Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 35 of 35
  1. #31
    Veteran Poster Jamie Michelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    West-Coast Central Florida
    Posts
    735

    Default Re: Entheogenica Esoterica

    Quote Originally Posted by trish View Post
    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 .



    Boys will be girls.

    Author (under a nom de plume) of "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Dec. 4, 2011, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761 ; Theophysics, http://theophysics.host56.com .

  2. #32
    Veteran Poster Jamie Michelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    West-Coast Central Florida
    Posts
    735

    Default Re: Entheogenica Esoterica

    Quote Originally Posted by buttslinger View Post
    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.



    Boys will be girls.

    Author (under a nom de plume) of "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Dec. 4, 2011, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761 ; Theophysics, http://theophysics.host56.com .

  3. #33
    Veteran Poster Jamie Michelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    West-Coast Central Florida
    Posts
    735

    Default Re: Entheogenica Esoterica

    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,
    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 .



    Boys will be girls.

    Author (under a nom de plume) of "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Dec. 4, 2011, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761 ; Theophysics, http://theophysics.host56.com .

  4. #34
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    8,596

    Default Re: Entheogenica Esoterica

    [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.



  5. #35
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    8,596

    Default Re: Entheogenica Esoterica

    [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...



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •