Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $27,930
31%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 31% is in!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by betty boop

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Dark Matter May Be Completely Invisible, Concludes World's Most Sensitive Search

    07/22/2016 7:01:09 AM PDT · 82 of 88
    betty boop to Phlap; TXnMA; xzins

    Well, we can’t “see” quarks either, they have never been isolated or directly observed. But there is considerable evidence that they actually exist. It seems possible to me that some things in nature are seen, not directly, but only in their effects.

  • Saul Alinsky's 1972 interview with Playboy Magazine

    07/21/2016 11:28:06 AM PDT · 13 of 48
    betty boop to ProgressingAmerica

    Thanks so much for the links!

  • Roger Stone: Ted Cruz 'is a dumb son of a bitch'

    07/21/2016 11:16:04 AM PDT · 180 of 203
    betty boop to stars & stripes forever; xzins
    Maybe he needs to keep on fundraising because he needs to pay back his campaign debts, which must be considerable. Do I recall correctly that among his campaign creditors are Ted and Heidi Cruz??? I mean, didn't he lend himself money from their own private accounts?

    Just asking'.

  • Delegate Call (FREEP OPPORTUNITY) [update at post 38]

    07/21/2016 11:01:37 AM PDT · 51 of 51
    betty boop to xzins
    Trump should maintain private security and have them vet his secret service detachment. That sounds paranoid, but the communists have had 8 years to position people. I don't trust them. Better safe than sorry.

    I totally agree. It's not "paranoid." The stakes couldn't be higher for the Progressive Left in this country. And one thing that's absolutely clear about them is they believe that "the ends justify the means."

    Say, how did you like that Cruz speech last night??? To say I was scandalized by it would be an understatement....

  • Delegate Call (FREEP OPPORTUNITY) [update at post 38]

    07/16/2016 10:29:56 AM PDT · 49 of 51
    betty boop to xzins
    His 2 weaknesses with conservatives are touchback amnesty and religious restoration walkback.

    Well, I think conservatives need to give Pence some slack on those for now. Trump at this point at least seems to favor touchback removal, not amnesty. Especially those illegals who have a criminal record here. The "Kate's Law" proposal -- which continues to fail in Congress -- would represent a "meeting of the minds" of Trump and Gov. Pence. It's best to move forward baby-step by baby-step rather than in one swell foop....

    It is probably impossible now to "remove" all the illegal aliens in our country, who in many cases are members of families who have been here for generations. The Fourteenth Amendment's definition of "citizen" as it is currently construed by the federal and state courts makes this exceptionally complicated, difficult. But I'm sure a sane answer can be found, once people seriously start focusing on the issue, rather than just demagoguing it.

    Hopefully, the Republican Congress will continue "Republican" in both Houses after Nov. 9th. If so, there's a very good chance that good progress can be made on this front over the next few years.

    As for Pence "backing away" from IN RFRA: God bless this gallant man for getting it passed in the first place. Of course, "the usual suspects" instantly started agitating against it. In the end, what it all boiled down to: The anti-IN-RFRA media campaign was more persuasive (politically) than the Governor's, and so his new legislation was seriously "defanged." I don't think Pence even had a media strategy.

    I hate to say what I just said. But on my observation, it is mainly true: People are swayed by messages.... Fewer and fewer think for themselves, they wait to be "instructed."

    Anyhoot, I'm pleased that Trump chose Pence as his running mate. I sense good complementarity there. A couple weeks ago, I was flirting with the idea of Newt as Veep. But then I thought, oh my, that would be too exciting, even overwhelming!!! A Donald AND a Newt at the same time??? Jeepers, a lot of Americans would likely need to increase their blood pressure meds....

    But can you imagine Newt as President Donald Trump's Chief-of-Staff??? Oh my word. That job is the second-most-powerful job in Washington: For one thing, the COS controls access to the President. The VP has to go to the COS to get an appointment to even see the President. Or so I understand.

    Then again, such rules are barbarous. LOL! :<)

    Oh, just dreaming of who Trump would pick for some truly important slots in his Administration! Michael Flynn as SecDef would please me enormously. One wonders who he will chose for SecTreas -- Stephen Moore? Robert Laffer? Ben Carson as SecHHS? Chris Christie as AG? There are so many talented and eminently qualified people who have been shut out of public service year after year by goose-stepping progressives in government, the MSM, and academe who obviously owe fealty to Barack Obama....

    It is now time to vote them all away, to sweep away goose-stepping progressives. That's what the 2016 presidential election is all about.

    I'm glad Trump released a list of potential judicial nominees already. Very helpful. Now I wish he might tell us who's he's thinking of hiring for his various Administrative Departments?

    I just wish those silly #NeverTrump people would get on-board the #NeverHillary train. I'll never forgive Mitt Romney, the former governor of my home state, for stirring all this up to begin with....

    I'm so looking forward to the Convention!

    Thank you for your brilliant analysis, dear Brother!

  • Delegate Call (FREEP OPPORTUNITY) [update at post 38]

    07/16/2016 7:18:21 AM PDT · 47 of 51
    betty boop to xzins
    One still wonders who they had in mind to nominate

    Kasich maybe?

    Thanks for 'splaining Rule 12 to me. I dimly remember that one now, and what it was for. It's a tremendous relief to me that "vote your conscience" went down in flames....

    What do you think of the Pence veep pick?

  • Hillary’s Inconvenient Truth

    07/15/2016 3:44:33 PM PDT · 8 of 8
    betty boop to xzins
    The non-indictment, even though I disagree with it, is working against her.

    Totally agreed.

  • Delegate Call (FREEP OPPORTUNITY) [update at post 38]

    07/15/2016 3:43:46 PM PDT · 45 of 51
    betty boop to xzins
    I dunno. Which "rule 12" do you mean? In general, "rule 12" (a federal legal standard I gather) seems to have something to do with the timely presentation of evidence. Or something to that effect. I'm no lawyer, so I really don't know.

    As for what these people -- the "vote your conscience" people -- really want -- well, they already told you what they want. They want to stop Trump in his tracks, even if that means we are saddled with Hillary Clinton for our president for the next 4 or 8 years. And even if we have to destroy the Republican Party to do it.

    Talk about hatred poisoning/warping the mind!!!

    I just think these people are nutz. So I'm glad they didn't get what they wanted.

  • Delegate Call (FREEP OPPORTUNITY) [update at post 38]

    07/14/2016 11:34:50 AM PDT · 43 of 51
    betty boop to xzins
    A delegate elected in a primary has no mandate for individual discretion beyond the precise rules for their state under which they were elected. States vary and even different delegates within states vary, but their mission is spelled out.

    Some members of the Rules Committee, sitting today and tomorrow, seem to be unaware of the above. Evidently they feel they are fully empowered to make new rules, effective at this Convention. This would allow the Rules Committee to completely override the States' delegate rules. This is revolutionary. I don't think their argument that it is entirely fitting that Delegates "vote their conscience" will carry the day. We'll see.

  • Delegate Call (FREEP OPPORTUNITY) [update at post 38]

    07/13/2016 1:01:20 PM PDT · 39 of 51
    betty boop to Hildy; xzins; patriotspride; Jim Robinson
    I received this from DELEGATES UNBOUND Today (Check out the address at the bottom. K STREET. The establishment would rather see Hillary win and destroy the Republican Party than lose their power. And there are people falling for it:

    But of course, if they destroy the Party, they lose their power. This is the absurdity at the root of the #NeverTrump fanatic's thinking.

    The Rules Committee meets tomorrow. Heaven only knows how many Committee delegates have fallen under the sway of DELEGATES UNBOUND's "vote your conscience" siren song.

    But what DU is proposing would be suicidal for the Party.

    There's not a dime's worth of difference between a delegate who, instead of voting the candidate preference determined by the various States' primary elections or caucuses, substitutes his own judgment for that of voters in his home State -- and a "Superdelegate," which we deplore when we see them in the Democrat party.

    For "Superdelegate," read: Influential Party Insider. If the Rules Committee ratifies the "vote your conscience" rule, this is tantamount to turning all Convention delegates into Superdelegates -- which means rule by elites, not rule by the vox populi, or by consent of the governed.

    The GOP would be DEAD if the RNC lets this go forward.

