, and if the soul is older than the body, must not the things which are of the soul's kindred be of necessity prior to those which appertain to the body? Cle. Certainly. Ath. Then thought and attention and mind and art and law will be prior to that which is hard and soft and heavy and light; and the great and primitive works and actions will be works of art; they will be the first, and after them will come nature and works of nature, which however is a wrong term for men to apply to them; these will follow, and will be under the government of art and mind. Cle. But why is the word "nature" wrong? Ath. Because those who use the term mean to say that nature is the first creative power; but if the soul turn out to be the primeval element, and not fire or air, then in the truest sense and beyond other things the soul may be said to exist by nature; and this would be true if you proved that the soul is older than the body, but not otherwise. [[ . . . .] Ath. . . . when one thing changes another, and that another, of such will there be any primary changing element? How can a thing which is moved by another ever be the beginning of change? Impossible. But when the self-moved changes other, and that again other, and thus thousands upon tens of thousands of bodies are set in motion, must not the beginning of all this motion be the change of the self-moving principle? . . . . self-motion being the origin of all motions, and the first which arises among things at rest as well as among things in motion, is the eldest and mightiest principle of change, and that which is changed by another and yet moves other is second. [[ . . . .] Ath. If we were to see this power existing in any earthy, watery, or fiery substance, simple or compound-how should we describe it? Cle. You mean to ask whether we should call such a self-moving power life? Ath. I do. Cle. Certainly we should. Ath. And when we see soul in anything, must we not do the same-must we not admit that this is life? [[ . . . . ] Cle. You mean to say that the essence which is defined as the self-moved is the same with that which has the name soul? Ath. Yes; and if this is true, do we still maintain that there is anything wanting in the proof that the soul is the first origin and moving power of all that is, or has become, or will be, and their contraries, when she has been clearly shown to be the source of change and motion in all things? Cle. Certainly not; the soul as being the source of motion, has been most satisfactorily shown to be the oldest of all things. Ath. And is not that motion which is produced in another, by reason of another, but never has any self-moving power at all, being in truth the change of an inanimate body, to be reckoned second, or by any lower number which you may prefer? Cle. Exactly. Ath. Then we are right, and speak the most perfect and absolute truth, when we say that the soul is prior to the body, and that the body is second and comes afterwards, and is born to obey the soul, which is the ruler? [[ . . . . ] Ath. If, my friend, we say that the whole path and movement of heaven, and of all that is therein, is by nature akin to the movement and revolution and calculation of mind, and proceeds by kindred laws, then, as is plain, we must say that the best soul takes care of the world and guides it along the good path. [[Plato here explicitly sets up an inference to design (by a good soul) from the intelligible order of the cosmos.]
Yes, we are all the way back to this now, if we are to undertake the needed reformation to minimise damage and set our civilisation back on a right path. KFkairosfocus
September 30, 2020
September
09
Sep
30
30
2020
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
DS, I think overnight, that we are close to core issues and dynamics that are driving the agendas, debates and civilisational disintegration through march of folly. And yes, I know that for years I must have seemed out on a limb, alarmist. The problem is, you got your south wind and sailed for what you thought was a better harbour. Only, to find yourselves in the iron grips of a noreaster, damaged ship, and heading for the sandbars on line of current drift. Yes, the storm is now here and the issue is how much damage, or are we looking at outright ruin. Okay, coming back. You clearly see twoness as indeed pivotal, given connexions to framework of reality including the principle of identity and logic of structure and quantity. What is your built-in, encultured reaction? That such things are causally inert. Do you not see that the pivotal principles tied to twoness show that logic of being is itself a factor that constrains reality across possible worlds without being a physical, dynamical-stochastic process? Thus, that our typical concept of physical cause does not exhaust constraint and influence? Do you not see, that we have in hand an order of being coeval with reality that frames in key part whatever may be possible in ANY feasible world? (Is that not an extraordinarily powerful insight? One, that should be celebrated and even central to education? Why isn't it?) Further, do you not see the power of another order of being in action? To wit, rational, responsible, significantly free mind morally governed by first duties: to truth, to right reason (hence the twoness pivot), to prudence (so, warrant), to sound conscience etc? Indeed, do you not see that such mind cannot be reduced to a computational substrate, its organisation, software and signals/ information? For, surely, a GIGO-driven computational substrate is a dynamic-stochastic physically causal entity that is precisely not rationally and responsibly free? Isn't that what programming, architecture and debugging etc (including for analogue, differential equation machines, neural nets etc) are about? Do you not see that in addition to observing that the cell has a SETI signal, alphanumeric, coded [so linguistic!], algorithmic [so, goal-directed] string data structure components, we are observing ourselves as reflecting self-moved significantly free being following moral rather than physical government? Do we not here see what Plato recognised in The Laws, Bk X, as the soul, the self-moved entity that marks certain entities as distinct from