Love it, or leave it... or completely redesign it?

While reading through the MSM reports this morning I came across yet another example of the slow incremental shift being made in the USA towards the post national model. All the usual signs were there. The target was children. The means was revisionist. The idea being hidden or erased was once again God and morality.
From FOXNEWS:


School Removes “God” From Lee Greenwood Song
By Todd Starnes

Parents at a Massachusetts elementary school are furious after educators first removed the word ‘God’ from the popular Lee Greenwood song, “God Bless the U.S.A.” and then pulled the song all together from an upcoming concert.

Fox 25 in Boston is reporting that children at Stall Brook Elementary School in Bellingham were told to sing, “We love the U.S.A.” instead of “God Bless the U.S.A.”


After parents started complaining, school officials removed the song from the school assembly concert. The school’s principal released a statement to Fox 25 stating they hope to ”maintain the focus on the original objective of sharing students’ knowledge of the U.S. States, and because of logistics, will not include any songs.”

Greenwood released a statement to Fox News condemning the school’s actions.

“The most important word in the whole piece of music is the word God, which is also in the title ‘God Bless The USA,” Greenwood said. “Maybe the school should have asked the parents their thoughts before changing the lyrics to the song. They could have even asked the writer of the song, which I of course, would have said you can’t change the lyrics at all or any part of the song.”

Greenwood said the phrase “God Bless the USA” has a “very important meaning for those in the military and their families, as well as new citizens coming into our country.” He said it’s also played at every naturalization ceremony behind the national anthem.

“If the song is good enough to be played and performed in its original setting under those circumstances, it surely should be good enough for our children,” Greenwood said.

An online poll taken by the television station indicated more than 80 percent of viewers were outraged by removing God from the song.

“I don’t have a problem with the song if somebody else does I guess it’s there business,” resident Patrick Grudier said. “I mean It’s on our currency (God).”

But not everyone agreed – including parent Matthew Cote.

“I don’t think there’s anything wrong with changing the song,” he told the television. “It’s a public school. If you want to have the word God in the song, go to a private school.”

Reaction on Facebook has been overwhelmingly in favor of the traditional patriotic song.

“Here we go again, more war on Christianity,” wrote one Facebook user. “You can remove God all you want, but the good news — there is still a loving God and He lives.”

Another Facebook user called it sad and disgusting. “I’d like to say unbelievable — but it is so totally believable.”

LEE GREENWOOD’S STATEMENT TO TODD STARNES

“Maybe the school should have asked the parents their thoughts before changing the lyrics to the song. They could have even asked the writer of the song, which I of course would have said you can’t change the lyrics at all or any part of the song. The most important word in the whole piece of music is the word God, which is also in the title God Bless The USA. We can’t take God out of the song, we can’t take God out of The Pledge of Allegiance, we can’t take God off of the American currency. Let us also remember, the phrase God Bless the USA has a very important meaning for those in the military and their families, as well as new citizens coming to our Country. The song is played at every naturalization ceremony behind The National Anthem. If the song is good enough to played and performed in its original setting under those circumstances, it surely should be good enough for our children.” – Lee Greenwood




