Re: FW: Trump Supporters?

[Lawrence Crowell]

Why is this list attracting nut-wads? Here we evidently have a political 
crackpot. Politics is largely for stupid people. Philip Benjamin is clearly 
parroting conspiracy narratives, which are the products of the right wing 
media, though the left does a bit of it, where liberalism is a big 
communistic conspiracy to destroy freedom and to contaminate our precious 
bodily fluids.

Solzhenitsyn wrote in *One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich*, how the old 
guard Bolsheviks would parrot the words of Marx and Lenin, as if they were 
teletype machines, or in more modern language a computer running a sound 
file. People who utter phrases from the Bible with known chapter and verse 
are similar. There is a tendency for people to become meme-machines who do 
little more than parrot off various ideological or belief scripts.

My opinion of political people, whether on the left or right is they fall 
into this trap of thinking. It is not really thinking, it is thinking you 
are thinking. Who really gives a damned over nuances over classical vs more 
modern liberalism? In the end both, classic in the day it was formed, 
favors a liberality of mind, the open exchange of thought and ideals and 
the removal of oppression. Modern liberalsim is more complicated with 
economic issues, where let us face it in the time from Locke and Thomas 
Paine we have figured out a few things. One of them is that economics or 
capitalism is not able to maintain a stable currency, maintain employment 
at full levels and to provide the free uninhibited flow of capital. There 
are a number of these trilemmas in economics, and more modern liberalism is 
about regulating capitalism because it has these inherent instabilities. 
You may agree or disagree with these policies, but these are not 
conspiracies to enslave us. These conspiracy narratives are forged by right 
winged bloviators at Faux Gnus and Clear-Channel radio and so forth. As a 
rule, people who parrot these sort of things, such as those fallen 
Bolshiviks in the gulags Solzhenitsyn pointed out, are not really that 
inherently intelligent. As Donald t'Rump said, "I am like and intelligent 
person," which really means he wants to look smart, but he is really dumb 
as donkey crap.

LC

On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 2:14:50 PM UTC-5, medinuclear wrote:
>
> [*Philip Benjamin*] 
>
>  Telmo Menezes wrote: “I went to Wikipedia to look for a definition 
> of "liberal":…I am a liberal… what do you oppose…?”  *End of quote*.
>
>   Wikipedia may be sometimes a source for past (not 
> current) references.  Classical Liberalism has NOTHING whatsoever to do 
> with Modern Liberalism. For a long time there was no difference between 
> Liberals and Conservatives in America, except for their constituencies. 
> Businessmen, including family farm owners and Professionals were 
> Conservatives. Labor, Trade Unions farm workers,  and Southern plantation 
> owners,  were Liberals.
>
> The best government was the least government for most of Americans who 
> also generally believed that human nature is essentially fallen and corrupt 
> (Adamic insubordination and the *imputed*/*encoded* Sentence of Death) 
> requiring certain *minimum* necessary governmental interventions. 
>
> That is all 180 degrees changed today (*References below*). 
> Modern Liberals are Marxist, Socialist, Fascist, Humanist Progressive 
> PAGANS. They have fully infiltrated the academia, especially so after the 
> collapse of the Marxist Soviet Empire, also most of the businesses and even 
> some farms. The Progressives have complete sway over the Trade Unions (they 
> actually own them), the Media,  most publishing industries including many 
> once-Christian publishers, and the Deep State. They ardently believe that 
> human nature is essentially good and greater the government, greater is the 
> good. Tolerance necessarily means exclusion of all real or imagined 
> opposition. Silencing or forcefully excluding the opponents by all means 
> legal and illegal is their indispensable stratagem, because it is 
> self-evident for them that “the end justifies the means”. Insults and 
> intimidations are their usual weapons and they make no bones about it 
> (typical examples are the writings and pronouncements of evolutionist 
> biologist Richard Dawkins).  Everything they believe is the TRUTH and they 
> are ALWAYS RIGHT.  *Group-think* is all they know. The only 
> *critical-thinking* allowed is “labelling” exhibited by vituperations and 
> mockings. Anti-Christian and anti-Bible fanaticism is their acceptable 
> short-cuts to “brilliance”.
>
>   Goodbye to Liberalism  
>
> *Evidentialist*
>
> *Philip Benjamin*
>
>
> https://www.reference.com/government-politics/difference-between-classical-modern-liberalism-c9b2cef60fcef0ef
>  
> https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-modern-and-classical-liberalism-without-using-too-much-philosophical-jargon
>  
>
> 

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

[PGC]

On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 5:54:54 PM UTC+2, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/1/2019 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>
> > Fundamental, primitive … means “has to be assumed”. 
>
> Then I would say nothing is primitive.  That's the point of my virtuous 
> circle. 
>
>
That is a good point! 

If your circle can be tuned towards surviving with diverse joys pursuable 
for diverse agents, cleaning up the mess this creates, without the need for 
folks to feel like sinners in the eyes of the truth of the origin of the 
lord of the god of pure scientific reality... because they swatted a fly, 
flushed the toilet, stepped on leaves of grass, or treat their fridge like 
their Japanese Bot prostitute of coolness instead of being stuck in 
infinite undecidability of venerating her divine truth flying high in the 
platonic heavens or not... then congrats, your theory is ahead of all the 
purist approaches, including whatever Platonists', Christians', Atheists', 
Agnostics', philosophers', Allah's or whoever's flavor of the month happen 
to be. It might therefore even be a sexy thing. Go hard, go high. PGC
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c1cf1da1-7ac6-43ec-8b36-526d0bc090ec%40googlegroups.com.

FW: Trump Supporters?

[Philip Benjamin]

[Philip Benjamin]
 Telmo Menezes wrote: “I went to Wikipedia to look for a definition of 
"liberal":…I am a liberal… what do you oppose…?”  End of quote.
  Wikipedia may be sometimes a source for past (not current) 
references.  Classical Liberalism has NOTHING whatsoever to do with Modern 
Liberalism. For a long time there was no difference between Liberals and 
Conservatives in America, except for their constituencies. Businessmen, 
including family farm owners and Professionals were Conservatives. Labor, Trade 
Unions farm workers,  and Southern plantation owners,  were Liberals.
The best government was the least government for most of Americans who also 
generally believed that human nature is essentially fallen and corrupt (Adamic 
insubordination and the imputed/encoded Sentence of Death) requiring certain 
minimum necessary governmental interventions.
