"J'Accuse . . .!" 7: The toxic fog of dirty money and its likely undue influence on issues, debates, dominant media narratives, what is passed off as "knowledge," policy agendas and culture shifts . . .

 Yes, I am noticing that ongoing investigations in the US are turning up that it is credible huge sectors of the US Government could not pass a basic audit (starting with their Defense Department and possibly USAID). US$ 4.7 trillion has been put out there:

DOGE discovers $4.7 trillion in Treasury payments were missing critical code: ‘Traceability almost impossible’ . . . . The transactions were reportedly missing the Treasury Account Symbol (TAS), an identification code which links a Treasury payment to a budget line item, according to DOGE, which described the use of such code as a “standard financial process.” “In the Federal Government, the TAS field was optional for ~$4.7 Trillion in payments and was often left blank, making traceability almost impossible,” read an X post from DOGE. [If you doubt this case, reflect on the litany here, and the discussion on waste here. (Ponder, too, the USAID discussions here and here.)]

Yes, this massive violation of generally accepted accounting practice -- "no paper trail, no payment" --  as well as of well known standards of budgeting -- "no budget line passed by the Legislature or Board (etc), no payment" -- calls for serious questions, not only in the US but globally. 

So, another letter:

Dear Intelligentsia,

Given that:

 

1: the US taxpayer is the source of -- by far and away -- the largest pool of mobile funds in the world, and

 

2: that there are significant signs of unprecedented waste, fraud and abuse, where too money is ever so mobile AND

 

3: we see clear signs/reasons  to infer massive, broad-scale ideological corruption of institutions, markets, agendas of Overton Window "acceptable" options, thus resulting policies, bodies of knowledge, information and more,

_________________ 

C: we need to ask pointed questions on policy and institutional trends and shifts in recent years.

 

Solomon warned that money answers to all things, and we know that by and large everything and everyone has a price. This, is riding on the similar corruption led by the Politburo of the late un-lamented USSR (added to hundreds of billions from the ME oil patch used to influence institutions and advance jihad, multiplied by similar Chinese money and drugs trade global black market money).

So, we should be highly suspicious of where the Overton Window now is, given reason to suspect a LOT of dirty money and linked power influences. 

Including, in whatever is now media-pushed conventional wisdom and so-called established "scientific consensus" and other "reputable" "knowledge" and opinion.

In short, we now need a radical, from the ground up, reassessment, including on what we imagine are credible sources, authorities, consensus, conventional wisdom and more. 

Yes, there is a hidden, global crisis of confidence. (And no, we must not let Trump bashing distract us from facing hard, hard facts.)

So, let's at least outline the target-rich environment, with a little help from the seven mountains mapping model . . . 

The seven mountains mapping model will help us to begin to get a handle on how huge dirty money can corrupt "everything," raising suspicions that we now have a cluster of pools of out of control money that could buy a lot of very bad things globally. 

Yes, big money backed cultural and policy agendas can hijack our key institutions of influence, leading to a "business as usual" agenda that heads over the Acts 27 cliff:

Sobering.

BTW, back in 2016, I put this world map based geostrategic analysis on the table:

And, back in the 90's, I began to see a two tidal waves vision:

While we are at it, on September 11, 2001, apart from plans for nuclear weapons, I found this map of radical Islam-IST global intent and 100-year world subjugation agenda online:

Sounds worryingly familiar?

That should awaken our deep concerns, bigtime!

Professor Bain, c. 2014

For the Caribbean, a very good place to begin is UWI's 2014 firing of the man who pioneered HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention in the Caribbean, Professor Brendan Bain; after he gave sound expert testimony on a buggery case in Belize. It was obvious that US-funding was used as a lever to push him out and to marginalise him. This instantly tainted UWI and our regional education, medicine and linked government and non-government systems. And since then, business as usual has proceeded apace, as though nothing untoward had happened.

Dots, we can now connect to a global dirty money issue.

