academic freedom Intelligent Design Science

Scientific Dissent Can Never Be Securities Fraud

Spread the love

Over at the Progressive Fascist post, progressives wd400, FierceRoller, rhampton7, and Seversky have emerged as apologists for the attorneys general’s fascist efforts to quash dissent from climate alarmism.  What if the climate research really did amount to securities fraud they ask?

I have litigated securities fraud cases for over 25 years.  I know what it takes to make a securities fraud case, and I can tell you that the fascist apologists’ question is like asking, “What if that circle really were square?”  There is a legal standard for what constitutes securities fraud, and the scientific research in question (whether it was disclosed or not) can never meet that standard.  Steve Simpson does a good job of explaining this principle here.

UPDATE:

KF brings this article to my attention.  It is also an excellent resource for rebutting the fascists and their apologists.

35 Replies to “Scientific Dissent Can Never Be Securities Fraud

  1. 1
  2. 2
    Barry Arrington says:

    Where are all of our apologists for fascism? Here’s your chance to defend the brown shirt tactics again.

  3. 3
    rhampton7 says:

    I agree that dissent can never be securities fraud. However, withholding imformation from investors such as the financial risks and operational costs due to climate change (when the corporation itself uses such information internally) can be grounds to investigate securities fraud. Do you disagree?

  4. 4
    Barry Arrington says:

    RH7. You obviously did not read either of the linked articles. Typical progressive. Grit your teeth and stick to the narrative.

    If you still have the same question after reading the articles, let me know. If you are not going to exert the slightest effort to understand the issues, then you are guilty of willful ignorance. I can’t fix willful ignorance. BTW, the short answer is your question is meaningless, because it is based on multiple fundamentally flawed premises. If you had read the articles you would know that.

  5. 5
    rhampton7 says:

    BA,

    I did read the linked articles, and the LA Times article that discusses how Exxon used it climate change research to adjust the costs and reassess risks in its operations. I’ve also read some critical editorials, and other articles prior to 2015. Most of what is out there is clearly partisan, either for or against Exxon, but there is a legitimate question if Exxon used its climate research data internally but withheld it from investors.

  6. 6
    rhampton7 says:

    Oh, and I’m not a progressive. That you assume I am is revealing.

  7. 7
    FierceRoller says:

    So for pointing out that the proposed platform does not say what you say it does, I am a “fascist apologist” defending “brown shirt tactics”?
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/fierceroller/?p=1735

  8. 8
    kairosfocus says:

    Further to the State AG moves against climate skeptics: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion.....inues.html

  9. 9
    Barry Arrington says:

    RH7
    “but there is a legitimate question if Exxon used its climate research data internally but withheld it from investors.”

    There is no legitimate question about whether securities fraud occurred. It is not possible. But keep gritting those teeth. The narrative must be maintained.

  10. 10
    bill cole says:

    This whole discussion is beyond ridiculous. Who has evidence that man made global warming is real, Since warming is in a natural cycle you have to separate the signal from the noise from a natural cycle. What is it, 1 degree off warming over 100 years. So Exxon withheld man made global warming evidence that does not exist anywhere else and better yet this amounts to securities fraud.

  11. 11
    rvb8 says:

    Of course there is another less partisan approach to this question, ‘whether or not global warming is man made, or not?’ That approach is from the perspective of health. I’m sure Barry and others here would like to breath clean air. Now if we could wean ourselves off oil, develop non-polluting systems for the generation of power, and make these systems freely available, then that would be a boon for man kind, and God might smile. Also, anything that takes the slightest amount of power away from the Middle East, and its absurd leadership would be great! Yes or No?

    I may not trust government, but my trust in coorporations is zero; VW’s disgusting programme to bypass US pollution regulations is just one more in an excruciatingly long line of lies told for profit: Govrernment is bad, but greed is ruinous, animal, and entirely human.

  12. 12
    kairosfocus says:

    RVB8,

    it is always desirable to have everything we want.