    Of the DELEGATES UNBOUND promoters, all I can say is, these guys insist on getting the WHOLE loaf of bread; they'd rather starve to death than settle for HALF a loaf (which would allow them to keep their power and their base and live to fight another day). They are idiotes. And Jim Sasse is an Asse.

    JMHO FWIW

    Thanks, Hildy, for keeping us up-to-date!

  • Did Comey Actually Destroy Hillary Clinton by ‘Exonerating’ Her?

    07/09/2016 9:42:52 AM PDT · 192 of 193
    betty boop to patriotspride; LibWhacker; rdcbn; xzins; MHGinTN
    “As a general matter, we take issues of classified information very seriously,” Comey said in response to a reporter’s question.... He added that the department had prosecuted and sought administrative sanctions against people for mishandling classified information.... “It’s our lifeblood, those secrets,” Comey continued. “It’s against the law for anyone to intentionally mishandle classified documents either by taking it to give to somebody else or by mishandling it in a way that is outside the government regulations.”

    Obviously, Comey was/is a liar. Not to put too fine a point on it....

    Thanks, patriotspride, for the revealing link.

  • Did Comey Actually Destroy Hillary Clinton by ‘Exonerating’ Her?

    07/09/2016 9:18:22 AM PDT · 191 of 193
    betty boop to MHGinTN; LibWhacker; rdcbn; xzins
    Can Congress impeach a corrupt FBI director and a totally corrupt AG?

    AFAIK, Congress has the power to impeach Comey and Lynch; for their corrupt actions violate the "good behavior" standard necessary to enter and retain their respective offices.

    But Congress really doesn't want to impeach anybody, it's just too much trouble. The MSM would go berserk. The Dems would hold a sit-in and disrupt normal business. I do not know why Paul Ryan doesn't just call the Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives and request that he authorize the Capitol Police to arrest such moronic disrupters, who are turning the august and honorable institution of the House into a three-ring circus.

    Congress should have impeached Obama years ago, but simply didn't dare. They're good, quiet little boys who do what they're told, you see....

    And we keep re-electing them.

    Thanks for writing, MHGinTN!

  • Did Comey Actually Destroy Hillary Clinton by ‘Exonerating’ Her?

    07/09/2016 9:01:59 AM PDT · 189 of 193
    betty boop to rdcbn
    When he asked Comey if Hillary Clinton had done anything wrong Comey came back with “what do you mean by wrong?”

    To say an action was "wrong" implies a moral sense. But increasingly, it seems to me that "progressive" lawyers want to erase any distinction between what is "legal" and what is "moral." If it's "legal," then it's perfectly all right. But even if Hillary did something illegal, we can always torture the letter of the law to make her action seem consistent with "legal."

    I expect most people nowadays would find the statement, "that which is legal isn't necessarily lawful" unintelligible, nonsensical. But I believe the statement is true. And the people who are fixated on taking down the Ten Commandments from the facade of the Supreme Court also evidently believe the statement is true. Which is why they want the Ten Commandments expunged, erased from human memory for all time.

    Morally, Hillary is guilty as sin. Very likely, people died as a result of her hacked e-mails. Legally, Comey says she hasn't done anything wrong, and thus she has done nothing to put herself in legal jeopardy.

    One gathers the preeminent legal authorities in this nation have no use for moral criteria whatsoever. And evidently, one can torture the words of the law -- the existing statutes on the books -- to make them say anything you want them to.

    That is, if you're a famous-enough politician, you are protected; no one can touch you. Especially if the MSM is working overtime to shield you. But if you're just a "little guy," then the whole weight of the law will come crashing down on your head for doing far less than Hillary has done.

    There has been a moral and cultural collapse of our nation. It started at the very top and filtered down from there. It has only accelerated during the presidency of Barack Obama. I think this was his plan for America all along.

    What aggravates me is, why have the People let things go so far, so totally out of control? The GOP has majorities in both Houses of Congress. Why have they done NOTHING to resist the galloping corruption? Looks to me like those guys just don't want to "rock the boat." But the boat is already sinking on their watch....

  • Did Comey Actually Destroy Hillary Clinton by ‘Exonerating’ Her?

    07/09/2016 8:35:31 AM PDT · 181 of 193
    betty boop to xzins
    Thanks for those details, dear Brother. I was unaware of Comey's connection to these questionable cases. I am now fully disabused as to my former notions of the man's true character. He has made it crystal clear that, as George Orwell put it, he believes that "all the animals are equals; it's just that some animals are more equal than others." Or words to that effect.
  • Did Comey Actually Destroy Hillary Clinton by ‘Exonerating’ Her?

    07/09/2016 8:26:53 AM PDT · 179 of 193
    betty boop to libstripper
    Comedy being a DemonCrap stooge from the get go, I never doubted that the fix was in.

    I didn't realize Coney was a "DemonCrap stooge." But his recent performance has removed all doubt. For some reason, I expected him to resist the "fix," to rise above it and faithfully execute his office. People widely claimed he had an upstanding reputation. That, of course, is now seen as the "urban myth" that it truly is.

  • Did Comey Actually Destroy Hillary Clinton by ‘Exonerating’ Her?

    07/08/2016 10:11:37 AM PDT · 173 of 193
    betty boop to rdcbn; libstripper; xzins
    Never in my life did I ever expect to hear the top law enforcement official of the United States, actually act as Head Apologist in Chief and lame excuse maker for a group of felons whose (at best ) criminal negligence, has done serious harm to the country.

    Truly, this is totally disgusting, intolerable to law-biding Americans.

    But Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffetz made Comey look like an inept fool. He was so full of self-contradictions and outright evasions in his testimony it was laughable (almost).

    For sure there is no justice in the FBI, or the Justice Department. Just a bunch of experts in legal parsing and hair-splitting to justify NOT following the law.

    Comey has opened a can of worms. This is not over yet.

  • Delegate Call (FREEP OPPORTUNITY) [update at post 38]

    07/08/2016 10:02:00 AM PDT · 37 of 51
    betty boop to libstripper; rdcbn; xzins
    Their “movement” is, indeed, a traitorous, un-American horror, truly a rancid bowel movement.

    I certainly agree with that! This #NeverTrump "vote your conscience" movement would instantly elevate all primary delegates to "superdelegate" status. This is hardly a conservative proposal. Rather, it comes straight out of the Left Progressive playbook, to create an unaccountable ruling elite. This cuts at the very heart of American liberty and our constitutional rule of law.

    We are, after all, a government of laws, not of men -- a government of, by, and for the People.

    But any expected miracle at the Convention can only come about if the Rules Committee enacts the "vote your conscience" rule. If they do, the GOP is dead. Dead as a doornail. I think the Rules Committee understands this. Certainly, Reince Priebus clearly understands this. So I doubt the Rules Committee would do anything that suicidal.

    But blockheads like Senator Sasse -- who is an Asse -- just don't get it. The #NeverTrump crowd wants another candidate, mainly Ted Cruz I suspect, whom I originally supported; that is, until Iowa....

    Never mind that the people of the several States, in their conventions or primaries, have already made their choice, in the biggest GOP primary turnout ever, out of a field of 18 candidates. But the #NeverTrump crowd insanely thinks it can simply override the primary results, and substitute their own judgment for that of 13 million primary voters.

    Question: Are they nutz??? Answer: YES. Certifiably insane.

    Just a thought: If a man is to be judged by the company he attracts and keeps, then I'd have to say Ted Cruz is a total loser. One of his supporters, who knows I plan to vote for Trump, has told me in no uncertain terms that Trump is evil through and through, and so I must be evil, too, since I support him. He added that he "opposed" Trump, and therefore he "opposed" me, and what did I plan to do about it?

    Sigh. You cannot reason with these people. I know three-year-olds with more common sense. Plus they seem to be living in another world, a looking-glass, down-the-rabbit-hole world. You just can't reach these people.... (Though Heaven knows I've tried.)

    libstripper, I'm not going to get involved with that "vote your conscience" site or its push-poll. There's no point in dignifying it with my presence.

    Thanks so much for writing!

  • Delegate Call (FREEP OPPORTUNITY) [update at post 38]

    07/07/2016 12:37:32 PM PDT · 19 of 51
    betty boop to libstripper
    Whatta bunch of p*ssies....