That is all 180 degrees changed today (References below). Modern 
Liberals are Marxist, Socialist, Fascist, Humanist Progressive PAGANS. They 
have fully infiltrated the academia, especially so after the collapse of the 
Marxist Soviet Empire, also most of the businesses and even some farms. The 
Progressives have complete sway over the Trade Unions (they actually own them), 
the Media,  most publishing industries including many once-Christian 
publishers, and the Deep State. They ardently believe that human nature is 
essentially good and greater the government, greater is the good. Tolerance 
necessarily means exclusion of all real or imagined opposition. Silencing or 
forcefully excluding the opponents by all means legal and illegal is their 
indispensable stratagem, because it is self-evident for them that “the end 
justifies the means”. Insults and intimidations are their usual weapons and 
they make no bones about it (typical examples are the writings and 
pronouncements of evolutionist biologist Richard Dawkins).  Everything they 
believe is the TRUTH and they are ALWAYS RIGHT.  Group-think is all they know. 
The only critical-thinking allowed is “labelling” exhibited by vituperations 
and mockings. Anti-Christian and anti-Bible fanaticism is their acceptable 
short-cuts to “brilliance”.
  Goodbye to Liberalism
Evidentialist
Philip Benjamin
https://www.reference.com/government-politics/difference-between-classical-modern-liberalism-c9b2cef60fcef0ef
 
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-modern-and-classical-liberalism-without-using-too-much-philosophical-jargon
~~~
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Telmo Menezes
Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2019 12:21 PM
To: Everything List 
Subject: Re: Trump Supporters?

On Sat, Jun 1, 2019, at 16:59, Philip Benjamin wrote:

[Philip Benjamin]

Trump supporters? That is a phrase inappositely coined by America haters—i.e. 
the Fascist, Marxist, Socialist, Progressive, Liberal, Humanist PAGANS


I went to Wikipedia to look for a definition of "liberal":

"Liberalism is a 
political
 and moral 
philosophy
 based on 
liberty,
 consent of the 
governed,
 and equality before the 

Re: Trump Supporters?

[Philip Thrift]

When America is presented a choice:

A. con-artist, blowhard fascist
B. cultured, intellectual liberal

A always has a chance of winning.

@philipthrift

On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 1:43:56 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> We are weavers in the web that we wove. We are victims of this 
> technological marvel called the media, which now includes the internet. 
> Joseph Goebbels, propaganda minister for the third Reich, said that a lie 
> repeated often enough assumes a life as a "sort of truth." The media has 
> becomes a crap-fest of nonsense that pumps out half-truths and sometimes 
> outright lies. With the massive dollars behind this industry liberality 
> based on evidence, facts, and logic is simply drowned out in the huge 
> decibel volume against it. Donald t'Rump knows this as much as Goebbels 
> did, and t'Rump is a pure grifter and hustler.
>
> LC
>
> On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 9:59:21 AM UTC-5, medinuclear wrote:
>>
>> [*Philip Benjamin*]  
>>
>> Trump supporters? That is a phrase inappositely coined by America 
>> haters—i.e. the Fascist, Marxist, Socialist, Progressive, Liberal, Humanist 
>> PAGANS or *WAMP-the-Ingrate*, who hate the very foundations and founders 
>> of this Republic. Over 62 million adults, bona fide American citizens, 
>> surely KNEW that this was the last chance for America to be America!! It 
>> was a question of now or never. The truth will be out if the present Dept. 
>> of Justice has the guts to go ahead with an impartial investigation into 
>> the *politico*-*deep state- media* usurpation of the American government 
>> at all levels from the City/County and State to the *Non-sovereign 
>> Federation of the Sovereign States* of this Constitutional Republic of 
>> Lex Rex and not Rex Lex (http://constitution.org/sr/lexrex.htm). See *Lex 
>> Rex* of Samuel Rutherford (Presbyterian Minister). Also its high 
>> recommendation by the “Prince of Preacher” Spurgeon (Baptist Minister). 
>> American Constitution is an extension of various Church Constitutions. The 
>> Colonies already had all institutions of Freedom in place after the 
>> historical and historic *First Great Awakening*. No other people EVER in 
>> the annals of history did or could have ever come up with any such ideas. 
>> *The 
>> Magna Carta* (*of “We the Nobles*”), the *Mayflower Compact* and the 
>> Puritan *Mission Statement to American Indians* come close. Ignorance 
>> coupled with willful disrespect for one’s heritage as facilitated on the 
>> WAMP-erial campuses is a sure path to victory for 
>> Socialist-Marxist-Progressive PAGANISM of the types of Nordic pagan Hitler, 
>> Slavic pagan Stalin, Caucasian pagan Mussolini etc., or of the type of 
>> Celtic pagan French anarchists. 
>> https://www.wnd.com/2019/02/americas-dangerous-historical-ignorance/ 
>>   
>>
>> Compare it wit 
>> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ignorance-of-history-is-no-joke/ 
>>
>> *Philip Benjamin*
>>
>> *~~*
>>
>> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com  *On 
>> Behalf Of *John Clark
>> *Sent:* Saturday, June 1, 2019 8:11 AM
>> *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com
>> *Subject:* Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity
>>
>>  
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 3:16 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>  
>>
>> >> From the Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7 page 792:
>> *"The son of **God is **omniscient* *and* *omnipotent** knowing history 
>> in advance and being able to control its course**”.*
>>
>>  
>>
>> *> **The Pope Jean-Paul 2 made explicit that all statement of that kind 
>> are parabola and should never been taken literally.*
>>
>>  
>>
>> That's the exact same excuse Trump suporters use when they to try to 
>> explain away his many many lies.
>>
>>  
>>
>> > *Of course, that is debated by some catholic, bu I have still never 
>> met a christian who believe in the anything as naive. *
>>
>>  
>>
>> You sure have not met many Christians!  I have never met a Christian who 
>> didn't believe something exactly that naive. I concede there are a few that 
>> have abandoned the idea of Christianity but not the ASCII sequence 
>> C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n-i-t-y, although 
>> I have not personally met them.
>>
>>  
>>
>> *> **You might read the book by Jean Trouillard or Paul Valadier. You 
>> might change your mind on this, but perhaps you don’t want to change your 
>> mind.*
>>
>>  
>>
>> I don't want to read their books because I see little point in reading a 
>> book written by someone who knows even less about how the world really 
>> works than I do. Life is too short to read every book ever written so one 
>> must use judgement and be selective.
>>
>>  
>>
>>  John K Clark
>>
>> -
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 

Re: Trump Supporters?

[Lawrence Crowell]

We are weavers in the web that we wove. We are victims of this 
technological marvel called the media, which now includes the internet. 
