Case Not Closed- Or Posner's JFK Follies

(ABOVE): One of the thousands of 'Wanted for Treason' posters distributed in Dallas on the day of Kennedy's assassination.

Having just finished the book, JFK and the Unspeakable, by James Douglass, I was left spellbound and moreover convinced that the JFK assassination case is a long way from closed. What Douglass has done is not merely compile facts from Freedom of Information released documents, but also - via extensive interviews and dredging up arcane government files- shown the moral tenor of Kennedy. He makes clear from the amassed evidence that by his second year JFK stood essentially alone with powerful forces arrayed against him. Forces that questioned every one of his moves....from challenging U.S. Steel (and even denying them defense contracts until they reduced steel prices as they'd originally promised), to opposing the Joint Chiefs in October, 1962 when they pushed for him to attack Cuba with nukes. We now know that no fewer than 95 IRBMs were targeted at U.S. east coast cities and would have been unleashed had JFK been so daft as to follow the Chiefs' advice.

Unfortunately, by standing up to those who advised and pressured him, Kennedy soon came to be viewed as a traitor. He was viewed as a traitor not just by his top military staff (especially after setting out NSAM-263 to pull out of Vietnam by 1965), but also by the CIA - which he threatened to "break into a thousand pieces" after they misled and misinformed him with the Bay of Pigs fiasco, also called 'the Cuba Project' - which had actually been implemented under Eisenhower.

The level and degree of distrust eventually mutated into hate, which could be seen on the streets of Dallas - even hours before JFK arrived at Love Field on Nov. 22, 1963. Shown in the figure, for example, is one of the ten thousand plus 'Wanted for Treason' posters that had been put up around that city. (Bear in mind at the time, Dallas was not only a hotbed of right wing hate and extremism - where Adlai Stevenson had been spit on merely a month before the JFK hit, but also the epicenter of the nexus of Big Oil and the military -industrial complex)

By all accounts, anyone with half a brain who had remotely been following events in Dallas over the previous years would have been appalled at the notion that a "lone nut commie" killed JFK. It simply didn't compute. Not then and not now.

Just days after Nov. 22, 1963, though the media were still rife with the planted ‘Oswaldian-lone nut’ myth of the assassination – a few courageous reporters got the word out about the real culprits: the radical right wing and its ‘better circle’ elitist enclaves. (cf. ‘The Enemies He Made’ in Newsweek, Dec. 2, 1963, p. 35, by Kenneth Crawford). At the time, however, most reporters couldn’t or wouldn’t see the suspicious irony inherent in a lone-pro-Castro gunman being fingered in a city (Dallas) regarded as a ‘citadel of right wing strength’. (cf. Newsweek, Dec. 2, 1963, p. 21)

Indeed, merely four weeks earlier Adlai Stevenson had gone to Dallas for a UN Day meeting, and was attacked – spit upon, and smashed over the head with placards by fulminating reactionary pickets (Newsweek, Dec. 2., 1963, p. 21). It was after that encounter that he warned JFK to reconsider his forthcoming trip.

What was peculiar about this once cow town that circulated ‘Wanted for Treason’ posters all over and in the newspapers, on the day of JFK’s visit? First, as Arthur Schlesinger notes, it was a nouveau riche city – fueled by East Texas oil. (‘A Thousand Days’, 1969, p. 1021, Houghton Mifflin) Second it was primarily white collar, so that unions were scarcely visible or manifest much power. Third, its citizens featured mostly fundamentalist religious backgrounds. Long on authority-regimentation-prejudice, short on any compassion. Fourth, it was a city of remarkably homogeneous tastes, attitudes and values. (Ibid.).

Schlesinger noted(ibid.,) that Dallas’s politics had been perpetuated "in a primitive and angry state" by its major newspaper, The Dallas Morning News. He also recounted how its publisher, two years earlier, had opined that what the nation required was a “man on horseback” as opposed to “a man on a tricycle”. (JFK was often captured by photographers playing with daughter Caroline). Thus, waves of right wing propaganda by this medium helped to fuel the fires of latent rage within Big D’s resident reactionaries.

Little wonder then that they ‘lost it’ when a liberal personage visited, as Adlai Stevenson did. In Dallas there also resided a powerful, right wing Oil tycoon by the name of Haroldson Lafayette Hunt who embodied its values of fierce self-styled individuality and hatred for any humanitarian role for the federal government. (He earned his rep in the 1950s via his radio program "Facts Forum")

Also rife in Big D were a number of fringe right extremist groups, including: The American Political Forum, The Ku Klux Klan, The John Birch Society, The Dallas Committee for Full Citizenship, The Texas White Citizens’ Council, The National States Rights Party and The Dallas White Citizens’ Council. The Left, or random commies, if ever present- would likely have met the same fate in Big D as integrationists met in Mississsippi.

Among the precepts all of these groups had in common at the time of JFK’s assassination:

- Abolition or severe reduction of income taxes, to starve government and ultimately undermine all public spending in favor of ‘privatization’.

- Increased military-defense spending at the same time.

- Fierce opposition to the 1963 Nuclear Test Ban Treaty- particularly its clause limiting anti-missile systems.

- Fierce opposition to all efforts at de-segregation.

- Elimination of both Social Security and Medicare – regarded as “socialist intrusions” into a capitalist nation (“All services to the public should be abolished in favor of personal enterprise”- H.L. Hunt, in ‘Farewell America’, 1968, by James Hepburn, Frontiers Press, p. 248)

To gain an insight into the degree of extremism afoot here, it is well to note that it was none other than H.L. Hunt who also opined that communism began in the U.S. with the introduction of the government- run postal service! (Farewell America, p. 246).

Now, given this background, it boggles the mind that someone could actually: a) believe Lee Harvey Oswald had anything to do with the Kennedy assassination, and b) could actually write a book pronouncing the case closed! Yet Gerald Posner managed to do this, and with his much hailed (and still referred to, Case Closed).

Unfortunately for Posner, people - especially critical thinking ones - did read his book, not to satisfy themselves the case was truly closed, but to assess how closely Posner hewed to known facts - and hence, how valuable his book was as a genuine piece of scholarship. One of the earliest efforts was: THE POSNER REPORT: A Study In Propaganda: One Hundred Errors in Gerald Posner's Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK by David Starks. Drawing on the published reports, and documents of true experts, including:Professor Peter Dale Scott, Dr. Gary Aguilar, Martin Shackelford, Professor Jerry Rose and others, Starks skewers Posner's claims and discloses a hack, barely comfortable in the skin of scholarship who makes "hundreds of errrors".

The Electronic Assassination Newsletter, which collates the research from most JFK assassination experts, documents twelve of the most serious "Posnerisms" here:

http://assassinationweb.com/twpos.htm

Just perusing the list, even if one has not seriously attended to the research, discloses an unnerving lack of attention to detail and a penchant for what appears to be deliberate misrepresentation. Indeed, Posner's entire 'case' in his (1993) book, appears erected on a tissue of lies, misrepresentations, gross distortions and shoddy methodology - the mass of which cannot even redeem it as 'coincidental'. Despite that, he is still the official 'hit man' when the corporate media want to knock down anything that smacks of 'conspiracy', particularly in any of 1960s political assassinations. (Including Martin Luther King's for which we have abundant evidence that a cadre of renegade SOGs nailed him in Memphis, see the superb book, Orders to Kill).

Harrison Livingstone, a long time researcher, (cf. 'Killing Kennedy', 1995, p. 322) described Posner's book as "a fatally flawed, intellectually dishonest effort."

Prof. David R. Wrone, whose review of Case Closed appears in The Journal of Southern History 6 (February 1995), pp. 186-188, observes:

"Posner often presents the opposite of what the evidence says. In the presentation of a corrupt picture of Oswald's background, for example, he states that, under the name of Osborne, Oswald picked up leaflets he distributed from the Jones Printing Company and that the "receptionist" identified him. She in fact said that Oswald did not pick up the leaflets as the source that Posner cites indicates.

No credible evidence connects Oswald to the murder. All the data that Posner presents to do so is either shorn of context, corrupted, the opposite of what the sources actually say, or nonsourced. For example, 100 percent of the witness testimony and physical evidence exclude Oswald from carrying the rifle to work that day disguised as curtain rods. Posner manipulates with words to concoct a case against Oswald as with Linnie Mae Randle, who swore the package, as Oswald allegedly carried it, was twenty-eight inches long, far too short to have carried a rifle. He grasped its end, and it hung from his swinging arm to almost touch the ground. Posner converts this to "tucked under his armpit, and the other end did not quite touch the ground"(p. 225). The rifle was heavily oiled, but the paper sack discovered on the sixth floor had not a trace of oil. Posner excludes this vital fact."

Even more disturbing:

"Posner crowns his theory with the certainty of science by using one side of the computer-enhanced studies by Failure Analysis Associates of Menlo Park that his text implies he commissioned. The firm, however, lambastes his use as a distortion of the technology that it had developed for the American Bar Association's mock trial of Oswald where both sides used it."

Not surprisingly from the above, many in the JFK research community (e.g. H.L.Livingstone, author of Killing the Truth, 1993, Harold Weisberg) actually contend Posner is a paid disinfo flack - possibly for the CIA. Certainly for the corporate anti-conspiracy media mills. His absurd 'research' is used to thereby try to invalidate the whole premise of conspiracy. Despite the fact he's been well and truly exposed as a hack in the 'Posnerisms' cited earlier .