    However, the issue of the economic choice then intrudes, some goods and services can only be obtained by giving up others. So the question is how societies, governments, families and firms determine to allocate across scarcities and opportunity costs, short and long term.

    In this context, work in the economic sense is tied to required energy-based services and associated technologies. For, physical work is forced, ordered (or organised — the step where design, intelligence and economic activities come in . . . ) motion. Where, the most concentrated and relatively cheap and convenient sources are based on fossil fuels.

    In short, it is hard to beat a tank of gasoline or diesel.

    Very hard.

    At larger scale, grid based electricity is a dominant technology, though in may cases it can be argued that where thermal loads are material, cogeneration and using heat as heat gets us beyond the Carnot type limits on converting heat to mechanical motion.

    Key cost-efficient technologies are coal, large hydro and nukes where there is not an arbitrary and capricious regulatory climate (France vs the US). For peaking loads, gas turbines offer significant advantages. In small island states, slow speed diesel is often a reasonable match to the various factors.

    Society has generally therefore been willing to trade some pollution for productivity and prosperity.

    As a rule, as people become more prosperous, values begin to shift back, and there is concern over pollution leading to regulation and now the question of renewables.

    Concentrated energy carriers are required for transport, and so far fossil fuels win out. Biofuels are a possibility (and if algae furls can be made to work on the large scale that could be a breakthrough), but these are pioneering still. Electricity simply displaces the energy source challenge to the generation sector and raises the issue of the dirty technologies behind batteries and electronics.

    Wind, solar, waves, etc raise questions of intermittency, storage and grid stability (think about why fossil fuels displaced wind for navigation). Geothermal exploration is high risk still.

    And more.

    So, the issue of economic trade-offs and how societies allocate surfaces.

    On this, the issue is a computer architecture one, for economic, specific market information is inherently dispersed, often hard to capture in economic models (think tastes, preferences, specific know how etc) and often perishable. No centralised processor can adequately handle the problem at relevant real scale, never mind the false impression conveyed by algebraic etc models. Instead, the markets in a network do a much better job on the whole by coupling families and firms. Where governments come in is by maintaining the civil peace of justice and providing certain goods and services that societies find it better on the whole to do that way.

    That was the lesson taught by the collapse of centrally planned economies 25 years ago. Which are case study no 1 on the dangers of overly controlling centralised governments.

    When therefore you say: “I may not trust government, but my trust in coorporations is zero” you are not making a responsible, balanced, informed statement. There are reasonable laws and there is a reasonable level of regulation but ANY concentration of power — especially in a government, due to its scale — is inherently dangerous.

    This is where the issue of fascism, socialism and communism, also the unaccountable bureaucratic state, comes in. Also, political messianism.

    In the overall context, the question is whether racketeering or securities law is being exploited by agenda driven radicals to impose censorship by the back door.

    Evidence points to conspiracies of watermelon environmentalists (green outside but red inside) and big government officials to play at lawfare.

    Lawfare, FYI, is an act of 4th generation war — the state and its courts bear the sword ostensibly in defence of the civil peace of justice but this can be usurped — and beyond a threshold becomes causus belli for revolutions when people lose confidence in the state. For the moment the ballot box remains a means of peaceful revolution and it seems that Brexit was a vote against unaccountable over-reaching bureaucracies and courts. If the agendas push to the point where the ballot box is no longer trusted, it will lead to large scale uprisings by forceful means. That is a grim lesson of history.

    Likewise, there are serious questions regarding climate dynamics and the state of scientific knowledge currently much less 30 – 40 years past. For instance, sea level rise issues are by no means settled, the structure of warming in the atmosphere as projected by models vs what satellite observations showed, and the apparent pause in temperature trend since the 90’s etc etc raise questions as to what we actually do credibly know. Where also, no simulation is equivalent to reality. Likewise, there are serious questions about monitoring networks, calibration, processing of observational data and proxies. Then there is the question of water in the atmosphere and feedback mechanisms, etc. And more.

    Beyond, neither the remote past nor the future can be observed by science, so claims about reality and resistance to reality for nefarious reasons are ideological rather than properly scientific assertions.