Joseph Goebbels, propaganda minister for the third Reich, said that a lie 
repeated often enough assumes a life as a "sort of truth." The media has 
becomes a crap-fest of nonsense that pumps out half-truths and sometimes 
outright lies. With the massive dollars behind this industry liberality 
based on evidence, facts, and logic is simply drowned out in the huge 
decibel volume against it. Donald t'Rump knows this as much as Goebbels 
did, and t'Rump is a pure grifter and hustler.

LC

On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 9:59:21 AM UTC-5, medinuclear wrote:
>
> [*Philip Benjamin*]  
>
> Trump supporters? That is a phrase inappositely coined by America 
> haters—i.e. the Fascist, Marxist, Socialist, Progressive, Liberal, Humanist 
> PAGANS or *WAMP-the-Ingrate*, who hate the very foundations and founders 
> of this Republic. Over 62 million adults, bona fide American citizens, 
> surely KNEW that this was the last chance for America to be America!! It 
> was a question of now or never. The truth will be out if the present Dept. 
> of Justice has the guts to go ahead with an impartial investigation into 
> the *politico*-*deep state- media* usurpation of the American government 
> at all levels from the City/County and State to the *Non-sovereign 
> Federation of the Sovereign States* of this Constitutional Republic of 
> Lex Rex and not Rex Lex (http://constitution.org/sr/lexrex.htm). See *Lex 
> Rex* of Samuel Rutherford (Presbyterian Minister). Also its high 
> recommendation by the “Prince of Preacher” Spurgeon (Baptist Minister). 
> American Constitution is an extension of various Church Constitutions. The 
> Colonies already had all institutions of Freedom in place after the 
> historical and historic *First Great Awakening*. No other people EVER in 
> the annals of history did or could have ever come up with any such ideas. 
> *The 
> Magna Carta* (*of “We the Nobles*”), the *Mayflower Compact* and the 
> Puritan *Mission Statement to American Indians* come close. Ignorance 
> coupled with willful disrespect for one’s heritage as facilitated on the 
> WAMP-erial campuses is a sure path to victory for 
> Socialist-Marxist-Progressive PAGANISM of the types of Nordic pagan Hitler, 
> Slavic pagan Stalin, Caucasian pagan Mussolini etc., or of the type of 
> Celtic pagan French anarchists. 
> https://www.wnd.com/2019/02/americas-dangerous-historical-ignorance/ 
>   
>
> Compare it wit 
> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ignorance-of-history-is-no-joke/ 
>
> *Philip Benjamin*
>
> *~~*
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com  <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > *On Behalf Of *John Clark
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 1, 2019 8:11 AM
> *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> *Subject:* Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity
>
>  
>
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 3:16 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
>
>  
>
> >> From the Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7 page 792:
> *"The son of **God is **omniscient* *and* *omnipotent** knowing history 
> in advance and being able to control its course**”.*
>
>  
>
> *> **The Pope Jean-Paul 2 made explicit that all statement of that kind 
> are parabola and should never been taken literally.*
>
>  
>
> That's the exact same excuse Trump suporters use when they to try to 
> explain away his many many lies.
>
>  
>
> > *Of course, that is debated by some catholic, bu I have still never met 
> a christian who believe in the anything as naive. *
>
>  
>
> You sure have not met many Christians!  I have never met a Christian who 
> didn't believe something exactly that naive. I concede there are a few that 
> have abandoned the idea of Christianity but not the ASCII sequence 
> C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n-i-t-y, although 
> I have not personally met them.
>
>  
>
> *> **You might read the book by Jean Trouillard or Paul Valadier. You 
> might change your mind on this, but perhaps you don’t want to change your 
> mind.*
>
>  
>
> I don't want to read their books because I see little point in reading a 
> book written by someone who knows even less about how the world really 
> works than I do. Life is too short to read every book ever written so one 
> must use judgement and be selective.
>
>  
>
>  John K Clark
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3hVx%3D2Oogeu3gVY6G%2BOVpP7_KNbDe-QJX9t9OQbd_ZBQ%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.

Re: Trump Supporters?

[John Clark]

I don't understand why Philip Benjamin dislikes the term "Trump suporter"
so much, I don't see why it's fundamentally different from other types of
suporters, like Republican suporters or athletic suporters.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1g%2BOjKuQT3mk6oy4uQqhvooXehVCBbgH38HmnZ_gBerg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Trump Supporters?

[Telmo Menezes]

On Sat, Jun 1, 2019, at 16:59, Philip Benjamin wrote:
> [*Philip Benjamin*] 

> Trump supporters? That is a phrase inappositely coined by America haters—i.e. 
> the Fascist, Marxist, Socialist, Progressive, Liberal, Humanist PAGANS

> 

I went to Wikipedia to look for a definition of "liberal":

*"Liberalism* is a political 
 and moral philosophy 
 based on liberty 
, consent of the governed 
, and equality before 
the law .[1] 
[2] 
[3] 
 Liberals espouse a wide 
array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they 
generally support limited government 
, individual rights 
 
(including civil rights  and human 
rights ), capitalism 
 (free markets 
), democracy 
, secularism 
, gender equality 
, racial equality 
, internationalism 
, freedom of speech 
, freedom of the press 
 and freedom of religion 
."

According to this definition, I am a liberal. If you agree with this 
definition, what is the part of liberalism you oppose? If you disagree with the 
definition, then what am I?

Telmo.

> 
>  or **WAMP-the-Ingrate**, who hate the very foundations and founders of this 
> Republic. Over 62 million adults, bona fide American citizens, surely KNEW 
> that this was the last chance for America to be America!! It was a question 
> of now or never. The truth will be out if the present Dept. of Justice has 
> the guts to go ahead with an impartial investigation into the 
> *politico*-*deep state- media* usurpation of the American government at all 
> levels from the City/County and State to the **Non-sovereign Federation of 
> the Sovereign States** of this Constitutional Republic of Lex Rex and not Rex 
> Lex (http://constitution.org/sr/lexrex.htm). See *Lex Rex* of Samuel 
> Rutherford (Presbyterian Minister). Also its high recommendation by the 
> “Prince of Preacher” Spurgeon (Baptist Minister). American Constitution is an 
> extension of various Church Constitutions. The Colonies already had all 
> institutions of Freedom in place after the historical and historic *First 
> Great Awakening*. No other people EVER in the annals of history did or could 
> have ever come up with any such ideas. *The Magna Carta* (*of “We the 
> Nobles*”), the *Mayflower Compact* and the Puritan **Mission Statement to 
> American Indians** come close. Ignorance coupled with willful disrespect for 
> one’s heritage as facilitated on the WAMP-erial campuses is a sure path to 
> victory for Socialist-Marxist-Progressive PAGANISM of the types of Nordic 
> pagan Hitler, Slavic pagan Stalin, Caucasian pagan Mussolini etc., or of the 
> type of Celtic pagan French anarchists. 