something like leibniz's mill grinding away based on dynamic-stochastic processes? Do you not feel the ghost of newton-ist mechanics-ism lifting? ( Poor Isaac, he warned differently in his General Scholium.) The mind, indeed the soul of which mind is a facet and holographic microcosm is back. We are freed, exorcised so that we can think straight. If we ourselves show that we transcend what cybernetic lops with computational substrates alone can explain, are we not then open to the Derek Smith model in which there is a two-tier controller in the cybernetic loop? With, shared facilities and interfaces, with information, perception, insight and direction etc shared across the interface? Do we not see that there is some relevance to the view that the soul is the form of the body, with our souls being rational, responsible, free, morally governed and capable of analysis, synthesis and intuitive insight,originality/inventiveness, creativity and more? Thus, that even to do science, math or phil, we are habitually resorting to an order of being that is radically distinct from what a simple, dynamic-stochastic computational substrate in a cybernetic loop can account for? Have we been guilty of failing the second occam test, that there is what is impossibly simplistic. Surely, we know now that invisible, abstract things like twoness can and do help frame and shape reality. Likewise, we are exerting powers of thought, of reason governed by duty that show that the invisible realm is broader than entities like twoness. For, we are self-moved, enconscienced, conscious, minded, indeed ensouled creatures. Creatures, with a SETI signal in every cell of our body. Creatures in a cosmos that is fine tuned to an operating point that sets up c-chem, aqueous medium, terrestrial planet in habitable zone creatures such as we are. A strangely intelligible world that invites intellectual exploration and often rewards it with success. A world, then, with striking affinity for minds. A clue. Especially given inescapable moral government through the freedom required for mind, we know that we need a reality root capable of grounding such. That is, we should expect to find the inherently good, utterly wise and awesomely powerful of necessary-being, worlds-framing character. Mind, and so too soul, capable of creating a world with rational creatures reflecting that image. We see a God-shaped bill of requisites for the root of reality. So, should we be surprised that God is a serious candidate necessary being reality root? Where the iron force of logic of being then tells us, either impossible of being (just as a square circle can never be) or . . . else . . . ACTUAL. There is your challenge, the pivot of our civilisation's troubles. For, to turn our backs on the root of reality who has made us governed by first duties of reason, is to gradually debase mind, benumb conscience, en-darken what we imagine is knowledge and enlightenment, twisting what we think is progress into a mutineer's voyage on a ship of state that thought it was getting along just fine. Until the storm struck. And now, we must find a sea-anchor and a way to shift the line of drift towards some new Melita, some new haven. Q's-fans are right, the storm is now here. (But, they don't have a clue as to it's full import.) KFkairosfocus
September 30, 2020
September
09
Sep
30
30
2020
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PDT
JaD, warrant is broader than proof and one often has good warrant that is not and cannot be proof to arbitrarily high standards. Most of our knowledge is like that. KFkairosfocus
September 30, 2020
September
09
Sep
30
30
2020
12:32 AM
12
12
32
AM
PDT
Generally speaking, theists do not claim that we can prove the existence of God. And IDists, at least if they are consistent to the original concept of ID, do not claim they can scientifically identify who or what the designer or designers is or are. They only claim that natural causes as we presently understand them are insufficient to explain the origin and evolution of life. The burden of proof then falls on the naturalist since he is the one claiming the origin and evolution of life MUST be natural. However, if he concedes that he has no proof then his beliefs are purely a matter of faith. Ironically, as I have discussed elsewhere the naturalist’s faith is virtually identical to the biblical definition of faith.
In 2013, on another site, I had this brief exchange on-line with someone who identified himself as David P. He asked me if I would consider a world view that actively disagreed with my current theistic Christian world view. Since David had already identified his own world view as naturalism, I told him that if he could prove to me “that naturalism was true, I would.” He replied, “If that is your condition, you are essentially saying “no”, because naturalism cannot be proven.” I responded by asking him, “So, on what basis are you warranted in believing in it?” That question prompted the following dialogue: David wrote: “Believing that naturalism cannot be proven? Because we can only perceive a tiny part of the entire system. We may one day be able to formulate naturalistic theories that explain beautifully all that we perceive, but we cannot prove that that is all there is.” I asked: “So then, you accept naturalism by faith… Correct?” David replied: “I accept naturalism as a working assumption because of the evidence that it helps drive us to understand reality in a way that allows us to make increasingly better predictions. Also, the evidence that so many phenomena attributed to supernatural causes have turned out to have natural causes.” Notice how David, in addition to blurring the distinction between science and philosophy, smuggled faith into his world view without calling it that. What I mean is that he is actually acting on the biblical definition of faith and he doesn’t even realize it. Let me prove it to you… Hebrews 11:3 says: “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” Someone committed, like David, to naturalism is actually just modifying the verse so that it reads: “By faith we understand that the universe was formed [by some kind of mindless natural process], so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.”
