Trump somehow strikes a chord with the millions of people who support him. If it was not Trump, it would be someone else. I have a lot of respect for the Republicans who objected to the election results. Politics is about gaining support, and if 80% think the election was stolen then they are playing politics, it is an old game. Of course there may be a better way. It does not make sense to call them undemocratic. They accepted the final result in the end did they not?

It is interesting that people insist that there were no irregularities - of course this opens up the whole thing even if they accept even one incident of fraud. Maybe that is why they don't. I have no way of knowing one way or another: either I take CNN's word for it, or I take Trumps word for it, this is not how an argument is settled. On the face of it, it is hard to believe Biden won. It is also a very close election, and irregularities in other elections do cast a large shadow over the result. So agnosticism is the order of the day I would think. A few months down the road I think we will see some cracks appear.

Given that the Republican Trump supporters are not all insane, it then follows that they are making some sort of a rational calculation here. They are either seizing on minor irregularities to gain some political support, or the fraud actually happened. It seems impossible that they are all risking their career on something that cannot be proven if not now, in the next four years. If there is even one case of an fraud that had affected one result in the election, even one state, you can say goodbye to the Democratic party. The Capitol carnage will seem minor in comparison.

Lets look at the facts so far:

Popular vote:
Trump 46.8 Vs Biden 51.3 . 4.5 % difference.

Arizona 0.4%, Georgia 0.2%, Nevada 2.4%.

And then there is this: this actually happened. Not saying there is fraud, but in close elections the system does not inspire a lot of confidence.

After what appears to be the tightest congressional election in decades, Rita Hart, a state senator, has decided to forgo a legal battle in her home state and will instead contest the election directly with the House Administration Committee. Iowa election officials certified Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks as the winner on Monday after a recount diminished her initial victory margin from 47 votes to only 6 votes.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/02/rita-hart-iowa-challenge-election-results-442224

As you might expect with such a close margin, the two campaigns are fighting for every single vote. Miller-Meeks declared victory, but Hart called for a recount of all 24 counties in the district on November 12. The latest front in that fight is in Scott County, where Miller-Meeks campaign alleged Sunday that the recount is "illegal" because it is being done both by hand and by machine.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/23/politics/iowa-2nd-district-mariannette-miller-meeks-rita-hart/index.html

The lead had earlier flipped back and forth between the candidates after the discovery and correction of two major tabulation errors.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2020/12/30/steal-attempt-now-official-iowa-democrat-asks-fellow-democrats-to-overturn-election-she-lost-n2581975

There is nothing admirable about storming the and breaking into government buildings. That said, the view in America seems to be that breaking property is part of any protest and a nice feature to validate how badly the victims feel.

The shooting does not make sense, I have seen the video. If it was right to shoot people breaking in, then all of them should have been shot, in the interest of fairness, why shoot one person? Is he shooter of sound mind, I mean would we trust him with nuclear weapons? I think not.

I have watched the Trump speech and I do not think Trump is responsible for the acts of some of his supporters any more than Biden is responsible for the acts of any of his supporters - not sure if Antifa and BLM are his supporters. For a Philosophy forum there are some hugely great leaps of reasoning made here. "March peacefully and Cheer" equals violence.

It is also funny that such reactions to violence and desecration of the seat of government is accompanied by four years of insults and denigration of the President of the country. Biden will not sink to the level of name calling because he knows that is just as unacceptable as rioting. If you want a different view of Trump, read Victor-Davis Hansons "The Case for Trump" where he makes the case that President Carter and President Ford were really nice people but not good presidents. Calling someone who can make billions and run a huge enterprise, not to mention the country (check Trump-meter for his achievements)and idiot does not serve anyone well including yourselves.

More to the point, calling the other side traitors is not the way. They are entitled to their point of view. The Republicans should take these people to court for calling them traitors, that should not go unpunished. I thought America was about tolerating other peoples views, not matter how crazy they sound. Maybe not. Maybe that America is gone. When I was shocked to hear that America tolerated Neo-Nazis marching through the streets I was told that that was a part of their right. This is America. Maybe not.

Trump has fought the results of the election in every legal way possible. It might be good to look at the actual court ruling and the dissenting opinions to know that there were some irregularities and the judges stated it. How much we do not know. As I predicted, he finally conceded when all options were explored, peacefully. He fulfilled the wishes of many of his Republican supporters, more than 80%. Should he have fulfilled the wishes of all Americans including Democrats? Sure.

His mistakes? Not ensuring testing kits were developed quickly enough, trusting the Chinese information on the Covid-19 flu, listening to Dr. Fauchi. Killing the Iranian General. But this list is not your list.

This is my take: President Biden was voted into office as 46th President of the United States. As far as we can tell, it was a free and fair election. He deserves the respect of that office, and the election system and process needs to be respected. This is democracy in action. Accept that the other party has to win sometimes. Work with it.