How could such a proven twit have gained so much prominence, and gravitas in media circles? Well, for the reasons I cited in my earlier blog post, associated with managing the Middle Mind (Curtis White's term, from his book). Thus, Posner has proven himself skillful and adept at doing exactly what the corporate media PR mavens themselves demand... manage the Middle Mind, and deliver the parameters for its proper functioning, lest one be suddenly marginalized from it as a loose screw outlier and trouble maker.

But no matter the attention the media gives Posner, or the faux degree to which his slovenly and derelect book is regarded as the "bible" of the JFK assassination, most of us who are serious researchers can agree wholeheartedly with Prof. Wrone's final paragraph in his review:

"Posner fails. I believe that irrefutable evidence shows conspirators, none of them Oswald, killed JFK. A mentally ill Jack Ruby, alone and unaided, shot Oswald. The federal inquiry knowingly collapsed and theorized a political solution. Its corruption spawned theorists who tout solutions rather than define the facts that are locked in the massively muddied evidentiary base and released only by hard work."

For those who may have difficulty wrapping their (middle) minds around this, and backing away from Posner - I endorse getting Douglass' book, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters. From the first five chapters, you will immediately perceive the high political value of the hit, and why it was essential for the powers arrayed against JFK to kill him - even as they passed their 'Wanted for Treason' posters all around Big D.

Debunking Anders' Primary Cause Fantasy

This entry deals with Anders’ Blog and his claims that he can prove a “Prime cause”. Let us examine his arguments in turn:

He writes:

The best that atheists can do, lacking legitimate scientific backing or support, is construct or seize upon some fantastic fable that, they conjecture, could possibly have preceded and caused the universe.

This is a total misrepresentation. In fact, what atheists do is point to already published papers in physics journals (such as Physical Review D) which present mathematical formulations for the spontaneous inception of the cosmos- based on treating space-time quantities as conformal quantum variables in conjunction with quantum gravity.

While this does not qualify as empirical “proof”, it does offer a scientific and mathematically validated basis to choose an alternative to an ethereal or supernatural “primary cause”.

In addition, as I noted in my earlier blog article on quantum causality, there are many cosmologists who take the accelerated expansion of the universe, deduced from type 1a supernova data, as indirect evidence for vacuum expansion and spontaneous inception.

Of course, that accomplishes nothing more than creating the need to explain their new fable ex nihilo. Well, one could just as well theorize that the universe was preceded by an assumed ladder; but that isn't an ex nihilo prime cause either.

Not so at all. In fact it terminates any need to “explain” anything more, since the false vacuum bubble is self contained in terms of a zero mass-density continuum defined by the Trace I showed at the end of the preceding blog entry on quantum causality. What this shows is that Anders has no clue, not one, of what he is talking about. Clearly he has not read the article ‘Universe Before Planck Time’ by T. Padmanabhan, and even if he did he likely doesn’t comprehend the serious role played by the variable alpha in connection with spontaneous fluctuation, inception.

Thus, it is absurd to invoke the ladder analogy. He also is probably too invested in Peggs’ Bayesian definitions of probability – which article he cited as attempting ton controvert acausal quantum determinism.

To fix ideas here: let p[S] be the unconditional probability there is a supernatural agent responsible for the creation of the universe. Let p(S-[BB]) be the conditional probability of the existence of a supernatural agent if the Big Bang has indeed occurred. Let p[B,B] be the unconditional probability the Big Bang occurred and p(BB-[S]) the conditional probability that the Big Bang occurred – provided a supernatural agent is responsible for the creation of the cosmos.

According to the principles of Bayesian probability theory (e.g. by Bayes’ theorem) we can write:

p(S-[BB])/ p[S] = p(BB-[S])/ p[B,B]

In terms of strict adherence to Bayes’ theorem, one can only have:

p(S-[BB]) >> p[S]

E.g. IF the Big Bang occurred, there is an enhanced probability of the Big Bang being its source.

However, this is not what they proffer, but instead arrive at:

p(BB-[S]) >> p{BB]

which inverts the prior Bayesian statement by asserting:

“the existence of a supernatural being enhances the probability of the Big Bang”

The fallacy of the approach inheres in the inequality given by:

p(BB-[S]) >> p{BB]

But this is an arbitrary assumption since we have no knowledge of how a supernatural agent might act and none of its proponents have given the necessary and sufficient conditions for such action.

The end result? If such n-s conditions were at least provided, we might have a better way of setting up the Bayesian probabilities to conform to what they should be and not include any arbitrary assumptions.

It simply adds another stage: explain the ex nihilo origin of the assumed ladder! It's amazing the length to which some pseudo-scientific atheists will go to create ever new diversions, none of which are even a pretense of an ex nihilo cause, to avoid pertinent information, all in the guise of science.

And clearly it is amazing the lengths to which some pseudo-scientist religious apologists will go to try to come up with a creator. But as I showed, this results from a failure in their use of probability theory (choosing a Bayesian version that it is inappropriate).

Further these are not “new diversions”. Nor is there any “pretense” of an “ex nihilo cause”. The cause is explicated mathematically in the paper I cited, and based on a specific treatment. That Anders is unable to understand this is no fault of mine, but he cannot use that lack of understanding to make lame statements and remarks about posturing in a “guise of science”.

It is instead, his job and duty to refute the mathematical underpinning or show its misapplication. This he has not done, and I seriously doubt he is able to.

So take a good scientific look around you, at everything, anything. Explain the existence of anything at all without a Prime Cause.

This, of course, is a specious and false analogy, because it assumes that a cosmic inception would be parallel, or precisely analogous to any process of human creation, or invention. This is the same error William Paley made in his “watch maker” comparison to the universe. However, the universe is not a mechanical contrivance so that mechanical analogies, including those based on human manufacture and invention do not apply.

To grasp this even elementally one need only see the new data from the Boomerang and other detectors (e.g. for Wilkinson Array) which show that the universe is 73% dark energy, and 22% dark matter. Within this darkness there is no scope for order.


I will show two different proofs that demonstrate, most simply, the existence of the Prime Cause, i.e. a Creator. The first logical proof is known as reductio ad absurdum.

In fact, no such reductio ad absurdum is feasible given that the assumptions required (in light of the Padmanabhan paper) commit the ignotum per ignotius fallacy ab initio. But let us see:

1. Assume: There is no Prime Cause

More realistically: assume there is a spontaneous inception via fluctuation from net zero mass-energy state to non-zero state as defined mathematically (by Padmanabhan, for example) and which conforms to mathematical consistency and proof – using conformal quantum variables.

2. There is nothing physical that exists without a cause

False: since the preceding mathematical underpinning shows not only:

a) that quantum mechanics, unlike classical mechanics, can create information out of nothing

b) information inception can occur acausally precisely because the Hilbert space states are different for a vacuum fluctuation than for ordinary QM

c) The outward acceleration of the universe indicates that the observed universe is the result of a fluctuation in the quantum gravity vacuum

d) A net zero cosmology is the most economical one that can emerge from the vacuum state (Ockham's Razor principle of hypothesis parsimony applied)

3. Therefore, nothing physical can exist

But the universe DOES exist, and the net zero vacuum state had to before it, so it exists now. Hence (3) is false. Anders’ problems inhere in adopting an incomplete and pseudo-causal continuum in ignoring the acausal state of the net zero vacuum while attributing the post-fluctuation cosmos - expanding as a result of the negative pressure within the original vacuum- to an unnamed or unexplicated entity (He has given no n-s conditions for it.)

This is exactly why “causal” proofs and efforts are inherently sterile, ambiguous and unproductive.

To obtain a faithfully more exact approach, we can consult Robert Baum’s textbook, LOGIC, pp. 469-70, wherein we see that explicating necessary and sufficient conditions are practical replacements (in logic) for causes. In other words, instead of saying or asserting x caused y, one stipulates that a, b are necessary conditions for x to exist at all, and c, d are sufficient conditions for y to have been the sole effect of cause x.

Baum’s reasoning is clear (ibid.): because “cause” (generic) can be interpreted as proximate or remote, or even as the “goal or aim of an action” and is therefore too open-ended, ambiguous and construed in too many different ways. Thus, “cause” is too embedded in most people’s minds with only one of several meanings, leaving most causality discussions unproductive and confused. If my “cause” and your “cause” in a given argument diverge, then we will not get very far.

Because of this one uses the more neutral term “condition” and specifies necessary and sufficient ones. The latter terms are specifically meaningful in the context of determining causal conditions, and hence, causes. If one eschews them, then one concedes he is incapable of logical argument.

Anders therefore has only to show the necessary and sufficient conditions for his Prime Cause to exist, and we might then take him seriously. Without them, all his efforts are vacuous and less than impressive.

Perhaps the reason he is unable to express such n-s conditions, is that in his heart of hearts he knows this phantasm of his simply can’t pass even basic logical muster. It also confuses chronology with causality ('post hoc, ergo propter hoc') and also commits ignotum per ignotius on a vast (cosmic scale). To remind readers, this fallacy was perhaps best expressed by David Hume:

"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish."


In this case, the “miracle” Anders writes of is none other than the cosmos originating via a non-physical uncaused (primary) cause. The question is, would its falsehood be more or less miraculous? In truth, its falsehood would be LESS miraculous than the fact of non-physical uncaused cause it seeks to establish. Hence, Anders “proof” commits the Hume fallacy!