    Where, a basic fact is: climate is a moving average of weather, it is inherently not static. The debates properly are on trends, to what extent our economic behaviour influences and may influence such, and what is responsible given the balance of consequences of, e.g. triggering major recessions and/or stagnation through energy starvation of economies as a potentially severe cost with the onward issue that such can trigger wars.

    The responsible, reasonable balance has not been struck as yet, and foreclosing free discussion is not going to help.

    The ongoing attempts to resort to lawfare to close science and impose an agenda are therefore not healthy signs.

    We need to pause and think again on a major problematique, recognising that here, we are tickling a dragon’s tail and if he wakes up in a foul mood he may blaze back on us.

    I hope this outline sketch can help us come to a more balanced focus.

    KF

  13. 13
    Andre says:

    Did anybody else also pickup RVB8’s religious response? Staggering……

  14. 14
    rvb8 says:

    I have a ‘religious’ response to many things Andre, as I know that religion has been a great benefit in our evolution as a species. My KJ Bible is never far from my desk and I read it often. So, if in my writing if you detect religious overtures, that is because they are there. However, I refuse the obvious nonsense in said book, and only accept the good and humane teachings; of which there are many.
    In the first five books of the Bible, Moses refers to himself as the most ‘humble’ servant of God. Now, isn’t it odd that the author, referring to himself, in the third person, should say of himself that he is the most ‘humble’ of God’s servants. I like the tale, but know it to be a tale. He then of course proceeds on to mass exterminations and enslavements of the most ‘unhumble’ kind.
    So, in conclusion, yes!, I use religious language because that is how we ‘evolved’ to communicate.

  15. 15
    Mung says:

    So, in conclusion, yes!, I use religious language because that is how we ‘evolved’ to communicate.

    Physical law and chance just happened to cause us to evolve to use religious language in order to communicate.

    How miraculous is that?

  16. 16
    rvb8 says:

    No, the ‘miraculous’ is not necessary! Just the joining together of a social ape into large groups, where a common belief (God), can be used to mould their social behaviour, to the reproductive success of all members of that group.
    Of course now that science has confirmed this view it is time to let God go, and keep the literature and history. This may be impossible, as the religious impulse has shaped our brains over hundreds of thousands of years; but some have been able to ditch God.

  17. 17

    rvb8 says:

    Of course now that science has confirmed this view it is time to let God go and keep the literature and history.

    as if humans somehow have (or should have) the capacity to override the chemistry and physics which produces whatever kinds of thoughts evolution happens to develop, and as if humans “ought” do one thing or another when it’s all a matter of happenstance chemistry and physics.

    You can’t correct such madness, you can only watch and shake your hed as the patients wander about repeating the same irrational nonsense over and over.

  18. 18
    Seversky says:

    William J Murray @ 17

    … as if humans somehow have (or should have) the capacity to override the chemistry and physics which produces whatever kinds of thoughts evolution happens to develop, and as if humans “ought” do one thing or another when it’s all a matter of happenstance chemistry and physics.

    You can’t correct such madness, you can only watch and shake your hed as the patients wander about repeating the same irrational nonsense over and over.

    And it’s irrational nonsense to deny that much of who and what you are was determined by past events of which you were unaware and over which you had no control. What you inherited from your parent’s genes and the formative influences of childhood and adolescence means you, like everyone else, are a product of history. You can’t change that so the question becomes, to what extent can you be said to have free will.

    If we set aside transgender and bisexuals, most people had and have no choice over their sexual orientation. They don’t sit down in early adolescence and wonder “Hmmm, should I be straight or should I be gay? I think maybe I’ll be straight. Okay, that was easy.” I strongly doubt that anyone here who is straight could just choose to be gay by an effort of will. They couldn’t make themselves find members of the same sex attractive so just how much free will is there in that case?

    If someone really likes vanilla ice-cream then, given free choice of all the different flavors, they will choose that most, if not all, of the time. If challenged about free will they might choose chocolate to prove a point but afterwards they will revert to vanilla. Choosing vanilla most of the time doesn’t look like a free choice. It looks like that choice is being determined by something other than free will.

