Entheogenica Esoterica

[Jamie Michelle]

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 .

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.

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 .

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 .

... 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 .

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 .

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 .

[Stavros]

[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.

[buttslinger]

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

the big IF

[Stavros]

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.

[trish]

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

[broncofan]

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?

[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.

[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.

[Jamie Michelle]

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 .

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 .

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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 .

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 .

[Jamie Michelle]

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 .

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 .

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

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

... 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 .