President Trump was voted into office as 45th President of the United States. As far as we can tell, it was a free and fair election. He deserves the respect of that office, and the election system and process needs to be respected. This is democracy in action. Accept that the other party has to win sometimes. Work with it.

If your system keeps producing people who you think are not fit for office, look at your system.

Calling the other side traitors is not the way. They are entitled to their point of view. The Republicans who voted in the Senate and House against certifying results are constantly denigrated.

They should take their accusers people to court for calling them traitors, that should not go unpunished.

Trumps most recent pardons; can any sane person doubt the viciousness of the man?
— tim wood — Hippyhead

The man won the most admired man award.

https://nypost.com/2020/12/29/trump-tops-list-of-most-admired-men-of-2020-poll/

Someone is crazy. Or maybe this world is filled with people who have the right to think differently? Concept?

think it's fair to say that Trump had a little bit of influence on the outcome of the race. Of course the Trump cult would also blame McConnell for blocking $2000 checks for everyone... and they're not wrong either. — Mr Bee

Speaking of influence:

CNN is telling people their vote might be stolen or fraudulently overturned would make them stay at home. Interesting logic. Anyone catch the $2000 check offered to everyone if they voted democrat? I guess that is legal in America.

Also CNN is suggesting that the leaked phone call to Georgian secretary of state affected the election. Very secure election, unsecured phone lines. Nice.

https://thelibertyloft.com/joe-biden-offers-money-for-votes-in-georgia/

It doesn't get better than this.

Biden will make America Great Again Again!. I sincerely hope so... build back better - I welcome it. We will be watching from Day 1 as the Covid Influenza deaths will all be on the Biden Administration's fault.

Obviously if he thinks he won, he wants to find the missing votes, like you would if you lost some dollars you would want to find the missing money. Different from asking to forge money or manufacture votes.

I read through the entire transcript proudly hosted on CNN. Apart from giving all the countries of the world a recording of a phone conversation between the President of the United states and the Georgian secretary of state, which is undoubtedly useful to I*** and C****, it makes you wonder how many other conversations have been recorded, I mean since the Republicans are such terrible people, as the story goes, it only makes sense that they would share secret recorded conversations, that is where this is going.

The acid test of character will come on January 20th, when Trump steps down. That means he accepts the opinion of the courts and the rule of law. Everyone is so darn sure that Biden will be sworn in, and be the next president, which means that everyone is sure that Trump will step down, following procedure. Following that reasoning, it means that Trumps efforts will be ultimately futile and he will accept defeat, finally. Quite the coup.

Seldom do we get a chance to test a conspiracy theory.

His supporters are in it for to aggrandize his personal ego? What do they get in return? That does not seem like politics. I do not demonize either side: both Democrats and Republicans have their own values and their own agendas, which is where the election comes in, a chance for one ideology to trump the other. Viewed from abroad, it does seem quite divisive, however. The Atlantic explains it quite well, I think.

George Washington’s farewell address is often remembered for its warning against hyper-partisanship:

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.” John Adams, Washington’s successor, similarly worried that “a division of the republic into two great parties … is to be dreaded as the great political evil.”

The same article goes on to say

Under divided government, congressional opposition partisans have no incentive to work with the president; their electoral success is tied to his failure and unpopularity. This is not a system of bargaining and compromise, but one of capitulation and stonewalling.

Oh yeah, after the thousands of lies that Trump has made while in office never lost him any support, what's going to change now?

It's funny you should say that, because, if the results of the election are correct, he did lose support. Or did he gain opponents? It is important to distinguish between false promises such as saying the pandemic will just disappear maybe that is a false prediction, and lies, such as... CNN, after much soul-searching has published an article on a small fraction of Trump's lies:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/31/politics/fact-check-donald-trump-top-lies-of-2019-daniel-dale/index.html

There you have it. Inaccuracies, exaggerations. Delusions? The point is that in order to lie you just know the truth. What if you believe a lie? If you believe a lie, you pass a lie detector test. Is that how it works.
When Bill Clinton came appeared on international TV and admitted he lied, that I accept. But who knows what hapenned, there was no evidence presented after all. Just reliable testimonies.

In order to lie you have to know the truth, or else what are you going to lie about? When discussing remote news items it even does not matter what the truth is: what matters is if these claims can be proven. Here we have been presented with a rare opportunity: statement that is testable, and in the short term. All this litigation and politicking is centered around two assumptions. The first is that the courts will rule in favor of the Trump campaign. The second is that members of congress will object and launch an investigation, which again will result in nothing less than the overturning of the election.

If these two things do not happen, it will be counted by Trump supporters (some of them at least) as failing to deliver on promises, which they have not seen in the past, more than 80% or the Republican voters support Trumps actions so far. If claims of election fraud are never proven, that will put Trump out of the running for the 2024 election because, and I am guessing here, they know that the forces arrayed against him are simply cannot be overcome. Voters are smart enough to be pragmatic, even Trump voters.