    The point is that, unless we make all our decisions by tossing a coin, they are made for reasons. Those reasons are based on past influences and considerations so, again, the question is, to what extent do we have free will?

  19. 19

    So-called “progressives” are really just authoritarians who tolerate everything except opposing views. Hypocrites of the worst kind. I am happiest when my interaction with them is limited in scope and rare in frequency.

  20. 20
    vividbleau says:

    Sev

    “The point is that, unless we make all our decisions by tossing a coin, they are made for reasons. Those reasons are based on past influences and considerations so, again, the question is, to what extent do we have free will?”

    Even though I do not like the term “free will”( I much prefer “free self determined choice”) I heartily agree with WJM that to argue against it is irrational nonsense. However to your point ,why would past influences and considerations negate my making free self determined choices?

    Perhaps it would be helpful to define my definition of a free self determined choice. To borrow from RC Sproul, it is to choose that which I MOST WANT to choose given the options available at the time the choice is made.

    Vivid

  21. 21
    kairosfocus says:

    DFO @ 19, A confession, here is my background context. KF

  22. 22
    kairosfocus says:

    Seversky,

    The issue is best cast in terms of responsible, rational freedom. Unless we are responsibly and rationally free we cannot choose to follow reason (especially against strong inclinations), we cannot properly appeal to a duty to the truth and the right beyond might and manipulation, and in fact responsible discussion collapses.

    Responsible, rational freedom is self evidently a premise of participating in reasoned discussion and holding us responsible for acting in accord with right and truth. (In short, to undermine the role of conscience-guided reason in all our intellectual life, is self-referentially absurd and self-defeating.)

    When it comes particularly to the evolutionary materialistic scientism of our day, which would reduce mind and conscience to neural network programming and the like, that problem is inescapable. As can be seen from Provine, Gray, Crick, and many others.

    I again point to Reppert:

    . . . let us suppose that brain state A, which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.

    Of course, a world in which there are responsibly and rationally free beings points beyond itself to its root in the IS who grounds OUGHT. For which there is just one serious candidate: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature.

    If you doubt or dispute this, first ground the freedom to reason _____________ , then provide an alternative basis that cogently answers to the problem: ______________ .

    KF

  23. 23
    rvb8 says:

    ‘the inherently good creator God’. A statement that should cause embarassment and backpeddling; whatever!
    Now, being born in the USA does not bestow virtue, just as it does not bestow blame; where your parents had sex is exactly 100% out of the child’s control, it is happinsatnce, dumb good luck (or bad luck if your parents are from the Congo). In what way can the ‘gifts of God’ aid a child who is born in abject misery? If the ‘flip of the coin’ lands you in Norway, does that mean you are more gifted, talented, or just plain statistically lucky? KF and WJM seem to believe they are morally superior to atheists because the environment in which they were brought up happened to instill beliefs of a theistic nature; they are not.
    Yes! I was very lucky to be born in New Zealand, but I don’t mistake that luck, or use it to demonise the hatred and murder I see in the rest of the world; I think providence (of a non-theistic variety) was at work.
    WJM constantly reminds us that he is not a Christian; no offence, but I believe him to be disingenuous. His constant reiteration of the idea that we are beings of independent thought, and that we can determine our own futures flies in the face of the evidence provided by the planet upon which he lives. God:’Do humans prefer a clean environment to a dirty one?’ Humanity: ‘Yes we do’. God: ‘Does humanity prefer peace to war?’ Humanity: ‘Yes we do!‘ Well then, use your God given free will and create what you all want; Oh, wait a minute, we have no free will!

  24. 24
    mw says:

    Brexit, science and politics:

    “One would think that science should be politically neutral as the PhDs in white lab coats study germs under the microscope. Not so. Here’s a sampling of political bias in the science news, showing how the Big Science community enables the agenda of the Progressive left, whatever the issue might be.” See http://crev.info/2016/07/political-science/

  25. 25
    kairosfocus says:

    RVB8:

    Please.