> https://www.wnd.com/2019/02/americas-dangerous-historical-ignorance/ 
> Compare it wit https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ignorance-of-history-is-no-joke/

> *Philip Benjamin*

> *~~*


> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com  
> *On Behalf Of *John Clark
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 1, 2019 8:11 AM
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

> 

> On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 3:16 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> 


>>> >> From the Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7 page 792:
>>> *"The son of **God is **omniscient** **and** **omnipotent** knowing history 
>>> in advance and being able to control its course**”.*

>> 

>> *> **The Pope Jean-Paul 2 made explicit that all statement of that kind are 
>> parabola and should never been taken literally.*

> 

> That's the exact same excuse Trump suporters use when they to try to explain 
> away his many many lies.

> 

>> > *Of course, that is debated by some catholic, bu I have still never met a 
>> > christian who believe in the anything as naive.*

> 

> You sure have not met many Christians! I have never met a Christian who 
> didn't believe something exactly that naive. I concede there are a few that 
> have abandoned the idea of Christianity but not the ASCII sequence 
> 

Re: Trump Supporters?

[John Clark]

On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 10:59 AM Philip Benjamin 
wrote:

> *Trump supporters*?
>

Yes, aka morons. That's why the 5 states with the least educated population
all went for Trump and the 10 states with the highest education all went
for Clinton.


> *>Over 62 million adults, bona fide American citizens, surely KNEW that
> this was the last chance for America to be America!!*


And nearly 66 million adults, bona fide American citizens voted for Hillary
Clinton because they surely KNEW that Trump was a facets; but under our
system the American people don't get to decide who will be president, only
the 538 members of the Electoral College get to decide that. And a
Wyoming voter
(who was probably a Trump supporter) has 66.7 times as much influence over
who go to the Electoral Collage as a California voter (who was probably a
Clinton supporter)


> > *T*hat is a phrase inappositely coined by America haters—i.e. the
> Fascist, Marxist, Socialist, Progressive, Liberal, Humanist PAGANS or
> WAMP-the-Ingrate, who hate the very foundations and founders of this
> Republic. *[...] It was a question of now or never. The truth will be out
> if the present Dept. of Justice has the guts to go ahead with an impartial
> investigation into the politico-deep state- media usurpation of the
> American government at all levels from the City/County and State to the
> Non-sovereign Federation of the Sovereign States of this Constitutional
> Republic of Lex Rex and not Rex Lex (http://constitution.org/sr/lexrex.htm
> ). See Lex Rex of Samuel Rutherford
> (Presbyterian Minister). Also its high recommendation by the “Prince of
> Preacher” Spurgeon (Baptist Minister). American Constitution is an
> extension of various Church Constitutions. The Colonies already had all
> institutions of Freedom in place after the historical and historic First
> Great Awakening. No other people EVER in the annals of history did or could
> have ever come up with any such ideas. The Magna Carta (of “We the
> Nobles”), the Mayflower Compact and the Puritan Mission Statement to
> American Indians come close. Ignorance coupled with willful disrespect for
> one’s heritage as facilitated on the WAMP-erial **campuses is a sure path
> to victory for Socialist-Marxist-Progressive PAGANISM of the types of
> Nordic pagan Hitler, Slavic pagan Stalin, Caucasian pagan Mussolini etc.,
> or of the type of Celtic pagan French anarchists*


No no I'm not laughing at you, I don't think you sound crazy at all. Not at
all. Just put down the gun and let's talk about this calmly.

 John K Clark

>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3C31s7hZSjq_BsoU8%3DUWnAUket8CAXSynCWm5F7PrTqA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 6/1/2019 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
No. The early definition of Earth was a flat surface, and people 
believed this by ostentation.


Now you're just twisting words.  Ostensive definition is by 
pointing.  One can't believe a proposition by ostentation.


Semantic play. If you are right, then we cannot believe that ostensive 
definition makes sense.


Ostensive definitions are semantic.  You point down where you're 
standing and say "Earth"...that's how children learn words.  And having 
defined Earth as that which we stand on we have not believed anything 
about it's overall shape.









Similarly, even Christians have argued that God cannot be omniscient 
and omnipotent when they discovered that those notion were 
inconsistent. The correspondence between cantor and a bishop shows 
that christians can have a conception of God quite similar to the 
neoplatonician one, still in the 19th century. Only atheists defends 
the fairy tale religion, I guess to just mock it.


I got problems with "atheist scientist” which are shocked by the 
vocabulary. For a very long period, the terms which shocked them was 
not God, but “consciousness” or even “mind”. That is because they 
confuse physics and metaphysics, and that is rather natural after 
1500 years of metaphysical brainwashing.


If you have just one evidence for a physically *primitive* reality, 
you can show it to us.


Can you show one evidence for anything being *primitive* reality?


Yes. But you might need to revise some of my papers. If all of S4Grz1, 
Z1* and X1* depart from nature, that would be an evidence that the 
physical reality is primitive.





As you often say in other contexts, belief in a primitive reality is 
a matter of faith…


Belief in any reality different that the consciousness here and now 
require faith. But being primitive or not is theorisable and testable




except more cautious scientists call it an hypothesis, not a leap of 
faith.


There is a subtle difference between faith and hypothesis. It is 
typically the difference between reasoning with the mechanist 
hypothesis (and stating neutral or mute about the personal belief we 
can have or not), and saying “yes” to the doctor in a concrete real 
life situation. Faith is when some aspect of your first person 
experience depends crucially on the truth of an hypothesis. It is the 
difference between jumping from a cliff with an elastic, and just 
assuming the elastic is good enough without jumping.







The ostensive physical reality itself is no more an evidence that 
physics is the fundamental science that the sharable introspection 
would be an evidence that reality is psychological.


You use the word "fundamental" as though it were a sacred 
benediction.  You don't know what is fundamental...or even if 
anything is fundamental.  So you are merely inventing a 
pseuedo-religion of physicalism in order to criticize it and pretend 
you are above it.


?

Fundamental, primitive … means “has to be assumed”.


Then I would say nothing is primitive.  That's the point of my virtuous 
circle.




We believe that he principle X is fundamental or primitive if we 
believe that it cannot be recovered from other principle.


Physicalism assumes that some physical principle have to be assumed to 
get a physical reality, like vitalism assumed that some aspect of life 
cannot be recovered, even in principle,  by another science like 
chemistry or physics.


