Entheogenica Esoterica

The typical trip:

https://vimeo.com/272139075
* "The STOP", Jim Cummings ( vimeo.com/jimmycthatsme ), May 27, 2018, https://vimeo.com/272139075 . Mirrors: Danny-Madden-The-STOP.mp4 , 68805634 bytes, MD5: cb2d5e040fcb7aaea9569ceff7ab7599, https://mirrorcreator.com/files/UPW9GRUH/ , https://openload.co/f/_Vz1W29806U/ , https://bit.ly/2Hz0mYk . Directed by Danny Madden; written by Danny Madden, Jim Cummings and Dustin Hahn. From the television miniseries Minutes (prod. co.: Vanishing Angle; distr.: Fullscreen, Inc., Jan. 2017), also entitled The Minutes Collection.

* * * * *

Exoterica Esoterica

""
However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

...

But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.
""

From Paul, 1 Corinthians 2:6-8 and 15:23,24, New King James Version.

Cf.:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhys...ics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , https://sites.google.com/site/physic...ics-of-God.pdf .

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk@4ax.com , July 30, 2013, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...ro/KQWt4KcpMVo , https://archive.is/a04w9 , https://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS .

* James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), 60 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761, https://archive.org/download/JesusIs...-Anarchist.pdf , http://theophysics.host56.com/anarchist-jesus.pdf , https://jamesredford.github.io/Redfo...-Anarchist.pdf .

* James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 15, 2011, 9 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733, https://archive.org/download/Liberta...rtarianism.pdf , https://jamesredford.github.io/Redfo...rtarianism.pdf , http://theophysics.freevar.com/Redfo...rtarianism.pdf .

* James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", Daily Anarchist Forum, May 29, 2018, https://megalodon.jp/2018-0610-0734-...p?topic=3289.0 , https://archive.is/QalJT , https://web.archive.org/web/20180609...p?topic=3289.0 .

Thanks Jamie, nice post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

Thanks Jamie, nice post.

---

What is nice about it? The only thing that could be is Paul's admonishing the people of Corinth to be nice to each other, rather than engaging in the furious arguments about their extravagant consumption of food while others went hungry, their sexual infidelities, their loose interpretation of the Gospels, assuming they knew what they were. Corinth at the time was the sort of place where the 1% -many of whom had converted- wanted it all: their wealth and power, and the Christian faith, but where they were also reluctant to let go of their Pagan heritage.

This is where the not-so-nice Paul enters to lay down the law, most of it written by him rather than Jesus, as Paul is, in effect creating in the Roman Catholic Church a parallel religion to the beliefs expressed by Jesus in the Gospels. You can be a Christian without following Paul. One of Paul's long-lasting legacies is the denial of the right of women to minister to the faithful, strict rules on dress which equate to women being covered up as much as possible, and the need to follow the rules as laid down by, well, Paul, and subsequently a corps of Priests modeled on his Ministry. In fact large parts of Corinthians 1 have their parallel in numerous passages of the Quran where Muhammad admonishes converts through their loose attachment to the faith he was trying to establish among them, particularly the rules on women's dress and dietary rules. The irony is that Paul claims the consequence of laxity in faith blinds people to the truth -which only he knows- and that it was this ignorance that facilitated the Crucifixion. But if God ordains everything, and Jesus was the temporal, physical manifestation of God, then Jesus knew in advance he was going to be crucified, so that in his mission on earth he failed, for otherwise he would not have been crucified, and he would have delivered the 'Kingdom' to 'the father'. Or, if so many people chose not to believe him, why did they not? If God in human form can't persuade you that he is telling the truth, who else can?

Jamie and her friends believe this deliverance that Christ himself failed to achieve when he was alive, will happen again, and while it will happen with or without any effort on our part, we can be prepared for the Second Coming and thus be saved. That the fascinating anthropology of religion can be linked to a preposterous salvation ideology in the name of science tells you all you need to know about the garbage dressed up as Exoterica Esoterica which Jamie has been posting under various names in various other forums on the internet.

You can read about the social and theological context of Corinthians 1 here-
https://www.christiancentury.org/art...le-culture-war

Thanks Stavros, nice post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

What is nice about it? The only thing that could be is Paul's admonishing the people of Corinth to be nice to each other, rather than engaging in the furious arguments about their extravagant consumption of food while others went hungry, their sexual infidelities, their loose interpretation of the Gospels, assuming they knew what they were. Corinth at the time was the sort of place where the 1% -many of whom had converted- wanted it all: their wealth and power, and the Christian faith, but where they were also reluctant to let go of their Pagan heritage.

This is where the not-so-nice Paul enters to lay down the law, most of it written by him rather than Jesus, as Paul is, in effect creating in the Roman Catholic Church a parallel religion to the beliefs expressed by Jesus in the Gospels. You can be a Christian without following Paul. One of Paul's long-lasting legacies is the denial of the right of women to minister to the faithful, strict rules on dress which equate to women being covered up as much as possible, and the need to follow the rules as laid down by, well, Paul, and subsequently a corps of Priests modeled on his Ministry. In fact large parts of Corinthians 1 have their parallel in numerous passages of the Quran where Muhammad admonishes converts through their loose attachment to the faith he was trying to establish among them, particularly the rules on women's dress and dietary rules. The irony is that Paul claims the consequence of laxity in faith blinds people to the truth -which only he knows- and that it was this ignorance that facilitated the Crucifixion. But if God ordains everything, and Jesus was the temporal, physical manifestation of God, then Jesus knew in advance he was going to be crucified, so that in his mission on earth he failed, for otherwise he would not have been crucified, and he would have delivered the 'Kingdom' to 'the father'. Or, if so many people chose not to believe him, why did they not? If God in human form can't persuade you that he is telling the truth, who else can?

Jamie and her friends believe this deliverance that Christ himself failed to achieve when he was alive, will happen again, and while it will happen with or without any effort on our part, we can be prepared for the Second Coming and thus be saved. That the fascinating anthropology of religion can be linked to a preposterous salvation ideology in the name of science tells you all you need to know about the garbage dressed up as Exoterica Esoterica which Jamie has been posting under various names in various other forums on the internet.

You can read about the social and theological context of Corinthians 1 here-
https://www.christiancentury.org/art...le-culture-war

---

By that line of reasoning, then Pauline Christians would also have to contend that a man having long hair, or a woman having short hair, is "shameful" and a "dishonor" (see 1 Corinthians 11:6; 11:14). Which would mean that Paul must consider Samson's long hair to be a "dishonor" (see Judges chapters 13-16, particularly 16:16-19; see also Numbers 6:5). But on the issue of long hair on men and short hair on women, Paul ended the matter by saying "But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God" (see 1 Corinthians 11:16)--thus making it clear that Paul sometimes simply let his own personal prejudices dictate what he regarded as "shameful" in his writings.

Yet it must be remembered that Paul is merely human, and so sometimes suffered from the prejudices of his time. He was often inspired by the Holy Spirit, but he was by no means infallible like Jesus Christ. Proof that the apostles were not infallible (even after they had been given the gift of the Holy Spirit) comes from the New Testament itself. See Galatians 2:11-21, where Paul strongly rebukes Peter for Peter's error in teaching that Jews still had to obey the so-called Law of Moses--and this is after the apostles had been given the gift of the Holy Spirit (see Acts 2:1-4)! So obviously the apostles were not incapable of error, even after having been given the Holy Spirit. But Paul also said that "love is the fulfillment of the law" (see Romans 13:8-10), and "all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself'" (that "one word" being: "love")--see Galatians 5:14.

Nor did Christ fail on the cross, as it was always Jesus's intention to go to the cross. The deliverance is a technological event that requires civilizational advancement. Soon technology will become advanced enough to convert our human brains into artificial computer hardware (i.e., at the cellular level, such as by using nanobots), at which point we will be technologically immortal; and due to the vast amounts of computational resources at that time, we will also be superintelligent. The leading technologists place this epoch circa 2045, although it can come much quicker, particularly given the incredible recent advancements in machine-learning Artificial Intelligence via artificial neural networks. Said epoch is often termed the Singularity, or the Technological Singularity, and the field of interest pertaining to it is most commonly called transhumanism.

The purpose of the First Coming was in order to give mankind knowledge of God in enough degree so as to give them confidence in the human project as the Jaynesian gods of old grew ever-more silent; to impart a conception of God as omnibenevolent and rational as opposed to the ever-bickering and insane Jaynesian gods, hence encouraging the systematic study into the physical world as a world that ultimately makes sense; to imbue a necessary social ethic upon mankind in enough degree so that mankind could rise up and create societies leading to our present technological time; and to give mankind the promise of immortality and salvation, thereby again giving humans assurance in the human endeavor as the old Jaynesian gods went silent.

Indeed, the *cross* is a device of overt government terrorism. Thus the Christian symbolism of the cross represents not merely triumph over death, but also triumph over government, even in death--making the Christian cross the ultimate anarchist symbol.

Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) demonstrating that sapient life (in the form of, e.g., immortal superintelligent human-mind computer-uploads and artificial intelligences) is required by the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) to take control over all matter in the universe, for said life to eventually force the collapse of the universe, and for the computational resources of the universe (in terms of both processor speed and memory space) to diverge to infinity as the universe collapses into a final singularity, termed the Omega Point. Said Omega Point cosmology is also an intrinsic component of the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics, of which TOE is itself logically forced by the aforesaid known physical laws.

Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been extensively peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals, such as Reports on Progress in Physics (the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional organization for physicists), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (a journal that Nobel Prize in Physics winner Richard Feynman also published in), and Physics Letters, among other journals.

The Omega Point final singularity has all the unique properties (quiddities) claimed for God in the traditional religions. For much more on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the details on how it uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhys...ics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , https://sites.google.com/site/physic...ics-of-God.pdf .

Additionally, in the below resource are different sections which contain some helpful notes and commentary by me pertaining to multimedia wherein Prof. Tipler explains the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk@4ax.com , July 30, 2013, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...ro/KQWt4KcpMVo , https://archive.is/a04w9 , https://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS .

For details on the anarchism of Jesus Christ, see my following article:

* James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), 60 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761, https://archive.org/download/JesusIs...-Anarchist.pdf , http://theophysics.host56.com/anarchist-jesus.pdf , https://jamesredford.github.io/Redfo...-Anarchist.pdf .

My next article is complementary to my foregoing one:

* James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 15, 2011, 9 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733, https://archive.org/download/Liberta...rtarianism.pdf , https://jamesredford.github.io/Redfo...rtarianism.pdf , http://theophysics.freevar.com/Redfo...rtarianism.pdf .

And for information on the Jaynesian gods of old mentioned above, see my below article:

* James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", Daily Anarchist Forum, May 29, 2018, https://megalodon.jp/2018-0610-0734-...p?topic=3289.0 , https://archive.is/QalJT , https://web.archive.org/web/20180609...p?topic=3289.0 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

Thanks Jamie, nice post.

---

My pleasure, Buttslinger. Thank you for the compliment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamie Michelle

Nor did Christ fail on the cross, as it was always Jesus's intention to go to the cross. The deliverance is a technological event that requires civilizational advancement. Soon technology will become advanced enough to convert our human brains into artificial computer hardware (i.e., at the cellular level, such as by using nanobots), at which point we will be technologically immortal; and due to the vast amounts of computational resources at that time, we will also be superintelligent. The leading technologists place this epoch circa 2045, although it can come much quicker, particularly given the incredible recent advancements in machine-learning Artificial Intelligence via artificial neural networks. Said epoch is often termed the Singularity, or the Technological Singularity, and the field of interest pertaining to it is most commonly called transhumanism.

---

Unusually, it seems, we can agree with Paul as a passionate advocate of Christian love, but my point was that Paul was frustrated with the chronic violations of the gospels after he presented them to communities and they converted, such as the one in Corinth. It was this need for control that led Paul to create a doctrine out of the gospels that did not need one, and a vehicle -the Church- to promote it. From a comparative historical perspective, one can see Paul as an early version of Lenin, and note the similarities between the Roman Catholic Church and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, but not because Jesus was a socialist, which in contemporary terms he was.

The Cross is not a symbol of anarchism at all, but of the Holy Trinity, the organized trio without whom, allegedly, we would not exist, and that confuses those who wonder where the 'One God' fits in (ask a Muslim or a Jew). Moreover, it is possible that before Jesus there was Akhenaten, the first known 'leader' of a state/civilization to declare there is but one God and who, as with Jesus in Roman Palestine, was opposed by the Egyptian Priestly class and murdered/sacrificed for his beliefs.

Judaism had its Golden Calf, Paul had his Corinthians, Muhammad had to flee Mecca -in all three cases, an apparently simple message of One God, one society without conflict, one set of rules and values everyone can live by, people found it hard to adopt to the rules. The prohibitions on lust, or any form of selfish pleasure were hard to resist, as was the command to love that idiot across the street -so people had to find ways to get round the rules. Hence the numerous and eventually contradictory rules in the Old Testament that created thousands of learned interpretations; the attempt by Paul to smooth the wrinkles of the early Christian church and, in a devastating dereliction of their faith, the wars the Roman Catholics waged against the Cathars who defied the Church; the Hadith and the commentaries on the Quran that were designed to give Muslims alternative options and which often advocated severe rules that Muhammad would have objected to.

None of this promotes the nonsense known as the 'Singularity' which is an interesting concept in itself but has no real application to the world we live in, where millions of people live without electricity and running water, so the idea we are all going to be subsumed into a global super-computer lies somewhere between science fiction and ludicrous rubbish. Indeed, the initial singularity posed by Hawkins and others is a concept created to account for a condition science cannot yet explain: what existed before the Big Bang? To argue it was God is just as useless. To argue that it was God and that everything that has happened was determined from the start and that immorality is the end-result is to close a circle of thought that only exists in the minds of those who invented it. It is little more than Hegelian or Buddhist nothingness/nirvana, with added God, and Jesus to give it a human face and some emotional attachment to the soteriology of lost souls yearning for their heaven on earth. Most people will settle for a job with a decent income, and an end to war and hate. And those actually mean something and are in practical terms, possible to achieve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

Thanks Stavros, nice post.

---

You are welcome, thanks for the compliment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Unusually, it seems, we can agree with Paul as a passionate advocate of Christian love, but my point was that Paul was frustrated with the chronic violations of the gospels after he presented them to communities and they converted, such as the one in Corinth. It was this need for control that led Paul to create a doctrine out of the gospels that did not need one, and a vehicle -the Church- to promote it. From a comparative historical perspective, one can see Paul as an early version of Lenin, and note the similarities between the Roman Catholic Church and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, but not because Jesus was a socialist, which in contemporary terms he was.