Going further, once we look at the PANCAP initiative's documents, we find some telling clues.

We see here, already, reason to be deeply concerned.  Notice, twenty years ago, AGE OF CONSENT LAW was being challenged in the name of "HIV prevention," not just Buggery Acts (which are about inherently unhealthy, insanitary, disease-spreading behaviour, not attitudes or feelings).  

All, under imprimatur of a Prime Minister of St Kitts-Nevis.

Note -- Google would-be censors kindly take due note -- contrary to activist Dr Carolyn Gomes 

[who claimed that this PANCAP document represents the regional consensus to which Dr Bain was an alleged part, and is a smoking gun on how he has broken trust with the agreed consensus that we must do away with Buggery Laws in order to allow a greater reach of HIV-AIDS efforts to homosexuals], 

we can clip how at the time:

the UNAIDS 2012 report on the reach of Jamaica's HIV-AIDS programme (spearheaded by Dr Bain) shows that in Jamaica there is a reach to 87% of MSMs as contrasted with 69% in Germany and 39% in Brazil. So, having Buggery Laws on the books does not prevent having world class reach.

That twisting of the law, questionable appealing to alleged "consensus" and attack on protective, age of consent legislation are already big clues that a questionable -- frankly, outright dubious -- agenda was riding on the back of a significant regional health issue. 

Using much the same case, notice, what was published by UWI Press, authored by a Prime Minister of Barbados (and edited by the wife of a Prime Minister of St Lucia who headed one of UWI's Law Schools):

This, is a direct, evade-the-issue, knock- over- a- strawman tactic attack on Gospel Ethics (thus, the gospel and the Christian faith as well as its endorsement of conscience-attested, creation order rooted core natural law . . . start with, what is a right and who gets to set up what is a right).

So, the dirty money agenda is anti-Christian and anti-Civilisational. As can be seen from ever so many other cases across the whole world. While there are too many cases to mention and detail, maybe a few suggestions are in order:

• Is "Scientific Consensus" any more credible than, who is signing the cheques?
• In particular, was the Covid-19 - vaccine issue driven by the actual merits or by a dirty money funded juggernaut?
• Similarly, on "Climate Change" and "Renewable Energy" issues, consensus is often appealed to (But, SCIENCE DOES NOT ADVANCE BY CONSENSUS, AKA "APPEAL TO AUTHORITY" -- AS IS WELL KNOWN . . . just consider "Paradigm shifts" and "Scientific revolutions")
• On Origins, there has been a suspicious lockout of dissent, with propagandistic tainting and marginalisation of dissent
• Wikipedia shows a persistent cultural marxist and radical secularist bias, while being a not for profit funded through donations . . . an obvious target for dirty money.
• How much of the troll-swarming on the Internet is really dirty money talking?
• How much of what is in our newspapers or on major TV channels is bought and paid for by dirty money?
• Thus, how much of the main policy, economic, social, cultural, morality, law etc debate is utterly tainted by dirty money?
• Worse, how much of what is NOT mentioned at all reflects the Voldemort -- he who cannot be named -- effect (i.e. intimidation, silencing and censorship)?

Voldemort effect? Yes . . . 

It is clear that we need to do a major spring cleaning. 

Time, to roll up our sleeves. END

Clarifying our understanding of God (the inherently good God who is already answering us before we call for help!), as a world foundation issue

Isaiah 65:24, c. 700 BC, opens up a vision of the power and goodness of God; one that is pivotal for us as we strengthen our understanding of God:

Is 65: 24  Before they call I will answer;

while they are yet speaking I will hear. 

Yes, here we see direct affirmation that our loving, good God already knows and is already answering our challenges before we are sufficiently aware to cry out to him. 