    I don't know whether I want to give my e-mail address to a collection of deranged people. But I'll think about it.

  • Did Comey Actually Destroy Hillary Clinton by ‘Exonerating’ Her?

    07/07/2016 12:35:39 PM PDT · 169 of 193
    betty boop to rdcbn; Kaslin; xzins
    Having viewed the House Government Oversight Committee hearing today, I hereby rescind any good thing I ever said about FBI Director Comey in yesterday's post.

    But I still think I was right to say that this matter was ultimately a political matter, not a legal one. Thanks to Vice Chairman Elijah Cummings and James Comey himself, today's event made that crystal clear. I mean really, Rep. Cummings put the Michael Brown case in his concluding statement. Give me a break.

    But in the end, Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz nailed Comey to the wall regarding some hard truths about the FBI investigation that Hillary will find enormously difficult to evade and overcome. So stay tuned.

  • Delegate Call (FREEP OPPORTUNITY) [update at post 38]

    07/07/2016 12:24:12 PM PDT · 13 of 51
    betty boop to Hildy
    Hey Hildy. THANKS for the head's-up!!! I took the opportunity to write to these totally deranged individuals. I wish I could find a copy, it was blistering.
  • Did Comey Actually Destroy Hillary Clinton by ‘Exonerating’ Her?

    07/06/2016 10:47:41 AM PDT · 161 of 193
    betty boop to rdcbn; Kaslin; xzins
    ...it is incumbent upon the FBI to release the investigation information to the public in order to clear up the inevitable and legitimate concerns that the fix is in and the FBI threw the case against Hillary.

    Outstanding insights, rdcbn.

    I was watching Comey's press conference of July 5, and I didn't so much see a "coward" as a very angry, frustrated man. He was clearly caught between a rock and a hard place. I think he realized that if he did recommend prosecution, AG Lynch would find some pretext to decline his recommendation; and then the case would be "over."

    Instead, what Comey did was to keep the case simmering along at the political level, probably rightly assuming that Lynch would stop it at the legal level. So he gave up the goods on Hillary, detailing why she is guilty under the relevant federal statutes, and showing every instance of her lying through her teeth to escape culpability. It's all on the record, and plain for all to see. When he said no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case against Hillery, given existing legal precedents, I think that's very likely true. He said he could not "prove" intent. But the relevant statutes do not require intent to show the commission of a felony.

    On a circumstantial basis, the fact that Hillary had a home-grown server in the first place clearly indicates intent to evade the Federal Records Act. But Comey gave her a "pass." As we walks off the stage, done with it and disgusted. (And he gets to keep his job.)

    But then he goes to Congress tomorrow.... I'll be watching. I think he correctly judged that the Hillary e-mail/server scandal is, finally, a political, not a legal matter; and the people have to decide. This is, after all, a presidential election year....

    I'm inclined to agree that, against the background of the Constitution, this is more of a political than a legal matter. The Framers created three separate but equal branches. Two of them -- Congress and the Executive -- are political branches. That is, they are constituted by people who are elected to office for a term of years. They are chosen by the people to be answerable to the people. If they aren't suitably "answerable," they can be voted out of office. (Or in Obama's case, be impeached and removed. But it seems nobody wants to take the trouble.)

    The Article III Courts, however, were deliberately constructed to be non-political in their judgments and functions. Not that you'd know that from observation, these days....

    Comey's FBI is part of the Executive Branch, a political branch (which currently is hostile to Congress generally). Comey will be deposed by another political branch tomorrow. Maybe between the two, certain concrete results can be achieved to exact a price on Hillary for her abject malfeasance and corruption. At the very least, she ought to be stripped of her security clearance....

    Hopefully, Donald Trump will get more serious in his remarks about Hillary's misdeeds, and succeed in educating the public as to her abject unsuitability for the Office of the President. She is an outstandingly corrupt figure in a cabal of corrupt figures, i.e., the Progressive Left which is attempting to destroy American liberty and the constitutional rule of law. This PL has already taken over the Democrat Party. So it knows how to do "coups"....

  • String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created

    07/02/2016 7:13:22 AM PDT · 170 of 171
    betty boop to eddie willers
    The thought that stuck me was that they were looking at something that was as far back in their past as I was to them.

    Great observation, eddie!

  • String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created

    07/01/2016 1:04:26 PM PDT · 168 of 171
    betty boop to xzins; UCANSEE2; eddie willers; TXnMA
    Back to the basic article, it seems to me that the Creator cannot be bound by the speed of light since it is a created thing. Therefore, it would seem to me that messengers of God also cannot be bound by the speed of light, since they are sent on their way by God, but are also created beings. Therefore, I’m inclined to think that the speed of light might be a difficult barrier but not an impossible one.

    Dear Brother xzins, I entirely agree with your assessment.

    Don't let the tachyons get you down! We humans are mainly space and time bound in 4D. In that frame of reference, time has a maximum speed limit of C, the speed of light. It is expected, however, that tachyons move at a rate faster than C. In which case, it is probably not possible to observe them directly; for they operate in a time order outside of human awareness.

    Then again, no one has ever "seen" a quark, though the existence of quarks is pretty much validated.

    I guess the moral of the story might be some things cannot be seen directly, but only in their effects. (c.f. Romans 1:20)

    In any case, God, the Creator of Time, cannot be subject to Time at all. God is timeless, eternal. The Creator utterly transcends that which He has created.

    It seems to me the messengers of God have the ability to move at superluminal speeds. And not only that, but can instantaneously transport a human to a "different location" and then back again....

    But I can't explain this.

    Thanks for writing, dear Brother!

  • String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created

    07/01/2016 12:08:48 PM PDT · 166 of 171
    betty boop to UCANSEE2; xzins; eddie willers; TXnMA
    'Scientists' keep telling us that, but then I see the Pyramids and Vast Underground CIties built before the dawn of the 'Enlightenment'.

    Indeed, the great pyramids stagger the imagination. The Great Pyramid of Cheops reportedly dates back to c. 2560–2540 BC. HOW is was constructed is still a mystery. Presumably the tools of the time were pretty primitive. It obviously was a labor-intensive enterprise, likely from forced labor or slaves.

    Yet according to some myths from ancient Mesopotamia, the pyramids were built by "extraterrestrials," who also "seeded" man on this planet in the beginning. These extra-cosmic beings were regarded as "the gods." Later, certain pharaohs conscripted the already-long-extant pyramids into service as their burial chambers.

    Or at least that is one myth. In recent times, Erik von Danneken has revived it, in his book The Chariots of the Gods. Most people regard this as science fiction nowadays.

    So I can't explain anything about the pyramids. I'm just amazed they're there, and have lasted so long. What I find even more astonishing is the Great Sphynx. It is said to be much older than the Great pyramids themselves. Unfortunately, it appears to be weathering alarmingly in recent times.

    Assuming the pyramids and the Sphynx were fashioned by human hands, the pyramids are a totally amazing construction feat that testifies to the technical, organizational abilities of the human mind. The Sphynx is even more than that. It is a symbolization of the deep meaning of a form of ancient wisdom that is being captured for the ages in stone. It probably refers to a mystery cult of some kind.

    Scientists don't deal in mystery cults, of course. Myth is not their cup of tea.

    On the other hand, a student of culture and history will notice that human kind have been continually preoccupied with discerning meaning behind the brute facts of Nature since the beginning of human records. This seems to be a fact of human nature that does not change.

    Again, more questions than answers!!!

    Thanks for writing, UCANSEE2.

  • String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created

    07/01/2016 11:16:18 AM PDT · 165 of 171
    betty boop to xzins; UCANSEE2; eddie willers; TXnMA
    A living being has an independent identity, in my view of things. In other words, the Great I Am here creates lesser beings but with each having it’s own sense of “I am”...a condition of “beinghood”. God is the ultimate, eternal “Being”.

    Absolutely. On my personal reflections, we humans are participations in ultimate, eternal Being, our source and our sustainer. Philosophers love to quibble about the distinction between "being" and "existence." "Life" encompasses both meanings. Yet to me, it's simple: All living creatures "exist" -- that is, are alive. Even the inanimate world can be said to "exist" in some sense.