---

Christ is no socialist. Jesus preached complete pacifism, which excludes the possibility of government, i.e., a state. For the details on that, see my following article, which demonstrates the logically unavoidable anarchism of Jesus Christ's teachings as recorded in the New Testament (in addition to analyzing their context in relation to his actions, to the Tanakh, and to his apostles). It is logically complete on this subject, in the sense of its apodixis.

* James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), 60 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761, https://archive.org/download/JesusIs...-Anarchist.pdf , http://theophysics.host56.com/anarchist-jesus.pdf , https://jamesredford.github.io/Redfo...-Anarchist.pdf .

My following article is complementary to my foregoing one:

* James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 15, 2011, 9 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733, https://archive.org/download/Liberta...rtarianism.pdf , https://jamesredford.github.io/Redfo...rtarianism.pdf , http://theophysics.freevar.com/Redfo...rtarianism.pdf .

Quote:

---

The Cross is not a symbol of anarchism at all, but of the Holy Trinity, the organized trio without whom, allegedly, we would not exist, and that confuses those who wonder where the 'One God' fits in (ask a Muslim or a Jew). Moreover, it is possible that before Jesus there was Akhenaten, the first known 'leader' of a state/civilization to declare there is but one God and who, as with Jesus in Roman Palestine, was opposed by the Egyptian Priestly class and murdered/sacrificed for his beliefs.

Judaism had its Golden Calf, Paul had his Corinthians, Muhammad had to flee Mecca -in all three cases, an apparently simple message of One God, one society without conflict, one set of rules and values everyone can live by, people found it hard to adopt to the rules. The prohibitions on lust, or any form of selfish pleasure were hard to resist, as was the command to love that idiot across the street -so people had to find ways to get round the rules. Hence the numerous and eventually contradictory rules in the Old Testament that created thousands of learned interpretations; the attempt by Paul to smooth the wrinkles of the early Christian church and, in a devastating dereliction of their faith, the wars the Roman Catholics waged against the Cathars who defied the Church; the Hadith and the commentaries on the Quran that were designed to give Muslims alternative options and which often advocated severe rules that Muhammad would have objected to.

---

Paul was a complete pacifist himself (i.e., after his conversion on the road to Damascus). Paul was giving suggestions for what he thought would be good internal rules for the church to organize by. Muhammad was a warlord who converted people by force.

I myself am not much of a churchgoer, because none of them are doing a good educatory job. I would much rather see Christian educatory institutes with a strong emphasis on physics and transhumanism set up along the lines of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Pertaining to the Trinity and how the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) in the form of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology uniquely conform to, and precisely match, Christian theology:

The Omega Point is omniscient, having an infinite amount of information and knowing all that is logically possible to be known; it is omnipotent, having an infinite amount of energy and power; and it is omnipresent, consisting of all that exists. These three properties are the traditional quidditative definitions (i.e., haecceities) of God held by almost all of the world's leading religions. Hence, by definition, the Omega Point is God.

The Omega Point final singularity is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the first cause, a definition of God held by all the Abrahamic religions.

As well, as Stephen Hawking proved, the singularity is not in spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time (see S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973], pp. 217-221).

The Schmidt b-boundary has been shown to yield a topology in which the cosmological singularity is not Hausdorff separated from the points in spacetime, meaning that it is not possible to put an open set of points between the cosmological singularity and *any* point in spacetime proper. That is, the cosmological singularity has infinite nearness to every point in spacetime.

So the Omega Point is transcendent to, yet immanent in, space and time. Because the cosmological singularity exists outside of space and time, it is eternal, as time has no application to it.

Quite literally, the cosmological singularity is supernatural, in the sense that no form of physics can apply to it, since physical values are at infinity at the singularity, and so it is not possible to perform arithmetical operations on them; and in the sense that the singularity is beyond creation, as it is not a part of spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time.

And given an infinite amount of computational resources, per the Bekenstein Bound, recreating the exact quantum state of our present universe is trivial, requiring at most a mere 10^123 bits (the number which Roger Penrose calculated), or at most a mere 2^10^123 bits for every different quantum configuration of the universe logically possible (i.e., the powerset, of which the multiverse in its entirety at this point in universal history is a subset of this powerset). So the Omega Point will be able to resurrect us using merely an infinitesimally small amount of total computational resources: indeed, the multiversal resurrection will occur between 10^-10^10 and 10^-10^123 seconds before the Omega Point is reached, as the computational capacity of the universe at that stage will be great enough that doing so will require only a trivial amount of total computational resources.

Miracles are allowed by the known laws of physics using baryon annihilation, and its inverse, by way of electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model of particle physics, as baryon number minus lepton number, B - L, is conserved) caused via the Principle of Least Action by the physical requirement that the Omega Point final cosmological singularity exists. If the miracles of Jesus Christ were necessary in order for the universe to evolve into the Omega Point, and if the known laws of physics are correct, then the probability of those miracles occurring is certain.

Additionally, the cosmological singularity consists of a three-aspect structure: the final singularity (i.e., the Omega Point), the all-presents singularity (which exists at the boundary of the multiverse), and the initial singularity (i.e., the beginning of the Big Bang). These three distinct aspects which perform different physical functions in bringing about and sustaining existence are actually one singularity which connects the entirety of the multiverse.

Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the cosmological singularity (which, again, has all the haecceities claimed for God in the major religions), which is deselective of all other major religions.

For much more on the above, and for many more details on how the Omega Point cosmology uniquely and precisely matches the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following two articles:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhys...ics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god .

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk@4ax.com , July 30, 2013, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...ro/KQWt4KcpMVo , https://archive.is/a04w9 , https://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS .

Quote:

---

None of this promotes the nonsense known as the 'Singularity' which is an interesting concept in itself but has no real application to the world we live in, where millions of people live without electricity and running water, so the idea we are all going to be subsumed into a global super-computer lies somewhere between science fiction and ludicrous rubbish. Indeed, the initial singularity posed by Hawkins and others is a concept created to account for a condition science cannot yet explain: what existed before the Big Bang? To argue it was God is just as useless. To argue that it was God and that everything that has happened was determined from the start and that immorality is the end-result is to close a circle of thought that only exists in the minds of those who invented it. It is little more than Hegelian or Buddhist nothingness/nirvana, with added God, and Jesus to give it a human face and some emotional attachment to the soteriology of lost souls yearning for their heaven on earth. Most people will settle for a job with a decent income, and an end to war and hate. And those actually mean something and are in practical terms, possible to achieve.

---

Technology is advancing at an exponential rate. Once Artificial General Intelligence is obtained, convergence to superintelligence will be extremely rapid. Once superintelligence is obtained, then it will quickly converge to fast-spreading superintelligent computronium: the densest configuration of computational complexity which matter will allow. Noetic lightning of searing, mortally-incomprehensible pleasure will spread like wildfire across the entire universe. The universe will have its light-switch turned to the "on" position, as all matter becomes deliberately transformed into said computronium.

As I point out above, this process is actually a mathematical theorem within standard physics. Standard physics is the known laws of physics, viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. These aforestated known physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

I need a clarification, Jamie, would you say God existed before the big bang explosion exactly as He exists today?
I suppose if we feel the gravity of the earth, the heat from the sun, and the phases of the moon, maybe whatever makes us up still senses that seed of the universe, the blueprint of everything contained in our blueprint.
But I can't see God setting up shop sometime 60 billion years ago. How would you create a creator of all things?

[QUOTE=Jamie Michelle;1842611]

Christ is no socialist. Jesus preached complete pacifism, which excludes the possibility of government, i.e., a state. For the details on that, see my following article, which demonstrates the logically unavoidable anarchism of Jesus Christ's teachings as recorded in the New Testament (in addition to analyzing their context in relation to his actions, to the Tanakh, and to his apostles). It is logically complete on this subject, in the sense of its apodixis.

As usual, I cannot agree with this, and though we have probably exchanged views on this when I took your ideas apart a few years ago, again you simply ignore the close connections between Christianity and Socialism, not just in the UK but across Europe. When you described Jesus as an 'anarchist' you really mean 'Libertarian' because of your hostility to government and regulation, but that is irrelevant to the moral claims made by Christians for whom socialism was the expression of what it viewed as the 'Brotherhood of Man', and the rejection of key elements of capitalism such as greed, exploitation, and the opposite of what Christian Socialists believed in: 'fair shares', or the simple idea that the people that make wealth should profit from it through an equitable distribution of its benefits. The long tradition in the UK of the link between Christian faith and social justice was dealt with in the 1920s by RH Tawney in the now sadly neglected study Religion and The Rise of Capitalism, where he says:
A society which reverences the attainment of riches as the supreme felicity will naturally be disposed to regard the poor as damned in the next world, if only to justify itself for making their life a hell in this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._H._Tawney

You can also read this brief overview of the links between Christianity and socialism in the UK
http://www.victorianweb.org/victoria...socialism.html
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/christian-socialism-in-british-politics/

The Omega Point is omniscient, having an infinite amount of information and knowing all that is logically possible to be known; it is omnipotent, having an infinite amount of energy and power; and it is omnipresent, consisting of all that exists. These three properties are the traditional quidditative definitions (i.e., haecceities) of God held by almost all of the world's leading religions. Hence, by definition, the Omega Point is God.

There is no such thing as an Omega Point, no scientific proof of the existence of God, and you cannot claim that a 'quiddative definition' is the same as an 'haeccite' definition as the two are opposed to each other.

The Omega Point final singularity is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the first cause, a definition of God held by all the Abrahamic religions. As well, as Stephen Hawking proved, the singularity is not in spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time.

Hawking did not prove, but asserted the initial singularity as a concept to compensate for the simple fact that science cannot explain what existed before the 'Big Bang'. There is no proof available that a singularity ever existed, or that it should be the 'logical end-point' of the process initiated by the Big Bang.

So the Omega Point is transcendent to, yet immanent in, space and time. Because the cosmological singularity exists outside of space and time, it is eternal, as time has no application to it.

Does this gobbledegook have any meaning? In one sentence to claim that something exists outside time and is 'eternal' as 'time has no application to it'??

Miracles are allowed by the known laws of physics using baryon annihilation, and its inverse, by way of electroweak quantum tunneling...

There is no such thing as a miracle, what people regard as a miracle can always be explained by science as natural phenomena, or, as in the case of Jesus 'walking on water' either never happened or was a mirage, just as vinegar was not transformed into wine, if you can't see the symbolism in that then much of the Gospels will pass you by. Jesus was just a man, if his disciples declared him the Son of the God, well, I read once that Eric Clapton is God, but few people believed it, least of all Eric Clapton. And if Jesus said he was the Son of God, he meant: as are we all. It is not that hard to grasp the meaning in words.

Additionally, the cosmological singularity consists of a three-aspect structure: the final singularity (i.e., the Omega Point), the all-presents singularity (which exists at the boundary of the multiverse), and the initial singularity (i.e., the beginning of the Big Bang). These three distinct aspects which perform different physical functions in bringing about and sustaining existence are actually one singularity which connects the entirety of the multiverse.
Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the cosmological singularity (which, again, has all the haecceities claimed for God in the major religions), which is deselective of all other major religions.

This is complete nonsense and does not resolve the trinity as Christians themselves express it, nothing to do with Omega Points or the 'Multiverse' but 'God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost'. If these are all in effect the same thing, there is no trinity.

Muhammad was a warlord who converted people by force.

This is simple ignorance. Muhammad for most of his life was an itinerant trader and agent for his first wife, the Merchant Khadija, before he turned to preaching. Muhammad resisted warfare until the last 10 years of his life, and even when waging war was a defence of the faith rather than the propagation of it-
Permission to fight is given to those who are fought against because they have been wronged -truly Allah has the power to come to their support- those who were expelled from their homes without any right, merely for saying, 'Our Lord is Allah'.

Muhammad was not a pacifist -his views on war, like his views on many things he took from Judaism- but sought in most cases to avoid violence not foment it. If his followers don't take Muhammad as their example, that is not news. Few people who claim to follow the teachings of Jesus practice do so, if like George W. Bush did regime change in Iraq would never have happened.

-Because there can be no compulsion in religion. Muhammad believed that one could only become a Muslim as an act of sincere faith, to choose Islam out of force is to create the kind of hypocrite who spreads division within the faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

I need a clarification, Jamie, would you say God existed before the big bang explosion exactly as He exists today?
I suppose if we feel the gravity of the earth, the heat from the sun, and the phases of the moon, maybe whatever makes us up still senses that seed of the universe, the blueprint of everything contained in our blueprint.
But I can't see God setting up shop sometime 60 billion years ago. How would you create a creator of all things?

---

Hi, Buttslinger. Science in the form of physics has identified the First Cause, i.e., the Big Bang initial singularity. The First Cause is one of the ancient definitions of God. The Big Bang initial singularity is one aspect of God's eternal, infinite, triune structure. The other two aspects of said being the all-presents singularity, which exists at all times at the edge of the multiverse; and the Omega Point final singularity. Together these are the First Cause, the Sustaining Cause, and the Final Cause. Entropy (i.e., informational complexity) starts at zero at the Big Bang initial singularity and becomes infinite at the Omega Point final singularity.

What this (as in, our entire existence) is all about is that existence is nothing more than pure mathematics playing itself out. And mathematics is infinite.

The reason the universe exists is because everything comes from nothing, mathematically and logically speaking (which is to say, foundationally speaking, i.e., fundamentally speaking). Thus:

0+0 = 0

-1+1 = 0

-2+2 = 0

-3+3 = 0

-4+4 = 0

And so on, literally ad infinitum.

That is to say, we exist within the nothingness. Or rather, that the nothingness is everythingness, mathematically and logically speaking.

The above is actually just the traditional Christian theological doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, i.e., creation from nothing. That is to say, the traditional Christian theological position of creatio ex nihilo maintains that God did not create the universe from preexisting material, or from His own substance (i.e., the Divine Substance), but rather that the material which makes up the universe came into being with the universe, i.e., that it came into being literally from nothing. Hence: creatio ex nihilo, i.e., creation from nothing.

For much more on this matter, see my following article, which details physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics. The Omega Point cosmology demonstrates that the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) require that the universe end in the Omega Point: the final cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity having all the unique properties traditionally claimed for God, and of which is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the first cause. The Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals.

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhys...ics-of-God.pdf , http://sites.google.com/site/physico...ics-of-God.pdf .