My thoughts?
'Love it, or leave it!' An expression I have heard many times from American friends over the years.
No, it was not directed at yours truly, who was at best a long term guest of that Republic. A student for a while, a working resident, but never with the intention of becoming American, staying, or somehow ALTERING the path of that nation.
It was a saying that meant people who lived in that country should embrace it's history, traditions and purpose, or find somewhere more suitable to live. Those people who did not share the 'American dream' where asked politely to leave; or sometimes abruptly, asked to not let 'the door hit them in the ass' as they left. This included but was not limited people born in the USA.
You might think, as a British Canadian, this idea would seem offensive to me?
On the contrary.
It was one of the most endearing characteristics of the place and her people. The Americans were proud of who they were in those glory days.
There was none of the self-loathing that is so apparent in the modern American (and most Western) culture. True, sometimes it seemed to blind the US to the obvious, and other times it has been the source for revisionist nonsense and 'hero worship' cults of personality - but in all, it seemed to me, a strength, not a weakness.
Sadly, this saying and the sentiment that drove it on seem to be waning. The globalist / internationalist garbage being taught to children all over the western world seems to be bearing it's toxic fruit in the form of educators.  Time and again we see the education systems of this grand nation removing all the underpinning values of the Union.
Family is attacked, under the pretence of 'tolerance'. Equality and racial harmony are attacked under the pretence of 'diversity'. Faith and religion are attacked under the pretence of science. These are all pretensions. That is to say, they are deceptions born of an arrogant and increasingly naked agenda of a growing cadre of people who wish to eliminate the connections of the students to the principles and traditions of the 'nation state'; in the case at hand we are specifically discussing the USA.
Find it hard to believe? Have a look over the 'pond' to the 'EU'. Ask your German, British, Dutch, or French friends what they are taught about their own history. Ask them about the 'shame', and how patriotism is seen as 'rude' and 'crass'. Ask them what a 'right winger' is.
It may still be acceptable to be 'right'  here in the New World, if somewhat rebellious and considered counter to 'progress' - but try it in the UK or many other nations in the EU. They will put you on a watch list.
We may have people in the peer reviewed academic circles suggesting that people who do not buy into certain globalist policies should be medicated or even institutionalized, as Prof Gorpy Face  suggests. But you can still get a job or run for politics if you stand against such policies as global eugenics, the 'green' (resettlement and pop reduction) programs, increased prison capacities, more laws, more tax etc etc. Well, almost any job.
Some positions are a little more 'protected' and insular than others. The academia is a prime example of this self perpetuating political wave. I could not begin to state how profound of a shift I have seen visiting and working with my US colleagues. Once proud and loud pals are now very quite, and speak of their ideas in whispered tones - afraid of being called 'conspiracy nuts' or 'flat earthers'. Worse still, they might be called 'racist' or 'elitists' for suggesting that race should not be a basis for special treatment or special punishment. But by WHO you might ask, would suggest.
Ironically it is by the racist elite who call themselves 'liberal' and 'progressive'.
Week after week my inbox is filled with emails from these friends who send me links to articles about imbalance, misdirection, Machiavellian and Hegelian power grabs. The trend seems to have a common thread or spine.
The plotting, cliquish attacks, and legalese bullying all seems to be aimed at the traditional, functional, and practical aspects of the US Republic.
I could catalogue many of these events here, but I would suggest you have read about most of them - but perhaps never with an over all picture in mind. They are the things that make you think: "What the hell is going on with the world? Has the country gone CRAZY?"
From trying to remove the flag and crosses/stars from a war memorial site, to mass marches of people with foreign flags in the US capital, to people marrying THEMSELVES, to the government forcing insurance mandates on the populace and morality on the Churches, to the general war on faith, honour, tradition, and morality.
Whether it is sexualizing children in the class room, or vilifying past glories; espousing collectivism, or pushing for 'gun control'; pushing a favoured 'science', or directly mocking a child's traditional faith - the schools seem to be in the general business of erasing the exceptionalism that has characterized the national ideology of the USA (and indeed many Western nations). That is to say, they do not want you to think your special or exceptional in any way, unless you meet their ideological standards.
Once you do, you are ALL special.
Meritocracy is replaced by conditioned OBEDIENCE.
This egalitarianism is blatantly globalist in it's ambitions. It is a brain-child of such organizations as the UN.
So? Break down the nation, destroy the faith, redefine morality, in order to create WHAT?
The dreaded 'NWO'? A new Power-Block? Reinforce an elite? Or just for the sheer HELL of it?
No matter the reasoning, which is a straw man anyway, the point is it must be stopped.
Americans, Canadians, Britons, and all civilized nations must arrest these trends and reassert the REAL meaning of the term 'progress'.
The need is to take the minds of our children back from these tools; to FREE them of this ideological  racism, elitism, and barbarous culture of death being spewed at them in class rooms and colleges across the US and Canada.

Religion useful for atheists too!

An unusually moderate take from an agnostic/athiest rationalist.

Could this be the end of 'new Atheism' and a return to sober Agnosticism by the intellectual elite? Don't hold your breath!

It is nice to hear, however, the sane approach to this metaphysical mental exercise still exists; that one may still think freely within the 'free thinker' movement.
Kudos to De Botton for taking a stand against negativity and ant-religious bigotry.
A new title for my book list :)

Religion useful for atheists too, author argues (from CTV.ca) 

What if instead of mocking religions, atheists could borrow the very best ideas from? That's the question author Alain de Botton asks in his intellectually challenging but highly readable new book, "Religion for Atheists."

De Botton argues that it's possible for those who don't believe in God to look to religion for insights on everything from how to communicate ideas well, to how to build a sense of community, to how to keep our egos in check.

De Botton, who has published bestselling books on a range of subjects, from the philosphy of love, to architecture, to travel, has little patience for the debate about whether God exists. There will never be an answer to that one, he insists.