Trump's job approval rating is listed here by Gallup at around 39%:

https://news.gallup.com/interactives/185273/presidential-job-approval-center.aspx

Gallup also has 'approval by party' poll that shows Trump at better than 85% approval by Republicans.

Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20

Republicans 95% 90% 87%

https://news.gallup.com/poll/328106/public-mood-sours-satisfied-approve-trump.aspx

Democrats do not approve of Trump. No surprises here.

All very interesting, so the acid test is looming and it has dates on it: January 6,2021 and January 20, 2021. At least it will all be over. The attacks on the President will continue, whoever he/she is.

I have skimmed through Peter Navaro's report. Much of the report is based on testimony and statistical analyses which have no standing with CNN and the mainstream news. CNN has already said that there is nothing unusual about sudden large spikes in votes for Biden, and also admits that there were no observers present in during the vote counting shown in the 'suitcases of votes' video, butr the observers were 'not asked to leave' - but offers no evidence. In an environment such as this, only the courts will be able to give the final decision.

Quoting from the report:

Critics on the Left and within the Democrat Party have, on the other hand, dismissed these charges as the sour grapes of a whining loser. Some of these critics have completely denied any fraud,
misconduct or malfeasance altogether. Others have acknowledged that while some election
irregularities may have existed, they strenuously insist that these irregularities are not significant
enough to overturn the election.

Also:

There is a similar Battle Royale raging between large anti-Trump segments of the so-called
“mainstream” media and alternative conservative news outlets. Across the anti-Trump mainstream
media diaspora – which includes most prominently print publications like the New York Times
and Washington Post and cable TV networks like CNN and MSNBC – a loud chorus of voices has
been demanding that President Trump concede the election

The fact that " some election irregularities may have existed" is basically agreed by all sides. The Trump campaign has one task remaining: to get the courts to rule in their favor with the required evidence and therefore convince the "mainstream" media, namely: "New York Times and Washington Post and cable TV networks like CNN and MSNBC" that what they are saying is true.

In any case, this will all be over January 6th. If the Trump team does not prove its case, I suggest that it will lose a large chunk of its voter base, since these Trump supporters will either will decide they are lying or decide that the Trump legal team and other similar legal groups cannot prove their allegations when so much evidence exists, which is shows an inability to deliver on promises.

Either way I am closely watching. My message to both sides is: please do not make any mistakes. The stakes are too too high.

I really don't think there's anybody out there planning this stuff. Representation of the monied interests is in place, regardless of who sits in what office. No need for the elite to have a special plan. — Benkei

It's total war, or looks like it. I agree with mostly what has been said except the claims to idiocy. Not Trump or anyone. Maybe in the end we are the idiots because we get only the information we are supposed to get, we only hear the tunes we were meant to dance to and we dance to them. Some of us can't dance.

I believe that attacking the other side is exactly what Trump is accused of doing, and not very helpful. He was elected legitimately and his supporters have the right to a view, just not the right to craziness, which we may see on our screens.

You have to check your laws.

Why don't you just come out and say what your hinting at. More than half the American population were part of the fraud. They all conspired to 'illegally' throw Trump out of the office which he righteously deserves. Of course all those people will insist that there was no fraud, just an election. So, why do you believe that there was fraud? Because mailed in votes were counted in the middle of the night? If it happened after midnight it must be evil. — Metaphysician Undercover

That is not what I am saying, what I am saying is that the reporting has been one sided, however, some of you have seen better reporting but I will leave it at that.

Irregularities were insignificant: my view is that even insignificant incidents like this may be used to garner support for the Republican side with the battle cry of 'stealing' and 'undemocratic'. Not having any access to any evidence or not having seen any evidence yet, that is what it looks like now.

Donald Trump, Rudy Guliani and other Republicans are taking a huge 'tremendous' gamble :

1. Sufficient evidence will be found and admitted to court to overturn the election. This is what they are saying.

2. Insufficient evidence will be found to overturn the election but sufficient to preserve their reputations and standings in the Republican political sphere.

I am no saying it is unintelligent, but that it all depends on what the stakes are. I find the risks under (2) extremely high for them, and I cannot quite figure out what they are getting at.

I do no think it makes sense to cal people delusional. Politically motivated grand-standers - maybe.

We all realize that it is not true until CNN says it is true. Or BBC. It is their filter that is applied to our information, which is tragic.

There is a quote from "Moonlight Over Paris" written many years ago that is relevant here:

It's a beautiful song which echoes a philosophical view - not sure what it is called:

Does the moonlight shine on Paris
After the sun goes down
If the London Bridge is falling
Will anybody hear a sound
If you follow the sunset will it ever end
Does the moonlight shine on Paris

Oh and how can you just walk away
Is it something that I said
I see only black and white
You see green and red
You believe in the miracles
Water into wine
I believe it when it makes the New York Times

https://genius.com/Paolo-santos-moonlight-over-paris-lyrics

It’s because people generally cannot handle subtlety — Pfhorrest

— Pfhorrest

This seems to be a sad fact. I am the first to acknowledge there are 'crazies' on each side, to use the intellectual term, and it is up to each side to control its extremists. I saw a tweet the other day suggesting some negative things about Biden - give him a chance, he just got elected ( but this claim is disputed ) , and there is a lot of antagonism on both sides.