Additionally, in the below resource are different sections which contain some helpful notes and commentary by me pertaining to multimedia wherein Prof. Tipler explains the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk@4ax.com , July 30, 2013, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...ro/KQWt4KcpMVo , http://archive.is/a04w9 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Christ is no socialist. Jesus preached complete pacifism, which excludes the possibility of government, i.e., a state. For the details on that, see my following article, which demonstrates the logically unavoidable anarchism of Jesus Christ's teachings as recorded in the New Testament (in addition to analyzing their context in relation to his actions, to the Tanakh, and to his apostles). It is logically complete on this subject, in the sense of its apodixis.

As usual, I cannot agree with this, and though we have probably exchanged views on this when I took your ideas apart a few years ago, again you simply ignore the close connections between Christianity and Socialism, not just in the UK but across Europe. When you described Jesus as an 'anarchist' you really mean 'Libertarian' because of your hostility to government and regulation, but that is irrelevant to the moral claims made by Christians for whom socialism was the expression of what it viewed as the 'Brotherhood of Man', and the rejection of key elements of capitalism such as greed, exploitation, and the opposite of what Christian Socialists believed in: 'fair shares', or the simple idea that the people that make wealth should profit from it through an equitable distribution of its benefits. The long tradition in the UK of the link between Christian faith and social justice was dealt with in the 1920s by RH Tawney in the now sadly neglected study Religion and The Rise of Capitalism, where he says:
A society which reverences the attainment of riches as the supreme felicity will naturally be disposed to regard the poor as damned in the next world, if only to justify itself for making their life a hell in this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._H._Tawney

You can also read this brief overview of the links between Christianity and socialism in the UK
http://www.victorianweb.org/victoria...socialism.html
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpo...tish-politics/

---

Socialism is defined as government ownership (whether de facto or de jure) over the means of production. Socialism is the most mass-murderous ideology to ever exist, both in its National Socialist (e.g., Nazi) and its International Socialist (i.e., Communist) varieties.

Nor can this horror-show that is socialism be avoided, since the problem with socialism is government per se. Governments can only exist via the continual initiation of violence and threat thereof in order to maintain a coercive regional monopoly on ultimate control over the law (i.e., on the courts and police, etc.). This creates an unavoidable incentive-structure that rewards predation, since people are compelled by initiatory violence to be involved in the governmental system whether they want to be or not. That is, government is a species of rape: i.e., "The act of seizing and carrying away by force; violent seizure; robbery." (See Noah Porter [Ed.], Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language [Springfield, Mass.: G. & C. Merriam Company, 1913].)

What makes socialism the most mass-murderous philosophy ever conceived is precisely because it puts all power into the most mass-murderous organization to ever exist, i.e., the state. The liberal solution is to disempower the state, rather than empowering it as the collectivists do.

Below are vital articles concerning the nature of government, of liberty, and the free-market production of defense:

* Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, "The Anatomy of the State", Rampart Journal of Individualist Thought, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Summer 1965), pp. 1-24, https://mises.org/system/tdf/rampart...&type=document , http://webcitation.org/6ZvAbaX8z , http://www.freezepage.com/1447053835DURFWXQOPM . Reprinted in a collection of some of Rothbard's articles, Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays (Washington, DC: Libertarian Review Press, 1974), https://mises.org/sites/default/file...20Essays_2.pdf , http://webcitation.org/6XfwvbslB .

* Murray N. Rothbard, Ch. 1: "Defense Services on the Free Market", pp. 1-9 in id., Power and Market: Government and the Economy (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1977; orig. pub. 1970), https://wayback.archive.org/web/2004...wer&market.pdf , http://webcitation.org/5ve3w5w9a , http://pdf-archive.com/2013/08/28/ro...and-market.pdf , http://www.freezepage.com/1447054194BCBULVTSAX .

* Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "The Private Production of Defense", Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Winter 1998-1999), pp. 27-52, https://mises.org/sites/default/files/14_1_2_0.pdf , http://webcitation.org/5ve41VasQ .

* Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security", Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Winter 1989), pp. 27-46, https://mises.org/sites/default/files/9_1_2_0.pdf , http://webcitation.org/5ve485kNf .

* Prof. David D. Friedman, Ch. 29: "Police, Courts, and Laws--on the Market", pp. 114-120 in id., The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism (La Salle, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Co., 1989; orig. pub. 1971), http://daviddfriedman.com/Libertaria...hapter_29.html , http://webcitation.org/5ve4A6KFZ , https://archive.is/I1mt4 .

Concerning the ethics of human rights, the below book is the best book on the subject:

* Murray N. Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty (New York, NY: New York University Press, 1998; orig. pub. 1982), https://wayback.archive.org/web/2013...ard/ethics.pdf , http://webcitation.org/5ve4GO9l5 , http://www.freezepage.com/1447054928ZHDVKQZWOU , http://megalodon.jp/2015-1109-1645-3...28ZHDVKQZWOU/0 .

If one desires a solid grounding in economics then one can do no better than with the below texts:

* Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Economic Science and the Austrian Method (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1995), https://mises.org/sites/default/file...20Method_3.pdf , https://wayback.archive.org/web/2014...books/esam.pdf , http://webcitation.org/63rQDYtj2 .

The above small book by Prof. Hoppe doesn't delve into political theory, but only concerns the methodological basis of economics (i.e., the epistemology of economics). I would recommend that everyone read this short book *first* if they're at all interested in economics. There exists much confusion as to what economics is and what it is not. This book is truly great in elucidating the nature of economics and its epistemic basis. If one were to read no other texts on economics, then this ought to be the economic text that one reads. Plus it doesn't take all that long to read it.

* Murray N. Rothbard, Ch. 17: "Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics", pp. 224-262 in Mary Sennholz (Ed.), On Freedom and Free Enterprise: Essays in Honor of Ludwig von Mises (Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1956), https://mises.org/sites/default/file...%20Mises_2.pdf , https://wayback.archive.org/web/2015...%20Mises_2.pdf , http://webcitation.org/6Xz9WebJ6 , http://www.freezepage.com/1447055623CLUDAZDSPR . Reprinted in Murray N. Rothbard, The Logic of Action One: Method, Money, and the Austrian School (London, UK: Edward Elgar, 1997), pp. 211-255.

* Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2nd ed., 2004; orig. pub. 1962), https://mises.org/sites/default/file...20Market_2.pdf , http://webcitation.org/6Xfycj7zV .

* Murray N. Rothbard, Power and Market: Government and the Economy (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1977; orig. pub. 1970), https://wayback.archive.org/web/2004...wer&market.pdf , http://webcitation.org/5ve3w5w9a , http://pdf-archive.com/2013/08/28/ro...and-market.pdf , http://www.freezepage.com/1447054194BCBULVTSAX .

These texts ought to be read in the order listed above. I would also add to the above list the below book:

* Murray N. Rothbard, America's Great Depression (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 5th ed., 2000; orig. pub. 1963), https://mises.org/sites/default/file...pression_3.pdf , http://webcitation.org/6Xfyn2oXY .

The above book concerns how governments create depressions (i.e., panics; recessions) through credit expansion (i.e., fractional-reserve banking and/or fiat money).

On the matter of politics in relation to God, see my below article, which demonstrates the logically unavoidable anarchism of Jesus Christ's teachings as recorded in the New Testament (in addition to analyzing their context in relation to his actions, to the Tanakh, and to his apostles). It is logically complete on this subject, in the sense of its apodixis.

* James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761 , https://archive.org/details/JesusIsAnAnarchist , http://theophysics.host56.com/anarchist-jesus.pdf , http://webcitation.org/66AIz2rJw .

See also my below article, which demonstrates the logically unavoidable correctness of the anarcho-capitalist theory of human rights. It doesn't derive an "ought" from an "is"--rather, it derives an "ought" from an "ought": an "ought" everyone must necessarily presuppose in order to even begin to deny it.

* James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 15, 2011, doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1972733 , https://archive.org/download/Liberta...rtarianism.pdf , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redfor...rtarianism.pdf , http://webcitation.org/63xyCLjLm .

For how physics allows unlimited progress by civilizations--to literally infinite intelligence and power--see my following article on physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which is also required by said known physical laws. The Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals.

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , https://archive.org/download/ThePhys...ics-of-God.pdf , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redfor...ics-of-God.pdf , https://sites.google.com/site/physic...ics-of-God.pdf .

Additionally, in the below resource are six sections which contain very informative videos of Prof. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE. The seventh section therein contains an audio interview of Tipler. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of these videos.

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk@4ax.com , July 30, 2013, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...ro/KQWt4KcpMVo , https://archive.is/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS . The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761, http://ge.tt/3lOTVbp , http://webcitation.org/6WGd90MBa , https://archive.is/cVRmc .

Quote:

---

The Omega Point is omniscient, having an infinite amount of information and knowing all that is logically possible to be known; it is omnipotent, having an infinite amount of energy and power; and it is omnipresent, consisting of all that exists. These three properties are the traditional quidditative definitions (i.e., haecceities) of God held by almost all of the world's leading religions. Hence, by definition, the Omega Point is God.

There is no such thing as an Omega Point, no scientific proof of the existence of God, and you cannot claim that a 'quiddative definition' is the same as an 'haeccite' definition as the two are opposed to each other.

---

If God does not exist, then we can just solve the poor-people's problems by eating the poor.

As Noam Chomsky correctly observed, the so-called "New Atheists" are themselves quite religious. They worship a God, but their God is the state. (Not that Chomsky himself is guilty of state-worship in a number of areas, but nevertheless, despite his many faults, he does sometimes make penetrating observations.) Their objections to others' religions, such as Christianity, is simply nothing more than attempting to eliminate their competition. However, as Chomsky also astutely noted, the New Atheists' religion is by far the most bloody and murderous religion to ever exist. Eliminating God in the 20th century didn't make the governments more liberal; instead, it simply removed any higher notion of truth to which those governments were expected to abide. The state made itself God.

The foregoing process which I describe is actually logically unavoidable. If God in the literal sense of the infinite sapient being does not exist, then all is permissible. Even if one can prove that, say, libertarianism is apodictically true in the same degree that 2+2 = 4 is true, so what? In the end, we're all dead anyway. The only thing that could give life any meaning beyond mere delusion is if God exists, since then an infinite computational state would exist, thereby allowing finite minds to endlessly grow in complexity toward infinite perfection (per the Quantum Recurrence Theorem). Only then would one's life-work avoid coming to naught. Only then would what one does now actually matter in the end.

As it turns out, the universe is a machine that will diverge to infinite computing power.

Further, God's existence is a mathematical theorem within standard physics. Standard physics is the known laws of physics, viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. These aforestated known physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Prof. Tipler's said Omega Point cosmology has been extensively peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals, such as Reports on Progress in Physics (the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional organization for physicists), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (a journal that Nobel Prize in Physics winner Richard Feynman also published in), and Physics Letters, among other journals.

For much more on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the details on how it uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhys...ics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god .

Quote:

---

The Omega Point final singularity is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the first cause, a definition of God held by all the Abrahamic religions. As well, as Stephen Hawking proved, the singularity is not in spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time.

Hawking did not prove, but asserted the initial singularity as a concept to compensate for the simple fact that science cannot explain what existed before the 'Big Bang'. There is no proof available that a singularity ever existed, or that it should be the 'logical end-point' of the process initiated by the Big Bang.

---

Mathematical theorems (i.e., proofs) do exist within the field of physics, such as with the Penrose-Hawking-Geroch Singularity Theorems which proved that the Big Bang initial singularity necessarily exists per General Relativity and given attractive gravity. Likewise, the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity theory is a mathematical theorem if General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are correct. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have been confirmed by every experiment to date, and so the only way to avoid the Omega Point theory of quantum gravity is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Within the Omega Point Theorem, God's existence isn't an assumption, but rather a mathematically-unavoidable conclusion given the standard physics that have been empirically confirmed by every experiment conducted to date.

For details on the Penrose-Hawking-Geroch Singularity Theorems, see Sec. 5: "The Big Bang", pp. 28 ff. of my following article:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhys...ics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , https://sites.google.com/site/physic...ics-of-God.pdf .

Quote:

---

So the Omega Point is transcendent to, yet immanent in, space and time. Because the cosmological singularity exists outside of space and time, it is eternal, as time has no application to it.

Does this gobbledegook have any meaning? In one sentence to claim that something exists outside time and is 'eternal' as 'time has no application to it'??

---

Apparently what you yourself are writing makes no sense to yourself, as you just said it: yes, "outside [of] time". Hence, time has no application to the Cosmological Singularity.

Quote:

---

Miracles are allowed by the known laws of physics using baryon annihilation, and its inverse, by way of electroweak quantum tunneling...

There is no such thing as a miracle, ...

---

You're making an assumption which has never been proven. You're behaving extremely unscientifically.

Yet on the contrary, miracles are perfectly allowed within standard physics. That is, via using baryon annihilation, and its inverse, by way of electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model of particle physics, as baryon number minus lepton number, B - L, is conserved) caused via the Principle of Least Action by the physical requirement that the Omega Point final cosmological singularity exists. If the miracles of Jesus Christ were necessary in order for the universe to evolve into the Omega Point, and if the known laws of physics are correct, then the probability of those miracles occurring is certain.

Quote:

---

... what people regard as a miracle can always be explained by science as natural phenomena, or, as in the case of Jesus 'walking on water' either never happened or was a mirage, just as vinegar was not transformed into wine, if you can't see the symbolism in that then much of the Gospels will pass you by. Jesus was just a man, if his disciples declared him the Son of the God, well, I read once that Eric Clapton is God, but few people believed it, least of all Eric Clapton. And if Jesus said he was the Son of God, he meant: as are we all. It is not that hard to grasp the meaning in words.

Additionally, the cosmological singularity consists of a three-aspect structure: the final singularity (i.e., the Omega Point), the all-presents singularity (which exists at the boundary of the multiverse), and the initial singularity (i.e., the beginning of the Big Bang). These three distinct aspects which perform different physical functions in bringing about and sustaining existence are actually one singularity which connects the entirety of the multiverse.
Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the cosmological singularity (which, again, has all the haecceities claimed for God in the major religions), which is deselective of all other major religions.

This is complete nonsense and does not resolve the trinity as Christians themselves express it, nothing to do with Omega Points or the 'Multiverse' but 'God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost'. If these are all in effect the same thing, there is no trinity.

---

They are not the same thing, but rather different triune aspects of the Cosmological Singularity. For much more on that, and the details on how Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhys...ics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god .

Quote:

---

Muhammad was a warlord who converted people by force.