    This is dialectic not rhetoric.

    And resentful hostility on your part towards God does not constitute good grounds on our part not to undertake a worldviews level analysis.

    We live in a world in which we find ourselves inevitably morally governed, even in our reasoning. (As in what do you think the sense of need and urgency towards the truth is but an aspect of the voice of conscience? Do you recognise the implications of dismissing that voice as delusional in a context where there are no convenient firewalls in our inner thought lives? As in what happens when grand delusion is let loose on the life of the mind like the proverbial bull in a china shop?)

    That world therefore faces the IS-OUGHT gap, and worldviews analysis fced the issue of rooting reality in a coherent fashion. I have argued in outline that — after many centuries of debates and deliberations — there is but one serious candidate IS that can carry the weight of ought, and characterised such in an outline. Where, such an IS has to be at world-roots level, per Hume’s valid point that thereafter there is a challenge to bridge the IS and the OUGHT without non sequitur. We need an IS that fuses OUGHT inextricably in its nature.

    A serious candidate, again, is: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature.

    If you have a serious alternative that stands comparative difficulties assessment across factual adequacy, logical and dynamical coherence and balanced explanatory power [neither simplistic nor an ad hoc patchwork], kindly provide same: ________________ .

    Hint: with all due respects, so far, you re not even on topic.

    KF

  26. 26
    kairosfocus says:

    MW,

    a serious point, we need to ponder the links between evolutionary materialism dominated scientism and ideological agendas. In so doing, we would be well advised to ponder the troubling historical case study, eugenics. Which, was presented as an application of many sciences.

    The current patterns of media manipulation, agit prop, scapegoating, targetting of dissent and resort to lawfare, are troubling.

    Nor, should we overlook the significance of a 40 year period of global distortion of law and policy, undermining of medical ethics as well as manipulation of public opinion that has led to the ongoing worst holocaust in history, at a rate of 50 million abortions per year. Multiply by 40 years and then by 1/2 to account for growth and you will see why “worst” is understatement.

    We must never underestimate the mind- darkening and conscience- benumbing power of mass blood guilt on that scale across our civilisation.

    And, FYI objectors and trolls, triggering behaviour in reaction to pointing out unwelcome moral truth is a strong sign of suppressed guilt.

    We have clearly reached the point “as in the days of Noe . . . ”

    KF

  27. 27

    rvb8 said:

    Now, being born in the USA does not bestow virtue, just as it does not bestow blame; where your parents had sex is exactly 100% out of the child’s control, it is happinsatnce, dumb good luck (or bad luck if your parents are from the Congo).

    Your metaphysical template is not binding on others. I disagree that anything about the circumstances we are born into is “luck”; I believe we choose the circumstances we are born into.

    KF and WJM seem to believe they are morally superior to atheists because the environment in which they were brought up happened to instill beliefs of a theistic nature; they are not.

    This is once again your baggage speaking. I’ve reiterated several times on this site and others that I by no means consider myself an example of moral behavior, and that I agree that many atheists behave much more morally than I do. I’ve also pointed out repeatedly that theism is not required to behave morally, nor does it IMO land one in any spiritual hot water in and of itself, just as theism by itself doesn’t make anyone a good person.

    You are mistaking my logical arguments against atheism for a condemnation of all atheists. You seem to have difficulty escaping the lens of your preconceived notions.

    WJM constantly reminds us that he is not a Christian; no offence, but I believe him to be disingenuous.

    Constantly? I tell people that when they mistakenly imply that I am a Christian to correct them and prevent them from future incorrect inferences/arguments.

    His constant reiteration of the idea that we are beings of independent thought, and that we can determine our own futures flies in the face of the evidence provided by the planet upon which he lives.

    Independent will is different from independent thought. I don’t think I’ve argued here that we can “determine our own futures”; I believe that there are limitations and conditions that we willingly subject ourselves to upon entering this life, much like one willingly subjects themselves to certain limitations and conditions when they play a game, go to school, get a job or volunteer for some organization.