4. However, we see, and can touch, all manner of physical things around us that exist

True, but these do not exhaust the full physical set of entities that can exist, but which we cannot see or touch or otherwise detect. EM waves exist in the gamma spectrum but we cannot readily see or touch them without apparatus. One can also have advanced and retarded potentials associated with EM waves. Moreover, John G. Cramer has obtained preliminary evidence for “echo” waves – arriving from the future (the counterpart to his “offer waves”) – see:

http://www.npl.washington.edu/ti/



5. Conclusion: There IS a Prime Cause

Yes, and it is a physical cause defined by the trace given earlier. Moreover the necessary condition for it to exist is a net zero mass-energy vacuum defined by the trace: Tr G(E) ~ Tr G_o(E) ~ d/ dE {ln Z (E)}

And the sufficient condition for it is that there be a quantity of N x Q-bits that exhibit Poisson statistics and allow for fluctuations , whereby:delta N = [N]^1/2 and delta V ~ G[V]^1/2

Such that:

delta E ~ h/ delta t

leads to an instantaneous local deviation in mass-energy and the explosive origin of a cosmic expansion predicated on negative pressure


6. Q.E.D. (quod erat demonstrandum; which was to be demonstrated)

Nyet, mate. You assumed that which you had to prove and built in a false (actually incomplete) assumption. Also, since causality is only limited here (by virtue of the arguments I provided earlier) it means you have to provide the necessary and sufficient conditions for your entity to exist in the first place. (Like I did). This you haven’t done!

There may be some (..) who argues that #2 isn't necessarily true because things may exist and we simply cannot explain how. (...) This person has gone from pseudo-scientific cultism (banning pertinent information) to logical fallacy: argumentum ad ignorantiam – claiming that ignorance/silence supports their position, thereby avoiding the burden of proof of demonstrating the logical validity of their position.

Not so. We don’t argue (2) isn’t necessarily true (How does one deliver the preliminary basis or QA for relative truth anyway? It is done via giving the n-s conditions for one thing). We say it is rather incomplete, and by Godel’s Incompleteness theorem (II), the logic cannot be complete. The reason is that you have omitted the vacuum-negative pressure basis for a spontaneous inception.

As for “pertinent information” – where is it? You are unable to even provide necessary and sufficient conditions for your claimed entity to exist, and you say WE are ignoring “pertinent information”. This loses the argument via red herring.

Also, the burden of proof is inapplicable for us since your “proof’ is ipso facto incomplete – by Godel’s Incompleteness theorems. Gödel's theorems state that in any consistent system which is strong enough to produce simple axioms (like Anders) there are formulae which cannot be proved-in-the-system, but which can “be seen to be true”. Essentially, we consider the ansatz which says, in effect, "This syllogism is unprovable-in-the-system".

If this syllogism were provable-in-the-system, we should have a contradiction: for if it were provable in-the-system, then it would not be unprovable-in-the-system, so that "This syllogism is unprovable-in-the-system" would be false: equally, if it were provable-in-the-system, then it would not be false, but would be true, since in any consistent system nothing false can be proved in-the-system, only truths.

So the Anders’ QED boils down to "This formula is unprovable-in-the-system" is not provable-in-the-system, but unprovable-in-the-system. His logic is incomplete, because his propositions and facts are incomplete.



If something can exist with no Prime Cause then they must explain how; the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate how or they're just assuming another ladder.

Again, the prime cause offering is irrelevant, since a plethora of definitions of cause exist. Thus, Baum’s (op. cit.) necessary and sufficient conditions- which I provided. Hence, not making any untoward assumptions.

WHERE are YOUR necessary and sufficient conditions for your “primary cause”? If you cannot deliver them you are simply assuming a regression of n-s conditions, which amounts to a regression of causes in the context.


Until they explain how, and no legitimate scientist even entertains that suggestion, their cultist argument is logically invalid by argumentum ad ignorantiam.

No, as with most objects of inquiry in quantum mechanics (especially in the Copenhagen interpretation context) “explanations” are not needed. What is required is that the mathematical prescription or formulation works, it delivers answers. Ours does, and is now finding application in applying negative pressure and its related equation of state to the accelerating cosmos. Where are yours?

By contrast, your “proof” is logically invalid because it is incomplete. It is the one invalidated by argumentum ad ignorantiam.

You expect us to accept some entity for which you cannot even provide the n-s conditions.


Though trivial, it may be needful to explain that the physical world cannot create itself. That would be circular reasoning.

Again, not. It is instead reasoning from quantum logic - see:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/09/foray-into-quantum-logical-and.html

as opposed to binary logic, which is subject to Gödelian limits. Your logic is the one flawed since it is predicated on limited binary (either-or) logic so cannot reckon in the vacuum, negative pressure state (acausal) which is nevertheless in a nexus with the accelerating cosmos it spawned.

The only circular reasoning is your own, which asserts there must be a “non-physical primary cause” giving odd examples, and so there must be a non-physical primary cause. To break out of this loop, you need to give the necessary and sufficient conditions for your entity.

Until you do you are merely engaged in hollow, empty rhetoric, incomplete logic and supercilious diversions.

Is the C-word a 4-letter word in the American Mind?

"Those who suffer from conspiracy phobia are fond of saying: 'Do you actually think there's a group of people sitting around in a room, plotting things?' For some reason that image is assumed to be so patently absurd as to invite only disclaimers. But where else would people of power get together - on park benches or carousels?"-

Michael Parenti in 'The Dirty Truths', p. 174

Michael Parenti in his penetrating monograph, achieved a brilliant high point in identifying a Zeitgeist that runs rife through the American mainstream media: 'Conspiracy Phobia'. I was reminded of this only last night, while viewing 'Hardball' with Chris Matthews on MSNBC. The actual topic was whether Jimmy Carter was correct in attributing racism to the recent extreme behavior manifested by the Right - from depicting Obama as a witch doctor in association with his health care reform, to rendering him as a black version of Hitler. And yes, to Joe Wilson's infamous blurtation of 'You lied' during Obama's address to both Houses of Congress.

Then suddenly, the Hardball host turned to his guest, Gerald Posner (of 'Case Closed' fame..or infamy) and asked whether the same sort of dynamic might have helped turn Lee Harvey Oswald into a pro-Soviet assassin of JFK in 1963. Of course, this was a duncie's shuck and jive pat answer question ...since Chris had to know how Posner (of The Daily Beast) would respond.

But in truth and fact, the facts don't line up that way - all available evidence shows Oswald had nada to do with the hit, but was exactly what he insisted he was at the Dallas Police Dept., a "patsy". Readers might wish to check out James Douglass' new book, JFK and the Unspeakable- Why He Died and Why It Matters, and they may also like to check out my next blog entry which will deal with Posner's specific 'Case Closed' claims and others.

For now, I am interested in the more general generic gestalt and issue of why more people, especially in the assumed cognoscenti, insist that conspiracies such as the JFK one are only accepted by tin foil hat wearers or those a short deck from the loonybin.

Parenti doesn't touch on this, only averring (ibid.) that they almost always get it wrong, because - as in the JFK case- they err in "conflating the low political value of the victim with the high political value of the assassination." (Thus deflating the widely held perception amongst media mavens that people so worshipped JFK and "Camelot" it was unfathomable he could be offed by a lone loser....WRONG!!)

The high political value of the actual hit, of course, is emphasized and expanded upon in Douglass' book - for more than five chapters and 200 pp. so I will not reinvent the wheel here. Suffice it to say, JFK stood in the way of powerful forces arrayed against him, from his determination to pull out all personnel from Vietnam by 1965 (dictated in his National Security Action Memorandum 263), to his refusal to bomb or invade Cuba as the Joint Chiefs implored him to do at the height of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, to his late 1963 rapprochement with Cuba and secret meetings with Castro's aid-de-camp, Rene Vallejo. Any one of these would have put him in the sights of the national security state - all in concert rendered him the proverbial 'goner'. It merely remained to find the right patsy to deflect attention from the actual architects. And keep people chasing the wrong information and leads for over 40 years.

A person who does touch on the aforementioned dynamic (though not specifically to do with conspiracies) is Curtis White in his landmark book, The Middle Mind. White's contention, well supported in his book, is that an entire corporate-directed PR structure exists to manage the public mind. To ensure its collective thoughts don't veer too far off the beaten path, or into realms that seriously question or challenge the powers-that -be. As he puts it (p.12):

"We have the lovely pretense of serious inquiry: no one gets hurt and no one has to worry that something undesirable might come of it. Like a demand for real thought. We are free to say anything we like so long as what we say does not suggest...that the ruling order has no right to rule"

Of course, now follow me here, IF one were to assert JFK was felled as part of a coup d'etat, so a national security state ruling power took over, and has remained entrenched, then this would come close to saying the same thing. Rather than most media and especially corporate big boys, CEOs to go that route, it is far easier and simpler to play the 'lone nut did it' fantasy (which one Mensa Bulletin article said was as likely as a human virgin birth) so "no one gets hurt and nothing undesirable will come of it". Say like a REAL investigation, as opposed to the Warren Whitewash, in which most witnesses never even saw (far less delivered testimony to) 3 of the 7 Commissioners, and 200 material witnesses were never called at all.

But let us break from the mold of the "Middle Mind" and scrutinize some myths that have been widely circulated by the corporate media Middle-Mind managers over the past 40 years or so. I will take each in turn:

1-The simplest explanation for something is almost always the correct one.