In that context, we need to clarify and reinforce our understanding of God as supreme, inherently good and utterly wise being and creator, not only in response to the needed necessary being source of reality and the classic Euthyphro and problem of evil challenges, but now also open theism. Again, Scribd is a useful repository:

Our concept of God -- classical vs open theism issues by Gemof Thekairosinitiative

In this context, we also need to clarify how eternity as an extradimensional aspect of reality allows us not only to appreciate omnipresence but also how knowledge of the future does not causally force that to be the future, squeezing out rational, responsible freedom:

These are of course hard question issues, but regrettably they have now become far more widespread in an information age. Therefore, they need to be answered in a relatively brief and relatively accessible context. END

Can we have confident, reliable knowledge (how? given, hyperskepticism . . . ) and does this include knowledge of God?

 For thousands of years, our civilisation has been haunted by: what is knowledge, and how can we be certain that we know something is true? For sixty years now, Gettier cases have meant we need something like Plantinga's "warrant." For we may be subjectively justified to believe what is actually so, but effectively by accident. Likewise, we must answer the corrosive acid doubt of hyperskepticism. Accordingly, here, we explore knowledge vs hyperskepticism and point to knowledge of God.

Here, we first explore knowledge and warrant:

Epistemological Method by Gemof Thekairosinitiative

Second, let us explore logic as method, highlighting first principles and duties of responsible reason:

Logic as Method by Gemof Thekairosinitiative

In this context, critical, foundational cracks in a system of thought are often pivotal, so, thirdly:

Cracks as Method by Gemof Thekairosinitiative

These now build on the method of comparative difficulties we already explored, and open the way to onward rethinking on a sounder foundation. END

PS: IEP on fallacies, gives a useful supplement. SEP has a more focused article, highlighting 18 key fallacies, here.

The worldviews challenge and the philosophical method of comparative difficulties

 Philosophy (= "love of wisdom") is the department of study where we put hard, fundamental questions; hard, as there are no easy answers -- every suggested answer bristles with difficulties. Questions, connected to our views of ourselves, in our world, and how we came to be here, where things are headed, including us . . . is death terminus? Why, or why not, why so many disagreements, can we come to solid answers,  and more. That is, big, hard worldview questions. Comparative difficulties -- more explicitly descriptive, so preferable to "theoretical virtues" -- allows us to address such views in a balanced way: factual adequacy, coherence, explanatory balance -- simple but not simplistic, rather than ad hoc. This short primer serves as an outline of that approach:

Philosophy -- the method of... by Gemof Thekairosinitiative

This will help us to sort out the many thorny challenges we face. END

PS: IEP on fallacies, gives a useful supplement. SEP has a more focused article, highlighting 18 key fallacies, here.

Marking up Isaiah 40 -- a Hebraic Metaphysics and Theology of God

An exploration of the vision of God (so, implied worldview) in Isaiah Ch 40, drawing out that the hebraic approach to philosophising . . . love and pursuit of wisdom . . . does identify a view of God comparable to ethical theism. God, as inherently good, utterly wise, creator, eternal/necessary and supreme/maximally great & worthy of due fealty and service.

Isa 40 Metaphysics by Gemof Thekairosinitiative

Yes, there is a philosophical vision of God and his key attributes in Isaiah 40. END

Kingdom Come, will help us rebalance our vision of the Kingdom of God, Messiah, gospel, discipleship, mission and 4R godly reformation in C21

 Kingdom Come (a balancing review of eschatology in light of Kingdom principles), pivots on an often overlooked fact: "the gospel" is the good-news proclamation of the Kingdom of God and of his [risen!] Christ. This has been so from the beginning of Jesus' own ministry:

Mark 1: 14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, 15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

Where, the Christ is thus inherently a last days/ eschatological/ prophesied (and now fulfilled) figure, implying that this pervades all of Christian life (starting from "repent and believe the gospel"), yes, conversion, discipleship, mission, thought, theology: so, eschatological errors therefore can (and often do) pervade and warp all of our theology and life.  So, too, we need to duly understand the phrase in our Lord's prayer "thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven," and extend this to our vision of the gospel, the church, mission and discipleship in our world. 