    Yet of all the creatures, man is the only one who "IS" uniquely in himself. Man possesses, not only soul, but nous, a gift of God. Via this means, he is capable of developing self-consciousness, which is the very basis of human reason and intelligence. It also guides the mortal course of the person, and makes him responsible for the choices he makes, which are ultimately subject to divine judgement.

    This idea goes far, far back into the ancient world. As far as I know, Plato was the first to isolate and qualify nous, seeing it as having only two possible loci (for lack of a better word), divine and human.

    Evidently, Plato believed God was perfectly unintelligible to the human mind. He is the God "Beyond," not only "beyond" the physical cosmos which he caused, but also utterly beyond human comprehension. In principle. But that doesn't mean divine-human communication is impossible. Indeed, it seems Socrates swore by it -- he "felt" the divine "pulls" and responded....

    Funny thing is, Plato thought man was the eikon or "image" of the Cosmos. That is, he conceived the entire hierarchy of being was recapitulated in man himself, from the highest level, divine Nous, to human nous, to feeling/passion, through the biological, vegetative, and inorganic levels, finally bottoming out in the Apeiron, the fathomless Depth of all that "exists," out of which everything physical comes, and back into which everything physical goes in due course of time.

    According to Anaximander, the Apeiron is the unlimited, indefinite, unbounded. It is the 'unlimited' source of all particular things. Because it transcends all limits, it is in principle undefinable.

    So Plato's great hierarchy of Being puts the divine at the summit, and the divine at its base. Both these "poles" are unknowable by man directly. But man lives his life "in between" these two poles....

    Notwithstanding the mythical quality here, flashes of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics always seem to come to my mind at this point.... But I digress.

    I wanted to tell you where the great second-century A.D. philosopher Justin Martyr took the Platonic insights. He'd been an avid student of philosophy from his youth, had been through the different philosophical schools of the day, and found them wanting. Eventually, he found Plato's school, which was still going through successors. Then he found Christianity. It was Justin who first realized that Christ was not only the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophets, but He was also the fulfillment of classical philosophy.

    Anyhoot, Justin Martyr would become the greatest evangelist of the Logos in the second century. He died a martyr for his faith. He has been sainted by the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

    In closing, there's a profound difference between Plato's cosmology and Christianity. In Plato, man is the complete image of the Cosmos. In Christianity, man is made in the image of God Himself. Which probably explains where he got his nous from.

    Thank you so much for writing, dear Brother xzins!

  • String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created

    06/29/2016 1:51:21 PM PDT · 160 of 171
    betty boop to eddie willers; xzins; UCANSEE2; TXnMA
    I saw, with the advancement of the computer revolution, that one of my earliest reasons for thinking of the impossibility of the Bible version of God was no longer valid.... These were such pronouncements as "But not a single sparrow can fall to the ground without your Father knowing it." and "And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered." ... Ha ha, how silly.... The computer revolution showed me that not only is it NOT silly, but actually possible.

    Bless you, eddie willers, for this lovely testimony. I gather the Lord reaches out to us where we stand, using language we understand, appealing to our own personal direct knowledge of the world and our interest in it. An illustration: The Lord knows I love the ancient Greek philosophers. So, on one occasion when He particularly wanted to send me a message, He sent angels. They were dressed and groomed like Greek slaves. Never let it be said that God does not have a sense of humor!

    Possibly, by now you imagine I'm just plain nutz. I'm just telling you what I know, as far as I know it.

    Anyhoot, please do not fall for the illusion that, if we humans can just build a computer of sufficient (astronomical) power, which can translate everything in nature to a series of 1's and 0's -- at some point, this machine is going to "evolve" a "mind."

    And yet it seems this fallacy is what drives most of artificial intelligence/artificial life studies....

    My opinion in this matter is straight out of classical Greece, much fortified -- indeed, fulfilled -- by Christian theology over time. There are only two "minds," one in the divine Beyond the Cosmos (divine Nous); the other in man (human nous). Man is the only existent in Nature that possesses mind. Which is to be distinguished from brain.

    But I'm wool-gathering here. Better close for now.

    Thanks for writing, eddie!

  • String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created

    06/28/2016 2:55:32 PM PDT · 159 of 171
    betty boop to UCANSEE2; eddie willers; xzins; TXnMA
    [1] Then possibly the Universe is 2-dimensional while everything in it is 3-dimensional.

    [2] Or maybe the Universe has no 'time' element (or dimension) to it. It simply is. It does not age, while everything in it (or on it) does 'age'.

    [3] Or maybe it's turtles all the way down. : )

    RE: [1] -- Two-dimensionality is the property of a universal mathematic object, the plane. Two-dimensional objects do not appear in nature, no more than a perfect sphere does.

    A "plane" in the natural world is not perfectly achievable. At best, plane-like things in nature are approximations of the ideal plane. But this 2D object in mathematics implies 3D in nature. If only the third spatial dimension is one particle "deep," we have a third dimension. And if you don't have that third dimension, would you be able to directly observe the plane at all?

    Again, for all of Eugene Wigner's truthful observation about the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the Natural Sciences," one still cannot find a perfect plane or sphere in the natural world.

    [2] If the Universe has no "'time' element" in it, then mankind has forever existed in a state of pure delusion. Yet it seems to me that we, like the rest of the natural world, are creatures "caught in the net of Life and Time." And for us humans, time is irreversible. Which is why we can't "go back" and correct past "mistakes."

    The above describes how "time" regularly "appears" to us -- as linear, sequential, irreversible. To me, though true to a point, this ia a partial view; the poet T. S. Eliot captures subject of "time" as it bears on humans exactly right, IMHO:

    Man lives at the intersection of time and timelessness.

    So put that in your pipe and smoke it! LOL!!!

    [3} As for those "turtles all the way down," that is a favored saw used by progressive thinkers to stop people who believe in a beginning of the Universe in their tracks. Its object is to make fun of Christians, to suggest they are superstitious morons because they believe in Creator God.

    But it's pretty lame as far as describing the etiology of anything real. What the "turtles all the way down" presupposition really is: A baseless defense of the theory of infinite regress.

    And infinite regress has no internal principle or explanation for the instantiation of anything in particular. It is a non-answer answer.

    Infinite regress is a theory of "becoming" that never can "become" for lack of an efficient cause....

    As ever, there are more questions than answers.... Thank you for writing, UCANSEE2.

  • String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created

    06/28/2016 2:55:32 PM PDT · 158 of 171
    betty boop to UCANSEE2; eddie willers; xzins; TXnMA
    [1] Then possibly the Universe is 2-dimensional while everything in it is 3-dimensional.

    [2] Or maybe the Universe has no 'time' element (or dimension) to it. It simply is. It does not age, while everything in it (or on it) does 'age'.

    [3] Or maybe it's turtles all the way down. : )

    RE: [1] -- Two-dimensionality is the property of a universal mathematic object, the plane. Two-dimensional objects do not appear in nature, no more than a perfect sphere does.

    A "plane" in the natural world is not perfectly achievable. At best, plane-like things in nature are approximations of the ideal plane. But this 2D object in mathematics implies 3D in nature. If only the third spatial dimension is one particle "deep," we have a third dimension. And if you don't have that third dimension, would you be able to directly observe the plane at all?

    Again, for all of Eugene Wigner's truthful observation about the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the Natural Sciences," one still cannot find a perfect plane or sphere in the natural world.

    [2] If the Universe has no "'time' element" in it, then mankind has forever existed in a state of pure delusion. Yet it seems to me that we, like the rest of the natural world, are creatures "caught in the net of Life and Time." And for us humans, time is irreversible. Which is why we can't "go back" and correct past "mistakes."

    The above describes how "time" regularly "appears" to us -- as linear, sequential, irreversible. To me, though true to a point, this ia a partial view; the poet T. S. Eliot captures subject of "time" as it bears on humans exactly right, IMHO:

    Man lives at the intersection of time and timelessness.

    So put that in your pipe and smoke it! LOL!!!

    [3} As for those "turtles all the way down," that is a favored saw used by progressive thinkers to stop people who believe in a beginning of the Universe in their tracks. Its object is to make fun of Christians, to suggest they are superstitious morons because they believe in Creator God.