Which, of course, assumes that the non-conspiracy model will always be correct because it is 'simpler'. This is almost invariably true in the realm of natural sciences- such as physics. But it is dubious that this can be applied to the realm of human affairs. For one thing, humans are enmeshed in complexes of emotions and ideological agendas that can't be quantified like Newton's laws of motion, or simplistically reduced to one cause-one effect relationships. In addition, humans - unlike natural laws, are capable of deceit and misdirection. So, from many points of view, it would be foolhardy to reduce the realm of human behavior - including conspiracy - to the model applicable to simple natural laws. It would require something basically approaching a general denial that humans would or could ever act with duplicity. Which is nonsense.

This sort of bias seems to exclude anything not describable by a serial cause and effect model. The problem is that most conspiracies hitherto exposed (e.g. BCCI, COINTELPRO, Iran-Contra) have invariably been molded from what we call a 'disjunctive plurality of causes'. Constructed more as a kind of parallel architecture - or unfolding of parallel and simultaneous operations, than simple one to one cause-effects. So if one is naive enough to assume the latter model, he certainly will be ill-equipped to deal with an actual conspiracy at any level.

2) The government can't even keep a secret for two weeks, how can it keep something like the JFK assassination secret for over 35 years.

This one's been around for quite some time. It sounds very plausible on the surface, but that is only because its recipients may not have the historical facts at hand to solidly refute it. Such as these notable exceptions:

-'Project Stargate' - the DIA and CIA- sponsored program to 'exploit the paranormal' in psy warfare (London Electronic Telegraph, Issue 521,Saturday October 26, 1996) was concealed at least that long.

-MK Ultra which used LSD in secret experiments on military personnel, kept hidden for overt two decades.

-The massacre of South Korean civilians at NO Gun Ri by U.S. soldiers at the start of the Korean War, kept hidden for fifty years.

- The ZR-Rifle Assassination program, kept concealed over twenty-five years.

- The CIA's Report on its own dereliction in the Bay of Pigs, kept concealed over 35 years.

All of these in concert show how anti-conspiracy canards can and do acquire a life and validity of their own simply through repetition. But they're not any more credible from having been repeated - in the media or other venues - umpteen times!

The fact is the government is quite capable of keeping key operations and programs hidden, and the conspiracies associated with them. Indeed, 'black operations' ('black ops') are totally dedicated to that premise! In the JFK case, it is even more possible- given that no formal documents or papers were probably ever signed off(by the architects) on the hit. Plausible Denial to the googlepoint power. Though as serious researchers have noted, one can examine exactly who profited in its wake ('Cui bono?').

Despite that - we have actual photographic footage (as well as acoustic records) that discloses the physics of this event. To be sure, physics trumps political expediency every time. And - as the House Select Committee on Assassinations found in its 1979 conclusion " there was a conspiracy with 96% probability." This is now - or should be - the officially adopted position of the government. So its refusal to evolve from the now discredited Warren Report leads one to think that it may have been actually complicit in JFK's killing. That would be one prime reason not to sign on to the HSCA conclusion.

3) Conspiracy-theorists claim that the lack of evidence for the conspiracy is proof of the conspiracy itself--a beautiful example of circular logic.

In fact, advocates of conspiracy explanations do no such thing, so this argument is in effect a 'straw man'. The fact is (for the most researched conspiracies, such as JFK, MLK, BCCI, Iran-Contra etc.) we have reams of evidence, lots of it. The question is whether people are prepared to accept this evidence, without political or media benediction. (I.e. waiting for the media or high profile political figures to confer their approval).

In the JFK case, for example, we have abundant physics evidence such as the recent peer-reviewed paper by D.B. Thomas appearing in the British journal 'Science and Justice' confirming the HSCA's acoustic tests were valid, and their conclusion of a "96% probably conspiracy" stands. This is even apart from the unambiguous data that can be gleaned from frame by frame analysis of the Nix and Zapruder films. Showing the kill shot's momentum was totally opposite what would have been expected from the Texas Book Depository. So two shooters were required, the minimalist definition of a conspiracy.

In the BCCI conspiracy reams of evidence were culled from that criminal bank's operations in 73 countries and exposed. But whether anyone could comprehend all aspects of its workings - which were deliberately rendered complex- is another matter. But this goes back to what was noted earlier about human architects not necessarily obeying the simple laws of nature in fabricating their schemes and plans. Indeed, it is clear that misdirection would have to be a fundamental part of any successful conspiracy.

In the Watergate conspiracy, Nixon and his cronies virtually handed the evidence to investigating committees and prosecutors on a 'silver platter' - since they had taped everything! Every word and every plan or scheme, from targeting McGovern supporters using the IRS to illegal wiretaps of those on the 'enemies' list' to breaking and entering into Daniel Ellsberg's place.

Each of these in turn totally confutes the pseudo argument that conspiracies are predicated on claiming a 'lack of evidence' leading to a 'circular argument'. Which brings us to the role of the media in perpetuating an anti-conspiracy mindset, certainly amongst the power-elites and those professionals (lawyers, doctors, politicians, professors etc.)who tend to be included in the so called 'Overclass'.

Almost from the time of The Warren Report on the JFK assassination, the media have been complicit in impugning any and all notions of conspiracy. As if the U.S. is somehow special or untouched by the Machiavellian mindset that produces assassinations, plans, and hidden schemes in other parts of the world. But our history tells a decidedly different story. From COINTELPRO, to Watergate, to BCCI and Iran-Contra we now know that conspiracies are not only real - as real as this computer keyboard I'm using - they are one of the primary ways to get things done.

By the same token, the planned concealment of conspiracy, or the act of pooh-poohing its proponents, has the beneficial effect of protecting key elements or people. People who, if these things were disclosed, might refuse to be a willing source of political news for the media. At the other extreme, as I will show, it is quite plausible that media generating anti-conspiracy themes and columns are doing so because they have themselves been infiltrated (as was pointed out by Kathryn Olmstead in her exhaustive investigative work 'Challenging the Secret Government', University of North Carolina Press, 1996). As she points out (p. 21.):


"According to the Church committee's final report, approximately fifty U.S. Journalists had covert relationships with the CIA, about half of which involved money. Watergate investigative reporter Carl Bernstein charged that the total number of U.S. journalists who worked for the CIA was actually much higher."
Recall that the Church Committee, set up in 1975, was designed to examine the hidden workings and operations of a number of agencies that make up the national security state, including the CIA and NSA (National Security Agency).

Before anyone goes max-snark or apoplectic, it is well to get grounded by noting some of the content in CIA document 1035-960 dealing with critics of the Warren Commission conclusion on the JFK assassination. Of particular interest are the following paragraphs:

"Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active [business] addresses are requested:

b. To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. "

The core message embodied in the above comports totally with the findings of Kathryn Olmstead.

While this is not intended to explain all the variants of media attack vis-a-vis conspiracy, it may well account for a significant fraction. In any case, one would like to the get to the bottom of the knee jerk media reaction to lampoon and savagely criticize anything remotely hinting at the c-word. Of course, the most notorious of all such examples is the assassination of JFK in November, 1963. Since then, the media in concert have been uniformly hostile to any and all reports, disclosures - even released documents, that suggest JFK was killed in a conspiracy. This despite the fact that the HSCA (House Committee on Assassinations) officially found there was a "96% probability of conspiracy." Given the standards of most scientific research, this denotes a QA (quality assurance) that is about as solid as one can achieve - since no scientist in his right mind ever claims 100% proof. There are inevitably 'error bars' and uncertainties.

In one wire service story, 'Study Backs Theory of Grassy Knoll', which came out ca. March 25, 2002, D.B. Thomas' paper- which appeared in the British peer-reviewed Journal 'Science and Justice', was headlined and the conclusions given. Thomas' paper basically confirmed in every aspect the original analysis performed by actual acoustic specialists for the HSCA. Despite being in a peer-reviewed journal and already supported by the exhaustive work of the initial HSCA experts, it was savagely attacked within days in a Washington Post article. This was by Joel Achenbach who employed his usual catch phrases and incisive wit (he writes mainly as a 'humorist') to skewer the study, despite the fact that it's doubtful he actually read it. And what came off his piece was that it merely advanced some sort of 'agenda'.

It seems that the corporate owned media have been fully complicit in spreading conspiracy phobia as a deliberate strategy. Startling? Hardly. Remember that black operations - or 'black ops' (operations conducted apart from any official budget) were formally integrated into the OSS (Office of Strategic Services) during WW II. This continued right on through to the establishment of the CIA, the OSS successor, in 1947. And over this time the establishment media cooperated totally, becoming little more than a propaganda arm of the Pentagon.
Their role now would seem to be to misdirect people, to shift their attention away from conspiracy as a plausible working model for government, business and other interests - and toward some vague 'serendipity' of fortuitous circumstance.

These insights into the conspiracy phobia dynamic alert citizens to the true perspective. In this sense, no one who applies conspiracy where appropriate is trying to 'run away' from reality but to face it. As Michael Parenti notes (op. cit. p. 186), these citizens are effectively "raising grave questions about the nature of state power in what is supposed to be a democracy."

Perhaps, those who promote conspiracy phobia are tacitly admitting that we no longer live in a democracy. Rather than explore that outrageous thought, the corporate mainstream mind managers heel to their PR palaver of dismissing all conspiracies as unthinkable or improbable.

Much easier to focus on assorted lone nuts, than to peel back the sordid facts of how the USA mutated into a Corporatocracy.