But he says for too long, his fellow atheists have wasted so much energy arguing with the faithful about whether the doctrines of religion are "true."

"Atheism has really been put on the map by what I call New Atheists, like Richard Dawkins and Chris Hitchens. They've been very successful, but at the same time, they've gone a little far with a negative direction. They've identified atheism with a hatred of religion – not just non-belief, but mockery and loathing," de Botton told CTVNews.ca recently when he was in Toronto.

While these "noisy fringes of atheism" -- as he calls them -- have dominated the public debate about atheism, he believes there remains "a silent majority" of atheists who don't necessarily hate religion and don't believe that "religion poisons everything," as Hitchens so fervently believed.

"I think there is a middle who think, ‘Look, maybe the doctrines of religion are not that convincing, but Christmas carols are nice, and religions rites of passage are nice,'" he says.

Those atheists who have been so quick to dismiss religious faith have failed to notice what makes religions as institutions so compelling, de Botton says.

There are a number of things that religion gets right, de Botton argues. The way they use music, religious art, and lyricism to inspire, or example. Or the way that every religion in the world emphasizes time for quiet reflection, to take a step back and to be reminded of our need for humility in a greater universe.

All religions have also always focused on architecture, building worship spaces designed for reverence, says de Botton.

"They know that the space you're in really affects your mood. It can inspire awe or calm, or gratitude, or love. The secular world thinks of humans as just brains that don't need that, and that our eyes are not affected. Whereas, or course, we are integrated beings and the space we're in can influence our ideas," he says.

He writes that secularism has been so concerned with personal freedom that it has missed the opportunity to guide humans on how to live.

"So opposed have many atheists been to the content of religious belief that they have omitted to appreciate its inspiring and still valid overall object: to provide us with well-structured advice on how to lead our lives," he writes in the book.

He writes that "no existing mainstream secular institution has a declared interest in teaching us the art of living." But he says the keys to the art of living can easily be found by sampling a bit of each of the world's religions.

It is that idea that de Botton knows will anger religious believers. Religions are not buffets where you can pick what you like and discard the rest, they protest. But de Botton argues that the downfall of many of the world's faiths is their insistence that followers "must eat everything on the plate."

"I think you can pick and choose morality from different religions," he says. "I know that sounds bizarre and I'm a fan of commitment. But the idea of having to commit to only one faith seems bizarre.

"I understand it if you're a believer. But as a non-believer, it's no more important to stick to one faith than to stick to one kind of novel as a student of literature. Imagine if you said, "I really like Jane Austen." And someone said to you, "Well, I hope you'll only be reading Austen then, and not picking and mixing and reading (Vladimir) Nabokov next." You would think, well why not?"

De Boton says just as we can appreciate different aspects of Austen and Nabokov's writing, so too can we appreciate the Zen Buddhist emphasis on compassion or the Jewish emphasis on forgiveness.

"Why not pick and mix ideas?" he asks.

To BE

I had a post all set for today, but I decided to write this little blurb instead.
A liitle preface. I woke to a windy, cool, snowy morning and a smiling little child. After spending some profound moments looking into they eyes of our baby boy, I began to think about BEING.
Not the why or how, but the ACT.
After a while the little guy dozed off, and I put him in his crib, and decided to watch my wife sleep for a while. What a beautiful site!
To see this other half of me, this friend, ally, and soul mate as she rested. It had been far too long. Again, after a while I left the room. I did not want to wake her or my boy.
So, I went downstairs to find my adult son playing with our dogs and laughing. Our dogs are Goldens, and it very easy to tell when they are happy. They literally smile. All three of them were in a state of absolute happiness.
I felt almost as if I were intruding, until my son set the wild beasties at me and I found myself in that happy fray (and immediately coated in shed fur). After a while my son met my eyes and said: I love you dad. The dogs also instantly calmed and began to snuggle.
The cumulative effects of these 'normal' events was that I have not felt SO alive since I watched the birth of my son. So at HOME.
Well, life always has a way of getting you 'back on track'. My son had to go to work and the dogs to go out and .... er do their business.
So, I found myself online wandering the blogosphere, coffee at my side.
Soon I was reading up, as I often do, on a blogger-buddy's page EGNORANCE (big recommend).
Dr Egnor, the author, had posted a very interesting piece on Aquinas (he is big proponent of Thomistic and Aristotlian thought) and his 'Second way'.
A fascinating piece, and nice explanation of a very complex metaphysical concept.
Then I found myself in the comments section.
Comments.... those dreaded and yet loved blurbs from readers that almost ALWAYS end in argument and acrimony.
Well in these comments there was a typical argument being formulated. It was, in short, an attempt by an intelligent, well educated, and affluent fellow to compare metaphysical reality with empiricism.
An attempt to compare BEING with accrued knowledge, in this case scientific knowledge.
This fellow had compared scientific theory with religious faith.
Talk about apples and oranges?
I am not sure what his motive is, except to perhaps prove some sort of supremacy of science or an incomparability between the two.  But like all arguments based on category errors and fallacies, he had no ammunition for the intellectual gun. Despite his well versed points, the argument was hollow.
(If you wish to read the original comments, please feel free to at the above link.)
This is where my morning came back to me, as well as some insights from a recent conversation with a Buddhist colleague of mine.
I had to interject. Everyone is entitled to MY opinion, and so I gave it.
Below is the excerpt that is relevant here:

"[to bachfiend, a commenter and another blogger-buddy]
Pépé's [a friend and ally in this 'debate'] certainty is not based on empirical deduction of material properties, yours is.
 Pépé's EXISTENCE is the basis of his certainty. He has come to metaphysical terms with BEING.
 It is foundational. He believes in God, I suspect, (as do I) in just the same way we all believe in mental abstracts like mathematics or language ITSELF.
In the same way you have faith in the laws of physics and your own reality, the Theist or Deist believes in a God and/or the super (above outside of normal) nature.
You muddle with an individual equation, while we accept the WHOLE discipline, and subject it to various interpretations. Quantum theory and MV [multi-verse] etc do NOTHING to repel those ideas.
In fact, they would REINFORCE the metaphysics if proven via scientific methods. The beautifully simple fact is: They are not NEEDED, nothing is; Unless there is PURPOSE and FUNCTION.
 Infinite or finite, no difference."

What on earth I am on about?
I am saying the mere act of being, recognized, gives us purpose.
That purpose leads us to realize there is more to this life than we can possibly imagine. It leads us to realize there is much more than physical function to us and all the life around us. More than that it gives meaning to the NON living aspects of our reality; even death becomes a functional process.
Where that path may take us is a myriad of destinations and even more conclusions.
There are many forms of 'reason' that may be applied, and they are known to us as 'metaphysics' and 'philosophy'. Some of these systems are organized into large groups of 'believers' or the 'faithful', and the rituals, ceremonies, and systems of thought and behaviour we know as 'religion'.
How does 'science' come in? It doesn't.  That's the point.
Science is a means to understand HOW the tangible things we sense about us function. It PRESUPPOSES a function, it maps patterns, and seeks useful ways in which we can match purpose with nature; which, of course, brings us full circle.
They should be hand in glove - not at odds.
And that is a very good analogy, for what good is a glove if their is no hand for it to keep protected and/or warm? What good is science without a PURPOSE?
Does this mean I am saying you should all rush out and  convert to my specific denomination lest ye burn in brimstone??
LOL NO!
It means we all need to BE, before we can truly understand how being works.
It means that even if you're uninterested or lazy to learn about the roots of reason, you CANNOT deny it. To do so is not a proof for no function, lack of purpose, or nihilism. Rather, it is proof of a lack of self understanding and a failure of the (in this case rich) imagination.
It is easily corrected by looking to our collective history and by reflecting on the single most potent immaterial force in all of life: LOVE.
I know...I know.... my foes in this debate will say "sheer sophistry!"
What would I say to them?
Look into they eyes of your child and see if you can deny their function, purpose, and meaning. Even if you find it easy to 'write off' yourself, love may just open your eyes to a MUCH bigger, richer, and meaningful cosmos. Watch a bear hug its cubs, watch a bird in flight.....
There is too much love and beauty, evil and ugliness to deny the truth and purpose of our very BEING.
Some things just don't fit in a test tube, cannot be reduced to math, or explained away by answering the 'how'. Sometimes the question is simply 'why'.
Other times it is just about the most simple of things.
To BE.

An appropriate song from a master. 

'Oh God!' Dawkins admits he is agnostic

A funny tidbit in the adventures of Captain Materialism himself....

'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic

By SUZANNAH HILLS

Professor Richard Dawkins today dismissed his hard-earned reputation as a militant atheist - admitting that he is actually agnostic as he can't prove God doesn't exist.

The country's foremost champion of the Darwinist evolution, who wrote The God Delusion, stunned audience members when he made the confession during a lively debate on the origins of the universe with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Professor Dawkins, the former Oxford Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, is a dedicated admirer of Charles Darwin, regarding the Victorian pioneer of evolution as the man who explained ‘everything we know about life’.