    But it's pretty lame as far as describing the etiology of anything real. What the "turtles all the way down" presupposition really is: A baseless defense of the theory of infinite regress.

    And infinite regress has no internal principle or explanation for the instantiation of anything in particular. It is a non-answer answer.

    Infinite regress is a theory of "becoming" that never can "become" for lack of an efficient cause....

    As ever, there are more questions than answers.... Thank you for writing, UCANSEE2.

  • String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created

    06/28/2016 1:54:52 PM PDT · 157 of 171
    betty boop to UCANSEE2; eddie willers; xzins; TXnMA
    Yes, but is it limited only by (or to) the size and complexity of the Universe ?

    Yes, BUT -- nobody knows anything about the ultimate size and complexity of the Universe. Or of the human brain [mind] for that matter. So there is no standard by which to judge the limits, if any, of the human mind. Or of the Universe, if man is the standard.

    I'd say that's a pretty hard limit right there. But then, the human mind, going back some seven millennia by now at least, has compensated for this state of ignorance by intuiting myths of the gods and the order they establish in the creations they make. This is how historical humanity has dealt with its innate problem of ignorance oner millennia of human experience.

    Today we have a new myth to supplant the old. Namely, that Newton and Darwin have finally introduced the stable basis on which all reliable knowledge of the Universe ultimately rests. Human thought prior to the Enlightenment is merely the superstitious afflatus of knuckle-dragging primitives. Nothing to learn there.

    And thus, arguably, our ancient forebears were wiser than we are today. For they acknowledged the sense of human limits, of human contingency and vulnerability. And this is a universally sensed phenomenon.

    Well, FWIW UCANSEE2.

  • String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created

    06/25/2016 10:57:05 AM PDT · 150 of 171
    betty boop to eddie willers; xzins; TXnMA; UCANSEE2
    ... I am leaning into being an ID deist. A creator started this going and either went away or is just watching the "program" run.

    Oh, my Dad was a Deist, eddie willers. He would cite Benjamin Franklin and Isaac Newton as his exemplars. I think he was right about Benjamin Franklin being a Deist, which you ably defined (see above). But not so much respecting Isaac Newton.

    Franklin believed in a creator God who made all that there is. At that point, Franklin held God withdrew and did not interfere with His creation in any way. It was, after all, a brilliant machine constructed by a super intellect designed to run itself perpetually. God need not be involved with it. In short, Franklin is a model Deist.

    Newton also believed in a creator God who made all that there is. But his personal, expressed view was his belief that this creator God is "the Lord of Life, with His creatures." Unlike Franklin, Newton did not believe in the Deus otiosus, a god who creates and "retires" from all involvement with His creation. Through a field-like medium called the sensorum Dei (absolute universal space).

    In Towards a Theology of Nature, Wolfhart Pannenberg wrote

    ..."for Newton, sensorium Dei refers “to the medium of the creation of things: just as the sensorium in our perception creates the pictures of things, God through space creates the things themselves”....

    In his Opticks, Newton emphasized … "that the order of nature becomes needful, in the course of time, of a renewal by God because as a result of the inertia of matter its irregularities increase.”

    So Newton was NOT a Deist. I'd classify him as a Monotheist of the Old Testament type. Certainly he was not a Christian.

    I actually wrote a paper on this some years back. Posted at FR, FYI

    You wrote:

    One thing for sure, ideas from the ID people such as "irreducible complexity" MUST be explained. And back when "All Knowing" seemed an impossibility, the advance of computers, and computer memory and computer speed and the power of the digital language of "Ones & Zeros" now makes me reassess that. It IS becoming possible to know everything and see everything etc.

    May I start with your statement, "It IS becoming possible to know everything and see everything etc.?" And the reason: "... the advance of computers, and computer memory and computer speed and the power of the digital language of "Ones & Zeros"?"

    FWIW, I don't think computers are making us any "smarter." They increase the range of our observation, but do not attach any meaning to it. The language they deal with is digital, binary -- 1/0 -- and linear. It can handle syntax; but cannot express semantics. The analogy is the difference between a digital and an analog recording, e..g., of music, film, whatever.

    When I was a kid, I'd see films about machines taking over the world, and I worried about it. Well now, much later on, I see that machines haven't so much taken over the world, as to have taken over human minds and habits of thought. We are beginning to think only linearly, "digitally," as if the world reduced to so many bits that can be replicated, in 1/0 language, on a computer, timestep by timestep. As if the world could be modeled on Zeno's arrow....

    Also, I believe the human mind is naturally LIMITED. It is simply not capable of infinite knowledge, not individually nor collectively. It can get very far in understanding the Universe; but some things it can never know, in principle. JMHO FWIW

    You probably think I'm raving at this point. LOL!!!

    So, time to sign off for now. But just a short word on ID's "irreducible complexity" and the urgency of our need to understand it before I go.

    Irreducible complexity refers to a system in nature which is NOT, unlike a computer, the mere sum of its parts, a mere "additive" system. This is actually a controversial statement with the anti-ID crowd.

    This post is getting long in the tooth. So, maybe we can talk about IC later on?

    Thank you so much for your engaging essay/post, eddie willers!

  • Word for the Day, Thursday, June 23, 2016 - Tohubohu

    06/25/2016 9:22:20 AM PDT · 42 of 43
    betty boop to TXnMA

    Thank you, TXnMA — I’m sorry to say I speak and read zero Hebrew....

  • String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created

    06/25/2016 9:20:44 AM PDT · 149 of 171
    betty boop to UCANSEE2; TXnMA; eddie willers; xzins
    The truth is that the Universe is not round, but square and the Earth is flat.

    Well, I know the Universe is not "round", and very strongly doubt it is "square". But I think the scientific cosmologists are correct to say it is "flat."

    The Earth itself, however, is "round." Or rather, "roundish." We speak of it as being a "sphere".... [But of course that is incorrect: a sphere is a mathematical object.]

    It's also true that the "flat" universe is expanding, or "inflating." And that the speed of the inflation has been increasing in recent times. (The inflation rate has varied historically.) Which I find fascinating. Why is it doing that?

    Got any ideas?

    It seems to me this inflation would rule out Boom-and-Bust and Bouncing Universes physical cosmologies, which are premised on an eternal universe model. I.e., on a model that rules out a beginning in time.

    I wonder whether it is correct to say that an inflating state is moving from a state of higher to lower entropy, Or to use TXnMA's analogy, it may be "correcting" for a general universal increase of isotropy.

    Just wondering where the "bust" mode of the Boom-and-Bust multiverse theory gets its energy from to transform a state of very high entropy to a state of very low entropy [please see TXnMA's graphic of isotropy and anisotropy above. The first, the isomorphic illustration is a state at very high entropy. The second, the anisotrophic, depicts a state at comparatively low entropy.

    So, how does the "bust" phase of the Universe bootstrap itself into the next "boom" phase? What is the cause? The Bouncing Universes model has the same problem.

    The Eternal Universe megamodel, and its exemplars, is based on the desire to obviate the essential need of a beginning of the universe. For the very idea of a "beginning" of something logically implicates the cause of that something. It suggests more: that the cause is effected by an intelligence, for a purpose. Or at least, according to Aristotle....

    And so, on that basis, I have to say that Genesis 1 is the superior cosmology, by far. It accounts for so much more, and is ever so much more internally consistent and coherent, than other more fashionable scientific cosmologies in currency today.

    Though the theory of the Big Bang/Singularity comes awesomely close....

    Thank you so much, UCANSEE2, for writing.

  • String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created

    06/24/2016 10:59:02 AM PDT · 136 of 171
    betty boop to eddie willers; xzins; TXnMA; UCANSEE2
    ....all space [is] filled with something. No 'nothing', or 'no thing' there...it is all full.

    Exactly, eddie willers. This recalls the discredited aether theory of the nineteenth century.

    Funny thing is, scientific discoveries over the past 75 years or so actually make a modified aether theory seem reasonable, though it's going by a different name now -- the plenum. [Thanks to David Bohm, in Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980].

    It is being suggested here, then, that what we perceive through the senses as empty space is actually the plenum, which is the ground of the existence of everything, including ourselves. The things that appear to our senses are derivative forms and their true meaning can be seen only when we consider the plenum, in which they are generated and sustained, and into which they must ultimately vanish.