This is simple ignorance. Muhammad for most of his life was an itinerant trader and agent for his first wife, the Merchant Khadija, before he turned to preaching. Muhammad resisted warfare until the last 10 years of his life, and even when waging war was a defence of the faith rather than the propagation of it-
Permission to fight is given to those who are fought against because they have been wronged -truly Allah has the power to come to their support- those who were expelled from their homes without any right, merely for saying, 'Our Lord is Allah'.

Muhammad was not a pacifist -his views on war, like his views on many things he took from Judaism- but sought in most cases to avoid violence not foment it. If his followers don't take Muhammad as their example, that is not news. ...

---

See:

* "Myth: Muhammad was Oppossed to Forced Conversions", TheReligionOfPeace.com (TROP), https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/p...onversion.aspx , https://webcitation.org/70qGLkmPQ .

Quote:

---

... Few people who claim to follow the teachings of Jesus practice do so, if like George W. Bush did regime change in Iraq would never have happened.

---

George W. Bush is an elite, dark occultist, not a Christian even in his own mind.

It is true that the highest members of the globalist oligarchy are Satanists. On the one hand, elite Satanism is an intelligence operation run by the Western governments in order to compromise politicians, businessmen and others in important control-sectors of society, thus making them controllable due to the dirt held on them. On the other hand, for the true believers, it functions as a justification for their psychopathic actions, as elite Satanism is a form of spiritual Social Darwinism: the more ruthless and cruel they are the more evolved they are spiritually, since they have advanced beyond such weak notions as pity and empathy which are held by the common masses, i.e., nothing is morally out of bounds for them, and indeed to take pleasure another's suffering--particularly pain which oneself has deliberately inflicted--is evidence of one's more enlightened nature, since one has what it takes to rule and dominate others.

For those who are interested in extensive scholarly documentation regarding elite Satanism and its practice by the globalist oligarchy, see under the heading "The New World Order: Government's Attempt at Autoapotheosis" on pp. 87-98 of my following article, being sure to read the footnotes, since much of the information on this is contained within said footnotes:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhys...ics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god .

See also my following article on the Jaynesian gods of old:

* James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", Daily Anarchist Forum, May 29, 2018, https://megalodon.jp/2018-0610-0734-...p?topic=3289.0 , https://archive.is/QalJT , https://web.archive.org/web/20180609...p?topic=3289.0 .

Quote:

---

-Because there can be no compulsion in religion. Muhammad believed that one could only become a Muslim as an act of sincere faith, to choose Islam out of force is to create the kind of hypocrite who spreads division within the faith.

---

See:

* "Myth: Muhammad was Oppossed to Forced Conversions", TheReligionOfPeace.com (TROP), https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/p...onversion.aspx , https://webcitation.org/70qGLkmPQ .

Thanks Jamie, my path to God came from drawing as a kid, 5th grade.
The path was a laser beam to God, He was hiding behind a small coin with Roman buildings on it. I knew it was trouble, but what can you do?
I've tried to find a picture of this, but so far nothing.
I looked into the Omega Point Theory before, while you can't be more precise and more clear than Math, it was lost on me. There's no Accounting for God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamie Michelle

Not that Chomsky himself is guilty of state-worship in a number of areas, ...

---

Pardon me. That should read "Note that Chomsky himself is guilty of state-worship in a number of areas, ...".

Mathematical proofs are neither true nor false: they are either valid or invalid. If a proof is valid, the veracity of the proven proposition is no more certain than are the initial assumptions and hypothesis upon which the proof draws its inferences.

Hawking, Penrose and Geroch hypothesize (in addition to the postulates of General Relativity) a number of fairly ad hoc energy conditions. Moreover, the applicability of General Relativity has been called into question on both the galactic scale (hence the appearance of a number of modified theories of gravity) and the Planck scale (which may invalidate the aforementioned singularity theorems).

The existence of an Omega Point requires faith in even more spurious assumptions: not every cosmology admits an Omega Point (the currently accepted models based on dark energy generally do not).

By the way, mathematicians use a somewhat colloquial language when discussing singularities. To say “a singularity exists” is shorthand for "the spacetime manifold is geodesically incomplete"; there’s hole, there’s something missing. Were God a singularity he’d be missing.

The God Jesus found wasn't found with Cosmology, God is always directly in front of you.
If I were serious about getting closer to God I'd find a Teacher to keep me in line.
I think they have some in FetLife.

[QUOTE=Jamie Michelle;1845064]

Socialism is defined as government ownership (whether de facto or de jure) over the means of production. Socialism is the most mass-murderous ideology to ever exist, both in its National Socialist (e.g., Nazi) and its International Socialist (i.e., Communist) varieties.

--But Socialism as an idea brings people together so that the can share what they produce, and distribute the goods that they need. There is no inherent need for government in a socialist society, and indeed, many socialists based their ideas on a non-governmental form of order shaped by values and morals derived from the life of Jesus, or from secular-rationalist ideas of what a good society should be.

The arguments about mass murder and the lamentable examples of the 20th century do not excuse the crimes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao, but if you are going to get trapped in a numbers game you could set the allegations of 20-30-40-50-60-70-80-90 million deaths of that trio against the 100 million first nations of the Americas slaughtered by Christianity and Capitalism between say 1500-1900 either directly through murder or through disease and starvation.

Lastly, because this is a well-worn and tedious point, Marx envisaged Communism as the condition that would emerge after the class struggles of the socialist transition, and be a stateless society, just as Orwell pointed out that socialism brings people together on the basis of mutual co-operation for the benefit of all, and that to claim that forcing people to work at the point of a gun is socialism is plain daft.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/...munist-regimes

If God does not exist, then we can just solve the poor-people's problems by eating the poor.
--As someone who argues that free markets are the solution, why do you invoke God at all in economic arguments? Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Hans Hoppe and the other libertarian economists you recruit for your arguments were all atheists and would either laugh out loud at the assumed connection between Jesus and capitalism or maybe wonder what you have been smoking. And look again at Rand, who argues with devastating simplicity that the solution to poverty is not to eat the poor, but to kill them. Is this not where libertarian ideas fall onto your doormat after travelling from Auschwitz via the Gulag Archipelago? Whether God exists or does not exist makes no difference to the poor, but you might want to be more critical of capitalism, which creates poverty, for the benefit of a few rich people.

You're making an assumption which has never been proven. You're behaving extremely unscientifically.
Yet on the contrary, miracles are perfectly allowed within standard physics. That is, via using baryon annihilation, and its inverse, by way of electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model of particle physics, as baryon number minus lepton number, B - L, is conserved) caused via the Principle of Least Action by the physical requirement that the Omega Point final cosmological singularity exists. If the miracles of Jesus Christ were necessary in order for the universe to evolve into the Omega Point, and if the known laws of physics are correct, then the probability of those miracles occurring is certain.
--Arguing that there is a scientific necessity in miracles in fact misses the crucial point: they could only have taken place because Jesus was the 'Son of God' or 'God made flesh' in other words, it is precisely because the miracles of Jesus are beyond scientific explanation that they are real to his believers. You are not behaving scientifically, because to do so would expose Jesus as a fraud. How many electrotweaks does it take to transform water in wine, to make the blind see, the dead to rise up and walk?

George W. Bush is an elite, dark occultist, not a Christian even in his own mind.
--How do you know, did you ask him?

It is true that the highest members of the globalist oligarchy are Satanists.
--It is not true. And there is no evidence to show it, just as there is no such thing as Satan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

Thanks Jamie, my path to God came from drawing as a kid, 5th grade.
The path was a laser beam to God, He was hiding behind a small coin with Roman buildings on it. I knew it was trouble, but what can you do?
I've tried to find a picture of this, but so far nothing.
I looked into the Omega Point Theory before, while you can't be more precise and more clear than Math, it was lost on me. There's no Accounting for God.

---

It sounds like an interesting picture, Buttslinger. I wouldn't mind seeing it if you ever come across it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Mathematical proofs are neither true nor false: they are either valid or invalid. If a proof is valid, the veracity of the proven proposition is no more certain than are the initial assumptions and hypothesis upon which the proof draws its inferences.

Hawking, Penrose and Geroch hypothesize (in addition to the postulates of General Relativity) a number of fairly ad hoc energy conditions. Moreover, the applicability of General Relativity has been called into question on both the galactic scale (hence the appearance of a number of modified theories of gravity) and the Planck scale (which may invalidate the aforementioned singularity theorems).

The existence of an Omega Point requires faith in even more spurious assumptions: not every cosmology admits an Omega Point (the currently accepted models based on dark energy generally do not).

By the way, mathematicians use a somewhat colloquial language when discussing singularities. To say “a singularity exists” is shorthand for "the spacetime manifold is geodesically incomplete"; there’s hole, there’s something missing. Were God a singularity he’d be missing.

---

A physical theorem is a physical theory, yet a mathematically-true one, given true premises. The field of physics does involve mathematical proofs of physical theories, i.e., physical theorems, such as the Penrose-Hawking-Geroch Singularity Theorems which proved that the Big Bang initial singularity necessarily exists per General Relativity and given attractive gravity. Likewise, the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity theory is a mathematical theorem if General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are correct. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have been confirmed by every experiment to date, and so the only way to avoid the Omega Point theory of quantum gravity is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

What the singularity means in this context is not a discontinuity--i.e., a hole--but rather where the output of the equations explode to literally infinity.

Regarding the possibility that the energy condition of the Penrose-Hawking-Geroch Singularity Theorems won't hold at Planck scales: the cosmological singularity is actually more inevitable when Quantum Mechanics is taken into account. Due to Liouville's Theorem in complex analysis, it doesn't matter what form of physics one resorts to, as any physically-realistic cosmology (e.g., one capable of incorporating Quantum Mechanics, since the complex number field is intrinsic to the mathematical formulations of Quantum Mechanics) must begin at an initial singularity and end at a final singularity. (As Barrow and Tipler wrote, "Initial and final cosmological curvature singularities are required to avoid a universal action singularity." See John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, "Action principles in nature", Nature, Vol. 331, No. 6151 [Jan. 7, 1988], pp. 31-34; see also Frank J. Tipler, "The Structure of the Classical Cosmological Singularity", in Origin and Early History of the Universe: Proceedings of the 26th Liège International Astrophyscial Colloquium, July 1-4, 1986 [Cointe-Ougree, Belgium: Universite de Liege, Institut d'Astrophysique, 1987], pp. 339-359; "Discussion", pp. 360-361.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Socialism is defined as government ownership (whether de facto or de jure) over the means of production. Socialism is the most mass-murderous ideology to ever exist, both in its National Socialist (e.g., Nazi) and its International Socialist (i.e., Communist) varieties.

--But Socialism as an idea brings people together so that the can share what they produce, and distribute the goods that they need. There is no inherent need for government in a socialist society, and indeed, many socialists based their ideas on a non-governmental form of order shaped by values and morals derived from the life of Jesus, or from secular-rationalist ideas of what a good society should be.

---

That's not socialism then. You're describing voluntary exchanges, which can include charity or gift-giving. What you're describing is thoroughgoing free-market anarcho-capitalism, i.e., that no person or group of people may initiate force, or threaten to initiate force, against the person or justly-acquired property of another. For the details on this, see my following work:

* James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 15, 2011, doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733, https://archive.org/download/Liberta...rtarianism.pdf , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redfor...rtarianism.pdf , http://webcitation.org/63xyCLjLm .

Quote:

---

The arguments about mass murder and the lamentable examples of the 20th century do not excuse the crimes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao, but if you are going to get trapped in a numbers game you could set the allegations of 20-30-40-50-60-70-80-90 million deaths of that trio against the 100 million first nations of the Americas slaughtered by Christianity and Capitalism between say 1500-1900 either directly through murder or through disease and starvation.

---

You obviously do not even believe your own words on this, as you have said a number of times in this thread that Jesus Christ is a socialist.

As Ayn Rand correctly observed, capitalism is the only moral political system. What many of the collectivists observe is that nature is extraordinarily cruel, and blame human liberty for it. They look to a totalitarian state as Big Mommy, as literally God, hoping that their God will protect them against the horrors of nature. But only societal capital accumulation and technological advancement can do that. Any interference with this process only prolongs the agony. Further, the collectivists empower their God, which is by far the most extreme organization of war, mass-murder, and life-long mass-gang-rape ever known.

Quote:

---

Lastly, because this is a well-worn and tedious point, Marx envisaged Communism as the condition that would emerge after the class struggles of the socialist transition, and be a stateless society, just as Orwell pointed out that socialism brings people together on the basis of mutual co-operation for the benefit of all, and that to claim that forcing people to work at the point of a gun is socialism is plain daft.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/...munist-regimes

---

One cannot apologize for and empower by far the greatest entity of war, mass-murder, and life-long mass-gang-rape ever known without being an apologist of it.

"[S]ocialism brings people together" in a genocide-pit of rotting corpses.

Further, Karl Marx intended his system to be mass-murderous from the very start. Marx hated himself and everyone else with a burning passion. Marx's goal was to send himself and everyone else to Hell for all eternity. For details on that, see pp. 96-98 of my following article, particularly the footnotes therein:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhys...ics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god .

See also:

* Prof. Richard M. Ebeling, "Economic Ideas: Karl Marx, the Man Behind the Communist Revolution", Future of Freedom Foundation, Feb. 13, 2017, https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/...st-revolution/ , https://web.archive.org/web/20180616...st-revolution/ , https://www.webcitation.org/71A3mGvp6 .

Quote:

---

If God does not exist, then we can just solve the poor-people's problems by eating the poor.
--As someone who argues that free markets are the solution, why do you invoke God at all in economic arguments? Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Hans Hoppe and the other libertarian economists you recruit for your arguments were all atheists and would either laugh out loud at the assumed connection between Jesus and capitalism or maybe wonder what you have been smoking. And look again at Rand, who argues with devastating simplicity that the solution to poverty is not to eat the poor, but to kill them. ...

---

Where did Ayn Rand ever "argue[]" for that, whether with "devastating simplicity" or nonsimplicity? Rand was a promoter of the Nonaggression Principle.

Yet it remains ever-true: If God does not exist, then we can just solve the poor-people's problems by eating the poor.

As Noam Chomsky correctly observed, the so-called "New Atheists" are themselves quite religious. They worship a God, but their God is the state. (Note that Chomsky himself is guilty of state-worship in a number of areas, but nevertheless, despite his many faults, he does sometimes make penetrating observations.) Their objections to others' religions, such as Christianity, is simply nothing more than attempting to eliminate their competition. However, as Chomsky also astutely noted, the New Atheists' religion is by far the most bloody and murderous religion to ever exist. Eliminating God in the 20th century didn't make the governments more liberal; instead, it simply removed any higher notion of truth to which those governments were expected to abide. The state made itself God.