That means, gospel ethics -- doing the will of the ultimately loving, inherently good, utterly wise God (which is good for us!)  -- is inherently part of the gospel: repent, the Kingdom is at hand! 

Yes, indeed, we are called to the 4R's process: repentance > renewal > revival > reformation.

Kingdom_Come Release Sep 24... by Gemof Thekairosinitiative

Let us read, reflect, renew, work towards godly transformation and blessing. END

The Mars Hill Challenge C21 SAMIZDAT uploaded at Scribd

. . . being my main analysis of worldviews issues and challenges facing the gospel in the Caribbean and beyond, at 1/4 point in C21, with ideas and suggestions towards counter-cultural reformation.

 I have placed the book here, and now embed:

Mars Hill Strategy C21 Book... by Gemof Thekairosinitiative

I trust this will prove helpful to many who need support resources. END

"J'Accuse . . . !" 6: We must surrender hyperskeptical cynicism and humble ourselves before objective, warranted truth, right, duty and wisdom

 Dear Intelligentsia,

Our collective betrayal of civilisation is bone-deep, and often shows itself in an arrogant, cynical hyperskepticism that rejects and dismisses warranted but inconvenient truth, right, duty, insight and wisdom. Ironically, that cynicism pretends to be well founded, that arrogance pretends to be humility before facts of diversity of opinion and error, that hyperskepticism projects to the other ill-founded accusations or insinuations of arrogance (or other base motives) and ill-founded certitude. The result is a Dawkins style universal acid of cancerous absurdity that eats away at wisdom, putting in its place a voyage of folly heading for Ac 27 shipwreck. So, again, how can we find a way of escape, before it is too late?

Perhaps, it is already too late, and certainly, it is only with great difficulty (backed by much penitent prayer for rescue) that just possibly, perhaps, we may find a way of escape. 

Such fools are we, given what we have had as inheritance and have so recklessly despised and discarded. (And no, this is not merely me or someone else saying, if you disagree with me, you are wrong. See, how cynically corrosive what we are dealing with is?) 

I am pointing, instead, to humility before warrant and wisdom, what Ezra -- I think he wrote the preface to the Proverbs -- meant when he penned Prov 1: 7, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction." 

In our education, systematically, we have been led away from fearing and trusting the inherently good and utterly wise creator God, turning our backs on Solomon's sobering counsel in Prov 3:5 - 8,

 5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart,  

and do not lean on your own understanding.  

 6 In all your ways acknowledge him,  

and he will make straight your paths.  

7  Be not wise in your own eyes; fear the LORD, 

and turn away from evil.   

8 It will be healing to your flesh  

and refreshment to your bones. 

How, then, can we escape catastrophe? (If, escape is now possible.)

First, let us ponder the advice of a man who has the strange distinction to have a reputation worse than that of Satan himself (cf. "the Devil is Machiavellian") . . . Machiavelli:

The point of prudence (a key facet of wisdom here), is:

 (i) to see the potential cliff well ahead of time, 

(ii) to understand that such an edge is ever prone to sudden crumbling and collapse underfoot, then 

(iii) to turn back to safer, saner ground in good time to avert needless disaster. Where, yes, worse,

(iv)  SLIPPERY SLOPES ARE REAL, too . . . it is not a "fallacy" to observe that there can be forces at work that can cause us to slip and slide ever more and more towards the fatal edge. And yes too, 

(v) "a stitch in time, saves nine."

It is not for nothing, that Churchill -- looking back with sorrow and pain at the path of the 1930's -- summed up that seldom was a great war so easily averted, had there but been willingness to act prudently and decisively in good time. 

Churchill began to warn soon after Hitler's slimy rise to power and cynical use of the Reichstag fire incident to trick the German parliament into giving him dictatorial powers (on excuse that others intended to seize power and had burned the German house of assembly in that cause). Churchill was marginalised, disregarded, dismissed by people recoiling in horror from the just past Great War. Despite, more and more signs of rising danger of a round two. Until, the fire-breathing dragon was at the door.