    This plenum is, however, no longer to be conceived through the idea of a simple medium, such as an ether, which would be regarded as existing and moving only in three-dimensional space. Rather, one is to begin with the holomovement, in which there is an immense 'sea' of energy.... This sea is to be understood in terms of a multidimensional implicate order ... while the entire universe of matter as we generally observe it is to be treated as a comparatively small pattern of excitation. This excitation pattern is relatively autonomous and gives rise to approximately recurrent, stable and separable projections into a three-dimensional explicate order of manifestation, which is more or less equivalent to that of space as we commonly experience it....

    Some thoughts. We humans really have no idea how many dimensions there are. We commonly experience only three of space and one of time -- four dimensions in total. Yet lately, mathematical physicists have begun to suspect there may well be more than four dimensions.

    Indeed, this is what string theory is attempting to work out. Depending on which version of string theory you consult, the total number of dimensions is thought to be 11, or even 26.

    The problem is, most of these newly posited dimensions are spatial dimensions, not temporal ones; and they are said to be "compacted" or curled back onto themselves at a size less than Planck length. This means these posited dimensions are not ever observable in principle.

    That is to say Planck length is the smallest unit of size that can be cognized by the human mind. Analogously, we can never imaginatively get back to t = 0; for Planck time prohibits this. Planck time is the smallest temporal unit cognizable by the human mind. It is the time required for light to travel, in a vacuum, a distance of one Planck length (1.62 x 10-33 centimeters). So for us, the "beginning" is not t = 0; it is t = 5.39 x 10-44 seconds. It has been said that all of physics breaks down entirely in this Planck Era.

    So, not only can we NOT find out what if anything existed prior to the Big Bang, we can't even get back to the beginning of time itself (t = 0).

    So, even if string theory is "correct," i.e., all those less-than-Planck-length spatial dimensions are really there, one does not see how they can be demonstrated or observed.

    Then we need to recognize that "ordinary" matter -- the stuff we actually experience -- constitutes less than 5% of the total universe. According to NASA,

    It turns out that roughly 68% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest -- everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter -- adds up to less than 5% of the Universe. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn't be called "normal" matter at all, since it is such a small fraction of the Universe.

    As best as I can understand it, dark energy -- which is the driver of the universal expansion -- is what constitutes the plenum.

    WRT TXnMA's wonderful insights, you cannot expect to turn isotropy into anisotropy by chance. Or at least, this is astronomically unlikely. Roger Penrose puts the odds of a low-entropy universe emerging by chance at a mere 1 in 1010123.

    One last thought before closing that relates to the anisotrophy phenomenon:

    ...A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question. -- Fred Hoyle, 1981.

    It's interesting to me that Hoyle was formerly an atheist whose mind was changed by advances in science itself.
  • Word for the Day, Thursday, June 23, 2016 - Tohubohu

    06/24/2016 9:19:49 AM PDT · 39 of 43
    betty boop to TXnMA

    Hi TXnMA!!! Two questions: What’s “tohubohu?” And how is that transition to your new system going? I am most eager to see your presentation!!!

  • String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created

    06/21/2016 1:28:40 PM PDT · 107 of 171
    betty boop to UCANSEE2; xzins; TXnMA
    One of the reasons we still have a lot to learn about the Universe is that the human mind is not capable of imagining Nothing.

    Does this mean that you believe once the human mind can grasp what "nothing" is, then and only then will we have the prospect of grasping what the Universe is???

    Let me just ask you a very unscientific, but common sense question. Do you personally have any experience of a "something" being produced by a "nothing?" Alternatively put, that something can be caused by Nothing?

    Think about that proposition for just a minute, and see if it really makes any sense to you.

    The quantum universe unobserved is evidently in a condition of ataxia, formlessness. But because it is formless, this does not denote nothingness. Formlessness is still a something.

    It is logically impossible to say that something can ever be the product, or result, of Nothing. Nothing does nothing, causes nothing. It is No-thing.

    The human mind can imagine within the realm of possibilities. I believe there is a one-to-one correspondence between the world of Reality and its phenomena, and the cognizing mind. If the human mind cannot cognize something, it may be because it has no corresponding analogue in the natural world.

    If we say that everything is finally caused by Nothing, and Nothing is no-thing, then in what way is this a testable, let alone provable statement? And if this were a valid statement, what do you think the Universe would look like? Nothing is truly nothing -- it lacks any principle at all. How then can it produce highly principled physical laws? How does it produce an orderly Universe, which is what human beings actually experience?

  • String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created

    06/20/2016 2:31:27 PM PDT · 80 of 171
    betty boop to xzins; TXnMA
    Yes, black holes are still highly controversial. Nobody's ever seen one. But that doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist.

    I'm reading a book right now called The Theory of Nothing, by theoretical physicist Russell K. Standish, that makes the claim that black holes may be incubators of new universes.

    Anyhoot, in reply to the Gospel of John 1:1, Standish says,

    In the beginning there was Nothing, not even a beginning! From out of this Nothing, emerged everything we see around us today.

    A rather startling claim IMHO. It looks like Professor Kaku might dispute this claim. But I have no details of Kaku's argument....
  • String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created

    06/20/2016 2:20:22 PM PDT · 79 of 171
    betty boop to xzins; TXnMA
    Apparently, this declaration of Kaku is very controversial.

    It is very controversial, when a mathematical physicist -- from CUNY no less, a rather progressive institution -- puts the necessity of divine intelligence into the scientific cosmological picture.

    Michio Kaku is among other things a regular Fox News contributor. If anything, every time he's been on Fox he gives the impression that he believes in the omnicompetence of science. It must have taken real guts for him to put God back into the picture....

    Of course, it was "science" that took Him out of it in the first place.

    This short piece provides little detail WRT Kaku's findings. I'd be interested in learning more.

  • Is Particle Physics About to Crack Wide Open?

    06/15/2016 9:19:12 AM PDT · 82 of 102
    betty boop to TXnMA; sparklite2; samtheman; Alamo-Girl; fatboy; editor-surveyor; xzins
    Hi TXnMA! Long time no see!!!

    Sparklite2 wrote: On a related note, wouldn’t it be nice if we could append the [caucus] designation on some physics threads to forestall the pumping of Jesus and Creationism where they are not wanted?

    To which you replied: Actually, as a physical scientist, I find zero conflict between science and belief in the Creator and His works -- or in His Son, as well.... Therefore, I'm perfectly comfortable discussing matters of science (cosmology, in this instance) completely independent of matters of faith.

    Just some observations. Science cannot be done without faith, though not necessarily of the specifically religious type. (Take away all the religions in the world, and God is still there.) The faith of many scientists today is that one can explain universal reality completely without reference to God, divine creator, in any way. The scientific method alone suffices to explicate nature and its workings: "We don't need God."

    I'm reading an interesting book -- The Theory of Nothing, by Russell K. Standish, 2006 -- that perfectly illustrates my point. This book purports to be an explication of the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. In it, Standish attempts to refute biblical scripture to "clear the decks" so his complete faith in the omnicompetence of science can dominate. He opens some chapters of his book with direct quotes from scripture, only to denigrate them. Two examples:

    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. -- John, 1:1.

    To which Standish retorts,

    In the beginning, there was Nothing, not even a beginning. From out of this Nothing, emerged everything we see around us today.

    To me, this statement is tantamount to declaring that the universe had no cause. This is a notable departure from standard scientific practice, in which it is assumed that all existing things have causes. They don't just simply appear out of thin air, out of Nothing at all. Plus there is the question: How can something "emerge" when the alleged emergence is out of a state of Nothing? What physical principle, what law of logic can account for this?

    A second example:

    And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. -- Genesis 1:3-5.

    To which Standish writes:

    In this book we examine a truly preposterous theory, a theory that all of the reality we see around us, the animals, plants, rocks and seas that make up our planet Earth; the stars and galaxies that make up the entire visible universe; is but a speck in a truly vaster realm. A realm of parallel realities, in which you and I exist, but chance events have different outcomes, and indeed others in which you and I were never born.... I shall argue that the burden of proof is actually with the singular view of reality. For there to be a unique strand of reality with but a unique strand of history is actually less plausible than for all possible histories to exist side-by-side, and of our only being aware of the one history that we each experience.