Possibly four years more of hubris and the I believe some higher knowledge will sink in to both sides slowly. Debate is alive and well. The moment people stop insulting the other side we know true progress has been achieved. I will miss it though.

"If you are given two political choices, the natural outcome is that enough people will be disappointed in one party to give the another a chance. Hence just look at how the administrations change."

Makes you wonder what the point of it all is. This scenario looks like a ship sailing across the ocean with a different party grabbing the bridge and setting course for a different destination each time. In the early days sailing ships used to trace a zig-zag course but that was with a purpose, a final destination in mind.

I am not sure if democracy is a good thing for the United States of America. More to the point, maybe a two party system is not a good system. Before anyone gets upset, remember the Founding Fathers, so revered by the American populace, did not establish America based on a two party system.

America Is Now the Divided Republic the Framers Feared

John Adams worried that “a division of the republic into two great parties … is to be dreaded as the great political evil.” And that’s exactly what has come to pass.

JANUARY 2, 2020

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/two-party-system-broke-constitution/604213/

Of course this a just academic. It is too late to go back. It is nice to know that China has a one party system, and has done quite well with it.

I would agree. What is worrying from a philosophical point is that the media does away with any need for the courts - the media decides that the lawsuits are without merit even before the Supreme Court hears the case. This is curious. Of course they have their paid experts, like Trump has.

Also curious is the flat out (absolutist) view that there has been no voter fraud and no irregularities. The question is why no one ever says 'yes, there were errors in counting, however these are insufficient to decide the election' except for AG Barr has said in his statement.

State election officials say the county accurately reported its results after Election Day but that there was a mistake made during this week's recount. The error was caught, officials say, and was never at risk of affecting the vote totals reported for either Biden or Trump.
— CNN

Of course there were problems and 'errors', however this is not what is said in the macro view.

Let's look at CNN's 'misinformation' page.

https://edition.cnn.com/business/live-news/election-2020-misinformation/index.html

Facts First: There's nothing inherently suspicious or mysterious about large batches of votes being reported late at night or even after Election Day.

OK, CNN, accepted, but I have no knowledge of how the elections system works, I suspect few really do. But I will take your word for it.

Facts First: There is no evidence supporting claims that poll watchers were shut out of the process. There have been some instances where poll workers did not understand the rules but for the most part, registered poll watchers have been allowed at polling places.

"For the most part?" Does that mean that there were cases where they were not allowed? No evidence?
What would constitute evidence in a place where photographs are probably not allowed?

Facts First: The brief is likely referring to viral video footage of a ballot counting location in Fulton County, Georgia. After a review of the footage, state and county officials determined the events in the video were part of the normal process, not fraud. Though observers weren't present at the time captured in the video, there was no announcement made telling them to leave,

OK, so CNN admit 'observers were not present' and this is normal. OK. This is covered up by the statement that 'no announcement was made telling them to leave'. Of course we have no evidence one way or another. Not having observers present is a serious issue is it not?

"In Michigan, which also employed the same Dominion voting system," the brief says, "on November 4, 2020, Michigan election officials have admitted that a purported 'glitch' caused 6,000 votes for President Trump to be wrongly switched to Democrat Candidate Biden."

Facts First: There was no technical glitch. It was human error and the issue was corrected and never affected the official vote total, according to state election officials.

A human error is even worse. Of course the issue was corrected. Makes you wonder about the human errors that were not corrected, however there is no way of knowing what the safeguards in place were.

The insinuation -- that mail-in ballots are potentially rife with fraud -- is one of the main themes touched upon throughout the lawsuit.

Facts First: Election experts have told CNN time and again that mail-in ballots are a safe form of voting and not subject to widespread fraud. There have been no reports from state election officials of either party of widespread voter fraud from mail-in ballots.

CNN fails to mention that the allegation is that signatures were not verified. Regardless of whether it was true or not, the allegations can only be met by a check if the signature verification actually did take place. It may have. However this is not the defense. The defence is that " Election experts have told CNN time and again that mail-in ballots are a safe form of voting" . I suppose experts have said that time and time again flying in an airliner is safe, but this does not mean there is no possiblity of something going wrong.

"There have been no reports from state election officials of either party of widespread voter fraud from mail-in ballots."

This does not meet the charge: that the election officials were part of the fraud. Of course they say there was no fraud.

As for the evidence: supposedly people committing crimes are supposed to leave evidence sufficient to throw their entire project into utter dissarray and get jail sentences for their agents. Surely they are smarter than that? There is such a thing as circumstantial evidence, and eye witness testimony, but these have to be met on their own merits, such a charging these people with lying, or admitting the statistical freaks that have occurred.