And of course, we can point to Acts 27 and to Plato's Parable of the Ship of State.

Enough of mere illustrations and examples. 

Why am I pointing to "hyperskeptical cynicism," and to rejection of objective first principles and duties to truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence (so too, sound conscience, fairness, soundness, wisdom)?  

Obviously, because strong signs are evident, signs that it may already be too late to heed. (But which, may help us recover, even as our civilisation lies broken, bleeding and with much reduced power to act, at the foot of the cliff . . . as once Britain turned at bay and stood, shocked, shaken, battered, desperate but resolute and alone in the long, hard Blitz summer of 1940).

Let me lay out some preliminary points of soundness, for reference:

I: Cynical Nihilism fails: First, foremost, wisdom, policy, knowledge and right reason are not reducible to cynical, ruthless, nihilistic "might makes right" power games. (If you hear an echo here of Marxism's key errors, yes it is there, alongside those of the much broader snide hyperskepticism and simple disregard for legitimate, responsible but unwelcome authority.) As a new classic case in point, 

II: Radical relativism also fails:  Like unto that, truth exists as "that which says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not," where in many key cases we can use right reason and linked right first facts and first principles to credibly, reliably know the -- often unpopular -- truth, in good time. That is, objective, knowable, powerful, timely truth, duty, honour and right are real too.

III: Eat your first principles veggies: Some yardstick first truths, first facts, first principles and first duties are self evident, thus warrantedly certain. While these never suffice to build a whole worldview and cultural/policy agenda, they are plumb-lines that are built-in universal standards that we should heed. For simple but telling example, it is undeniably so, that E: error exists; as trying to deny it, ~E implies that E is . . . an error.  Similarly, ponder the Ciceronian First Principles, First Duties and First Law, that founds the reality of a core, universally binding natural law that we must learn to respect:

IV: There are valid first principles of right reason: Yes, we can identify some canons of reasoning that we had better heed and acquire a taste for:

These, then extend to other cases, aspects and applications of reasoning, e.g. to reason or communicate at all requires distinct identity and its corollaries (non contradiction and excluded middle), e.g. Paul's use of a Rhetoric 101 analogical example and implied "how much more" comparison in 1 Cor 14:7: "If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played?"

V: Evolutionary Materialistic Scientism ( = "Naturalism") fails: No, big-S Science is not the pillar and ground of all truth or warrant, and, Haldane is right that evolutionary materialism is self-defeating and thus irretrievably self-falsified:

It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]

Sadly, this bears repetition at all points, as many have been overly impressed that Science utterly dominates knowledge. No, philosophy can deliver sound knowledge. So can Mathematics (which is not an empirical/inductive experiment- and/or- observation driven science but instead the -- mainly deductive and axioms-based -- study of  the logic of structure and quantity). So can history (which mainly rests on testimony and credible record). So can theology, so can ethics, or even basic common sense (as Thomas Reid pointed out), etc.

VI: Dallas Willard was right: Yes, we need to re-think on what knowledge is and learn to respect it wherever it is found:

To have knowledge . . . is to be able to represent something as it is on an adequate basis of thought or experience, not to exclude communications from qualified sources (“authority”) [--> compare, "warranted, credibly true (and so, reliable) belief"] This is the “knowledge” of ordinary life [--> knowledge belongs to the people], and it is what you expect of your electrician, auto mechanic, math teacher, and physician. Knowledge is not rare, and it is not esoteric . . . .  

[K]nowledge authorizes one to act, to direct action, to develop and supervise policy, and to teach. It does so because, as everyone assumes, it enables us to deal more successfully with reality: with what we can count on, have to deal with, or are apt to have bruising encounters with. Knowledge involves assured [--> I substitute here, warranted, credible]  truth . . .  [pp. 4, 19 & 20:  Dallas Willard & Literary Heirs, The Disappearance of Moral Knowledge, Routledge| Taylor& Francis Group, 2018.]