    As observers, we each of us can see only what is visible from our POV. Thus I find it odd that Standish claims to "see" multiwords which, by definition, are never direct observables for observers on our "world line."

    TXnMA, I agree with your statement, "the view of our universe from this third-rate ball of mud is infinitely far from the only one" in principle. Anyhow, in the original creation event, God made everything that exists, not just our planet Earth, but the entire universe, including any multiworlds it may contain. Without a beginning, nothing comes into existence. Nothing happens without a cause. Or at least, this has been a long-held belief of physical scientists down the ages.

    As to whether the universe is bounded or unbounded, it seems to stand to reason that it must be the former. An "unbounded" universe is said to be "infinite." But infinity is a mathematical concept that does not "construct well" in physics. What notion do we have in our minds that could describe infinity? We humans have absolutely zero experience of infinity. Plus the Logos -- which is eternal, not infinite, of the beginning (think of this in the Greek sense if you prefer to avoid the religious one) is a kind of specification or blueprint for all things "visible and invisible" that come into existence in time.

    In short, Standish argues that our cosmology or description of the universe and its evolution is merely one "description" among an infinite number of other possible descriptions. He seems to think all are equally valid, sight unseen. One does not know on what basis he knows this. It looks like an act of faith to me. In his book, Standish proposes

    ...a Plenitude of all descriptions, containing at least one that is a conscious observer. At first blush this seems strange, it looks like a category error -- confusing mere description of the real thing, confusing the map with the territory. However, this is the only way of closing the ontology, otherwise there is forever something else breathing "fire into our equations" as Stephen Hawking put it. It should be treated as a working hypothesis until either it is demonstrated as clearly false, or a more detailed theory of conscious[ness] tells us how consciousness comes about....

    Standish really lets the cat out of the bag in this statement. This scientist is attempting to explain the universe (including the hypothetical multiverse) using scientific means alone. God is ushered out of his reasoning altogether. But in order to do this, he has to commit what Whitehead called the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness: This fallacy precisely describes a situation where one has sacrificed any notion of actual "territory", and is raising the "map" of it to the status of truth. The map eclipses the real, which is made unreal in the process.

    However, it seems clear to me that the denial of God does not eliminate God. You can deny Him all day long, but He IS, with or without your recognition of Him. And to the extent that science supposedly deals with direct observables, God does not lie within its field of competence anyway. Science is the wrong tool for understanding God. But God is implicit, behind everything science does. Unless one is prepared to believe that human consciousness and reason itself are the result of a "random" evolutionary process initiated in the Nothing at all. Which strikes me as completely nonsensical, implausible.

    Well, must run for now, off to a PT appointment. But I hope to return to this fascinating subject later today.

    Thanks so much for writing, dear TXnMA!

  • ‘The Atheist Delusion’: Ray Comfort’s Masterpiece

    06/07/2016 11:13:34 AM PDT · 24 of 24
    betty boop to Kaslin; xzins
    “The manifest intentionality and fine-tuning of all creation reveals design of breathtaking complexity,” I wrote. “The Creator is of incalculable intelligence and infinite splendor. As I see it, atheism provides a case study in willful suspension of disbelief – all to escape, as the God-denier imagines it, accountability for massaging the libertine impulse.”

    Even state-of-the-art physics has noted the "fine-tuning of all creation [which] reveals design of breathtaking complexity.” It's just that many scientists these days don't accept the "intentionality" part.

    "Intentionality" implies the prior existence of a creative will, and this in turn implies a willing personality. But science can't get it's net on such a thing, which is divine in this case; it cannot be measured, or understood according to the ordinary categories of human thought. So the intentionality part gets glossed over and forgotten.

    That would be okay with me, as an accommodation to the requirements of the scientific method. But then to suggest that what science does not and cannot measure does not exist is just plain nuts.

    I need to acknowledge the existence of an "honest" atheist, Roger Penrose, the great British theoretical physicist, mathematician, and philosopher. He is quoted in the film A Brief History of Time:

    "I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it's not somehow just there by chance ... some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along – it's a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing. But I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it."

    I wonder whether he ever went and "looked" for that "something much deeper."

    Great post, Kaslin. Thank you.

  • Freeper Doomonyou has passed away

    06/07/2016 10:39:42 AM PDT · 113 of 122
    betty boop to Jeff Head

    My prayers for Freeper Doomonyou on his passing, and also for Mrs. Doomonyou and all his loved ones and friends. May the Spirit of God comfort them on their loss.

  • Sacrificing Reality for Unassailable Power (the real purpose behind the bathroom wars)

    05/16/2016 8:43:58 AM PDT · 88 of 88
    betty boop to xzins; Ransomed
    Satan always objected to the creation of humans and wanted to ruin them from the beginning and exterminate them if possible.

    The story, or legend, or myth of Satan's hatred of God's creation, especially mankind, goes back millennia. The idea of the Fall of the angels who chose to follow Lucifer -- their rebellion against God -- predates Christianity, but was well known in the earliest Christian times, even during the time Jesus walked the earth. Christians sometimes hold to the theory that Lucifer -- Satan -- was angry at God for creating man as a non-angel. Adam was an entirely new order of creation, and Lucifer was insanely jealous of the special relationship with God that God intended for him.

    C.S. Lewis definitely gets the idea of the satanic war against both Jesus Incarnate (Screwtape always refers to Him as "the enemy") and mankind in The Screwtape Letters. Mainly such notions are neither doctrine nor supported by scripture -- except possibly at Genesis 6:1-4, which refers to "Sons of God" making hay on earth. The apocryphal Book Of Enoch suggests that these "Sons of God" were the fallen angels....

    Obama is a "son of God" of this type, IMHO. He detests God, because God gave the order to the world, thus creating a firm, undisplaceable Reality. Obama hates reality. He'd rather construct an alternative reality, according to his will; and to make it mandatory for the rest of us.

    To fall for Obama's blandishments is to "ruin" one's soul. This is the true destruction of man.

    Just some thoughts, dear brother in Christ, FWTW.

  • The Trump over-the-top Delegate Countdown Thread

    05/10/2016 2:33:41 PM PDT · 66 of 80
    betty boop to Jeff Head
    Jeepers, Jeff -- I so agree with your analysis!!!

    The problem is, I think Ted Cruz is still working behind the scenes to advance his candidacy. Not good, IMHO.

    I think Donald Trump should put out the names of people he'd like to appoint to his cabinet, if elected, sometime around the July convention. I think it would be just the ticket for him to nominate Ted Cruz to the Scalia vacancy on the Supreme Court. Maybe then Ted Cruz would stop trying so hard to make something happen which I believe is not going to happen -- his own candidacy for president -- and be satisfied with the title of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. I think he is well suited to that position. He'd probably work his way into the Chief Justice slot in due course. He is an amazingly talented man, but just doesn't "play nice" with people as a rule.

    Just a thought.

    Thanks so much for writing, dear Jeff!

  • America in TRANSition: How LGBT Activism Turns Freedom Into Fascism

    05/10/2016 11:38:20 AM PDT · 18 of 22
    betty boop to Kaslin
    Jeepers, our bathroom assignments are now to be determined by Washington, D.C.?

    I'd be rolling over, LMAO, were this challenge to basic sanity not so deeply dangerous, so offensive, to the norms of basic decency of the American people.

    These rabid LGBT types avidly seeking protection from sex-normed bathroom "discrimination" probably constitute 1% of the American people. And make no mistake about it, they are not seeking "equal protection" under the Fourteenth Amendment. They are seeking special privilege: The "privilege" of trumping and nullifying the settled habits and sexual mores of the other 99% of the population, by manipulating the courts, federal and state. (They can't get their agenda passed in popularly-elected legislatures.)

    I know the Constitution is designed to protect minorities But I don't think it ever intended to make minority opinion superior to that of the majority, which is based on history and time-tested tradition.

    And all of this -- from Washington???

    If this isn't a local and state matter from the get-go, then I'll eat my hat. The Feds -- the Justice Department -- is entirely out of control here.

    I wonder, are these people crazy???