    Free will must exist within a structured environment or it is meaningless.

    ell then, use your God given free will and create what you all want; Oh, wait a minute, we have no free will!

    You have a rather cartoonish view of what a free and independent will would actually mean, and what you imagine others would want is also rather unsophisticated, constrained – it seems to me – by a kind of adolescent perspective of spirituality and religion.

    I”m not sure what you mean by your view that I’m being “disengenuous”. I’ve been perfectly honest about my views and do not attempt to mislead anyone about any of it, often to my chagrin.

  28. 28
    ellazimm says:

    WJM

    Constantly? I tell people that when they mistakenly imply that I am a Christian to correct them and prevent them from future incorrect inferences/arguments.

    Ah, so you’re not the William J Murray who is the son of Madalyn Murray O’Hair. I assumed you were. I hadn’t caught any of your biographical details.

  29. 29

    No, that’s not me, ellazimm. I was a Christian, then a Satsangi, then was involved in science of mind, then was an atheist for many years before I slowly became what I refer to as a rational/classical theist, which is not of any particular religious or spiritual doctrine.

  30. 30
    rvb8 says:

    Oh dear! A third denial, and I think a cock will crow!

    “the inherently good creator God”: Have you read the Bible? I have! Many times! I enjoy its misogyny because I know that is an accurate portrail of our knuckle dragging past, and it is past. I enjoy its stories of destruction, of its stories of individuals talking to God; and changing his mind? I enjoy the tales of perverse justice, and inexplicable punishments, that extend to unborn children of the second and even third generation, because I know they were important in the infancy of our species. Your description of a devine caretaker doesn’t exist in my Bible; are you sure we’re reading the same one?

  31. 31
    mw says:

    rvb8, #31: “Oh dear! A third denial, and I think a cock will crow! ‘the inherently good creator God’: Have you read the Bible? I have!” _____________________________________

    ‘Oh dear’, thrice denying Christ, Peter may have said. However, rvb8, the punch line you missed out; Peter, when the cock crowed three times: wept.

    Clearly, the cock has not crowed three times for you yet.

    Jesus wept over Jerusalem. When the God of Sinai weeps over us, that says it all!

    A God crucified by scoffing, rejection, disbelief, and finally nails.

    I hope you are now feeling better after your bout of scoffing and denial.

    In the Bible, the very one you trash, Peter prophesied, that scoffers would come.

    There, you see, you are tenuously in the Bible after all. Still, you missed the big picture: the crucified God/Jesus said, “forgive them for they do not understand.”

    As for you reading the Bible, the same God/Jesus answered Satan (yes another laugh you may say): ‘It is written, “One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.”’

    With respect, you seem to have missed the point of how and why God managed lawless people. To prepare a people for His crucifixion under law (Gal 4:4-5). Evolutionism, as you no doubt believe, has crushed divine law.

    Still, we can all potentially have a road to Damascus experience, as Paul did when hell-bent on destroying the emerging faith.

    Impossible in your case rvb8? With God nothing is impossible. What a horrid thought?

    An afterthought, about a core philosophy of ID and a higher unspecified intelligent designer at work in creation. Of all the faith systems only the Judaeo-Christian faith gets regularly kicked up the backside and degraded by atheists at UD. To me, that says it all. Atheists know who the real enemy is, the real threat to their belief system grounded in a Christ-rejecting degrading theory of Darwin who said in his knuckle dragging mode:

    “I will never allow that because there is a chasm between Man…and animals that man has different origin…Man in his arrogance thinks himself a great work. [W]orthy the interposition of a deity, more humble & I believe true to consider him created from animals. (Charles Darwin’s Notebooks, 1836–1844, Paul H. Barrett et
    al., eds. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987), pp. 300, 310, 316)

    It seems Darwin was humbler than Moses!

    Therefore, an “arrogant” God created us to believe He created in six days!