VII: "Religion" is not a Dirty Word: Yes, it has been abused (like just about everything else), but respect for -- and a servant's heart towards -- the good God and others is pro-civilisation and responsible. In particular, it is time to take a serious second look at the gospel, the scriptures and the call to sound discipleship. (As a start, try here.)

Once we are willing to be as the proverbial little child, we will then be able to learn and to reform our civilisation. Whether, we can save it from a fall over the looming cliff, is -- sadly -- another matter. END

"J'Accuse . . . !" 5: To restore soundness, we need to recognise the natural law

 Dear Intelligentsia,

One of the most pernicious errors we have made in our time is to have sidelined natural law thinking (as well as the possibility of objective moral knowledge). For, the core of such knowable first law is self-evident, so universal for rational, responsible, significantly free creatures. This offers a framework to soundly, prudently guide governance, policy, legislation, regulation and reformation. By sidelining these things, we have opened the door to unsoundness and to a nihilistic chaos where might and manipulation make "right" and "rights." So, we need to restore soundness, as a basis for reformation. But, that will require building a critical mass coalition . . . 

How can we proceed?

First, even Christians have by and large forgotten the endorsement of such core natural law thinking in the Bible -- and its context. As a reminder, we may examine Rom 2 and 13, where the apostle Paul addresses the church in the Capital:

Rom 2: 14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another . . . . 

13: 8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. 

In effect, the apostle here recognises that it is an empirical fact that people are morally governed, and that on principles that are recognisably related to the Hebraic decalogue. He holds that this is so because a core of moral government is built into us, reflected in how our consciences guide our conflicting thought. Such can be sidelined or disregarded, leading to hardness of heart and benumbed consciences, but it is certainly there. 

One context for this is the summary on law made by Cicero as he made a precis of Greco-Roman thinking:

He highlights principles that we can tease out to yield seven basic first duties, which are branch on which we all sit first principles, thus they are self-evident. How can we know this? Simple, in order to have traction, objections invariably appeal to the same cluster of principles, directly or indirectly. We doubt truth, reasonableness, warrant, prudence, fairness, etc, for instance; implying these self-same duties. The attempt to deny or dismiss is instantly self referentially absurd.

Already, this has established moral knowledge as having an objective core. However, it is advisable to deal with the wider context of entrenched radical relativism. To do so, let us consider claims and consequences:

~k: there is no objective moral knowledge

but:

~k*: this is implied to be an objective, known claim about any claimed moral knowledge, domain M

so, then:

~k**: the claim ~k is about M and properly belongs to it,

however:

~k***: ~k is self referential and self-defeating, so

___________________________________ 

k: by denial, ~[~k] = k is true. There is objective moral knowledge.

This also extends to any reasonably identifiable general domain of study, G. The attempt to deny objectively warranted knowledge implicitly holds itself objective and warranted, and so refutes itself. Radical relativism is self-defeating.

We may now turn this to address the major 7M institutions:

For example:

• In our basic thinking and training, in church, family and issues debate, we must acknowledge and inculcate first moral truths, duties and the intelligible built-in law
• In education, we need to hammer out the principles and acknowledge them, exposing radical relativism as error, also defending wider objectivity of knowledge
• In Law, government, governance and politics, we need to reform statutory and legal thinking to be informed by core principles.
• In the media, arts, entertainment etc, this needs to be respected
• The same holds, for business, finance, science & technology etc.

This is important, but so entrenched is error, that this is an uphill task. To our shame! END

"J'Accuse . . . !" 4: We need God (yes, atheism is dead)

 Yes, Dear Intelligentsia, 

It is not so much that others "must prove" the reality of God to one's satisfaction (and there is little or no "evidence" for him . . . ), but instead, that we need to humble ourselves enough to acknowledge that we need God, and that we need redemption. That is almost the opposite of the approach of the past few hundred years, but it is in fact precisely the approach of the Scriptures, especially Rom 1. Let us now explore . . . 

