Panentheism and Brute Facts

[Neo-Scholastic]

1). [cause & effect]How exactly do you think that naturalists hold this to be a brute fact and yet you (and other theists) do not? … philosophical discussions on the metaphysics …uniformly done by atheists and/or naturalist philosophers - I find it dubious that all of them simply relegate it to a brute fact if theists found a way to avoid such.

You’ve mentioned the preponderance of atheists among philosophers before. What you say is true. Earlier I chose not to address it since it seems like an argument from authority similar to “4 out of 5 dentists recommend Crest”. I imaging parallel discussions of metaphysics happen in theology departments and do not cross the academic divide.

3) [rational thought] This is a can of … You're not a presuppositionalist, are you?... The acceptance of the 'validity' of rational thought is an axiom.

No, I do not agree with presuppositionalism. I think it’s stupid. And yes this is more of an axiom, but (I think) one that tacitly accepts an active role for intellect. My thoughts on this remain sketchy. I’m still thinking about the issue. We can drop it for now.

As for 2) [self-organization], again, this seems to terminate in a brute fact in your worldview as well. We have promising potential answers from physics via the phenomenon of entropy. But in your worldview it would, I presume, terminate in God's will which doesn't seem a very good answer at all.

I will need to know more about entropy theories. I believe you mentioned Sean Carroll? In the same way that you do not understand my primal matter/informing principle distinction, I’m not fully understanding your references to entropy. I trust that you have put much thought into it and have background knowledge that remains unexpressed.
With respect to your second point, yes, ultimately everything does go back to Divine Will, but I’m stopping short of that holding to intentionality (awareness & choice) as a fundamental aspect of reality that supplies essential attributes.

4)[being & change] Not sure how naturalists are any more at 'fault' here than any other worldview.

[quote='MindForgedManacle' pid='635151' dateline='1395802171']…. I'll skip over the primal matter and informing principle bit, since we've already had a little back and forth on it, and it's possible I just don't understand (or have the patience to).

Fair enough, but that the relationship between being and change serves as a central part of my conceptual framework. Unfortunately these two issues, ‘being & change’ and ‘primal matter & informing principle’ are two sides of the same coin, so to speak. Plus it fascinates me. It’s bound to come up again eventually 
[quote='MindForgedManacle' pid='635151' dateline='1395802171']…. Facts don't have to 'work together harmoniously'. … I suppose you mean the framework(s) within which we interpret the facts must be harmonious, as that's the only way I can make sense of what you're saying…

Not exactly. We all agree that some aspects of reality are readily apparent and everyone (except radical skeptics, like Hume) accepts them, either tacitly or explicitly. I say that based on these facts, you can identify common principles unite them into a single theory. I’m not saying that God IS the unifying principle, since (as you observed) that only pushes the problem back. I am saying that the deduced unifying principles are consistent with those commonly attributed to God.

…. Eh, I've run into panentheism before, mostly by quantum woo quacks on YouTube …and it [panentheism] has its own share of problems which I think unearth some fundamental weaknesses in your worldview (I can unpack this if you want…More interesting, I think holding to panetheism causes some real contradictions and tensions in your worldview, which I'll detail if asked …

There seems to be no shortage of ‘quantum woo’. From ‘What the #&^% Do We Know” to “The Secret”. I find it silly but also somewhat entertaining. That said, I do believe that quantum process deserve serious consideration since a) they bear directly on the fundamental structure of reality and b) some problems, like mind-brain interaction, haven’t advanced using 19th century physics.
If you find it more interesting, I would not mind focusing on the problems you see with panetheism. I welcome the serious criticism. I do not doubt that some are valid, since no philosophical system is entirely complete; questions always remain.