    As for Christ denying Hubble, in his non-centralisation of Earth, said: an,

    “unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs…. such a favored position is intolerable…” “https://harmoniaphilosophica.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/earth-at-the-center-of-the-universe-2jszrulazj6wq-39/
    http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/le.....tents.html

    It seems your argument of demeaning such a God, will not extend to making a “good” comment. That the same God, loved us to His death at our worst for us to have life and life in abundance. Humiliated to death in order that we may see/believe in infinite forgiveness. An act of a good God.

    Nailed to the cross was the God of the Hebrew scriptures and Sinai. Just deserts you say rvb8?

  32. 32
    mw says:

    KF, # 28: “mw, seriously,”
    “We have clearly reached the point “as in the days of Noe . . .”
    _________________________

    I am not quite sure what you mean by “seriously.”

    KF, I totally agree with what you say on world concerns.

    However, if there is a legal standard for securities fraud, there must be a legal standard for divine law – surely, it is God’s hand written testimony at Sinai. Divine justice must judge on that.

    As for squaring a circle; when six days’ mean billions of days, and direct creation of all life forms separately, means creation from one life form over ages, many Christians have squared divine law into a circle to favour Darwin the Christ denier.

  33. 33
    kairosfocus says:

    MW, I said in what is [now?] 27, that you made a serious point. I commented then quoted Jesus, Mt 24:37: “But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” KF

  34. 34
    kairosfocus says:

    RVB8,

    again, you have failed to address the worldviews issue on the table, of bridging the IS-OUGHT gap by providing a cogent alternative world root-level IS capable of grounding OUGHT.

    Rhetorical dodge – ’em duly noted, with its import.

    Namely, the God of generic ethical theism already laid out is confirmed as the only serious candidate IS capable of grounding Ought.

    You seem to have a major problem with the Judaeo-Christian ethical and religious tradition which is blocking you from seeing the worldview issue.

    The world root issue is distinct and comes first as a matter of worldview grounding.

    In that context, the Judaeo-Christian tradition can then be seen as a significant response to the issue. One that finds its touchstone truth proposition in the life, service, teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Which, on the basis of 500 witnesses (about 2 dozen of whom we can specifically identify) launched the church with its witness to the gospel.

    Transforming the course of history.

    But the first things come first.

    KF, 26 [also cf. 23], challenge:

    This is dialectic not rhetoric.

    And resentful hostility on your part towards God does not constitute good grounds on our part not to undertake a worldviews level analysis.

    We live in a world in which we find ourselves inevitably morally governed, even in our reasoning. (As in what do you think the sense of need and urgency towards the truth is but an aspect of the voice of conscience? Do you recognise the implications of dismissing that voice as delusional in a context where there are no convenient firewalls in our inner thought lives? As in what happens when grand delusion is let loose on the life of the mind like the proverbial bull in a china shop?)

    That world therefore faces the IS-OUGHT gap, and worldviews analysis [faces] the issue of rooting reality in a coherent fashion. I have argued in outline that — after many centuries of debates and deliberations — there is but one serious candidate IS that can carry the weight of ought, and characterised such in an outline. Where, such an IS has to be at world-roots level, per Hume’s valid point that thereafter there is a challenge to bridge the IS and the OUGHT without non sequitur. We need an IS that fuses OUGHT inextricably in its nature.

    A serious candidate, again, is: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature.

    If you have a serious alternative that stands comparative difficulties assessment across factual adequacy, logical and dynamical coherence and balanced explanatory power [neither simplistic nor an ad hoc patchwork], kindly provide same: ________________ .

    RVB8, since:

    Rhetorical distractions not cogent answers.

    Consistent with the point being made.

    KF

  35. 35

    The point, rvb8, is that you are complaining about the way some buildings look rather than fairly engaging in an engineering discussion about how to lay the best foundation for a strong, structurally sound building.

    Naturalism/atheism cannot provide a sound foundation for any worldview that is coherent with our real-world moral behaviors, expectations and intellectual activities. You don’t like the Biblical god – so what? Unless you’re just here to troll christians to see if you can agitate them, nothing you’re saying here about passages in the bible or christianity matters.

Leave a Reply