The foregoing process which I describe is actually logically unavoidable. If God in the literal sense of the infinite sapient being does not exist, then all is permissible. Even if one can prove that, say, libertarianism is apodictically true in the same degree that 2+2 = 4 is true, so what? In the end, we're all dead anyway. The only thing that could give life any meaning beyond mere delusion is if God exists, since then an infinite computational state would exist, thereby allowing finite minds to endlessly grow in complexity toward infinite perfection (per the Quantum Recurrence Theorem). Only then would one's life-work avoid coming to naught. Only then would what one does now actually matter in the end.

As it turns out, the universe is a machine that will diverge to infinite computing power.

Further, God's existence is a mathematical theorem within standard physics. Standard physics is the known laws of physics, viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. These aforestated known physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Prof. Tipler's said Omega Point cosmology has been extensively peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals, such as Reports on Progress in Physics (the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional organization for physicists), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (a journal that Nobel Prize in Physics winner Richard Feynman also published in), and Physics Letters, among other journals.

For much more on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the details on how it uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhys...ics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god .

Quote:

---

... Is this not where libertarian ideas fall onto your doormat after travelling from Auschwitz via the Gulag Archipelago? Whether God exists or does not exist makes no difference to the poor, but you might want to be more critical of capitalism, which creates poverty, for the benefit of a few rich people.

---

As Ayn Rand correctly observed, capitalism is the only moral political system. What many of the collectivists observe is that nature is extraordinarily cruel, and blame human liberty for it. They look to a totalitarian state as Big Mommy, as literally God, hoping that their God will protect them against the horrors of nature. But only societal capital accumulation and technological advancement can do that. Any interference with this process only prolongs the agony. Further, the collectivists empower their God, which is by far the most extreme organization of war, mass-murder, and life-long mass-gang-rape ever known.

What makes socialism the most mass-murderous philosophy ever conceived is precisely because it puts all power into the most mass-murderous organization to ever exist, i.e., the state. The liberal solution is to disempower the state, rather than empowering it as the collectivists do.

Below are vital articles concerning the nature of government, of liberty, and the free-market production of defense:

* Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, "The Anatomy of the State", Rampart Journal of Individualist Thought, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Summer 1965), pp. 1-24, https://mises.org/system/tdf/rampart...&type=document , http://webcitation.org/6ZvAbaX8z , http://www.freezepage.com/1447053835DURFWXQOPM . Reprinted in a collection of some of Rothbard's articles, Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays (Washington, DC: Libertarian Review Press, 1974), https://mises.org/sites/default/file...20Essays_2.pdf , http://webcitation.org/6XfwvbslB .

* Murray N. Rothbard, Ch. 1: "Defense Services on the Free Market", pp. 1-9 in id., Power and Market: Government and the Economy (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1977; orig. pub. 1970), https://wayback.archive.org/web/2004...wer&market.pdf , http://webcitation.org/5ve3w5w9a , http://pdf-archive.com/2013/08/28/ro...and-market.pdf , http://www.freezepage.com/1447054194BCBULVTSAX .

* Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "The Private Production of Defense", Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Winter 1998-1999), pp. 27-52, https://mises.org/sites/default/files/14_1_2_0.pdf , http://webcitation.org/5ve41VasQ .

* Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security", Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Winter 1989), pp. 27-46, https://mises.org/sites/default/files/9_1_2_0.pdf , http://webcitation.org/5ve485kNf .

* Prof. David D. Friedman, Ch. 29: "Police, Courts, and Laws--on the Market", pp. 114-120 in id., The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism (La Salle, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Co., 1989; orig. pub. 1971), http://daviddfriedman.com/Libertaria...hapter_29.html , http://webcitation.org/5ve4A6KFZ , https://archive.is/I1mt4 .

Concerning the ethics of human rights, the below book is the best book on the subject:

* Murray N. Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty (New York, NY: New York University Press, 1998; orig. pub. 1982), https://wayback.archive.org/web/2013...ard/ethics.pdf , http://webcitation.org/5ve4GO9l5 , http://www.freezepage.com/1447054928ZHDVKQZWOU , http://megalodon.jp/2015-1109-1645-3...28ZHDVKQZWOU/0 .

If one desires a solid grounding in economics then one can do no better than with the below texts:

* Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Economic Science and the Austrian Method (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1995), https://mises.org/sites/default/file...20Method_3.pdf , https://wayback.archive.org/web/2014...books/esam.pdf , http://webcitation.org/63rQDYtj2 .

The above small book by Prof. Hoppe doesn't delve into political theory, but only concerns the methodological basis of economics (i.e., the epistemology of economics). I would recommend that everyone read this short book *first* if they're at all interested in economics. There exists much confusion as to what economics is and what it is not. This book is truly great in elucidating the nature of economics and its epistemic basis. If one were to read no other texts on economics, then this ought to be the economic text that one reads. Plus it doesn't take all that long to read it.

* Murray N. Rothbard, Ch. 17: "Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics", pp. 224-262 in Mary Sennholz (Ed.), On Freedom and Free Enterprise: Essays in Honor of Ludwig von Mises (Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1956), https://mises.org/sites/default/file...%20Mises_2.pdf , https://wayback.archive.org/web/2015...%20Mises_2.pdf , http://webcitation.org/6Xz9WebJ6 , http://www.freezepage.com/1447055623CLUDAZDSPR . Reprinted in Murray N. Rothbard, The Logic of Action One: Method, Money, and the Austrian School (London, UK: Edward Elgar, 1997), pp. 211-255.

* Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2nd ed., 2004; orig. pub. 1962), https://mises.org/sites/default/file...20Market_2.pdf , http://webcitation.org/6Xfycj7zV .

* Murray N. Rothbard, Power and Market: Government and the Economy (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1977; orig. pub. 1970), https://wayback.archive.org/web/2004...wer&market.pdf , http://webcitation.org/5ve3w5w9a , http://pdf-archive.com/2013/08/28/ro...and-market.pdf , http://www.freezepage.com/1447054194BCBULVTSAX .

These texts ought to be read in the order listed above. I would also add to the above list the below book:

* Murray N. Rothbard, America's Great Depression (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 5th ed., 2000; orig. pub. 1963), https://mises.org/sites/default/file...pression_3.pdf , http://webcitation.org/6Xfyn2oXY .

The above book concerns how governments create depressions (i.e., panics; recessions) through credit expansion (i.e., fractional-reserve banking and/or fiat money).

On the matter of politics in relation to God, see my below article, which demonstrates the logically unavoidable anarchism of Jesus Christ's teachings as recorded in the New Testament (in addition to analyzing their context in relation to his actions, to the Tanakh, and to his apostles). It is logically complete on this subject, in the sense of its apodixis.

* James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761 , https://archive.org/details/JesusIsAnAnarchist , http://theophysics.host56.com/anarchist-jesus.pdf , http://webcitation.org/66AIz2rJw .

See also my below article, which demonstrates the logically unavoidable correctness of the anarcho-capitalist theory of human rights. It doesn't derive an "ought" from an "is"--rather, it derives an "ought" from an "ought": an "ought" everyone must necessarily presuppose in order to even begin to deny it.

* James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 15, 2011, doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1972733 , https://archive.org/download/Liberta...rtarianism.pdf , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redfor...rtarianism.pdf , http://webcitation.org/63xyCLjLm .

For how physics allows unlimited progress by civilizations--to literally infinite intelligence and power--see my following article on physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which is also required by said known physical laws. The Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals.

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , https://archive.org/download/ThePhys...ics-of-God.pdf , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redfor...ics-of-God.pdf , https://sites.google.com/site/physic...ics-of-God.pdf .

Additionally, in the below resource are six sections which contain very informative videos of Prof. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE. The seventh section therein contains an audio interview of Tipler. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of these videos.

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk@4ax.com , July 30, 2013, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...ro/KQWt4KcpMVo , https://archive.is/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS . The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761, http://ge.tt/3lOTVbp , http://webcitation.org/6WGd90MBa , https://archive.is/cVRmc .

Quote:

---

You're making an assumption which has never been proven. You're behaving extremely unscientifically.
Yet on the contrary, miracles are perfectly allowed within standard physics. That is, via using baryon annihilation, and its inverse, by way of electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model of particle physics, as baryon number minus lepton number, B - L, is conserved) caused via the Principle of Least Action by the physical requirement that the Omega Point final cosmological singularity exists. If the miracles of Jesus Christ were necessary in order for the universe to evolve into the Omega Point, and if the known laws of physics are correct, then the probability of those miracles occurring is certain.
--Arguing that there is a scientific necessity in miracles in fact misses the crucial point: they could only have taken place because Jesus was the 'Son of God' or 'God made flesh' in other words, it is precisely because the miracles of Jesus are beyond scientific explanation that they are real to his believers. You are not behaving scientifically, because to do so would expose Jesus as a fraud. How many electrotweaks does it take to transform water in wine, to make the blind see, the dead to rise up and walk?

---

What you are proposing is a Christian heresy. Paul appealed to reason when he wrote in Romans 1:19,20 that an understanding of the natural world leads to knowledge of God (NKJV):

""
because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, ...
""

Traditional Christian theology has maintained that God never violates natural law, as God, in His omniscience, knew in the beginning all that He wanted to achieve and so, in His omnipotence, He formed the laws of physics in order to achieve His goal. The idea that God would violate His own laws would mean that God is not omniscient.

For much more on this, see my following article:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhys...ics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god .

Quote:

---

George W. Bush is an elite, dark occultist, not a Christian even in his own mind.
--How do you know, did you ask him?

It is true that the highest members of the globalist oligarchy are Satanists.
--It is not true. And there is no evidence to show it, just as there is no such thing as Satan.

---

You are behaving highly unscientifically and irrationally, again. You are stating as a fact something that has never been demonstrated. Moreover, something for which it is quite easy to demonstrate does exist.

Of course Satan exists. Satan is the set of all evil. The set of all evil certainly exists.

Moreover, your position seems to be that God does not exist. Yet most people worship God. Thus, according to you, there is no connection between a thing's existence and people worshiping that thing.

Further, certainly demons exist. What a demon is in actuality is a particular type of computer-program operating on the wet-computer of the human brain. Demons are utterly real, but they exist in the exact same ontological manner which the human mind exists, as the human mind is itself a particular type of computer-program operating on the wet-computer of the human brain. The demons are the destructive subsets of the human mind. Science has identified the spiritual realm, and it is the living brain--the living human brain in particular, since that brain is the most complex at present. The spiritual realm exists!

What Satanism is is the religion of the demons, and they certainly exist. Socialism is the political aspect of Satanism. That is, socialism is the political philosophy of the demons.

It is true that the highest members of the globalist oligarchy are Satanists. On the one hand, elite Satanism is an intelligence operation run by the Western governments in order to compromise politicians, businessmen and others in important control-sectors of society, thus making them controllable due to the dirt held on them. On the other hand, for the true believers, it functions as a justification for their psychopathic actions, as elite Satanism is a form of spiritual Social Darwinism: the more ruthless and cruel they are the more evolved they are spiritually, since they have advanced beyond such weak notions as pity and empathy which are held by the common masses, i.e., nothing is morally out of bounds for them, and indeed to take pleasure another's suffering--particularly pain which oneself has deliberately inflicted--is evidence of one's more enlightened nature, since one has what it takes to rule and dominate others.

For those who are interested in extensive scholarly documentation regarding elite Satanism and its practice by the globalist oligarchy, see under the heading "The New World Order: Government's Attempt at Autoapotheosis" on pp. 87-98 of my following article, being sure to read the footnotes, since much of the information on this is contained within said footnotes:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhys...ics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god .

See also my following article on the Jaynesian gods of old, i.e., the demons:

* James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", Daily Anarchist Forum, May 29, 2018, https://megalodon.jp/2018-0610-0734-...p?topic=3289.0 , https://archive.is/QalJT , https://web.archive.org/web/20180609...p?topic=3289.0 .

[QUOTE=Jamie Michelle;1846462]
That's not socialism then. You're describing voluntary exchanges, which can include charity or gift-giving. What you're describing is thoroughgoing free-market anarcho-capitalism, i.e., that no person or group of people may initiate force, or threaten to initiate force, against the person or justly-acquired property of another.
--I have referred you to numerous examples of socialism that replace a market economy with a moral economy, yet you insist your argument is right, because it is right. It is not about right and wrong, but alternatives. Socialism offers a just distribution of socially necessary goods that is an alternative to the market economy of capitalism that is based on the denial of the goods made by society, being the 'private appropriation of publicly produced wealth' (Habermas).

You obviously do not even believe your own words on this, as you have said a number of times in this thread that Jesus Christ is a socialist.
--The obvious distinction is between what the gospels claim Jesus said, and what followers of Jesus have done since the establishment of the Christian Churches. The historical record shows that Christians have been responsible for the slaughter of millions, every life taken being a repudiation of the very gospel they claimed to preach and follow, just as the sixth commandment, 'Thou Shalt not Kill' has been violated so many times one wonders why anyone cites the Bible as the source of their legitimacy when they practice the opposite of what it preaches.

One cannot apologize for and empower by far the greatest entity of war, mass-murder, and life-long mass-gang-rape ever known without being an apologist of it.
--A description of socialism as a moral economy is not an excuse for mass murder. When the Labour Government of 1945 created the National Health Service, a National Education Service; when it brought water, gas, electricity, railways and coal into public ownership nobody was killed as a result, but in return for taxes, people were provided with the benefits of health care and education, and had subsidized transport. Society benefited as a whole, the gap between rich and poor narrowed, a sense of fairness in the distribution of goods shaped public policy until 1979.

Further, Karl Marx intended his system to be mass-murderous from the very start. Marx hated himself and everyone else with a burning passion. Marx's goal was to send himself and everyone else to Hell for all eternity. For details on that, see pp. 96-98 of my following article, particularly the footnotes therein:
--This is rubbish, and I have taken apart your hysterical 'article' before a few years ago and will not repeat myself here.