But when Archbishop Dr Rowan Williams suggested that Professor Darwin is often described as the world's most famous atheist, the geneticist responded: 'Not by me'.

He said: 'On a scale of seven, where one means I know he exists, and seven I know he doesn't, I call myself a six.'

Professor Dawkins went on to say he believed was a '6.9', stating: 'That doesn't mean I'm absolutely confident, that I absolutely know, because I don't.'

They were discussing 'The Nature of Human Beings and the Question of their Ultimate Origin' when Professor Dawkins admitted he was agnostic rather than an atheist

The two high-profile figures were debating whether Biblical writers 'got it wrong' by not saying that the universe is billions of years old.

The Archbishop said: 'The writers of the Bible, inspired as I believe they were, were not inspired to do 21st century physics, they were inspired to pass on to their readers what God wanted them to know.

'In the first book of the Bible is the basic information - the universe depends on God, humanity has a very distinctive role in that universe , and humanity has made rather a mess of it.'

But Professor Dawkins said he was 'baffled' by 'the way sophisticated theologians who know Adam and Eve never existed still keep talking about it'.

This latest admission by Professor Dawkins comes after he was left lost for words name the full title of his scientific hero’s most famous work during a radio discussion last week in which he accused Christians of being ignorant of the Bible.

In his frustration, he resorted to a helpless: ‘Oh God.’

ORIGINAL:
 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html#ixzz1nP2peVtT

FIrst the banner, now the oath....

Cheered on by their victory over the the various town square Santas, School grad ceremnonies, Military funerals and grave-sites,  and of course the 'prayer banner' of Cranston HS; the Atheist movement has now set it's sites on the US pledge of allegiance.

ACTON, Mass. –  A family has reportedly asked a Massachusetts judge to order a school district to remove the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

Interestingly enough, the plaintiffs, who are atheists and call themselves the "Does" to protect their identity, are not citing the establishment clause of the First Amendment in making their case. Instead, they are challenging the Pledge on the basis of the Massachusetts Constitution's guarantee of "equal protection."

The Does argue that schools discriminate against atheist children by taking part in a pledge that makes them feel “marginalized,” the Boston Herald reports.

Superior Court Judge Jane Haggerty will hear arguments Monday in Doe vs. Acton-Boxborough Regional School District.

In another challenge against saying the Pledge of Allegiance in Brookline Mass., a group called "Brookline Pax" had asked the town to vote in favor of a resolution calling for the school committee to rescind its Pledge of Allegiance policy and stop the Pledge from being recited in the schools.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/13/family-asks-judge-to-order-massachusetts-school-district-to-remove-under-god/?test=latestnews#ixzz1mIwu3Pkk

So, because a few kids have fringe beliefs that make them feel 'left out' they want to alter or even SCRAP this oath?

the Aristocrat

On one of my favourite blogs (egnorance) Dr Egnor posted an all time favourite poem by the master intellect, G.K. Chesterston.
It's infernal subject could not be more appropriate for our Faustian crowd!|

Chesterton: the Aristocrat

G.K. Chesterton, from The Catholic Thing:

The Aristocrat 

The Devil is a gentleman, and asks you down to stay

At his little place at What’sitsname (it isn’t far away).

They say the sport is splendid; there is always something new,

And fairy scenes, and fearful feats that none but he can do;

He can shoot the feathered cherubs if they fly on the estate,

Or fish for Father Neptune with the mermaids for a bait;

He scaled amid the staggering stars that precipice, the sky,

And blew his trumpet above heaven, and got by mastery

The starry crown of God Himself, and shoved it on the shelf;

But the Devil is a gentleman, and doesn’t brag himself.

O blind your eyes and break your heart and hack your hand away,

And lose your love and shave your head; but do not go to stay

At the little place in What’sitsname where folks are rich and clever;

The golden and the goodly house, where things grow worse for ever;

There are things you need not know of, though you live and die in vain,

There are souls more sick of pleasure than you are sick of pain;

There is a game of April Fool that’s played behind its door,

Where the fool remains for ever and the April comes no more,

Where the splendour of the daylight grows drearier than the dark,

And life droops like a vulture that once was such a lark:

And that is the Blue Devil that once was the Blue Bird;

For the Devil is a gentleman, and doesn’t keep his word.

"There are souls more sick of pleasure than you are sick of pain."

The lures of Satan are subtle, often, and he woos with pleasure. Sometimes suffering is healthier, as Christianity has always taught. Chesterton at his best.