For starters, while I agree that the centuries old traditional "proofs" for God are not up to the standard, say, of the proof that the diagonal of a square is incommensurate with its sides, I suggest, it is wrong-headed (perhaps, even arrogant or irresponsible) to use such to try to put believers in God on the back foot, defending an imagined sticky wicket. For in fact, that lack of classic geometric rigour is true of ever so many domains of common sense and professional or academic knowledge that only a truly ill-advised person would question, in engineering, in the sciences, in management, in medicine, in statistics, in history (and in law courts), etc. Indeed, post Godel and his incompleteness theorems, we know no mathematical axiomatisation strong enough to cover say Arithmetic will be complete and coherent, and that there is no constructive proof that even an incomplete axiomatisation is consistent.  

That's why we distinguish adequate warrant for a weak sense, commonplace knowledge from establishment of utter incorrigible certainty: Knowledge in effect is warranted, credibly true (and so reliable) belief. So, common sense, what the people mean, knowledge is a responsible judgement not an assertion of utter, incorrigible certainty delivered by some new magisterium, whether dressed in lab coats or not; if a claim is shown unreliable, it will lose credibility and we will freely admit, we were mistaken. That is, all of us must in the end live by faith; the question is which one, why -- how can it be reasonable, responsible, reliable well grounded faith. To adapt Dallas Willard's framing:

To have knowledge . . . is to be able to represent something as it is on an adequate basis of thought or experience, not to exclude communications from qualified sources (“authority”) [--> compare, "warranted, credibly true (and so, reliable) belief"] This is the “knowledge” of ordinary life [--> knowledge belongs to the people], and it is what you expect of your electrician, auto mechanic, math teacher, and physician. Knowledge is not rare, and it is not esoteric . . . .  

[K]nowledge authorizes one to act, to direct action, to develop and supervise policy, and to teach. It does so because, as everyone assumes, it enables us to deal more successfully with reality: with what we can count on, have to deal with, or are apt to have bruising encounters with. Knowledge involves assured [--> I substitute here, warranted, credible]  truth . . .  [pp. 4, 19 & 20:  Dallas Willard & Literary Heirs, The Disappearance of Moral Knowledge, Routledge| Taylor& Francis Group, 2018.]

Once we are willing to recognise such, it becomes instantly clear that the true point of balance is that we need God and should be willing to acknowledge and walk with him. In the haunting words of Micah:

Micah 6:8 He hath shewed thee, O man, 

what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, 

but to do justly, and to love mercy,

and to walk humbly with thy God?

Similarly, Jeremiah warns us:

Jer 2: 13 For my people have committed two evils;

they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters,

and hewed them out cisterns,

broken cisterns, that can hold no water. 

The silent, unanswerable, elephant in the room fact

As we saw last time, it is equally ill advised to dismiss the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, or the basic validity of the C1, New Testament accounts of his life. Similarly, it is clear that the witness and record of that first Christian generation, is that he is Messiah, God's anointed one who fulfilled the key, then centuries old prophecies, including rising from the dead with 500 witnesses. Where, as a striking instance, on trial for his life c. 59 AD, the former chief harrier of the church and now apostle Paul of Tarsus challenged his judges, why does it seem inconceivable that God (author and sustainer of life) should raise the dead? When challenged, your great learning has driven you mad, he replied that his words were true and reasonable as the matter "was not done in a corner." He then turned to Agrippa and called him as expert witness. Agrippa ducked the bouncer, implicitly acknowledging the force of what Morison called a silent, unanswerable fact; the elephant in the room.