For those interested, my own full FAQ on the JFK conspiracy may be found here:

http://www.geocities.com/verisimus101/faq/index.htm

Another Case of Misapplied Causality to QM

In a recent paper ('Causality in Quantum Mechanics', Physics Letters A), David T. Pegg attempts like many others before him (e.g. Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen) to attempt to impose some faux "causality" on quantum mechanics without realizing what he is doing.

The claim is that it is "shown explicitly how the causal arrow of time that follows from quantum mechanics has already been inserted at a deeper level by the choice
of normalisation conditions".. However, there is no "causal arrow of time" that follows from QM, nor does it appear with assigned normalization conditions.

The major disagreement I have is Pegg's claim that:

"Causality results in the preparation device outcome being represented by a
positive operator with unit trace and the measurement device outcome being represented by a positive operator that is an element of a set whose elements sum to the unit operator"


However, consider the vacuum state for spontaneous inception of the cosmos, and the conditions that bear on it.

First, the entropy of the universe is now defined in terms of a "holographic principle" that reckons in the Planck length and quantum fluctuations. It is defined(Lawrence B. Crowell, Quantum Fluctations in Spacetime', p. 125):

k_B[KL_p^2/ 3)^-1 + (ln 2)/2]


Given this, and the condition of zero net mass energy, the spontaneous and acausal inception of the cosmos is actually the simplest formulation for its origin. Even the smallest fluctuation in the vacuum whereby

delta E ~ h/ delta t

leads to an instantaneous local deviation in mass-energy and the explosive origin of a cosmic expansion predicated on negative pressure. (See previous blog entry). As noted by Crowell (op. cit., p. 134):

"A net zero cosmology is the most economical one that can emerge from the vacuum state".

Even more important (ibid.):

"Since K is a measure of the number of Q-bits ....a cosmology with N x Q-bits will exhibit Poisson statistics."

As anyone who has used Poisson statistics knows, these are divergent from the semi-classical probability equations employed by Pegg(Eqns. 1- 10)

Returning to the trace, let the event horizon of the vacuum bubble be defined by

rS(g) = 2 ct

Where r ~ L_p, the Planck length (L_p = {Gh/2 pi c^3}^1/2) and S(g) is the action

then we will have the cosmological constant applicable to de Sitter space: K =

(n – 1)(n – 2)/ [2 q^2]

where q is a scale factor, and n denoted the dimension (4) of the volume under consideration.

Now for S(g) ~ t^1/2, R (the scalar curvature of de Sitter space) = 0, so S(g) = 0

However, the above happens because the Einstein tensor (T_ik) has trace = 0 in the early universe. The ‘trace’ is the sum of the diagonal elements of a tensor, e.g.

Tr(M) = 0

where M =

[1 0 0 0]
[0 -1 0 0]
[0 0 1 0 ]
[0 0 0 -1 ]

Now, if the "preparation device outcome" is none other than the net zero mass vacuum state on quantum fluctuation, such that dx ~ dL/ L (where L is the length scale of the volume, viz. dL >= (L*L_p^2)^1/2, then Tr(M) will apply to good approximation, and the causality assumption is finito. The question is WHY? A clue is provided by Seth Lloyd in his monograph 'Programming the Universe'(p. 118):

"What's going on is that quantum mechanics, unlike classical mechanics, can create information out of nothing"

Thus, what has transpired, is that the holographic fluctuation has not only incepted an inital mass-energy dE ~ H/ dt -> E/c^2 but also information! The information inception occurred acausally precisely because the Hilbert space states are different for a vacuum fluctuation than for ordinary QM.

To fix ideas, while the expectation value [E(Q,A)] of an observable represented by a bounded operator A, on separable Hilbert space H is given by:

[E(Q,A)] = tr (Q, A) where Q is a statistical operator, this presumes the ensemble representation is deterministic or 'causal' if for all g in G:

f_A(g) in S(A)

where S(A) is the spectrum of A with respect to the algebra L(H).

but the condition does not apply in the case of quantum fluctuations on L_p.

For this reason other avenues are being pursued - for example, using Riemann's Zeta function Z(E) in terms of divergent, infinite Dirichlet series that can be transformed into finite sums such as:

Z'(1/2 + iE) ~ 2 exp {- i pi N(E)} SIGMA_m=1 to (E/2 pi)^1/2 m^-1/2 cos(E lnm - pi N(e))

in conjunction with Gutzwiller's trace equation, and a more germane representation for the trace:

Tr G(E) ~ Tr G_o(E) ~ d/ dE {ln Z (E)

This quantity, for example, will replace the Tr's in Peggs equations (1)....(10) etc. and also take into account the Poisson statistical nature attached to the fluctuations, whereby:

delta N = [N]^1/2 and delta V ~ G[V]^1/2

where delta N is the flucutation of Q-bits arising, and delta V the corresponding fluctuation in volume.

But omitting all the recondite probability formulations such as Pegg presents, the most compelling argument for a self-incepted cosmos may well be evidence we already behold in the type 1a supernova data. As Crowell observes (ibid.)

"The recent discovery that the universe is accelerating outward is the latest of important results, which indicates the universe could well be a net zero (mass-energy). This then indicates that the observed universe is the result of a fluctuation in the quantum gravity vacuum"

It is important to note here that the preceding does not mean that the universe spontaneously creates mass-energy within its normal space-time. So, it does obey the first law of thermodynamics such that dU = - dW + dQ, where U, W and Q denote the internal energy, the work done on the system, and the heat absorbed by it. Assuming a closed cosmology, dE= 0. The main point here is that the universe absorbs work by virtue of the negative pressure (p = -rho) acting on it, as opposed to a positive pressure that does work. Thus, for consistency one needs:

dW = - p = rho (energy density) and dQ = rho_vac c^2.

Again, the negative energy assures us that the zero point energy of the quantum vacuum will "tunnel through" to create an unstoppable expansion on fluctuation.

The best evidence yet for an acausal cosmos and acausal origin.

More on this, as well as dismantling Pegg's other claims, in the next blog entry.

A Foray into Quantum Logic and Acausality

It is generally widely accepted that quantum mechanics opened up an entirely new field of logic, which we know as quantum logic. Hence, new rules and postulates arose for which the logical classical definitions hitherto invoked are inadequate.

E.g.: Two statements p and q, are contrary if they cannot both hold, i.e. if:

~ (p / q)

Two statements: p, q are contradictory, if:

[p -> (q) ] , [ (~p) -> ~q]

and so on.

However, the fundaments of quantum mechanics (validated by experiment) diverge from this. Quantum mechanics can be regarded as a non-classical probability calculus resting upon a non-classical propositional logic. More specifically, in quantum mechanics each probability-bearing proposition of the form "the value of physical quantity A lies in the range B" is represented by a projection operator on a Hilbert space H.

Neumann [1932], showed that each physical system can be associated with a (separable) Hilbert space H, the unit vectors of which correspond to possible physical states of the system. Each "observable" real-valued random quantity is represented by a self-adjoint operator  on H, the spectrum of which is the set of possible values of Â. If e is a unit vector in the domain of A, representing a state, then the expected value of the observable represented by A in this state is given by the inner product . The observables represented by two operators A and B are commensurable if and only if A and B commute, i.e., AB = BA.

However, non commutation is also possible, and indeed even expected, hence the emergence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which is really a statement regarding non-commutativity. This can be expressed in quantum mechanics, using the momentum (p) and position (x) measurements via the Poisson brackets:

[x, p] = -i h/ 2 pi

where h is the Planck constant of action.

If two variables a, b commute, then one has:

[A, B] = (A*B - B*A) = 0

if not, then:

[A,B] = (A*B - B*A) = -1

and we say a and b are 'non-commuting'.


(You may observe one aspect at any one time, but not the other).

In term's of Bohr's (Complementarity) Principle, the variables x (position) and p(momentum) are regarded as "mutually interfering observables".

This is why only one can be obtained to precision, while you lose the other.

The binary{0,1}-valued observables may be regarded as encoding propositions about properties of the state of the system. Thus a self-adjoint operator P with spectrum contained in the two-point set {0,1} must be a projection; i.e., P^2 = P. Such operators are in one-to-one correspondence with the closed subspaces of H. Indeed, if P is a projection, its range is closed, and any closed subspace is the range of a unique projection. If e is any unit vector, then = ||Pe||^2 is the expected value of the corresponding observable in the state represented by e. Since this is {0,1}-valued, we can interpret this as the probability that a measurement of the observable will produce the "affirmative" answer 1. In particular, the affirmative answer will have probability 1 if and only if Pe = e; that is, e lies in the range of P

What all this means is that the “universality” of a concept is a moot issue. It has no meaning or significance in the setting of quantum mechanics and quantum logic. Since a typical closed subspace (say representing a quantum ideation in the brain – for which we already know quantum mechanics applies, cf. Stapp, ‘Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics’, 1993, p. 42) has infinitely many complementary closed subspaces, this lattice is not distributive.

What are we to make of this? Mainly that the empirical success of quantum mechanics calls for a revolution in logic itself. This view is associated with the demand for a realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. Now, since philosophy has not progressed to a non-distributive, non-classical form – it therefore can have squat to say about ultimate reality. It is in effect a non-player. Or perhaps more accurately, an ersatz player.

To be more specific, the formal apparatus of quantum mechanics reduces to a generalization of classical probability in which the role played by a Boolean algebra of events in the latter is taken over by the "quantum logic" of projection operators on a Hilbert space. The usual statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics demands we take this generalized quantum probability theory quite literally -- that is, not as merely a formal analogue of its classical counterpart, but as a genuine doctrine of chances.