No.  Physical things don't have to be assumed, they are defined 
ostensively.  It is only the theorizing that hypothesizes principles.




I guess you agree that vitalism is abandoned, and that most scientist 
accept that biology can be reduced to quantum mechanics, even if only 
in principle.


With mechanism, the same occurs for the physical reality. It is 
explain, in principle, by very elementary arithmetic.


When interested in fundamental studies, that is part of the subject: 
what are the simple principles that we have to assume to explain the 
whole picture.


But you've then already assumed there is a hierarchy of explanation.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4d728998-3ac5-5840-4591-422df6d5931f%40verizon.net.

RE: Trump Supporters?

[Philip Benjamin]

[Philip Benjamin]
Trump supporters? That is a phrase inappositely coined by America haters-i.e. 
the Fascist, Marxist, Socialist, Progressive, Liberal, Humanist PAGANS or 
WAMP-the-Ingrate, who hate the very foundations and founders of this Republic. 
Over 62 million adults, bona fide American citizens, surely KNEW that this was 
the last chance for America to be America!! It was a question of now or never. 
The truth will be out if the present Dept. of Justice has the guts to go ahead 
with an impartial investigation into the politico-deep state- media usurpation 
of the American government at all levels from the City/County and State to the 
Non-sovereign Federation of the Sovereign States of this Constitutional 
Republic of Lex Rex and not Rex Lex (http://constitution.org/sr/lexrex.htm). 
See Lex Rex of Samuel Rutherford (Presbyterian Minister). Also its high 
recommendation by the "Prince of Preacher" Spurgeon (Baptist Minister). 
American Constitution is an extension of various Church Constitutions. The 
Colonies already had all institutions of Freedom in place after the historical 
and historic First Great Awakening. No other people EVER in the annals of 
history did or could have ever come up with any such ideas. The Magna Carta (of 
"We the Nobles"), the Mayflower Compact and the Puritan Mission Statement to 
American Indians come close. Ignorance coupled with willful disrespect for 
one's heritage as facilitated on the WAMP-erial campuses is a sure path to 
victory for Socialist-Marxist-Progressive PAGANISM of the types of Nordic pagan 
Hitler, Slavic pagan Stalin, Caucasian pagan Mussolini etc., or of the type of 
Celtic pagan French anarchists. 
https://www.wnd.com/2019/02/americas-dangerous-historical-ignorance/
Compare it wit https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ignorance-of-history-is-no-joke/
Philip Benjamin
~~
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2019 8:11 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 3:16 AM Bruno Marchal 
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:

>> From the Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7 page 792:
"The son of God is omniscient and omnipotent knowing history in advance and 
being able to control its course".

> The Pope Jean-Paul 2 made explicit that all statement of that kind are 
> parabola and should never been taken literally.

That's the exact same excuse Trump suporters use when they to try to explain 
away his many many lies.

> Of course, that is debated by some catholic, bu I have still never met a 
> christian who believe in the anything as naive.

You sure have not met many Christians!  I have never met a Christian who didn't 
believe something exactly that naive. I concede there are a few that have 
abandoned the idea of Christianity but not the ASCII sequence 
C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n-i-t-y, although I have not personally met them.

> You might read the book by Jean Trouillard or Paul Valadier. You might change 
> your mind on this, but perhaps you don't want to change your mind.

I don't want to read their books because I see little point in reading a book 
written by someone who knows even less about how the world really works than I 
do. Life is too short to read every book ever written so one must use judgement 
and be selective.

 John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3hVx%3D2Oogeu3gVY6G%2BOVpP7_KNbDe-QJX9t9OQbd_ZBQ%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/SN6PR17MB2544178919BCFB62B25D0F34A81A0%40SN6PR17MB2544.namprd17.prod.outlook.com.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

[PGC]

On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 9:51:50 AM UTC+2, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 5:30 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
>
>> On 31 May 2019, at 20:50, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>>
>> On 5/31/2019 1:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> No. The early definition of Earth was a flat surface, and people believed 
>> this by ostentation. 
>>
>>
>> Now you're just twisting words.  Ostensive definition is by pointing.  
>> One can't believe a proposition by ostentation.
>>
>>
>> Semantic play. If you are right, then we cannot believe that ostensive 
>> definition makes sense.
>>
>>
>>
>> Fundamental, primitive … means “has to be assumed”.
>>
>> We believe that he principle X is fundamental or primitive if we believe 
>> that it cannot be recovered from other principle.
>>
>> Physicalism assumes that some physical principle have to be assumed to 
>> get a physical reality, like vitalism assumed that some aspect of life 
>> cannot be recovered, even in principle,  by another science like chemistry 
>> or physics.
>>
>> I guess you agree that vitalism is abandoned, and that most scientist 
>> accept that biology can be reduced to quantum mechanics, even if only in 
>> principle. 
>>
>> With mechanism, the same occurs for the physical reality. It is explain, 
>> in principle, by very elementary arithmetic.
>>
>> When interested in fundamental studies, that is part of the subject: what 
>> are the simple principles that we have to assume to explain the whole 
>> picture.
>>
>
> And accepting some set of fundamental principles is just to adopt a 
> hypothesis -- not necessarily an act of faith. Faith, characteristically, 
> enters when we stake our life on something. So your "mechanism" is very 
> much an act of faith, since it requires staking your life on the knowledge 
> and skill of the Dr. But physicalism is not an act of faith, because our 
> life in no way depends on whether we adopt that hypothesis or not.
>
>>
"His mechanism" - you're being way too generous for speculative personal 
mathematical philosophy. As if, merely by manipulating any/every 
conversation towards his bag of rhetorical flourishes, this week "comp", 
next week "mechanism", next week "machines", then "universal numbers", he 
secured a tenable description of the origin of reality. With infinite 
explanations and confessions as to what cannot be explained, while you're 
offered a privileged place in the correction of the history of science, 
right? Consider the discursive attempts to domesticate you, including the 
artificial politeness that never truly listens, learns, or respects peers; 
that would and does defame each and every one of you in the blink of an 
eye, if it could advance its own agenda of aimlessly misguided infinite 
influence. It is our answers that these discourses feed on, that grant them 
legitimacy. In most moderated settings, such posting gets folks kicked out. 
Free lists by all means - but most folks can't defend or handle such 
freedom and the proof is we have perpetual brainwashing of discourse under 
the guise of public education, or social media etc. 

So much intolerance, yes even on this list, and so much liberal 
understanding for it in "open mind" fashion. Too weak, too slow, too 
helpless. 