Where did Ayn Rand ever "argue[]" for that, whether with "devastating simplicity" or nonsimplicity? Rand was a promoter of the Nonaggression Principle.
--I have offered the links before, but the pseudo-philosophy of Ayn Rand can be understood in relation to its roots in Marxism and Bolsheivsm-
https://shlapentokh.wordpress.com/20...9s-philosophy/

-Whittaker Chambers put Rand in her place with more devastating words than mine:
Out of a lifetime of reading, I can recall no other book in which a tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained. Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal. In addition, the mind which finds this tone natural to it shares other characteristics of its type. 1) It consistently mistakes raw force for strength, and the rawer the force, the more reverent the posture of the mind before it. 2) It supposes itself to be the bringer of a final revelation. Therefore, resistance to the Message cannot be tolerated because disagreement can never be merely honest, prudent, or just humanly fallible. Dissent from revelation so final (because, the author would say, so reasonable) can only be willfully wicked. There are ways of dealing with such wickedness, and, in fact, right reason itself enjoins them. From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: “To a gas chamber — go!”
http://whittakerchambers.org/articles/nr/bigsister/

What makes socialism the most mass-murderous philosophy ever conceived is precisely because it puts all power into the most mass-murderous organization to ever exist, i.e., the state. The liberal solution is to disempower the state, rather than empowering it as the collectivists do.
--Between 1500 and 1900 over 100 million people were slaughtered in the Americas by the State in the form of Empire, with an ideology that linked capitalism to Christianity. Morally, you don't have to admit it, Capitalism Kills.

Of course Satan exists. Satan is the set of all evil. The set of all evil certainly exists.
--What a load of rubbish. Satan no more exists than Leprechauns and tooth fairies.

Moreover, your position seems to be that God does not exist. Yet most people worship God.
--So what? People can believe anything, but it is not true. You claim the mathematical proof for the existence of God, but your maths proves no such thing.

Further, certainly demons exist. What a demon is in actuality is a particular type of computer-program operating on the wet-computer of the human brain.
--Hello, is there anyone there? Look, The Exorcist really was just a film, quite a good on for that genre, but fiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamie Michelle

It sounds like an interesting picture, Buttslinger. I wouldn't mind seeing it if you ever come across it.

---

the big IF

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamie Michelle

What the singularity means in this context is not a discontinuity--i.e., a hole--but rather where the output of the equations explode to literally infinity.

---

Whether you are referring to what Hawkins has called the 'initial singularity' or the 'singularity' that you claim the universe is moving towards, applying the concept of infinity to both is contestable, and almost certainly nonsense. The key point is that time only exists because of space/mass and movement, whereas infinity by definition is without density and time and cannot be measured by numbers because even with the Max Planck unit there must always be an un-measurable point between 1 and 0. The assumption therefore must be that the singularity is a motionless nothing. But if the 'initial singularity' existed, then the Big Bang could not have happened, for the singularity had no time, no movement, no mass and thus nothing to cause so phenomenal an eruption in space-time.

Similarly, the hypothesis that the universe will at some 'ultimate' point collapse back into or form a new 'singularity' assumes that nothing will ever happen again after that, in spite of the claim that there was both an 'initial singularity' and a Big Bang. If it happened once before, why not again? As you can't have one without the other, we are left with the Singularity as a Mathematical Formula whose purpose is to explain what cannot, in fact, be explained in any other language than Maths.

The problem is that Maths is not an exact science, for just as humans agree -or appear to agree- when they see a photo with the caption 'this is a red ball' that the red ball is red, so mathematicians agree that 1+1=2, and have devised more complex formulas to ensure that when a bridge is built, the maths and the engineering enable it to stand without falling down. But when the Millenium Bridge wobbled so badly after its opening in 2000 it had to be closed and its structure changed at a cost of over £8 million, it is because the maths did not take human factors into account, namely the impact a crowd of people has on bridges, that can cause them to collapse -or in this case, wobble.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1103080801.htm

Wittgenstein offered an intriguing argument that places infinity in the here and now-
The solution of the problem of this life is to be seen in the disappearance of this problem.
But is it possible for one so to live that life stops being problematic? That one is living in infinity, not in time?
(Notebooks, 6.7.16). ('infinity' in italics in the original)

Infinity has been a problematic concept for philosophers and was the subject of Zeno's famous paradoxes, yet even with clocks ad monitors, do we ever truly feel time passing, are able to see it, touch it, taste it, hear it? It is a concept, and while it brackets our lives, we cannot know what death is any more than any of us recall being in the womb and the moment of our birth. Thus, the sensation of life itself is without mass, it has no time, and while it is not motionless, as our bodies move, it has something of the infinite about it. Or, we are so wound up in daily rituals, problems of money, lust, hunger, housing and so on, we lose the actual sensation of being itself, which does rather take Wittgenstein closer to a Buddhist concept of Nirvana.

Maths cannot deal with this, but philosophy can.

http://impleri.net/files/ellis.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

http://impleri.net/files/ellis.pdf

---

I wonder if it's just my browser but I can't open this link. Is the link still good?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I wonder if it's just my browser but I can't open this link. Is the link still good?

---

Nevermind. Opened on my phone just fine....new computer.

I tried to do a drawing of God from my point of view, maybe if I tried hard I could come up with a decent attempt in a couple years, the picture is basically simple: there is a laser beam shooting through your chest forward, to the Horizon where God sits eternal. Your eyes look down at the beam, about 15 degrees, but none of your 5 senses is present. The line and God aren't seen as images so much as energy. Your one tool is concentration to be pulled forward down the line. Below the line is a misty place with all kinds of delights and adventures to fill a lifetime. The trick is to keep your concentration on the line. If you go far enough the scene changes from you looking at God to God looking at you. It doesn't get more self apparent than that. It was mainly black soft firmament maybe gray or absence of light, Although the vision came as a surprise, I had seen it before, long time ago. The event effected me greatly and not at all. For years I forgot all about it. The only reason my thoughts go to God is because my life is so boring now.

It has rained here 3 weeks straight, my lawn is green in August.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

That's not socialism then. You're describing voluntary exchanges, which can include charity or gift-giving. What you're describing is thoroughgoing free-market anarcho-capitalism, i.e., that no person or group of people may initiate force, or threaten to initiate force, against the person or justly-acquired property of another.
--I have referred you to numerous examples of socialism that replace a market economy with a moral economy, yet you insist your argument is right, because it is right. It is not about right and wrong, but alternatives. Socialism offers a just distribution of socially necessary goods that is an alternative to the market economy of capitalism that is based on the denial of the goods made by society, being the 'private appropriation of publicly produced wealth' (Habermas).

---

It is logically impossible for government to be a general benefit to society, and hence governments are unavoidably incompetent if that is the desired goal. Government does not bring order to society, but rather disorder. Government is anarchy in the sense of societal chaos. Instead, it is the market which brings order and harmony to society, and to the extent that it is allowed to operate, it does so despite government, not because of it.

For an apodictic proof of this per wertfrei economics via demonstrated preference, see the following article by Prof. Murray N. Rothbard:

* Murray N. Rothbard, Ch. 17: "Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics", pp. 224-262 in Mary Sennholz (Ed.), On Freedom and Free Enterprise: Essays in Honor of Ludwig von Mises (Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1956), https://mises.org/sites/default/file...%20Mises_2.pdf , https://wayback.archive.org/web/2015...%20Mises_2.pdf , http://webcitation.org/6Xz9WebJ6 , http://www.freezepage.com/1447055623CLUDAZDSPR . Reprinted in Murray N. Rothbard, The Logic of Action One: Method, Money, and the Austrian School (London, UK: Edward Elgar, 1997), pp. 211-255.

What Prof. Rothbard shows in the foregoing citation is that it is logically impossible that government could be a general benefit to humanity, for the reason that government by definition operates on initiatory violence via its coercive regional monopoly on control over the law and via coercive wealth-extraction, and hence per demonstrated preference its victims of coercion reveal that they would have preferred that said compulsory transactions not have taken place. And due to the incommensurability of different people's subjective value scales, it is not logically possible to say if the beneficiaries of state violence gain more subjective value than its victims lose.

Whereas on the free market, all transactions are voluntary, and hence each party to an exchange reveals per demonstrated preference that, ex ante, they prefer what they are transacting to receive over that which they are to give up. Thus, transactions on the market are mutually beneficial, in that each party to a transaction must expect to gain in utility.

Prof. Rothbard takes leave of his analysis on this matter at this point. Howbeit, one can actually go further than Rothbard's above analysis of this topic, because rather than merely demonstrating that government is logically unproductive to society generally, one can actually demonstrate that government is logically antiproductive to society generally. The reason being is because parasitical exploitation allows such exploitative actors within a society to live on the expropriated wealth of productive members of said society. Whereas absent this exploitative extraction of wealth, in order to live in society, such expropriators would have to engage in voluntary interactions within society, and thus through demonstrated preference, each party to these voluntary transactions would be demonstrating that, ex ante, they expect to gain by these interactions. Thus, via such parasitism, society actually loses the mutually-beneficial gains in utility that would have to have taken place absent the subsistence which such violent exploitation allows its practitioners.

The objection might arise that the distinction between coercive and voluntary actions is an irrelevant differentiation as regards demonstrated preference, since after all, doesn't the coerced party who relents to his aggressive victimizer thereby demonstrate that he prefers assenting to the assailant's demands over the consequences of dissenting to them?

However, the aggressor himself demonstrates by his coercive actions that he believes that his coerced victims thereby lose in utility, otherwise there would have been no need for the aggressor to use force. Because if it were not for the assumption on the aggressor's part that his victim suffers a loss in the exchange, then his use of force would have been superfluous. And hence coercion does indeed occupy a unique place within the wertfrei analytical paradigm of demonstrated preference in showing a loss of utility on the victim's part, even--or indeed, especially--as so-regarded by the aggressor.

For how the free market can exist and indeed flourish without the aggression, disharmony and anarchy of the state, via private-protection agencies on a competitive market, see the below vital articles concerning the nature of government, of liberty, and the free-market production of defense:

* Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, "The Anatomy of the State", Rampart Journal of Individualist Thought, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Summer 1965), pp. 1-24, https://mises.org/system/tdf/rampart...&type=document , http://webcitation.org/6ZvAbaX8z , http://www.freezepage.com/1447053835DURFWXQOPM . Reprinted in a collection of some of Rothbard's articles, Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays (Washington, DC: Libertarian Review Press, 1974), https://mises.org/sites/default/file...20Essays_2.pdf , http://webcitation.org/6XfwvbslB .

* Murray N. Rothbard, Ch. 1: "Defense Services on the Free Market", pp. 1-9 in id., Power and Market: Government and the Economy (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1977; orig. pub. 1970), https://wayback.archive.org/web/2004...wer&market.pdf , http://webcitation.org/5ve3w5w9a , http://pdf-archive.com/2013/08/28/ro...and-market.pdf , http://www.freezepage.com/1447054194BCBULVTSAX .

* Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "The Private Production of Defense", Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Winter 1998-1999), pp. 27-52, https://mises.org/sites/default/files/14_1_2_0.pdf , http://webcitation.org/5ve41VasQ .

* Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security", Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Winter 1989), pp. 27-46, https://mises.org/sites/default/files/9_1_2_0.pdf , http://webcitation.org/5ve485kNf .

* Prof. David D. Friedman, Ch. 29: "Police, Courts, and Laws--on the Market", pp. 114-120 in id., The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism (La Salle, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Co., 1989; orig. pub. 1971), http://daviddfriedman.com/Libertaria...hapter_29.html , http://webcitation.org/5ve4A6KFZ , https://archive.is/I1mt4 .

Concerning the ethics of human rights, the below book is the best book on the subject:

* Murray N. Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty (New York, NY: New York University Press, 1998; orig. pub. 1982), https://wayback.archive.org/web/2013...ard/ethics.pdf , http://webcitation.org/5ve4GO9l5 , http://www.freezepage.com/1447054928ZHDVKQZWOU , http://megalodon.jp/2015-1109-1645-3...28ZHDVKQZWOU/0 .

If one desires a solid grounding in economics then one can do no better than with the below texts:

* Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Economic Science and the Austrian Method (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1995), https://mises.org/sites/default/file...20Method_3.pdf , https://wayback.archive.org/web/2014...books/esam.pdf , http://webcitation.org/63rQDYtj2 .

The above small book by Prof. Hoppe doesn't delve into political theory, but only concerns the methodological basis of economics (i.e., the epistemology of economics). I would recommend that everyone read this short book *first* if they're at all interested in economics. There exists much confusion as to what economics is and what it is not. This book is truly great in elucidating the nature of economics and its epistemic basis. If one were to read no other texts on economics, then this ought to be the economic text that one reads. Plus it doesn't take all that long to read it.

* Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2nd ed., 2004; orig. pub. 1962), https://mises.org/sites/default/file...20Market_2.pdf , http://webcitation.org/6Xfycj7zV .

* Murray N. Rothbard, Power and Market: Government and the Economy (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1977; orig. pub. 1970), https://wayback.archive.org/web/2004...wer&market.pdf , http://webcitation.org/5ve3w5w9a , http://pdf-archive.com/2013/08/28/ro...and-market.pdf , http://www.freezepage.com/1447054194BCBULVTSAX .

These texts ought to be read in the order listed above. I would also add to the above list the below book:

* Murray N. Rothbard, America's Great Depression (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 5th ed., 2000; orig. pub. 1963), https://mises.org/sites/default/file...pression_3.pdf , http://webcitation.org/6Xfyn2oXY .

The above book concerns how governments create depressions (i.e., panics; recessions) through credit expansion (i.e., fractional-reserve banking and/or fiat money).

On the matter of politics in relation to God, see my below article, which demonstrates the logically unavoidable anarchism of Jesus Christ's teachings as recorded in the New Testament (in addition to analyzing their context in relation to his actions, to the Tanakh, and to his apostles). It is logically complete on this subject, in the sense of its apodixis.

* James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761 , https://archive.org/details/JesusIsAnAnarchist , http://theophysics.host56.com/anarchist-jesus.pdf , http://webcitation.org/66AIz2rJw .

See also my below article, which demonstrates the logically unavoidable correctness of the anarcho-capitalist theory of human rights. It doesn't derive an "ought" from an "is"--rather, it derives an "ought" from an "ought": an "ought" everyone must necessarily presuppose in order to even begin to deny it.

* James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 15, 2011, doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1972733 , https://archive.org/details/Libertar...ticallyCorrect , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redfor...rtarianism.pdf , http://webcitation.org/63xyCLjLm .

For how physics allows unlimited progress by civilizations--to literally infinite intelligence and power--see my following article on physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which is also required by said known physical laws. The Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals.

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , https://archive.org/details/ThePhysi...ryOfEverything , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redfor...ics-of-God.pdf , http://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpre...ics-of-god.pdf , https://sites.google.com/site/physic...ics-of-God.pdf .

Additionally, in the below resource are six sections which contain very informative videos of Prof. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE. The seventh section therein contains an audio interview of Tipler. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of these videos.