Let me give an example of how classical logic breaks down. Take the case of a single electron fired at a two-slit screen and ending up on the other side - impinging on a 2nd screen. (Figure 1 - at top of article)

Prior to reaching the screen the electron exists in a superposition of states or "wave packets". Is this description statistical, or individual? This depends. The wave function has a clear statistical meaning when applied to a vast number of electrons. But it can also describe a single electron as well. In the example just cited, all the energy states refer to the same electron. However, if all electrons are identical, the statistical and individual descriptions coincide.

Without making this post too long, it is found (in > 90% of cases) in numerous trials that the electron goes through both slits of screen (1) at the same time to reach the final screen. Thus, one is not able to say (designating the slits in the intervening screen as A, B respectively, and C as the final screen):

If A then C

OR

If B then C

But rather BOTH A and B, then C

A decidely non-Boolean result.

The point emphasized here is that this deviation means that in specific spheres (mainly in science, specifically in modern physics) conventional logic and thinking are of little or no use. As you can see, it breaks down in this example. A number of researchers, authors, for example Hilary Putnam, have argued that the distributive law of classical logic is not universally valid. (Putnam, H.: 'Is Logic Empirical?' in Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 5, Dordrecht-Holland, 1968.

A more complex application might be to the premise or claim that "no primary cause can be physical". The trouble is, that this assumption is based on a classical system of logic that is binary and uses binary {1,0} or (yes, no) operators. Thus, since a careless person- perhaps attempting to execute a "proof" of a creator, will assert all physical entities must be caused, he will make the classical error of applying this to the cosmos' origin.

But what if instead of classical mechanics and its deterministic provisions, quantum mechanics is incorporated, say at the level of quantum gravity? Can the proposition still hold? T. Padmanabhan in his ‘Universe Before Planck Time – A Quantum Gravity Model, in Physical Review D, (Vol. 28, No. 4, p. 756) showed that it is irrelevant. As irrelevant as regarding the electrons in Fig. 1 as hard tiny "marbles".

Without going into all the complex mathematics entailed, Padmanabhan employed integrals related to the “action” (J) as a function of time. He proceeded by solving for the expansion factor S(t) using two separate energy equations, one of which (2.15 in his paper)bears a remarkable resemblance to the basic quantum wave potential equation. Moreover, his potential energy term is remarkably similar to that for the quantum harmonic oscillator - with some critical differences (substituting for the frequency f, and thence angular frequency omega = 2 pi f, a conformal quantum variable, alpha).

The most masterful section in his paper is III. ‘Geometry of the Quantum Universe’ wherein spacetime itself is taken to be in a particular quantum state U(q, t). He then assumes “stationary states” (given by the variable Q) for the early universe that are independent of time and for which all the dynamics “are contained in S(t)” (ibid., p. 28). The form of the expression for his “energy content” of the universe, E (t) also bears a remarkable structural similarity to the equation given earlier for total energy in an expanding cosmos. (Except other variables such as ‘Q’ appear)

The conformal factor Padmanabhan uses is alpha, which is a purely quantum mechanical parameter, defined from his equation (2.24):

alpha = S^ 6 (t) omega^2 (t)

thereby fixing the state of the universe to be compatible with a harmonic oscillator of frequency alpha. (Which we know has solutions in terms of Hermite polynomials H_ n(q)) To make a long story short, and leave out lots of formalism, he then considers a series of different solutions for the respective energy equations, including for an “open”, “flat” and “closed” model cosmos. It’s found all the spacetimes are non-singular (e.g don’t have an associated singularity or infinity) and start with some minimum value of expansion factor. “Classical” (non-quantum) limits are achieved by setting alpha = 0, thus S(t) = 0.

Physically, it is found that the conformal factor (alpha) contributes a negative energy density. Negative energy density may be cast in a relatively simple form of an equation of state, viz.:

w = (Pressure/ energy density) = -1

This is consistent with Einstein's general theory of relativity - which one could say approaches the status of a 'basic law of physics'. In this case, the existence of a negative pressure is consistent with general relativity's allowance for a "repulsive gravity" - since any negative pressure has associated with it gravity that repels rather than attracts. (See, e.g. 'Supernovae, Dark Energy and the Accelerating Universe', by Saul Perlmutter, in Physics Today, April, 2003, p. 53.) Of course, simple algebra applied to the above also shows that the energy density would have to be negative, e.g. energy density = - (pressure).

The point is, the metric and treatment is feasible since non-trivial and matterless solutions exist. Thus, the cosmos can be incepted and proceed to expand because of the negative-energy density of the conformal factor.

It is also this basis that provides the dynamic scaffolding for the instantaneous formation of the universe by a possible quantum fluctuation that arises when a particular threshold is crossed near alpha = 0 (from quantum to classical domains) As Padmanbhan shows in his paper, such a cosmos from “nothing” is perfectly justified in the context of the model, and follows from the basis of the equations, the light cone, scale factor restrictions and so on.

This means the limits at spontaneous inception must definitely be for acausal determinism and quantum cosmology, NOT classical – including classical causality.

What Padmanabhan has accomplished, in a way, is using quantum logic under very specific conditions (defined by his conformal variable, alpha) and subject to rigorous mathematical analysis, to establish that a physical entity (cosmos) can arise "uncaused" in the normative, classical logical sense. By "uncaused", of course, I mean in the same context (roughly) as pair production incepted by an energy variation, subject to the energy-time uncertainty relation.

Thus, given a primordial vacuum state, with conformal quantum variable alpha, one can have an "explosion" arising from the negative energy density and inception of the universe.

Is it possible or feasible to prove Padmanabhan wrong in his context, and in a general way show quantum logic is subsumed by classical? (And hence that a spontaneously incepted cosmos is nonsense?) Sure, just crank your brain up and demonstrate for us that any non-Boolean, non-distributive – ortho-complementary lattice can be transferred into a Boolean (e.g. binary {1,0}) and distributive one.

Good luck on that, you'll need it!

The Idiocy of Atheism - by Pastor Mike

Okay, it seems my Pastor bro insists that I have "reneged" on my word - to post his blog response, if for some reason he encounters technical difficulties. Not to be one to break my word, I hereby post his response here in full - as he sent it in email. I will, however, NOT be responding to it. If anyone wishes to - they can.


Addendum (9-10-09)

As I have awarded Pastor Mike prime blog space, not just ordinary comment real estate, I have decided to annotate his piece with appropriate footnotes, where I deem appropriate. These are intended mainly as clarification, or corrections, if I feel some openly misleading remark or reference has been made, and it has no sources to back it up. All footnotes so added will be denoted so (1) in bold, and the note will follow closely after the text. No other editing will be done, whether correcting errors in spelling, grammar or syntax. The piece rests exactly as it was sent to me.


The idiocy of atheism :

First of all , Atheism tends to exalt reason, but it is actually irrational. Atheists tend to put a lot of stock in the emperical method (1) and in logic. One cannot disprove God exists using the emperical method.

(1) Actually, the empirical method is a part of the inductive method which is used in science, not by atheists per se. The atheist simply adopts the inductive methods used by science and lets science take the lead. "Empirical method" merely means one aspect of doing science, for which direct experiments can be performed and data obtained. The data must still be shown to exhibit correlations, or some other concrete or statistical relationship. After that, quantitative models are derived and these led to the formal statement of a hypothesis.

Needless to say, no sane atheist asserts this direct experimentation method can be used to "disprove God" since the entity being alleged is non-physical, and hence not subject to empirical measurements, such as recording its density, volume or temperature. In addition, no sane atheist ever sets out to "disprove" God because as I have noted many times before that amounts to proving a negative. A logical impossibility.


You might reply: But I can't disprove a giant purple frog on Mars controls the universe, either. Granted, one can never disprove any given thing exists. The atheistic position denying God's existence, if based on the emperical method, is absurd. (2)

(2) Again, it is Mike rendering the absurdity not the atheist. The atheist never asserts what Mike claims we do. We do not say we can "disprove" an existent because that is proving a negative, whether giant purple frog on Mars or God or demons. Thus, Mike puts words and claims into our mouths and ends up with his absurdities.


Why do I say that ? In order to prove the assertion No God exists experimentally, one would need to comprehensively know all of reality. Comprehensive knowledge of reality is called omniscience. One would need to be omniscient in order to prove there is no God, but if one were omniscient one would, by definition, already be God! So, based on emperical methodology, the only one capable of disproving the existence of God would be God himself ! (3)


(3) Mike confuses and conflates many things here with predictable results. Again, since the postulated entity 'God' is deemed supernatural or non-physical then no sane scientist or atheist would ever presume to prove it exists. (Any more than a giant twenty- dimensional invisible turkey in Mike's living room). Thus, no atheist claims comprehensive knowledge of anything. All the atheist asserts is that, since the entity as posited has never clearly manifested itself, the probability of its existence is vanishingly low. And once again, NO atheist makes the claim he can "disprove the existence" of God because that is proving a negative.