Take a look at the world around us and all the attempts of 
media/politicians to domesticate the discourses of children that have no 
sense of values, checks and balances, craving juvenile power and influence 
as ends in themselves. Imho we've been way too lenient with the conspiracy 
crowd, with the alternative facts crowds, the religious freaks, their 
constant conspiracy-theory-like victimization discourses that purport to 
explain everything without convincing evidence, which they all find 
explanations for! The foreigners, the other religions, realists, those guys 
over there, the physicalists because...

You can't domesticate animals. Even when they come dressed as polite 
scientists or clean, strong men. They are neither democrats, nor 
scientists. PGC


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/33e1a4c0-71da-4c15-8360-356880f2ba57%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

[John Clark]

On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 3:16 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>> From the Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7 page 792:
>> *"The son of **God is omniscient and omnipotent knowing history in
>> advance and being able to control its course”.*
>
>
> *> The Pope Jean-Paul 2 made explicit that all statement of that kind are
> parabola and should never been taken literally.*
>

That's the exact same excuse Trump suporters use when they to try to
explain away his many many lies.


> > *Of course, that is debated by some catholic, bu I have still never met
> a christian who believe in the anything as naive. *
>

You sure have not met many Christians!  I have never met a Christian who
didn't believe something exactly that naive. I concede there are a few that
have abandoned the idea of Christianity but not the ASCII sequence
C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n-i-t-y, although I have not personally met them.


> *> You might read the book by Jean Trouillard or Paul Valadier. You might
> change your mind on this, but perhaps you don’t want to change your mind.*
>

I don't want to read their books because I see little point in reading a
book written by someone who knows even less about how the world really
works than I do. Life is too short to read every book ever written so one
must use judgement and be selective.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3hVx%3D2Oogeu3gVY6G%2BOVpP7_KNbDe-QJX9t9OQbd_ZBQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Quote by French Mathematician Charles Hermite

[Tomas Pales]

On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 10:06:31 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 31 May 2019, at 22:27, Tomas Pales > 
> wrote:
>
> Existence is just the principle of logical consistency or identity. 
>
>
> Almost. Peano arithmetic is consistent with the proposition that Peano 
> arithmetic is inconsistent. Consistency is shown rather cheap, and far away 
> from Truth, which is the key notion, but of course not a very obvious one. 
>
>
If PA is consistent, it exists. If PA is not consistent, it doesn't exist. 
But since PA is subject to Godel's second incompleteness theorem, we may 
never know, right?
 

Here I disagree. 17 is very concrete. It the successor of 16, which is very 
> concrete, etc. With mechanism, 0, 1, 2, 3, … are taken as the most concrete 
> “really existing” object. The moon, and yourself are extremely abstract 
> type, having only phenomenological existence.
>

This is what I mean by "abstract" and "concrete":

abstract: has instances/examples (is a property)

concrete: has no instances/examples (is not a property)

Number 17 has instances/examples in any collection of 17 objects (is a 
property of any collection of 17 objects). Therefore number 17 is an 
abstract object.

Our moon has no instances/examples (is not a property of any object, just 
as Bruno Marchal is not a property of any object). Therefore our moon is a 
concrete object.







-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to everyth...@googlegroups.com .
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2470590b-373e-4595-970c-40409ee19907%40googlegroups.com
 

.


>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/30ae74e7-66d0-47f9-baa2-230001d10843%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 3:11:50 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 31 May 2019, at 14:13, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
> But you just said in another post that you are familiar with Roger Penrose 
> writing about non-computational phenomena. How do you reconcile 
> non-computational phenomena with computationalism ?
>
>
> Despite his non valid use of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, Penrose is 
> coherent with my reasoning. He believes in primitive matter and reject 
> mechanism. I keep mechanism and reject materialism. My simpler result 
> staring the whole thing is that Mechanism and Materialism are incompatible.
>
> We have NOT MAT v NOT MEC,
>
> Equivalently, we have 
>
> MEC -> NOT MAT,
>
> and
>
> MAT -> NOT MEC
>
> Bruno 
>
>

 Materialism = (Quantum)Mechanism+Experientialism 

(or just *Experiential Mechanism*)


*Husserl Revisited: The Forgotten Distinction Between Psychology and 
Phenomenology *
Jerry L. Jennings 
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jerry_Jennings/publication/232418268_Husserl_Revisited_The_Forgotten_Distinction_Between_Psychology_and_Phenomenology/links/568d706408aeaa1481ae545d/Husserl-Revisited-The-Forgotten-Distinction-Between-Psychology-and-Phenomenology.pdf?origin=publication_detail

Husserl condemned the philosophy which equates experience with physical 
events. Basically, the forgotten distinction between phenomenology and 
psychology is that the former analyzes the essential character of various 
types of conscious acts, whereas the latter studies the empirical contents 
of actual subjective experiences corresponding to
actual existent environmental events.

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6aafab6d-cacc-44cb-8009-7da0d324d95d%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 31 May 2019, at 14:13, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> But you just said in another post that you are familiar with Roger Penrose 
> writing about non-computational phenomena. How do you reconcile 
> non-computational phenomena with computationalism ?

Despite his non valid use of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, Penrose is 
coherent with my reasoning. He believes in primitive matter and reject 
mechanism. I keep mechanism and reject materialism. My simpler result staring 
the whole thing is that Mechanism and Materialism are incompatible.

We have NOT MAT v NOT MEC,

Equivalently, we have 

MEC -> NOT MAT,

and

MAT -> NOT MEC

Bruno 



> 
> On Friday, 31 May 2019 14:41:58 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> I have used the term “computationalism” during many years.
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3e3d714e-8c49-4b73-8cc0-7f79e4a84e95%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/E61092E5-CA8F-459A-BAFE-476CC2437866%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Quote by French Mathematician Charles Hermite

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 31 May 2019, at 22:27, Tomas Pales  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 11:04:53 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 30 May 2019, at 14:50, Tomas Pales > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> In philosophy, the relation between abstract and concrete objects is called 
>> "instantiation", for example between the abstract triangle and concrete 
>> triangles.
> 
> In philosophy base on the assumption that there is a primitively Aristotelian 
> reality.
> 
> Note that in math, an instantiation is when you replace a variable by a 
> “concrete” number.
>  
> Yes. I didn't want to make my point about the instantiation relation too long 
> but there is a hierarchy of abstract objects from the most abstract to the 
> least abstract and under them are concrete objects. For example, 
> "mathematical object" is instantiated in "number", which is instantiated in a 
> specific number, for example in number 2, which is instantiated in the 
> concrete relation between two concrete flowers. Concrete objects are the 
> bottom of instantiation because concrete objects have no instances. Number 2 
> is instantiated in the relation between any two objects, or abstract flower 
> is instantiated in any concrete flower, but a concrete flower has no 
> instances; it cannot be said that the flower that is growing under my window 
> is a property of something else.