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk@4ax.com , July 30, 2013, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...ro/KQWt4KcpMVo , https://archive.is/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS . The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761, http://ge.tt/3lOTVbp , http://webcitation.org/6WGd90MBa , https://archive.is/cVRmc .

Quote:

---

You obviously do not even believe your own words on this, as you have said a number of times in this thread that Jesus Christ is a socialist.
--The obvious distinction is between what the gospels claim Jesus said, and what followers of Jesus have done since the establishment of the Christian Churches. The historical record shows that Christians have been responsible for the slaughter of millions, every life taken being a repudiation of the very gospel they claimed to preach and follow, just as the sixth commandment, 'Thou Shalt not Kill' has been violated so many times one wonders why anyone cites the Bible as the source of their legitimacy when they practice the opposite of what it preaches.

---

For details on our Lord and Savior's political philosophy, see my below article, which demonstrates the logically unavoidable anarchism of Jesus Christ's teachings as recorded in the New Testament (in addition to analyzing their context in relation to his actions, to the Tanakh, and to his apostles). It is logically complete on this subject, in the sense of its apodixis.

* James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761 , https://archive.org/details/JesusIsAnAnarchist , http://theophysics.host56.com/anarchist-jesus.pdf , http://webcitation.org/66AIz2rJw .

See also my below article, which demonstrates the logically unavoidable correctness of the anarcho-capitalist theory of human rights. It doesn't derive an "ought" from an "is"--rather, it derives an "ought" from an "ought": an "ought" everyone must necessarily presuppose in order to even begin to deny it.

* James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 15, 2011, doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1972733 , https://archive.org/details/Libertar...ticallyCorrect , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redfor...rtarianism.pdf , http://webcitation.org/63xyCLjLm .

Quote:

---

One cannot apologize for and empower by far the greatest entity of war, mass-murder, and life-long mass-gang-rape ever known without being an apologist of it.
--A description of socialism as a moral economy is not an excuse for mass murder. When the Labour Government of 1945 created the National Health Service, a National Education Service; when it brought water, gas, electricity, railways and coal into public ownership nobody was killed as a result, but in return for taxes, people were provided with the benefits of health care and education, and had subsidized transport. Society benefited as a whole, the gap between rich and poor narrowed, a sense of fairness in the distribution of goods shaped public policy until 1979.

Further, Karl Marx intended his system to be mass-murderous from the very start. Marx hated himself and everyone else with a burning passion. Marx's goal was to send himself and everyone else to Hell for all eternity. For details on that, see pp. 96-98 of my following article, particularly the footnotes therein:
--This is rubbish, and I have taken apart your hysterical 'article' before a few years ago and will not repeat myself here.

---

Ah, so you are a fan of Karl Marx, who detested himself and all of mankind. That speaks volumes about your unhealthy preoccupation with the most mass-murderous philosophy ever conceived.

As I pointed out, Marx intended his system to be mass-murderous from the very start. Marx's goal was to send himself and everyone else to Hell for all eternity. For details on that, see pp. 96-98 of my following article, particularly the footnotes therein:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhys...ics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god .

See also:

* Prof. Richard M. Ebeling, "Economic Ideas: Karl Marx, the Man Behind the Communist Revolution", Future of Freedom Foundation, Feb. 13, 2017, https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/...st-revolution/ , https://web.archive.org/web/20180616...st-revolution/ , https://www.webcitation.org/71A3mGvp6 .

Quote:

---

Where did Ayn Rand ever "argue[]" for that, whether with "devastating simplicity" or nonsimplicity? Rand was a promoter of the Nonaggression Principle.
--I have offered the links before, but the pseudo-philosophy of Ayn Rand can be understood in relation to its roots in Marxism and Bolsheivsm-
https://shlapentokh.wordpress.com/20...9s-philosophy/

-Whittaker Chambers put Rand in her place with more devastating words than mine:
Out of a lifetime of reading, I can recall no other book in which a tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained. Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal. In addition, the mind which finds this tone natural to it shares other characteristics of its type. 1) It consistently mistakes raw force for strength, and the rawer the force, the more reverent the posture of the mind before it. 2) It supposes itself to be the bringer of a final revelation. Therefore, resistance to the Message cannot be tolerated because disagreement can never be merely honest, prudent, or just humanly fallible. Dissent from revelation so final (because, the author would say, so reasonable) can only be willfully wicked. There are ways of dealing with such wickedness, and, in fact, right reason itself enjoins them. From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: “To a gas chamber — go!”
http://whittakerchambers.org/articles/nr/bigsister/

---

So in other words, you're admitting that Ayn Rand never advocated what you falsely accused her of.

Quote:

---

What makes socialism the most mass-murderous philosophy ever conceived is precisely because it puts all power into the most mass-murderous organization to ever exist, i.e., the state. The liberal solution is to disempower the state, rather than empowering it as the collectivists do.
--Between 1500 and 1900 over 100 million people were slaughtered in the Americas by the State in the form of Empire, with an ideology that linked capitalism to Christianity. Morally, you don't have to admit it, Capitalism Kills.

---

Capitalism is the political system where people own themselves and their justly-acquired property. What you are speaking about is a government system, and all governments are socialistic by their inherent nature, since at a bare minimum they all nationalize the production of defense, at least in ultimate control over the law.

So let us abolish government. Problem solved.

Anarchy is the political philosophy of the gods. The genuine gods of Heaven--not the false Jaynesian gods of old.

Quote:

---

Of course Satan exists. Satan is the set of all evil. The set of all evil certainly exists.
--What a load of rubbish. Satan no more exists than Leprechauns and tooth fairies.

---

You are behaving highly unscientifically and irrationally, again. You are stating as a fact something that has never been demonstrated. Moreover, something for which it is quite easy to demonstrate does exist.

Of course Satan exists. Satan is the set of all evil. The set of all evil certainly exists.

Quote:

---

Moreover, your position seems to be that God does not exist. Yet most people worship God.
--So what? People can believe anything, but it is not true. You claim the mathematical proof for the existence of God, but your maths proves no such thing.

---

God's existence is a mathematical theorem within standard physics. Standard physics is the known laws of physics, viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. These aforestated known physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Prof. Tipler's said Omega Point cosmology has been extensively peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals, such as Reports on Progress in Physics (the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional organization for physicists), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (a journal that Nobel Prize in Physics winner Richard Feynman also published in), and Physics Letters, among other journals.

For much more on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the details on how it uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhys...ics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god .

Quote:

---

Further, certainly demons exist. What a demon is in actuality is a particular type of computer-program operating on the wet-computer of the human brain.
--Hello, is there anyone there? Look, The Exorcist really was just a film, quite a good on for that genre, but fiction.

---

See my following article on the Jaynesian gods of old, i.e., the demons:

* James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", Daily Anarchist Forum, May 29, 2018, https://megalodon.jp/2018-0610-0734-...p?topic=3289.0 , https://archive.is/QalJT , https://web.archive.org/web/20180609...p?topic=3289.0 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Whether you are referring to what Hawkins has called the 'initial singularity' or the 'singularity' that you claim the universe is moving towards, applying the concept of infinity to both is contestable, and almost certainly nonsense. The key point is that time only exists because of space/mass and movement, whereas infinity by definition is without density and time and cannot be measured by numbers because even with the Max Planck unit there must always be an un-measurable point between 1 and 0. The assumption therefore must be that the singularity is a motionless nothing. But if the 'initial singularity' existed, then the Big Bang could not have happened, for the singularity had no time, no movement, no mass and thus nothing to cause so phenomenal an eruption in space-time.

---

The initial singularity is uncaused in the sense of how humans commonly thing of causality. Hence why it is called the uncaused First Cause, which is an ancient definition of God. But it does have a cause in the sense of future-to-past causality. For more details on this, see Sec. 5: "The Big Bang", pp. 28-33 of my following article:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhys...ics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god .

Quote:

---

Similarly, the hypothesis that the universe will at some 'ultimate' point collapse back into or form a new 'singularity' assumes that nothing will ever happen again after that, in spite of the claim that there was both an 'initial singularity' and a Big Bang. If it happened once before, why not again? As you can't have one without the other, we are left with the Singularity as a Mathematical Formula whose purpose is to explain what cannot, in fact, be explained in any other language than Maths.

---

This is explained under the heading "Worlds within Worlds", pp. 39 ff. of my following article:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhys...ics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god .

Quote:

---

The problem is that Maths is not an exact science, ...

---

Theorems are exact in what they prove, for they are formal logical proofs.

Quote:

---

... for just as humans agree -or appear to agree- when they see a photo with the caption 'this is a red ball' that the red ball is red, so mathematicians agree that 1+1=2, and have devised more complex formulas to ensure that when a bridge is built, the maths and the engineering enable it to stand without falling down. But when the Millenium Bridge wobbled so badly after its opening in 2000 it had to be closed and its structure changed at a cost of over £8 million, it is because the maths did not take human factors into account, namely the impact a crowd of people has on bridges, that can cause them to collapse -or in this case, wobble.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1103080801.htm

Wittgenstein offered an intriguing argument that places infinity in the here and now-
The solution of the problem of this life is to be seen in the disappearance of this problem.
But is it possible for one so to live that life stops being problematic? That one is living in infinity, not in time?
(Notebooks, 6.7.16). ('infinity' in italics in the original)

Infinity has been a problematic concept for philosophers and was the subject of Zeno's famous paradoxes, yet even with clocks ad monitors, do we ever truly feel time passing, are able to see it, touch it, taste it, hear it? It is a concept, and while it brackets our lives, we cannot know what death is any more than any of us recall being in the womb and the moment of our birth. Thus, the sensation of life itself is without mass, it has no time, and while it is not motionless, as our bodies move, it has something of the infinite about it. Or, we are so wound up in daily rituals, problems of money, lust, hunger, housing and so on, we lose the actual sensation of being itself, which does rather take Wittgenstein closer to a Buddhist concept of Nirvana.

Maths cannot deal with this, but philosophy can.

---

If you actually believe that God does not exist, then why the need to proselytize others to that position? You and everyone you know is going to become a rotting, stinking corpse; and that will be that.

Why not just take things easy, and stop worrying about the matter? Winning converts to your position isn't going to change anything. We're all still just going to end up as nothing more than rotting, stinking corpses whether people believe as you do or if people believe that there is life after death. If your position is correct, then you're just spinning your wheels to no effect with your proselytizing efforts. Nothing in the end changes.

There is a contradiction with your missionary efforts. You are not behaving as if you believe that your overt position is true. Rather, you are behaving as a psychologically self-conflicted individual. You are acting as if you subconsciously do believe that God does exist, yet that you are rebelling against God and wish others to, as well. That is, you are behaving as if you subconsciously desire to go to Hell for all eternity, and that you wish everyone else to go to Hell for all eternity.

As I demonstrated,[1] there is no question that the demons do exist. Anything that one can interact with is real and exists--in some form or another. The issue revolves around what their actual ontological nature is. I say that they exist as naturally-evolved Minskian agent subset programs operating on the wet-computer of the human brain.

You are going through the motions as if these particular Minskian agent subset programs are subconsciously controlling you. Yet, regardless, a contradiction exists between your overt position and your missionary efforts.

And in all this, do not be so surprised. Throughout history there have been many apostles of Hell, attempting to win disciples of Hell. That you would be among their ranks is nothing so shocking. It's human apes acting like the apes they are.

As to why people often wish to go to Hell, it's because Hell is written into our DNA code. Hell is familiar. Hell is family. It's something the human ape mind can comprehend. Indeed, the human apes manufacture Hell on their assembly-lines, with their bombs, their poison gasses, their truncheons, their shackles. Humans know well the methods of Hell.

Whereas human apes have an extreme skepticism toward Heaven, because Heaven is strange. Heaven is unfamiliar. Heaven is not of this world.

-----

Note:

1. James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", Daily Anarchist Forum, May 29, 2018, https://megalodon.jp/2018-0610-0734-...p?topic=3289.0 , https://archive.is/QalJT , https://web.archive.org/web/20180609...p?topic=3289.0 .

* * * * *

Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) demonstrating that sapient life (in the form of, e.g., immortal superintelligent human-mind computer-uploads and artificial intelligences) is required by the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) to take control over all matter in the universe, for said life to eventually force the collapse of the universe, and for the computational resources of the universe (in terms of both processor speed and memory space) to diverge to infinity as the universe collapses into a final singularity, termed the Omega Point. Said Omega Point cosmology is also an intrinsic component of the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics, of which TOE is itself logically forced by the aforesaid known physical laws.

Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals.[1] Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known laws of physics (see below). No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.

Below are some of the peer-reviewed papers in physics and science journals and proceedings wherein Prof. Tipler has published his Omega Point cosmology. (The below papers, in addition to many other articles by Tipler on the Omega Point cosmology, are also available in the following archive: Frank-J-Tipler-Omega-Point-Papers.zip , 26712158 bytes, MD5: 6e5d29b994bc2f9aa4210d72ef37ab68, https://webcitation.org/6GjhT6t52 , https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7k4...x0XzBOV00/edit .)

* Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation", International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 (June 1986), pp. 617-661, doi:10.1007/BF00670475, bibcode: 1986IJTP...25..617T, https://webcitation.org/64KHgOccs . First paper on the Omega Point cosmology.

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Sensorium of God: Newton and Absolute Space", bibcode: 1988nnds.conf..215T, in G[eorge]. V. Coyne, M[ichal]. Heller and J[ozef]. Zycinski (Eds.), "Message" by Franciszek Macharski, Newton and the New Direction in Science: Proceedings of the Cracow Conference, 25 to 28 May 1987 (Vatican City: Specola Vaticana, 1988), pp. 215-228, LCCN 88162460, bibcode: 1988nnds.conf.....C, https://webcitation.org/69Vb0JF1W .

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point Theory: A Model of an Evolving God", in Robert J. Russell, William R. Stoeger and George V. Coyne (Eds.), message by John Paul II, Physics, Philosophy, and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding (Vatican City: Vatican Observatory, 2nd ed., 2005; orig. pub. 1988), pp. 313-331, ISBN 0268015775, LCCN 89203331, bibcode: 1988pptc.book.....R, https://webcitation.org/69VaKG2nd .

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Principle: A Primer for Philosophers", in Arthur Fine and Jarrett Leplin (Eds.), PSA 1988: Proceedings of the 1988 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (East Lansing, Mich.: Philosophy of Science Association, 1989), pp. 27-48, ISBN 091758628X, https://webcitation.org/69VarCM3I .

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists", Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, No. 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x. Republished as Chapter 7: "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions to Scientists" in Carol Rausch Albright and Joel Haugen (Eds.), Beginning with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg (Chicago, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 156-194, ISBN 0812693256, LCCN 97000114, https://webcitation.org/5nY0aytpz .