But some would say you can indeed assert something does not exist if its existence is logically self contradictory, such as a square triangle. By definition it cannot exist. It is illogical for something to be a square and to also be a triangle. Again, granted, but this line of reasoning assumes logic and real meaning exist and are our basis for knowledge --something an atheist has no right to assert ! The existence of God is not only logically possible, it is philosophically essential (4)


(4) Mike treads on dangerous ground here again, mixing himself up even more than readers. His use of analogy is also false. For example, in the field of algebraic homology, three-dimensional tetradehedra can be resolved into triangles which in turn can be reduced to measures called complexes and simplexes, some of which have square sides. (Which are then divided - see also my blog entry on algebraic homology). The problem for Mike is that his purview is so limited it is impossible for him to perceive there might be existents outside his limited frame of knowledge.

He also avers the existence of God to be "logically possible" but makes no effort to show it. When he states it is "logically essential" he is then bound to provide its ontological basis in terms of the necessary and sufficient conditions for it to exist - but he punts. He avoids doing it. Clearly he is unable to distinguish what is logically possible from what is logically essential.


(I'll get to that more later below.) One cannot prove logic exists (5) unless one first presupposes a God in whom reason and meaning are transcendentally rooted, otherwise these categories are mere philosphical prejuduces. Atheism is inherently self-contradictory.


(5) Again, he puts his cart before his horses. He maintains that no logic or reason can exist without God, yet he offers no necessary or sufficient conditions for it to exist. We are just to take his word. The only thing contradictory in the above passage is Mike's own thinking. He denies the very process (logic) that can scrutinize his imaginary being and expose its logical irregularities. He does this on the basis that the imaginary being must exist before logic can be applied, since logic is the source of the imaginary being. This, of course, commits the post hoc propter hoc logical fallacy. It's like saying I cannot use algebra to solve a complex compound interest problem until I first identify the Twelve-dimensional flying spaghetti monster - on whom all algebra depends.



The evidence for the existence of God is there for all to see, only we refuse to see it. (6) King David wrote: "The fool says in his heart there is no God. " (Psalm 14:1) In other words, Atheism is irrational. Apart from God there is no basis for truth or ethics. Now , I concede ,

(6) The Pastor is clearly in love with tossing around the term "evidence" but he never ever provides it. The 'fool hath said' dealie gets trite after a time. Mike seems to believe it qualifies as some kind of cogent argument, but in the end it marks the logical violation we call "appeal to authority".


Beyond dispute there are moral atheists. I sincerely believe that you , Phil are a very moral person - as I've mentioned in prior posts . I've also known atheists / agnostics who are more ethical than some people claiming to believe in a god. This is not the issue. The question is, why be ethical ? Can an adequate basis for morality be found given atheistic premises ? Think about it. Unless God exists, there is no eternal and transcendent standard for right and wrong.(7) If God did not give the Ten Commandments to Moses at Sinai, thereby establishing a moral standard above human creation, we are merely left with humanly devised scruples.

(7) This is baseless presupposition. And, in fact, can easily be shown to be false. As Kai Neilsson has asked in his book Ethics Without God: "Is an act good because God did it, or is it good independent of such action?"

For a genuine ethical basis, any human action must be totally independent of whether a god did it (in scriptures) or ordains it. It must be good on its own merits.

A first test, as Neilsson observes, is ethical choice predicated on a humane standard. Consider: if a human parent knows his child is trapped in a burning house, s/he will try to save it however s/he can. There is no way the human parent will simply walk out and allow 'fate' or "free will" of the child to make the decision. If the human parent has an ounce of common decency s/he must intervene.

Now, consider an analogous event, the case in 1994 when eight small girls fled into a church to escape a tornado in southern Alabama. They furiously prayed for deliverance, but the twister struck the church (God's alleged 'home') and killed all eight. Being omnipotent, God also had the power to deflect said twister and let it tear up some nearby forest or woodsheds- as opposed to its church with people inside.

Did it? No it did not! It permitted the tornado to demolish the Church and many of those children within it. All innocents. All dead. Those who would defend such a deity - but who would hold a human parent accountable for negligence or manslaughter by allowing their child to perish in a house fire (when the child coujld be saved) - disclose inchoate ethics. To wit, demanding a vastly lower ethical standard of behavior for their deity than for fellow humans.

Those who beg the question with theo-babble ("we cannot fathom the ways or mind of God") are no better, and do no better. In many ways, they're worse, because they lack even the courage to face their own logic.

Thus it follows, even from the most generic examples (presupposing a supernatural, omnipotent force) that human ethics trumps divine ethics on its face. If it does so, then it must also trump any and all human extensions of divine ethics. Whether in the ten commandments, canon law or wherever.

Hence, it follows that human ethics and ethical standards can exist independently of invoking any divine or religious fluff, affiliations or baggage.



If humanity is left to create its own ethical standards, we are left with only three options to base ethics upon: 1) collective tradition, 2) human survival, or 3) personal preference.

Those who argue that morality is properly based upon what society as a whole deems moral have a big problem. What one society says is moral another says is immoral. Nazi Germany held that it was morally good and beneficial to exterminate the Jewish people. The Allies saw the Nazis as evil and fought against them. Who was right ? If one believes God gave the law You shall not kill (murder), the answer is obvious.

Any society that advocates murder is evil. How can an atheist respond ? Most would admit the Nazis were evil, but according to what standard ? Were the Nazis evil just because the Allies said they were evil or were they in fact evil ?(8)

(8) Mike bites off way more than he can chew here and introduces historically misleading statements, and inaccuraces. In fact, the Nazis and Hitler - were CHRISTIANS! In Hitler's own book, Mein Kampf, for example, he writes that "FAITH is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude."(Source: Mein Kamp, Houghton Mifflin, 1943, p. 267)

Hitler even went further, arguing that any attack against religion "strongly resembles the struggle against the legal foundations of the state" and "end in worthless nihilism". In other words, he argued that to attack religion was to attack the state. No surprise then that on acceding to the Chancellorship, one of Hitler's first tasks was to round up all atheists and communists and dispatch them to concentration camps (Source: 'Hitler Nemesis', 2002, by Ian Kershaw, p. xxiv)


Hitler's most famous statement to do with his allegiance to religion was made in his Reichstag speech of 1938 in which he declared: " I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work." (Source: 'The Hitler State: The Foundation and Development of the Internal Structure of the Third Reich', 1981, by Martin Broszat)

As for the Third Reich itself, its very workers' platform principle declares it to stand "for Positive Christianity". (Source: Brosazt, op. cit.)


So, if Mike wants to blame the Nazis and their heinous deeds on anyone, he needs to look at Christians. And also how Christian morality - NOT atheism - supported their horrific planks, and laws.



One can try to argue that it isn't just what a few societies say that matters, but what the majority of human societies agree upon. This does provide a better basis, since God has given us a conscience, but it has been corrupted by rebellion.

At one time most human societies placed less value on female offspring than on males. In many societies female infants were left to die. In some places this exists today. This is morally wrong, no matter if the whole of human society were to say otherwise ! Basing morality on human society does not provide an adequate answer.

What of an evolutionary model for morality ? Why not posit that whatever benefits human survival is moral ? To some this may be appealing, but first ask some questions. Why, based upon atheistic assumptions, should we logically value human survival ? What difference does it all make ? Why is life valuable ? Isn't belief in human survival itself a moral assumption, a value judgement that has no basis in an atheistic world view ?

Furthermore, consider what an ethic based solely on survival could lead to: the elimination of those perceived to have less survival value. The Nazi movement, based upon an evolutionary eugenic ideal of developing a super race, destroyed those deemed by them inferior or unsuitable.(9) Reproduction was to be limited to those deemed most fit. Mankind, when left to its own devices to develop its moral basis, commits systemized murder and oppression.

(9) Again, Mike confuses issues. Life can be asserted as valuable simply because sentient or conscious life is rare in the universe. After all, only the Earth is known to harbor it. Thus, a first secular ethical stance seeks to value life - not because a god says so, but because sentient life appears rare in the cosmos. Again, the Nazi state and its structure were founded on "positive Christian" principles and ideals. (See sources identified in (8)) The aim of developing an Aryan race was actually motivated by the desire to field a super-Christian, militant population that in future would never succumb to communism, or atheism. This theme and thread actually went back more than 500 years and was called the "People's Movement" or Volkische movement. By this movement Jews had been mistreated and abused for centuries, including during the infamous Passion Play at Oberammagau where Jews had been depicted for centuries as "Christ Killers".




Consider the atrocities of Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, and the horrible situations we have witnessed in Rwanda and Bosnia. Both atheists and "religious" people so easily justify murder. Just because we have also seen horrors committed by those claiming to believe in some sort of god doesn't disprove my point. I'm not advocating just any old god ! It is still true that when any society abandons the God-given law, You shall not murder, horror results. (10)(10)

(10) Of course, Mike conveniently leaves out all the murders committed in so called "just wars". Or, is he against war? If not, then he is hypocritical. Certain murders are okay with him, as along as they are against the right enemies! (Like Hitler sending his SA and SS to slaughter atheists and communists)

What of basing morality on one's personal preferences ? What of just saying you can know what is wrong by following your heart ? What a dippy idea this is ! Jeffrey Dahmer's heart led him to murder and cannibalize his fellow humans ! (11)Basing morality on feelings is the ultimate in irrationality. This puts moral judgement on the level of personal taste. Dahmer might have thought you suitable to his taste !

(11) Again, the Pastor lets his wild emotions take him over the cliff. Dahmer was diagnosed as having schizophrenia, as well psychosis. He often experienced violent headaches as well as hallucinations of demons chasing him. Dahmer is the perfect example of what former Franciscan priest Emmet Mcloughlin referred to in his essay 'Let the Statistics Tell Their Tragic Story' noting how religiously implanted threats (e.g. of Hell and Satan) and their reinforcement could trigger psychosis.