> 
> An interesting question is whether there are abstract objects that never 
> bottom out in concrete objects. Similarly like for the composition relation 
> where you have a collection of collections of collections etc. ad infinitum, 
> never bottoming out in empty collections. But I guess these infinite chains 
> are subject to Godel's second incompleteness theorem so we may never know 
> whether they are consistent and thus whether they exist.

Keep in mind that the consistent machine is able to prove its own Gödel 
theorem. That is why the ontology will admit bottom and be well-founded, but 
the non-bottom aspect of reality will be unavoidable in the first person 
perspective, somehow.




> 
> As for the most abstract object, I would say it is "existence" because it is 
> instantiated in every object, including in itself.

Hmm… That makes sense, perhaps, in rich ontologies à la NF (Quine’s New 
Foundation), where the universe (of sets) can be a set. Something similar can 
be emulated in ZF using anti-foundation axioms, but I avoid them, for technical 
reason, and because it could only be a variation of simpler things occurring in 
the phenomenology. With mechanism, the ontology os well-founded.



> Existence is just the principle of logical consistency or identity.

Almost. Peano arithmetic is consistent with the proposition that Peano 
arithmetic is inconsistent. Consistency is shown rather cheap, and far away 
from Truth, which is the key notion, but of course not a very obvious one. 




> Inconsistent objects don't exist because they are not even objects. What kind 
> of object is a "triangle that is not a triangle"? It's nothing. As you said, 
> the set of inconsistent objects is empty.
> 
> 
> The number 17 is, for a mechanist, more concrete than the moon, which only 
> seems concrete because the brain is programmed to make us feel that way.
> 
> Number 17 is the property of the relation among any 17 objects. The moon 
> orbiting our planet is not a property of anything. Therefore number 17 is an 
> abstract object and the moon is a concrete object.

Here I disagree. 17 is very concrete. It the successor of 16, which is very 
concrete, etc. With mechanism, 0, 1, 2, 3, … are taken as the most concrete 
“really existing” object. The moon, and yourself are extremely abstract type, 
having only phenomenological existence. There are reason why it needs to be 
like that, but I will refer, at least now, to my papers for the why. (I will 
have to go soon). To be continued …

Bruno




> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2470590b-373e-4595-970c-40409ee19907%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/10209D29-A97A-4EEC-8D0F-F69A80CE31E7%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Quote by French Mathematician Charles Hermite

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 31 May 2019, at 21:12, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/31/2019 2:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> I suppose for those who think that matter doesn't exist,
>> 
>> Nobody says that matter does not exist. That would be denying simple facts. 
>> The point is that matter has phenomenological existence.
>> 
>> I thing we should never use the term ‘exist” without making precise if we 
>> talk about ontological existence, or phenomenological existence.
> 
> Right.  And that of course also applies to "non-existence".  And ontologies 
> are theory dependent.  To often the theory is assumed implicitly and "exist" 
> is use equivocally.
> 
>> With mechanism there are eight important different notion of 
>> phenomenological existence, and one simple notion of ontological existence 
>> valid only for numbers.
>> 
> And that "ontological existence" is in the context of the theory of countable 
> things, i.e. the natural numbers.

OK. And with mechanism, the point is that we cannot assume more than the 
natural numbers in the ontology. The non countable things will comes in the 
first person perspective through the non recursively countable, and limits.

I am just illustrating this to my student, by showing that “simple” 
arithmetical relation can only be proved by doing a transfinite induction up to 
epsilon-zero, and unavoidable by even a theory as rich as PA. I use Goodstein's 
sequences. May be I can say more on this one day, but people should study a bit 
of mathematical logic.

Bruno 



> 
> Brent
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2070fcb6-6a80-852f-2f14-a7211be945da%40verizon.net.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/63DC8B60-589E-46F5-91DD-1E3470CEDBFD%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

[Bruce Kellett]

On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 5:30 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> On 31 May 2019, at 20:50, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/31/2019 1:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> No. The early definition of Earth was a flat surface, and people believed
> this by ostentation.
>
>
> Now you're just twisting words.  Ostensive definition is by pointing.  One
> can't believe a proposition by ostentation.
>
>
> Semantic play. If you are right, then we cannot believe that ostensive
> definition makes sense.
>
>
>
> Fundamental, primitive … means “has to be assumed”.
>
> We believe that he principle X is fundamental or primitive if we believe
> that it cannot be recovered from other principle.
>
> Physicalism assumes that some physical principle have to be assumed to get
> a physical reality, like vitalism assumed that some aspect of life cannot
> be recovered, even in principle,  by another science like chemistry or
> physics.
>
> I guess you agree that vitalism is abandoned, and that most scientist
> accept that biology can be reduced to quantum mechanics, even if only in
> principle.
>
> With mechanism, the same occurs for the physical reality. It is explain,
> in principle, by very elementary arithmetic.
>
> When interested in fundamental studies, that is part of the subject: what
> are the simple principles that we have to assume to explain the whole
> picture.
>

And accepting some set of fundamental principles is just to adopt a
hypothesis -- not necessarily an act of faith. Faith, characteristically,
enters when we stake our life on something. So your "mechanism" is very
much an act of faith, since it requires staking your life on the knowledge
and skill of the Dr. But physicalism is not an act of faith, because our
life in no way depends on whether we adopt that hypothesis or not.

Bruce

Bruno
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRCm4MRxbrhGXw1f%2BdTQWQ%2B%3D-ry8Pbk6%3DG81SNNpBTiyQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 31 May 2019, at 21:03, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/31/2019 1:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 30 May 2019, at 19:48, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>>  
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 5/30/2019 12:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 Mathematicians homogeninize the concept. Even strong atheism is a theology 
 as it claims that “there is no God”, which is a theological proposition.
>>> That is a misrepresentation of atheism.  Atheists claim "there is no reason 
>>> believe there is a God”.
>> Yes, but they believe only in the post 529 Aristotelian-Christian notion of 
>> God.
> 
> As Bertrand Russell noted, there is no fixed meaning to "God”.

That is a good point.



>   It is a notion appropriated by every ideology to provide unquestionable 
> support.

That does not follow. Politics can appropriate genetic, or even health. But 
then it is politics and no more science. When doing science, all support 
becomes questionable. To let theology in the hand of politics, is to defend the 
idea that there are unquestionable support.




> 
>>  
>> 
>> Then I am atheist too.