In the end "there was no voter fraud because CNN and Election Officials say so" does not cut it.

For the record, I do not claim to know what happened, time will no doubt tell. But people should already know thin defenses when we see them.

The Supreme Court seems to have performed as expected, although it seems to matter whether they were appointed by a Republican or Democrat. Seems to be a sure fire way of swaying the opinion they way that party wants. In this case it did not make a difference, however there was dissent as to whether to hear the case or not, since dissent is allowed it seems to be a numbers game after all, in some cases, at least.

Now my question is what does the absence of freedom mean for ethics and how can our actions be judged if we cannot really control them. — Leiton Baynes

We have already agreed to judge our actions, and it is evident that we accept the premise that we are responsible for our own actions (even though we may not be) and hence the laws and the courts of law and your speeding ticket. Try telling a police officer you were not responsible for your actions, and neither he nor you will believe it.

It is curious that people ask this question about negative actions, actions that harm others. If you save a life, are you responsible for your actions? If you perform an act of kindness are you going to say that you were not responsible? What about your MBA or your Diploma?

I would say yes, we can control our actions, though it is more difficult to control our actions, for example, if we are on a 24 hour fast and someone brings us a hamburger or whatever is our favourite thing.

We believe we can control our actions - the question as to whether we actually had a free will is something that our Maker can answer.

So if we place the accounts of Jesus's resurrection next to all the other reported miracles, it looks a lot less impressive.

So we are free to believe what we want.

I also wanted to point out that Christians have no way of knowing if Luke, Mark, and even Paul were real Apostles and could write Scripture. — Gregory

I see nothing unreasonable in Gregory's statement. There is a view, put forward strongly by Josh Mcdowel and others, that there is somehow 'proof' for Christianity and the existence of Jesus. There is, I believe, what is called circumstantial evidence, however, one is free to believe what one wants:

As I understand it, there are some artifacts that support the view that Jesus existed and what happened was described in the Gospels (with some differing accounts). I am not sure that Occam's razor, when applied to the story of Christianity, would not yield the simplest possible explanation is that a figure named Jesus existed, people believed He performed miracles, He was crucified, and that He rose from the dead. In fact, crucifixion was very real at that time, so were the instances of various rebels and movements during that time, under Roman rule, I think that is not disputed.

It may be that there is no way of verifying any of the historical records that have been handed down to us. If may be that there are ways to verify the historicity of a document, but that could be applied to the New Testament writings as well.

It comes down to belief, which the Bible and Christian tradition has made no secret about, that it is belief without proof. In fact, the very same New Testament Gospels record not only the appearance of Jesus to his disciples and to many others after His death, but that having seen Jesus in person after his death, appearing to them 'some did not believe'.

So we are free to believe what we want. I want to however explore the view that Christian Apologists use in defending the Gospels a little too strongly - it is fine to preach to the choir, but when approaching people who are do not believe in the gospel story, modern day Greeks as it were, a different approach is perhaps more useful.

The Wikipedia article on Josh MacDowell says it very well, in my opinion:

McDowell's approach to apologetics falls under what Protestant theologians classify as "classical" and "evidential." In either of these approaches to Christian apologetics, it is assumed that arguments defending the Christian faith can legitimately be directed to both believers and unbelievers because the human mind is viewed as able to comprehend certain truths about God. Presuppositional apologetics, on the other hand, questions this methodology by arguing that since unbelievers partially suppress and resist the truth about God (as Paul states in Romans 1:18–20), the problem of unbelief is also an ethical choice and not simply a lack of evidence.[10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_McDowell

Two different approaches.

a) "it is assumed that arguments defending the Christian faith can legitimately be directed to both believers and unbelievers because the human mind is viewed as able to comprehend certain truths about God"

b) "Presuppositional apologetics, on the other hand, questions this methodology by arguing that since unbelievers partially suppress and resist the truth about God"

I personally think the second one is more on practical, since even Christians suppress the truth and have biases in their beliefs and exhibit wilful ignorance in some instances. In any case, one must be very careful not when approaching anyone with prejudices that one wishes to change, and the more scientific mind would be better approached by not telling them that they were made by God and should be able to comprehend the truth for this reason alone.

Technically, they have, according to the very criterion of proof that you give in the first sentence - that is to say, the epistemic standards of proof have been met to the satisfaction of most practitioners in the field (of epidemiology). — SophistiCat

In one of its forms, to prove something is to show that the conclusions follow from axioms that are already accepted by the audience, which is a fairly reliable concept.

However it is possible, if the 'practitioners in the field' hold to false premises, or are working from incomplete knowledge, it is possible to prove something that is not true.

I know it is a kind of slippery slope...

More correctly titled "spirituality and development" there are some encouraging new trends in the field.