The point is that Dahmer was in no mental condition to "follow his heart" or his mind in making judicious moral decisions. So to set up Dahmer as a moral case or example is nothing short of idiotic.



I've met many atheists who are judgmental of "religious" people who have committed great atrocities, but upon what basis ? Does this make any sense ? Atheistic assumptions irresistibly lead to the conclusion that morality is nothing more than a matter of personal or societal preference. (12) Based upon an atheistic philosophy, the very appropriate disdain for the despicable murderers of humanity makes about as much sense as a dog lover's disdain of those who prefer cats ! How silly.

(12) Again, atheist morality is not based on personal preference at all, but on existing norms of self-interest and general welfare which require no overt god or religious intervention. In terms of said "baggage", what the religionists have done is to take the pragmatic and natural code of (humane) ethics most people follow and embellish it with a blizzard of superstitious precepts and injunctions. These are superstitious since, inevitably, they are linked to the supposed dictates of a supernatural "being" who will not hesitate to "punish" those who disobey "him".

Ethics without god then, is ethics elevated to its highest consistent standards without the need for baffling with bullshit.

A very good article for the basis of a godless morality:

http://www.skepticfiles.org/human/morality.htm


Unless there is a moral standard beyond individual or societal preference, there is no logical basis for condemning atrocity. I challenge any atheist to give me a basis for ethics beyond mere personal preference, social custom, or survival. You simply cannot do it ! (13)

(13) Anyone can check out for themselves the above link, or Kai Neilsson's book, Ethics Without God to show how easily Mike is proven wrong.


Post-modern philosophers have come to the conclusion that there is no hope of finding morality or meaning based on materialistic presuppositions. They are quite right. It is a good thing that many atheists are too decent and too inconsistent to live out the irresistible moral conclusions of their philosophy !

Another thought: we even transgress the scruples we ourselves invent. Is this logical ? No, but this is consistent with the Biblical view of mankind, which says we are by our nature law-breakers and rebels who don't want to believe in the true God. (14a) Thank God there is an amnesty program for rebels and atheists ! (More on that later.)

Paul, wrote in Romans 1:18-22 , " For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousnes ; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, "

God's existence is clearly seen in what He has made. The intricate brilliance of the created order reveals the mind of an infinitely intelligent Designer just as surely as a great work of architecture or a complex piece of technology reveals the mind of its designer.(14b) Furthermore, our own consciences and sense of justice, though corrupted by our rebellion, still tell us there is right and wrong and a God who has a perfect moral standard.

(14a) The very notion of 'natural lawbreakers' is moronic and self-defeating, since by accepting it one essentially undermines and invalidates ALL standards of law, and the recongition of true moral behavior. It means, basically, we are already guilty just by virtue of being born into the world - and we haven't even emitted a first loud squall yet! What nonsense is this? Of course, Mike then ties it to unbelief, so that the natural lawbreaker can never escape his morass unless he professes belief somewhere along the line. The right and ability to question divine fiat, or what fundies like Mike take as such, is not to be questioned. This is ludicrous!

(14b) Mike imputes "design" but gives no evidentiary basis for it. Where? In the confines of the limited world we inhabit? The universe occupies more than this tiny world. The Earth is not even a microscopic part of the Milky Way galaxy, far less cosmos! At the large scale more than 73% of the universe is dark energy, and another 22% dark matter. Neither can be accessed for order. There is simply no major scope for "design" to emerge in the (mostly) dark cosmos. One cannot take one corner and look at it, and then say the whole cosmos is "designed". That is illogical. It is like me getting my wife to look at one corner of our kitchen floor and saying - "See, the floor's clean!' - when the other 99% is filthy.


The truth is, if you are an atheist, it is not because it makes sense, it is because you don't want to face up to the fact that there is a God out there to whom you are accountable. You don't like God and are trying to hide from Him.(15)

(15) Here Mike is interjecting his own emotions into what atheists think or feel. In fact, atheists feel neither positive or negative about God. No more than the Easter Bunny. People may claim both exist, but never show any evience beyond their same old tired rhetoric. Yawn.


But you don't have to feel this way . How do we know God exists ? Unless we begin with the assumption that he does, we can't know anything else exists ! Unless we presuppose that God created us with the ability to know things through sensory experience and reason, we have no philosophical basis for trusting either. Philosophically speaking, unless we know a wise God gave us our senses, how can we know everything isn't an illusion? (16)

(16) Distracting non sequitur. Since we can detect most aspects of reality without the use of our senses. Fortunately modern physics observations don't depend on human sense perceptions- but rather on highly refined inanimate detectors that have been put through rigorous QA checks, and cross-confirmations via independent experiments. Also, eigenvalues or whatever, can be used in sub-experiments to generate REAL outcomes. If the detector signals were spurious( or "unreal") or "illusions", in other words, no real outcomes (say a particular polarization of an electro-magnetic wave) would be possible.

For example, mathematically, we employ what are called 'Stokes parameters' to check on this. These are particularly important in a field like radio astronomy. If they were delusions or out of touch with reality - we'd not have the refined radio observation maps we do - say of the quasar, C-273.

In optical astronomy, ditto. No actual human eyes ever observe cosmic phenomena any more. We use spectro-photometers and special automated cameras (with computer controlled color-correcting filters) to obtain photographs of galaxies, planets, comets etc.

In like manner, if these optical mechanisms didn't work - neither would our celestial mechanics. But I can use the Keplerian equations, e.g. for the eccentric anomaly ( E = M + e sin (M) ) and others (radius vector, true anomaly etc.) to exactly determine the future position of any planet. Using such equations tonight I can know exactly where Jupiter will be (right ascension, declination) on Aug. 23, 2054.

Just as my celestial mechanics computations - which I did on May 1, 1970, showed where Venus would be exactly on June 30, 1985. (Less than 0.0000001 arcsec difference - most of that due to using a hand calculator rather than computer).

Hence, my point: arguing over sensory perceptions as influencing what we can know of reality is gibberish. Arguing that we may be basing data on illusions is even more off the beam. Once that (predicted) planet shows up in my telescope at exactly the position forecast to be, all bets of "influence" or "in your head" are off. Vamanos!

Perhaps the most airtight evidence that our perceptions aren't being perverted is in nuclear energy: fusion and fission. The A-bomb and H-bomb remain the best manifestations yet that Einstein's E = mc^2 wasn't merely a mental abstraction. It had unmistakable consequences in the real world - e.g. the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki- not open to interpretation! Bottom line: If Mike insists we can't be sure anything is an 'illusion', then we can't be sure Mike is also not just an illusion. And the noise and symbols appearing (apparently) from him may just as well be echoes from the ether.


As for reason, we can't prove the validity of reason without using reason ! We must assume what we are trying to prove in order to prove it. All human reasoning is circular (17) , but when we leave God out of the circle we are left like a dog chasing its tail without any hope of catching it ! Without beginning with the philosophical presupposition that a God who has spoken to mankind exists, we are doomed to reason in circles with no way of knowing how to discern truth.


(17) Actually, only Mike's reasoning is circular, as he shows here. But what can anyone expect when he attempts to posit Jeffrey Dahmer as a source of some self-styled morality of the "heart" or tries to connect the Nazis and their 3rd Reich to atheists when they were mostly Christian.

As for positive proof, there is the communication of God to mankind. Moses received the Law at Sinai. This was attested by great miracles witnessed by millions. The Hebrew prophets foretold the rise and fall of nations and spoke of the coming of a Messiah. Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the Bible ( Isaiah 53, Micah 5:1, Jeremiah 31:31-34 ) . His resurrection is historically documented, having been witnessed by the early Messianic Jewish believers who recorded their testimonies and were willing to die for what they knew to be true.(18)

(18) None of this is true. Mike plays with facts and history. John Dominic Crossan, Bart Ehrman (a former fundamentalist) in his book, 'Misquoting Jesus' as well as Hugh Schonfeld ('The Passover Plot') have all shown that the testimonies can't be trusted and there are other more natural explanations. As one put it (Schonfeld): "That a man presumed dead for three days could get up and walk from his grave shows he was never dead in the first place."

The logical violation committed here is ignotum per ignotius, or opting for the least well understood explanation over the less well understood one.


But remember , if you persist in your atheism, one day you will stand before God and you will have no doubt in your mind concerning His existence , " Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. " ( Philippians 2:9-11 ) . His awesome reality will be undeniable to you, even though you STILL won't want to believe it !

Frankly, atheism is boring, but knowing, enjoying, and serving God gives life purpose and excitement. I continue to pray you will one day find that out - before it's TOO LATE !!(19)As I mentioned in my last blog , ETERNITY IS A LONG TIME TO BE WRONG !! ( END OF MY E-MAIL ) :


(19) Amazing how much energy this guy consumes in writing his responses given he claims atheism is "boring". And....Ah yes, when all else fails to convince, trot out the threats. Believe now or else! You will burn! This gets old really fast, and you'd think bible punchers like my bro would come up with something better, but they never do. In the end this is all they have left in their kit bag: threats to beat us over the head with. All of which discloses their ultimate failure in the realm of reason. It is also a tacit recognition of the fraudulent nature of their arguments, and their transparency. Since, IF the arguments were truly cogent and convincing, they'd not have to resort to base threats of damnation.

The only one truly "boring" individual on this blog is Pastor Mike.