Drawing by John Welding 

Original link and comments HERE.
Thanks again, Mike!

What is science?

FROM EGNORANCE

What is science?

New atheists invoke 'science' as the pinnacle of methods to find truth.

In fact, atheists of a positivist inclination assert that science is the only way to know truth. By science, they explicitly mean methodological naturalism. Implicitly, they presume philosophical naturalism.

But what is 'science'?

Traditionally, as understood by philosophers from the ancient Greeks to the scholastics, scientia was Latin for "knowing" and "understanding". Scientia was an organized body of knowledge. It did not refer only to knowledge of nature. Theology was scientia. Ethics was scientia. Knowledge of nature was referred to as natural philosophy.

From the early modern period, science came to refer to scientia of the natural world. It has generally been distinguished by the scientific method-- a system of testing hypotheses about the natural world. Science came to mean primarily the acquisition of knowledge about nature that permits the manipulation of nature.

Understanding nature is, of course, still philosophy. It is still a kind of knowing. Scientia of nature, understood classically.

Science is stipulated to be the study of nature. So, of course, it cannot adjudicate the existence of the supernatural. It is a way of knowing tailored to knowing nature. And science understood as metaphysical naturalism does not presuppose natural causes. It presupposes natural effects. Supernatural causes are very much in the purview of natural science, as long as they have natural effects. An obvious example of a natural effect with a supernatural cause (by definition!) is the Big Bang. Nature itself cannot be caused by nature.

The question as to whether nature is all that exists is a question beyond science. It is a philosophical question broadly. It is a metaphysical question specifically.

From metaphysics, the argument that nature is all that exists is extraordinarily weak. Only two metaphysical arguments of any substance at all have been advanced to defend the assertion that nature is all that exists.

Hume proposed that perhaps nature, not God, is the ground of Being. If one must stop in causal regress, why not stop at nature, instead of God?

The reply to Hume preceded Hume. Scholastics had pointed out centuries earlier that the ground of existence must itself contain the principle of its own existence. It must not be contingent. But nature is contingent. It changes constantly, and its components begin and cease to exist continuously. In fact, we now know that nature (the universe) had a moment of beginning. It could not be its own cause of existence because nothing can cause itself to exist. Existence must be caused by Something outside of nature. That Something must Itself have an essence (what It is) that is existence (that It is). The Cause of nature must be outside of nature. Supernatural.

Kant understood the power of this argument, but he denied that we can extend logic to the supernatural. He asserted that all that we can know is the reality presented by our senses- the phenomenal. Reality-in-itself-- the noumenal-- was unknowable to us. he did believe in God, but he believed that God could only be known through the moral law in each of us-- the Categorical Imperative, but not through logic.

There are two problems with Kant's reasoning. The first is that the inference to the Prime Mover/First Cause/Necessary Existence is a deductive argument that extends only through the phenomenal-- through the world as known to the senses. The Ground for Existence is the conclusion of arguments restricted to phenomenal premises. We can validly infer that a Ground for Existence must exist based solely on phenomenal arguments. The nature of the Ground for Existence may be noumenal, but its necessary existence is demonstrable. The argument is phenomenal, and valid.

The other problem with Kant's critique is that if we understand the Ground for Existence as entirely beyond human understanding, including the conclusion that such a Ground exists, then we violate the Principle of Sufficient Reason (the PSR). The PSR asserts that everything has a reason for its existence. It of course does not assert that we currently know the reason for everything (we obviously don't), but it asserts that a reason for everything does exist.

If the Ground for Existence is Kantian noumenal, and intrinsically unknowable and beyond confirmation of its existence, then the PSR is violated. But is the PSR is violated for the universe, then it is violated for each component of the universe. If nothing in the universe needs a reason for its existence, then science and logic are without foundation. 'It just happened' becomes an acceptable explanation for anything and everything.

If Kant is right, then the reasoning Kant used to arrive at his conclusion is without ground. Kant's argument is ultimately self-refuting.

The atheist may reply that the need for a Ground for Existence must apply to God Himself, and therefore recourse to the supernatural doesn't spare us infinite regression.

The atheist would be wrong. God is supernatural, and therefore not a "thing" in need of explanation. If fact, only a supernatural Ground can stop infinite regress. God's essence is His existence.

Science is the study of nature using the scientific method. It has no traction on supernatural questions.

Metaphysics, which does have traction on questions of ultimate reality, provides a powerful and thus far unrefuted argument for His necessary existence.