Oswaldo De Rivero - The Myth of Development

"boldly states that the benefits of development, so long promised over the past sixty years, have not come about for most people. Nor are they going to. "


https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/M/bo47192581.html

Well this is a promising start. I tend to agree with him. So what next? Maybe for third world countries to stop beating themselves over the head over not being first world countries for a start. Material development and increase of personal wealth seems to be out of the question for the 7 billion here.

Is anyone aware of suggested alternatives? Some sort of bibliography here, it is hard to find anything on the philosophy of development. Maybe a few months of searching.

"Everything in developed societies tends to look neatly arranged, as you say, and rather utilitarian and uniform. "

Yes, and developed countries are envied and glorified the world over. They are idealized not only for their infrastructure but their well-dressed, well tanned, attractive populations, or so it is imagined.

The beauty and wonder of the developed world would all be very well, except for two main problems: the first is the 'ugly and meaningless' existence that many have characterized life in the developed world as being. It might have something to do with two "World" wars and the turmoil it created, the beginnings of hopelessness in western civilization.

The second is that, by creating a goal that few other countries can attain, namely being 'Fully Developed" classes the world into two camps - the haves and the have-nots. There are many reasons for this, one being the fact of limited resources which a few nations have grabbed as their prize, leaving others with what remains. In simple terms, run - down buildings and dilapidated cars are a result of real wealth in those countries, wealth that now cannot be shared. The streets of New York look different from the streets of some 'developing' country because there is no money to be spent on building clean streets, tall buildings and highways that host speeding BMWs , because no one in that poor country has the money to buy a BMW. Given the money, people will make their shops and homes look good, most often, and everyone knows what their car would be like if they had the money to buy it.

It all comes down to wealth, public spending, private wealth, at least when it comes to infrastructure.

What is it that makes a farmer living in a mud hut in a certain country lesser than his combine harvester riding cowboy counterpart in America? Poor? Less Developed? We even have a name for it "standard of living" and "quality of life". Whatever said and done it is a slap in the face to all religions and all ancestors to say that our lives are better than those who came before us because we have more money and toys. Each generation is greater than the one that went before, with the our earliest ancestors having the worst quality of life.

I am not aware of any philosophers who have explored these questions - as I have said I would be grateful for some names - what is the connection between wealth, a full, meaningful, not to say significant life, a life of value, and technology? Can a human being be 'developed' even if he lives in a country that is not? What is the pinnacle of human development, what is the end goal of human existence?

There are many threads here - colonialism, racism, and to complicate matters, someone has created a list of 'the worlds most beautiful people', needless to say, not every country is listed, giving the impression that the peoples of the world can be ranked on a scale from beautiful (10) to ugly (0). Note the countries listed but without exception these people rank from light skinned to deep tan.

https://www.therichest.com/high-life/top-15-countries-with-the-most-beautiful-people/

And I quote:

"The United States of America is the home of the brave, as well as some of the most attractive people in the world."

A web search netted the following image contained in the Quora answer: ( preceded by several boring maps). I think it illustrates perfectly what I was getting at. The Quora answer may be illustrative as well.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-parameters-to-judge-developing-or-developed-countries


"The achievements that separate developing and developed countries mostly have to do with government, civil society, and infrastructure, all of which are interdependent."

The IEP apparently shares the same view, however it does not bode well for Intelligent Design.

If this is correct, then design inferences simply cannot do the job they are asked to do in design arguments for God's existence. Insofar as they presuppose that we already know the right kind of intelligent being exists, they cannot stand alone as a justification for believing that God exists. It is the very existence of the right kind of intelligent being that is at issue in the dispute over whether God exists. While design inferences have a variety of scientifically legitimate uses, they cannot stand alone as arguments for God's existence. — IEP

Of course you can define God: the God-concept exists, regardless of the actual existence of the God- Being. So we have to show that the God-concept corresponds to reality (how) or it does not. Even then we can be wrong.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/god-west/

Is it irrational to hold to the God-concept in the light of "no evidence" or the contrary? Once you admit God as Being, then God as Creator immediately follows.

Strangely enough, none of the arguments for Design appear to be conclusive, or to put it another way, arguments for design are not arguments for God's existence, these fall within the category of circumstantial evidence, it would seem.

There are a number of classic and contemporary versions of the argument from design. This article will cover seven different ones. Among the classical versions are: (1) the "Fifth Way" of St. Thomas Aquinas; (2) the argument from simple analogy; (3) Paley's watchmaker argument; and (4) the argument from guided evolution. The more contemporary versions include: (5) the argument from irreducible biochemical complexity; (6) the argument from biological information; and (7) the fine-tuning argument. — Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy

Does reason favour one side over the other? I think it comes down to the following options:

a) God exists, and created the Universe
b) God does not exist and the Universe was created (by itself?)
c) God exists, and did not create the Universe

I think that (a) and (c) are either redundant or mutually exclusive. If that is the case, we are left with (a) and (b). Now, can scientific study ever settle the issue? Can faith ever settle the issue? I believe the former is possible, but the latter is never possible: as long as there is faith, facts will never be sufficient to convince everyone, or the "faithful few".