To help us clarify, let us consider an extension of the Oracle concept in theory of computing:

Here, we see the issue that computing by Garbage In, Garbage Out (GIGO) limited substrates is just that: limited, facing for example the halting problem. However, converting to a decision challenge, if a reliable oracle can render decisions, the power of a computing entity is drastically enhanced. Closely linked, is the point that computation is not contemplation, it is a dynamic-stochastic process that -- based on the organisation of its components -- mechanically processes input and stored information, creating outputs. This is why GIGO holds, as the mechanical processing depends on the quality of inputs, stored information, functional organisation and programming (or patching [for analogue computers] or weighting [for neural networks]), there is no inherent "does this make sense" oracle to provide quality assurance; nor is computation a free, responsible reasoned process, it is programmed action haunted by GIGO. So, self-referentiality lurks, if we are free enough to reason and warrant knowledge, our minds must be oracle machines, there is something beyond the brain as blindly programmed, GIGO-limited neural network computer. Mind, or even soul. Which opens the door to, greatest, unlimited mind.

That's also why J B S Haldane long ago warned:

It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]

Where, we must never overlook what a fine tuned cosmos points to:

Further to that, our responsible rational freedom is also inescapably morally governed, as we may recall from the Ciceronian, branch- on- which- we- all- sit, first duties:

Then, as we ponder logic of being, we will readily recall that a contingent cosmos points to a necessary being world root. One, that is capable of founding creatures like us that are morally governed. For, we operate on both sides of the is-ought gap: truth is about being correct on what is (or is not), and ought is about doing what is right, good, honourable, prudent, virtuous, loving, kind etc. (so the right things are put in place). Where, this brings us back to Cicero's "highest reason." Yes, it means, our rationality is itself governed by a built-in, intelligible first law, requiring duties to truth, right reason, prudence (including warrant), sound conscience, neighbour, so too, fairness and justice, etc.  And, after Hume, we recognise, the is-ought gap can only be bridged in the root of reality, or we have ungrounded ought. 

That's why the necessary being world root/source needs to be inherently good and utterly wise (which, BTW, implies, personal . . . yes, God has entered, stage right). 

Hence, too, we see the only serious candidate, reality root necessary being (just try to put up another _____ and explain why it bridges the gap ______ while being coherent _______ . . . a tall, unfilled order -- no atheist or skeptic has ever put up a good alternative). 

Namely, we see here:

The inherently good, utterly wise Creator-Sustainer God, a necessary and maximally great being; one, worthy of our fealty, and of the honourable, responsible, reasonable service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. (That is, the Good, True, Wise God of ethical theism.)

Which, sounds quite familiar (and, for many who are even noddingly familiar with the Bible, this is recognisably close to the God of the Bible). 

That screaming noise is atheists trying to get off the hook and burning the drag hard.

Won't work. 

First, we really need a necessary being as world/reality root. A causal-temporal, thermodynamically constrained world cannot be past-infinite. For, every actual past year has to succeed year by year to this one, and you cannot traverse an explicit or implicit transfinite span in finite stage steps. And begging the question of transfinite traverse by asserting that at any given year y, the traverse was already completed (as I have seen) or the like, is an obvious logical boo-boo. 

That is, once a contingent world now is, something -- the reality root capable of causing worlds -- always was. Similarly, once the world has morally governed creatures . . . us, for starters . . . we need a root capable of founding goodness and oughtness (which, BTW, reduces the problem of evil to due perspective, an issue WITHIN a world with God as root). We really do need an inherently good, utterly wise necessary being at the root.

Just for those unfamiliar with the logic of being, remember 2 + 3 = 5, or just the 2 part, never began, cannot cease from being, holds everywhere, every-when, in any possible world. Yes, eternity and reality root issues lurked in even our 1,2,3's in elementary school. So, as a reminder -- as "modern" education leaves a huge gap here, tabulating on possible/impossible being:

Yes, we clearly need God. 

God, powerful enough to build worlds and unique enough that he is creator of all worlds: maximally great, supreme being. So good and so wise as to found moral government and creatures capable of freedom, love, truth, reason, knowledge, duty, honour, virtue. Us. 

And yes, atheism and its associates are dead. Its ardent supporters just don't know it yet.

We need God. END

PS, next time, we will turn to the natural, intelligible, built-in, creation order first law, as foundational to urgently needed reformation -- or else, we are heading over the cliff. Moretime.