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-is-seeing-the-glaringly-obvious-so-hard/#comment-688191 According to the dictionary, faith is belief without proof. Some atheists, however, have tried to redefine faith by arguing that it is belief without evidence. But that is simply not true. If we honestly and objectively compare the two world views, theism vs. atheistic naturalism, I would argue that theism has a lot more evidence in support of it. For example, the existence of hydrogen is a big piece of evidence. If hydrogen wasn’t designed with the properties it has the physical universe and life including advanced intelligent life would have never existed.john_a_designer
September 29, 2020
September
09
Sep
29
29
2020
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT
KF, I have to admit, regardless of what you say, the notion of a being that exists outside of time and is capable of creating a universe ~90 billion light years in diameter is hard to wrap my head around.daveS
September 29, 2020
September
09
Sep
29
29
2020
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
DS, you have obviously locked out what you seem unwilling to acknowledge. Twoness is as you know an example that shows that such things are real and are in fact framework to reality. In context, our observed universe credibly had a beginning, so is contingent and caused. We are therefore looking for what has ability to cause a cosmos and to cause one that has in it morally governed, responsibly free creatures. In context, the pretence or suggestion that in our civilisation God is a novel, strange concept is absurd. KFkairosfocus
September 29, 2020
September
09
Sep
29
29
2020
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
KF,
That such ideas may seem unfamiliar or alien reflects gaps in our formal and informal education, not their irrelevance. Nor are such things outside of familiar everyday experience, e.g. twoness.
Twoness is a far cry from the creator of the universe. The only potentially necessary beings I am aware of are abstract and hence causally inert.daveS
September 29, 2020
September
09
Sep
29
29
2020
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
881 Kairosfocus
That such ideas may seem unfamiliar or alien reflects gaps in our formal and informal education, not their irrelevance.
True! The West has been blinded by scientism. Westerners are children so enamoured of their toys that they (we) have lost perspective of reality. A pity indeed.Truthfreedom
September 29, 2020
September
09
Sep
29
29
2020
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
878 Kairosfocus
As I noted, post Plantinga that has been clearly defeated.
Atheists don't like good Alvin. :)Truthfreedom
September 29, 2020
September
09
Sep
29
29
2020
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
DS, as noted, up to about 50 years ago, atheists and fellow travellers routinely trotted out the problem of evil as disproof of the reality of God. In fact, that argument was often viewed as the atheist generator. It failed, and that goes to balance on merits. In that context it is significant that no serious successor is on the table. Indeed, it lends inadvertent force to my comment regarding God as the only serious candidate to fill the bill of requisites for reality root for a world with rational, responsible, significantly free, morally governed creatures. If you have one, kindly propose ____ and warrant ____ . Likewise, while we are not conceptually familiar with necessary vs contingent being, in fact twoness is exceedingly familiar and central to even logic (distinct identity) and mathematics. We cannot conceive of a world where it does not exist as framework to reality or where it began or could ever cease from being. So, we are readily familiar with beings that are eternal and independent of enabling causal factors. That tells us significant points about eternal being and its centrality to reality. That such ideas may seem unfamiliar or alien reflects gaps in our formal and informal education, not their irrelevance. Nor are such things outside of familiar everyday experience, e.g. twoness. For that matter the concept that God is immortal and eternal is not exactly unheard of, though perhaps the connexions to independence of being and necessary being are less likely to be drawn out. Similarly, we need to recognise that responsible, rational, morally governed freedom and so the challenges of law, justice and good community order are connected to serious issues on the root of reality. Where as fair comment breakdown of buttresses of liberty is directly connected. KFkairosfocus
September 29, 2020
September
09
Sep
29
29
2020
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
KF, See? It's very easy to propose things. It's much harder to argue that such and such a thing is impossible. Especially something so far outside our everyday experience (a mysterious all-knowing, perfectly just, sentient, and necessary being).daveS
September 29, 2020
September
09
Sep
29
29
2020
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 32

Leave a Reply