My question again is, are we bound to accept (a) over (b) by the sheer weight of reason? I don't think the argument about a designer can be settled without settling the argument on the existence of God. Arguing about design does seem to miss the point.

And for the Faithful, the argument against the existence of God can will never hold any credence, because they choose to believe.

Here is a case in point: who is responsible? If it the regulators, then they should be taken to task. If it is the pilot, then the regulators should either wash their hands of the whole affair since no laws could have prevented this accident, or make up laws and regulations to stop this from hapenning, for example, deny take off clearance in such conditions.

The non-instrument-rated private pilot departed his home airport with three family members on a cross-country visual flight rules (VFR) flight over mountainous terrain. The forecast weather conditions called for instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) and mountain obscuration due to clouds, precipitation, and mist along the route of flight and at the accident site. The co-owner of the airplane, who held an instrument rating, had reviewed the pilot's flight plan and the forecast weather conditions two days before the accident and informed the pilot that he should drive to his destination as the weather would not allow for VFR flight.

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/192521

Under these conditions it does not make sense to me to count this as a general aviation accident but as an ethical issue. I mean to disrespect to the pilot or passengers, but can I ask the question?

Then there is the style of reporting of popular media that tends to report plane crashes and imply that flying is unsafe:

The article leads one to believe that general aviation is an unsafe form of transportation, but in truth, general aviation has demonstrated significant progress in safety. According to the National Transportation Safety Board, the number of fatalities has declined by over 40 percent since the early 1990s. Of course mentioning that sort of fact would have undermined reporter Tom Frank’s narrative; you won’t find those statistics in his piece,” AOPA said.

I have been thinking about multi dimensionality because of what I have been reading and viewing on YouTube recently, regarding unexplained phenomena.

I found it useful to think of multi dimensionality in terms of the process of how we get there: for example to move in space we need to change at least one of our coordinates and we are at a different place. The way our senses work, we get a different input into our senses, distance, for example will make things look smaller and other things look bigger. Others will sense us differently.

Now imagine a multi dimensional universe where we could change one of the coordinates of the fourth dimension. If we move far enough into the fourth dimension, we may not be able to be sensed by someone with the same 3D coordinates as us. So we disappear.

If we our able to travel within the fourth dimension?

Eric

So what is a possible solution to all this? How can we practically instill civil virtues within the population without creating a totalitarian state?

I have asked the same question: the answer I think is education, people learn through example, and from their leaders. There are immumerable opportunities then to influence people in schools and in the public arena. This is where we come in, write books, novels, maybe and rely on the butterfly effect.

I also see the need for realism, that is, what can be done easily and with a high probability of success? Enough idealism and reaching for the sky.

Gallup poll:

https://www.businessinsider.com/trumps-approval-rating-gallup-highest-level-poll-2018-6

Earlier, the fact that Trump equalled Obama's rating was a big concern for CNN( April 2018)

"The big problem with that Gallup poll that shows Donald Trump's re-election numbers equal to Barack Obama's"

Presumably Trump has passed that mark now?

Also, there is the party divide that shows here:

"Republicans' support for Trump remains high at 87% even after the family separation controversy, but is lower than their 90% approval during the prior two weeks. Republican approval of Trump is now back to the average for his second year in office.

Democrats' 5% job approval -- down from 10% the prior week -- ties the lowest he has had among that group, which also occurred in four other weeks, including one in December and three in January."

https://news.gallup.com/poll/235955/trump-job-approval-slips-back.aspx


More attacks on the economy: New York Times this time:

Op-Ed Columnist
Why One Quarter’s Growth Tells Us Nothing

The idea was to increase the economy’s capacity. There’s no sign that’s happening.

By PAUL KRUGMAN
July 28, 2018
The Rules for Beating Donald Trump

Don’t argue with 4.1 percent growth.

By BRET STEPHENS
July 28, 2018

https://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/united-states-economy

There may be fake news but attacks - in - print cannot be faked.

We have already established that harsh criticism and personal attacks, well let me revise that: personal attacks only, are the status quo when criticizing president Trump, the deplorable s who voted for him and others who support him.

Fair criticism cannot be expected on 2 counts: firstly, 75% percent disapproved of him (not his policies, him) before his presidency began. You cannot get more prejudiced than that. Then, the press is biased against him as the Havard study has found.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-19/harvard-study-reveals-huge-extent-anti-trump-media-bias

So let's establish as a fact the prejudice: against his stand on issues, but this cannot be attacked directly, so attack his tweets, his language, his methods etc. I understand the strategy. One thing I can tell you America's enemies will be so happy that the country is so divided. 4% growth rate and that is attacked.

Some statistics to attack:

Worker pay rate hits highest level since 2008
By: Jeff Cox
43 Mins Ago

(CNBC)

By the way, when you say that God causes pains for people in this life, that's not a true picture. It's a judgement against God based on incomplete information. Since we are sinners, we are quick to judge God, but we only understand part of reality. So any judgement a human makes against God is deficient. — Henri

I tend to agree. This question is not something that can be settled by popular vote. That’s my point.