* Frank J. Tipler, "The ultimate fate of life in universes which undergo inflation", Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Nos. 1-2 (July 23, 1992), pp. 36-43, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90155-W, bibcode: 1992PhLB..286...36T, https://webcitation.org/64Uskd785 .

* Frank J. Tipler, "A New Condition Implying the Existence of a Constant Mean Curvature Foliation", bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf..306T, in B[ei]. L. Hu and T[ed]. A. Jacobson (Eds.), Directions in General Relativity: Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposium, Maryland, Volume 2: Papers in Honor of Dieter Brill (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 306-315, ISBN 0521452678, bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf.....H, https://webcitation.org/5qbXJZiX5 .

* Frank J. Tipler, "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe", NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop Proceedings, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Jan. 1999, pp. 111-119; an invited paper in the proceedings of a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, Aug. 12-14, 1997; doi:2060/19990023204, Document ID: 19990023204, Report Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694, https://webcitation.org/5zPq69I0O , https://pdf-archive.com/2013/09/29/t...ic-rockets.pdf . Full proceedings volume: https://webcitation.org/69zAxm0sT .

* Frank J. Tipler, "There Are No Limits To The Open Society", Critical Rationalist, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Sept. 23, 1998), https://webcitation.org/5sFYkHgSS .

* Frank J. Tipler, Jessica Graber, Matthew McGinley, Joshua Nichols-Barrer and Christopher Staecker, "Closed Universes With Black Holes But No Event Horizons As a Solution to the Black Hole Information Problem", arXiv:gr-qc/0003082, Mar. 20, 2000, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0003082 . Published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 379, No. 2 (Aug. 2007), pp. 629-640, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x, bibcode: 2007MNRAS.379..629T, https://webcitation.org/5vQ3M8uxB .

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Ultimate Future of the Universe, Black Hole Event Horizon Topologies, Holography, and the Value of the Cosmological Constant", arXiv:astro-ph/0104011, Apr. 1, 2001, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104011 . Published in J. Craig Wheeler and Hugo Martel (Eds.), Relativistic Astrophysics: 20th Texas Symposium, Austin, Texas, 10-15 December 2000 (Melville, NY: American Institute of Physics, 2001), pp. 769-772, ISBN 0735400261, LCCN 2001094694, which is AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 586 (Oct. 15, 2001), doi:10.1063/1.1419654, bibcode: 2001AIPC..586.....W.

* Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology", International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Apr. 2003), pp. 141-148, doi:10.1017/S1473550403001526, bibcode: 2003IJAsB...2..141T, https://webcitation.org/5o9QHKGuW . Also at arXiv:0704.0058, Mar. 31, 2007, http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058 .

* F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers", Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (Apr. 2005), pp. 897-964, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04, bibcode: 2005RPPh...68..897T, http://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/t...everything.pdf . Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything", arXiv:0704.3276, Apr. 24, 2007, http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276 .

* Frank J. Tipler, "Inevitable Existence and Inevitable Goodness of the Singularity", Journal of Consciousness Studies, Vol. 19, Nos. 1-2 (2012), pp. 183-193, https://webcitation.org/69JEi5wHp .

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in which the above August 2007 paper was published, is one of the world's leading peer-reviewed astrophysics journals.

Prof. Tipler's paper "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe" was an invited paper for a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, so NASA itself has peer-reviewed Tipler's Omega Point Theorem (peer-review is a standard process for published proceedings papers; and again, Tipler's said paper was an *invited* paper by NASA, as opposed to what are called "poster papers").

Zygon is the world's leading peer-reviewed academic journal on science and religion.

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE)--was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer [Publisher], "Highlights of 2005", Reports on Progress in Physics website, ca. 2006, https://webcitation.org/5o9VkK3eE , https://archive.is/pKD3y .)

Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers.

For much more on these matters, see my above-cited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything" in addition to my below website:

* Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist, http://theophysics.freevar.com , http://theophysics.epizy.com , http://theophysics.host56.com .

The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject the aforestated known laws of physics, and hence to reject empirical science: as these physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date. That is, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the Omega Point cosmology is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) required by the known laws of physics and that correctly describes and unifies all the forces in physics: of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology. So here we have an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology is correct.

-----

Note:

1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is anti-reality and nonphysical (such as String Theory, which violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental support whatsoever), the reason such things are allowed to pass the peer-review process is because the paradigm of assumptions which such papers are speaking to has been made known, and within their operating paradigm none of the referees could find anything crucially wrong with said papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with such papers within the operating assumptions of that paradigm. Whereas, e.g., the operating paradigm of Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper and his other papers on the Omega Point Theorem is the known laws of physics, i.e., our actual physical reality which has been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. So the professional physicists charged with refereeing these papers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with them within their operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.

----------

In the below resource are six sections which contain very informative videos of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which is also required by the known laws of physics. The seventh section therein contains an audio interview of Tipler.

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk@4ax.com , July 30, 2013, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...ro/KQWt4KcpMVo , https://archive.is/a04w9 , https://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

http://impleri.net/files/ellis.pdf

---

That along with other criticisms of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem are already covered in Sec. 4: "Criticisms of the Omega Point Cosmology", pp. 26-28 of my following article:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhys...ics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , https://sites.google.com/site/physic...ics-of-God.pdf .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

I tried to do a drawing of God from my point of view, maybe if I tried hard I could come up with a decent attempt in a couple years, the picture is basically simple: there is a laser beam shooting through your chest forward, to the Horizon where God sits eternal. Your eyes look down at the beam, about 15 degrees, but none of your 5 senses is present. The line and God aren't seen as images so much as energy. Your one tool is concentration to be pulled forward down the line. Below the line is a misty place with all kinds of delights and adventures to fill a lifetime. The trick is to keep your concentration on the line. If you go far enough the scene changes from you looking at God to God looking at you. It doesn't get more self apparent than that. It was mainly black soft firmament maybe gray or absence of light, Although the vision came as a surprise, I had seen it before, long time ago. The event effected me greatly and not at all. For years I forgot all about it. The only reason my thoughts go to God is because my life is so boring now.

It has rained here 3 weeks straight, my lawn is green in August.

---

Thank you for this description, Buttslinger.

The following video is of an excellent lecture by neuroscientist Dr. Sam Harris, one of the main leaders of the New Atheist movement, at a June 2016 TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference.

* "Can we build AI without losing control over it? | Sam Harris", TED ( youtube.com/user/TEDtalksDirector ), Oct. 19, 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nt3edWLgIg
ted.com/talks/sam_harris_can_we_build_ai_without_losing_control_ over_it

As Dr. Harris points out, unless there is something literally magical about the operations of our brains, then it is a purely physical process that can be replicated via advanced-enough technology. Harris further points out that given any rate of progress, it is inevitable that superintelligent godlike machines will one day be constructed. So Harris believes in the existence of gods, it's just that he knows--as do I--that they exist in the future; and the not-so-distant future, at that. Therefore we come to the ironic insight that materialistic atheism, consistently applied, unavoidably results in theism. Consistent atheism turns out to be theism.

* * * * *

God's existence is a mathematical theorem within standard physics. Standard physics is the known laws of physics, viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. This theorem has been given in the form of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology. These aforestated known physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid Tipler's Omega Point Theorem is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been extensively peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals, such as Reports on Progress in Physics (the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional organization for physicists), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (a journal that Nobel Prize in Physics winner Richard Feynman also published in), and Physics Letters, among other journals.

For much more on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the details on how it uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhys...ics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god .

[QUOTE=Jamie Michelle;1849441]
It is logically impossible for government to be a general benefit to society, and hence governments are unavoidably incompetent if that is the desired goal. Government does not bring order to society, but rather disorder. Government is anarchy in the sense of societal chaos. Instead, it is the market which brings order and harmony to society, and to the extent that it is allowed to operate, it does so despite government, not because of it.
--The idea that it is the market which brings order and harmony to society is rhetoric, for it simply ignores the role of conflict or competition in markets between producers and consumers. It ignores the way in which producers can meet in private to agree a minimum price for their product to rig the market, offering consumers a lack of real choice. Most of all, it completely ignores the point made by Marx at some length in Capital, Vol 2 when discussing the formal subsumption of labour under capital, that the workers (in general terms) who produce goods leave their workplace and enter the market place to become consumers of the goods they produced.
A moral economy thus recognises the collective effort made by society to provide it with its needs and distributes them accordingly. In a market society, if you do not have the money to purchase food, you go hungry, or rely on welfare, or charity, or steal. The assumption that markets always provide is demostrable rubbish, as time and again markets have failed, thousands, indeed millions of people have been left unemployed and destitute. It is your refusal to concede that markets fail which undermines your argument when it is cased on such absolute terms. Thus, it cannot be 'logicallly impossible' for government to do good things, when the opposite has been demonstrated to be the case and there is a difference between government and the State, which is what the obscure economists like Rothbard object to. It is somewhat ironic that you attack socialism yet do not acknowledge that it is as opposed to the state and indeed, formal governmet as you seem to be.

Whereas on the free market, all transactions are voluntary, and hence each party to an exchange reveals per demonstrated preference that, ex ante, they prefer what they are transacting to receive over that which they are to give up. Thus, transactions on the market are mutually beneficial, in that each party to a transaction must expect to gain in utility.
--This is simply not true. If a company A has a monopoly of a product, there is no competition, consumers cannot choose, their transactions are not voluntary, unless they choose to go without that Company's product. If it is a car, it may not matter. If it is their only source of water, it matters. You have a naive belief in theory, yet must have encountered in real life a 'transaction' that was a 'rip-off' because you had no choice at the time.

...one can actually go further than Rothbard's above analysis of this topic, because rather than merely demonstrating that government is logically unproductive to society generally, one can actually demonstrate that government is logically antiproductive to society generally. The reason being is because parasitical exploitation allows such exploitative actors within a society to live on the expropriated wealth of productive members of said society.
--Not all capitalists produce goods that benefit society. For example, wealth can be inherited through property transfers from father to son, and thus they are parasites on the body of a society from whom they demand rent for something as vital as accommodation. Even in a market, or especially in a market, the opportunity for people to exploit others is increased the greater the absence of law and order and government willing to regulate the property market precisely because landlords have exploited poor and vulnerable people. It is one thing to remove ethics from the market place, quite another to see basic ethical considerations violated through economic 'transactions' which to the tenants appears in the form of legalized robbery.

For details on our Lord and Savior's political philosophy, see my below article, which demonstrates the logically unavoidable anarchism of Jesus Christ's teachings as recorded in the New Testament (in addition to analyzing their context in relation to his actions, to the Tanakh, and to his apostles). It is logically complete on this subject, in the sense of its apodixis.
--I pointed to a contradiction in the operations of the Christian church and the Gospels, specifically, Christians inflicting mass murder on humanity, and you refuse to reply to the point. Are you ashamed of the history of Christianity? On this occasion you cannot even magic up an excuse.

Ah, so you are a fan of Karl Marx, who detested himself and all of mankind. That speaks volumes about your unhealthy preoccupation with the most mass-murderous philosophy ever conceived.
I am not a fan of Karl Marx, and if required can explain what I think are the few strengths of his analysis of capitalism, and the greater number of failings. The point is that some of Marx's arguments about the way in which capitalism operates remain, albeit in a general sense, compelling, yet few economists or socal philosophers with the exception of Georg Lukacs based their critique of capitalism on the work Marx did, which itself was a continuation of the work of Adam Smith and David Ricardo.
That you can say of Marx that he detested himself and all of mankind and that I approve of the most mass-murderous philosophy ever conceived is emotional drivel. Yet again you simply refuse to accept that over 100 million people in the Americas were slaughtered by Christians, Imperialists and Nationalists, but I am not suggesting you approve of it, or that such deaths were necessary so that you could live a privileged life in sunny California. We can debate this if you want, but Stalin was as much a Russian Nationalist as he claimed to be a 'communist' whatever that means, which may be why the Russians refer to 'The Great Patriotic War' rather than 'The Great Commuist War' of 1941-45. As for Mao, he was a Chinese Nationalist in outlook, utterly obsesed with China to the exclusion of all other countries, he merely adopted a different form of rule to the Guomindang, who in their short lifetime in Chinese history slaughtered over a million Chinese before running away to Taiwan to take the American coin.
In short, Nationalism is a pox on humanity, the greatest slayer of mankind since 1800.

Anarchy is the political philosophy of the gods. The genuine gods of Heaven--not the false Jaynesian gods of old.
--I thought you believed in the one God, or is three?

You are behaving highly unscientifically and irrationally, again. You are stating as a fact something that has never been demonstrated. Moreover, something for which it is quite easy to demonstrate does exist.
Of course Satan exists. Satan is the set of all evil. The set of all evil certainly exists.
--Satan does not exist as a scientific fact. People behave badly, that may be a scientific fact, they are not possessed by the devil. It is also something we can try to deal with, even scientifically if, for example, aggresive and destructive behaviour cause by bi-polar disorder can be treated with medication. No need for all this preposterous rubbish about Hell, Satan, and whatever else you choose to call it.

[QUOTE=Jamie Michelle;1849442]

The initial singularity is uncaused in the sense of how humans commonly thing of causality. Hence why it is called the uncaused First Cause, which is an ancient definition of God. But it does have a cause in the sense of future-to-past causality.

- A little voice in my head is telling me there can be no such thing as an 'uncaused first cause', just as you can only claim the existence of 'something' before the 'initial singularity' because without God as the explanation, the entire edifice of belief that you adhere to falls apart. The existence of God may be necessary to you, but it is not a fact, and not a requirement of life on earth. We can of course debate for some time why people believe in God, and I have in other posts in other threads argued, I hope persuasively, that religion in its more positive role has been instrumental in establishing the norms and values of social conduct. We cannot undo history, but we can learn from it. That respect for each other is good, that killing is bad.

The key point is that it does not matter to me that there is or there is not a God. If there is God and after we die I see 'it' then so what? According to Christians, the ones I grew up with as a child in a somewhat austere Christian household, God loves me, so I look forward to an eternity of lemonade, sex, and opera. So I could tell you what after all those years I think of God, but it would be so eccentric as to be meaningless to you. And if I believe my soul will live on, it has nothing to with God. And for the record, I won't be a 'rotten, stinking corpse' as my instructions are to be cremated, and my ashes cast into the sea off the coast at Sete where I once spent hours arguing about the meaning of ballet with an American with memorable breasts. These fragments I have shored against my ruin...