  • America in TRANSition: How LGBT Activism Turns Freedom Into Fascism

    05/10/2016 11:38:20 AM PDT · 17 of 22
    betty boop to Kaslin
    Jeepers, our bathroom assignments are now to be determined by Washington, D.C.?

    I'd be rolling over, LMAO, were this challenge to basic sanity not so deeply dangerous, so offensive, to the norms of basic decency of the American people.

    These rabid LGBT types avidly seeking protection from sex-normed bathroom "discrimination" probably constitute 1% of the American people. And make no mistake about it, they are not seeking "equal protection" under the Fourteenth Amendment. They are seeking special privilege: The "privilege" of trumping and nullifying the settled habits and sexual mores of the other 99% of the population, by manipulating the courts, federal and state. (They can't get their agenda passed in popularly-elected legislatures.)

    I know the Constitution is designed to protect minorities But I don't think it ever intended to make minority opinion superior to that of the majority, which is based on history and time-tested tradition.

    And all of this -- from Washington???

    If this isn't a local and state matter from the get-go, then I'll eat my hat. The Feds -- the Justice Department -- is entirely out of control here.

    I wonder, are these people crazy???

  • The Trump over-the-top Delegate Countdown Thread

    05/10/2016 10:32:16 AM PDT · 64 of 80
    betty boop to Jeff Head; xzins; trisham; OKSooner; Windflier; joanie-f; Jim Robinson; marron
    Dear Jeff, thank you so very much for compiling/monitoring the critical pledged delegate stats in the run-up to the Convention. This is a wonderful resource, and I’ll be visiting often.

    That The Donald stands alone at this early point in the primary cycle -- especially as compared with the Hitlery/Bernie slugfest on the other side -- is really remarkable. Think of it: He had to eclipse sixteen other eminently qualified candidates to get to this point. And yet the #NeverTrump caucus seems unappeasable, including Speaker Ryan. Sigh.

    WHY???

    Rather than impute motives to such folks (none of whom I personally know, though many erstwhile have been highly respected political operators/commentators in my book), I thought it might be better to talk about my own shock, early on, about the Trump phenomenon. The #NeverTrump contingent would doubtless agree with me about the following:

    Donald Trump is rude, crude, and socially unacceptable. He is ignorant of the sublime doctrines of (Neo?)Conservatism in all its rigorous particulars.

    But I draw the line there: I wouldn’t call him a megalomaniac; I’d just call him an Alpha Male, Par Excellence.

    Though he has no experience in public office of any kind, he is a man of tremendous accomplishment. He builds beautiful buildings. (Lots of people don’t bother to build beautiful buildings these days, just economical, serviceable, efficient ones.)

    Plus there was the heart-warming story about how The Donald, evidently in the spirit of public service, donated the restoration of the skating rink in downtown Manhattan to the City, after years and years of city bureaucratic failure to fix the rink for public use. He did a video interview about this, and as he got talking, it was as if he had completely forgotten himself, he was so intent on telling you the story about how bureaucrats fail to accomplish much that is tangible to the public good.

    He was totally guileless. He wondered about the penchant of the City to lay copper tubing as the base of the ice rink, when every night thieves would rush in and steal the copper. Then the City would lay fresh new copper tubing the next day to replace the stolen ones. Repeat cycle, ad infinitum. Think about the cost to NYC taxpayers for this debacle of bureaucratic incompetence.

    So, with some reluctance, the City lets The Donald step in to fix things, and the first thing he did was fire the city-appointed contractor of the ice rink. Then he called a Canadian friend, who happens to be the owner of a major hockey franchise up there in the Great White North, and asked him, “who’s the best ice-guy you know?” So The Donald consults a professional ice-builder for the NHL, and starts laying rubber tubing instead of copper -- for the NFL does not build their ice rinks with copper tubing, but with state-of-the-art rubber. Why should NYC do otherwise? Problem solved. Rink opens to the public, on time and “under-budget.” The Donald picked up the tab for everything.

    I just chalk this up to the difference between bureaucratic ideology (of whatever stripe) and real-life, hands-on experience with problem solving. I strongly suspect The Donald is very, very good with that sort of thing.

    Which probably accounts for how he blew away sixteen other GOP candidates for POTUS. Personally, I would NOT ever sell The Donald short.

    Still, early on, say back in late 2015, when I was boiling down my choice among Trump, Carson, Cruz, or Rubio, Trump did not appear to be terribly edifying, but I still couldn’t ignore him.

    Mulling that over, in the holy spirit, the thought occurred that, absent God’s Will, there is no way The Donald could possibly be in the position he is now in. Which leads to the next question: Does God intend Donald Trump as a blessing, or a curse?

    The #NeverTrump crowd clearly says The Donald is a curse who will take down all the “down-ticket” GOP candidates. (That’s what I just love about these characters: They are so certain they know exactly what is going to happen IN THE FUTURE.)

    Personally, I think our Lord God is testing the discernment of his beloved children in this matter. The endgame now is We the People reasserting the rock-bottom constitutional principle of popular sovereignty in this nation. This IS the revolution, my friends.

    And I daresay Donald Trump is the champion of this revolution, even though you may not like his social skills. He has already worked a miracle of sorts: The absolute delegitimation of “politically correct” speech. He says what he means and means what he says. Politically correct speech, in comparison, is pointless and risible. Drive a silver stake into its heart!!!

    Thanks ever do much, dear Jeff, for the work you do, and for pinging me!

  • See list of 98 top Republicans who refuse to back Trump

    05/06/2016 10:20:11 AM PDT · 97 of 107
    betty boop to Lisbon1940
    They declared they were nevertrump and are sticking to it.

    Do we blame their resolve of "NeverTrump" on their fear of what he might do to the uniparty gravy train, or to their personal vanity?

  • See list of 98 top Republicans who refuse to back Trump

    05/06/2016 7:59:36 AM PDT · 83 of 107
    betty boop to Lisbon1940; xzins; OKSooner
    Rich Lowery missing in action?

    Somehow, whoever compiled this list forgot about Lowery. [I haven't. I cancelled my subscription to National Review, not to mention I've stopped donating to the National Review Institute.]

    Also, how could they have left out Charles Krauthammer -- formerly one of my favorite political commentators?

    These #NeverTrump agitators all seem to have a bolt loose....

  • Prediction Markets Show Cruz Craters After Deal With Kasich; Fiorina, Pence Not Boosting Him

    05/02/2016 10:39:17 AM PDT · 84 of 88
    betty boop to OKSooner; xzins
    ... the masks are all coming off. No need to name names, everyone who's paying attention knows the score.

    Really, OKSooner -- Cruz is acting like a desperate man. He's taken to describing tomorrow's primary in Indiana as a battle of Good vs. Evil. (Of course, The Donald is the evil, The Ted is the good.) How over the top can one go??? Plus he's got Heidi running around, describing her husband as a Latino "immigrant." YIKES!!!! This is totally NUTZ. If Cruz is an "immigrant," then how can he possibly be eligible to run for president in the first place???

    FWIW, I believe that Ted Cruz is toast. Good riddance. He is a smarmy, manipulative flimflam man and his true colors have started to show.

    Thanks so much for your great observations, OKSooner.

  • The Universe Had a Beginning [Video & Transcript]

    04/08/2016 8:17:49 AM PDT · 30 of 31
    betty boop to Iron Munro

    BTTT

  • Donald Trump and America’s Post-constitutional Politics

    04/04/2016 1:00:26 PM PDT · 6 of 7
    betty boop to Hojczyk; xzins; OKSooner; trisham; Windflier; Jeff Head; joanie-f; Jim Robinson
    “political correctness is a genuine threat to any tolerable way of life. . . . domination of public life by p.c. elites has thus made it impossible for ordinary people to assert their complaints publicly in an acceptable way, so their objections can be shrugged off as the outbursts of ignorant bigots who will, in any event, soon become demographically irrelevant.”

    To put it in a nutshell....

    Thank you so very much, Hojczyk, for posting Fred Siegel's outstanding essay here. I found it a brilliant analysis of Trump's appeal to what I'd call the broad American middle. It is the sort of appeal that is unlikely to be replicated by or easily transferred to another candidate.

    JMHO FWIW