An Omni-benevolent God as judged with our limited knowledge? Yes or no?

If Yes, I accept your argument.

If no, are we saying we have unlimited knowledge?

As for me, and many others, when we are deep within the bliss of the Heavenly afterlife, we will agree to anything.

The suffering? All those disasters etc? They would seem like a bad dream, I would not be interested in discussing God's benevolence etc there. It all will seem good to me.

You seem to be saying that it is possible that all this evil exists for the greater good. I'm not disputing that — Relativist

OK, Agreed.

What I'm saying is that the "best explanation" (i.e. applying abduction) for the evil in the world is that there is no 3-omni God. i.e. based on what we can know and perceive about the world, it appears unlikely that such a God exists. — Relativist

I will address this below:

As I've said several times, I don't suggest this will change the mind of a committed believer - and that's because of the possibility you bring up. — Relativist

Agreed.

However, if someone is willing to entertain the possibility of God's non-existence, then this constitutes a reason to think God might actually not exist. — Relativist

Agreed.

Right, now to the part I have difficulty with.

What I'm saying is that the "best explanation" (i.e. applying abduction) for the evil in the world is that there is no 3-omni God. i.e. based on what we can know and perceive about the world, it appears unlikely that such a God exists. — Relativist

How do we know it is the best explanation? If God actually exists, we could put this question to him: Does it appear unlikely that You exist, based on what we can know and perceive about the world?
If the answer is yes, that it appears unlikely to us, that still does not mean that God does not exist, since we have asked Him the question and he has answered yes. If the answer is no, then we have to make a judgement as to whether or not God is telling the truth or aware of the truth, both seem to be highly probable.

My question is this: what is the basis on which we can make the judgement that God's goodness is incompatible with reality? Do we have the knowledge (or omniscience) and the authority to judge God?

From the same Wikipedia article:

The greater good defense is more often argued in religious studies in response to the evidential version of the problem of evil,[35] while the free will defense is usually discussed in the context of the logical version.[36] Most scholars criticize the skeptical theism defense as "devaluing the suffering" and not addressing the premise that God is all-benevolent and should be able to stop all suffering and evil, rather than play a balancing act.[37]

I simply do not understand the validity of the argument. Given the omnipotence of God, He could create a world in which evil exists and there is a greater good created by the evil that exists. Let's just say that if He did create such a world, then the argument, the 'problem of evil' will not apply.

I remember one argument, I cannot remember the source, that although evil exists it is not necessary that God immediately put an end to it. This seems to be reasonable.

Given the existence of God, evil is not a problem to me since God's existence and creation must contain an answer to the problem that is compatible with who God is. An assumption no less, but one that is allowable.

I think this article will cover the topic. Need to read it.

Only clueless Trump supporters can think these are great ideas. But they tell clearly just on what kind of level Trump truly operates. — ssu

A little while ago I asked about Trump supporters. Let's see, he is a "clueless idiot" voted in and supported by "clueless supporters". I have an answer now.

"Clueless" means that they are simply uninformed, not unintelligent. That being the case, I wonder which news network they went to to become "uninformed". FOX, CNN, The Real News Network or maybe INFORWARS.???

This is the heart of the problem of evil. We see evil all around us, with no apparent good coming out of it. A committed Christian can always rationalize it in terms of God "having a plan" beyond our understanding, but that is a non-answer to the question of "why?" The simplest answer to the " why? " is: the Creator is indifferent or he lacks the ability to prevent it. So while I acknowledge that strong faith can provide a reason to reject the argument from evil, it doesnt satisfy those who develop doubt and seriously entertain the possibility there is no God. — Relativist

"We see evil all around us, with no apparent good coming out of it."

TRUE

"A committed Christian can always rationalize it in terms of God "having a plan" beyond our understanding,"
TRUE

"but that is a non-answer to the question of "why?""

Why is that a non- answer? it satisfied the saints of old. It satisfies many Christians. Do you mean the answer does not satisfy you, or the majority? What does that have to do with anything?

"The simplest answer to the " why? " is: the Creator is indifferent or he lacks the ability to prevent it."

There is another answer: He is neither indifferent not lacks the ability to prevent it, but does it for the greater good, which no human is in a position to judge or to know all the facts to judge. This is another possibility so your list of possibilities is false.

"So while I acknowledge that strong faith can provide a reason to reject the argument from evil,"

TRUE

"it doesnt satisfy those who develop doubt and seriously entertain the possibility there is no God"

TRUE.

But remember this, in a world without suffering, a single pin-prick will be sufficient reason to doubt the existence of God, I am sure.

I suggest that a person riding a roller coaster is not truly free since he feels elation, terror and delight at points prepogrammed by the roller coaster topology and his pre-determined reactions to stimuli.