>> 
>> But if you read the “Element of Theology” by Proclus, you can see that 
>> during a millenium, theology was a branch of scientific research. And I use 
>> “god” in that original sense.
> 
> And what science did Proclus produce?  The efficacy of magic rituals?

Of course not. If you read Proclus, you will see only definition, and 
reasoning. There is no magic, nor rituals, nor anything like that. 

Indeed, the discourse of the neoplatonist is quasi-isomorphic to what you get 
from the Gödel-Möb-Solovay self-reference logic. It is normal, the neoplatonist 
reason about themselves, and if they are consistent machine, they get the same 
thing than any machine can find by reasoning from introspective data.


> 
> Theurgy is possible because the powers of the gods (the henads) extend 
> through their series of causation even down to the material world. And by 
> certain power-laden words, acts, and objects, the soul can be drawn back up 
> the series, so to speak. Proclus himself was a devotee of many of the 
> religions in Athens, considering that the power of the gods could be present 
> in these various approaches.

It was the influence of Porphyry and the christians. Plotinus fight this, 
Prophyry was more neutral, (he wrote a treatise entitled “Against The 
Christians”, but when Proclus defended this, but it was a way to attract the 
christians which were more and more successful at his time. Then the sentence 
above actually makes sense in the Mechanist frame. The henads are the i in the 
phi_i. They are the machines. Th series of causation is the notion of 
computation, and that extend indeed “even down the material world” as that is 
why we have physical computers. The soul (the first person) van drawn back the 
series (that is get the universal notion of computation). Then, Proclus indeed 
expect God (truth) and gods (concepts) capable of being usefully transmitted to 
non intellectual, illiterate people with the help of theurgy (a point of 
contention and debate all along neoplatonism. I am myself reflecting on this 
since long (and my standard concussion, coming from Alan Watts, is that this 
works as long as the “priest” is able to blink, and not taking him/herself too 
much seriously.

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
>> 
>> With that definition, atheism does no more make sense or become a form of 
>> nihilism or irrationalism, as God is defined by whatever is the reason why 
>> we are here and now, and that we search. 
>> 
>> Now, I have decided to stop using the nuance “agnostic atheism” and “non 
>> agnostic atheism”, and use instead agnosticism and atheism instead, as all 
>> self)called atheist I ahem met believes in physicalism, consciously or not, 
>> and most of them even believe that God des not exist, which is far different 
>> that not believing in God.
>> 
>> 
>>> Brent
>>> "Atheism is a belief system the way "Off" is a TV channel."
>>> --- George Carlin
>> That is what they claim in theory, but in practice that is not the case, 
>> given that they fight on all theologies, not just the christian one. They 
>> dismiss a millenium of progress in the filed (read Proclus!) and they defend 
>> exactly the same metaphysics than christians. Atheism is, in absolute value, 
>> the same as christianism, but in a radical form.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>>> .
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/905612f9-db1d-8dca-2cf8-6b5b8e8011de%40verizon.net
>>>  
>>> 

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruce Kellett]

On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 5:08 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> On 31 May 2019, at 20:40, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/31/2019 12:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Theology has asked all problems which led to science.
>
>
> Nonsense.  The earliest known science was from the school of Thales of
> Miletus.  Thales rejected all explanation in terms of spirits, demons, and
> gods.  This was already contrary to the theology of the time.
>
>
> Contrary to popular religion and myth, but that is what Plato and
> especially the followers will “cure”, even “Aristotle”. That is the origin
> of science, including for a millenium theology.
>

You do talk a lot of unmitigated nonsense, Bruno.

Bruce


>
> Bruno
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQZq6R6Sg475K7w29PteB6TNBZGDArgQD%3DRsTmPTNU4Fg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 31 May 2019, at 20:50, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/31/2019 1:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 30 May 2019, at 19:43, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 5/29/2019 11:47 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 Only atheists insist to use “God” in the sense of the Christian (and only 
 Aristotelian among them, where indeed materialism has been *the* dogma).
>>> 
>>> Words are for communication and so their meaning is determined by their 
>>> usage.   "God" in the sense of Christians is also God in the sense of 
>>> Muslims and Hindus.  So it is the usage of at least 70% of humanity.  To 
>>> use it to mean something else is obfuscation.
>> 
>> 
>> Then mathematics and science is obfuscation 100% of the time.
>> 
>> In science we don’t do vocabulary discussion. If you want call god “Arthur” 
>> or “Josephine”, just do it.
>> 
>> Then what you say does not make sense. Jews, Christians, and Muslims, have 
>> always been divided between the Aristotelian conception of God and Matter 
>> and the Platonist conception of God and matter, which are totally different. 
>> The Platonic conception is not well represented because Christians and 
>> Muslims have stolen theology from science to make it into an instrument of 
>> power, and have forced the Platonicians to exil, when they have not killed 
>> them.
>> 
>> I think you want to please me by illustration how much atheists defend the 
>> Aristotelian Christian and Muslims materialist metaphysics. 
>> 
>> The God/Non-God debate looks exactly like a fake debate to make us forget 
>> that the original metaphysical question was about the fundamental existence 
>> of a primitive physical universe. The question took the form of what is more 
>> fundamental among mathematics and physics later.
>> 
>> I am the atheist or agnostic here: I do not believe in your God Matter. I 
>> found no evidence. My whole work show how we can test mechanism/materialism, 
>> and the test shows that Nature confirms Platonism.
>> 
>> I will change my mind if the physics which is in the mind of all universal 
>> machine differ from nature, but up to now, the evidences are that they fit. 
>> There is no evidence for materialism. None. It is speculating on some god to 
>> avoid science.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
 You confirm, like many, that  the atheists "are like slaves who are still 
 feeling the weight of their chain which they have thrown off after hard 
 struggle”, to quote Einstein.
 
 
 
> and it meant a supernatural human-like agent: Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah 
> Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, 
> Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, 
> Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, 
> Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, 
> Brigit,...Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, 
> Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, 
> Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, 
> Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, 
> Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil or Zeus?
 I will ask you to use the word “Earth” for a Flat object on which the 
 human stand up.
>>> 
>>> An attempted analogy that does not work.  Unlike "god", we can define Earth 
>>> ostensively and so learn that it has different properties, like being 
>>> spheroidal, without changing the definition.
>> 
>> No. The early definition of Earth was a flat surface, and people believed 
>> this by ostentation.
> 
> Now you're just twisting words.  Ostensive definition is by pointing.  One 
> can't believe a proposition by ostentation.

Semantic play. If you are right, then we cannot believe that ostensive 
definition makes sense.



> 
>> Similarly, even Christians have argued that God cannot be omniscient and 
>> omnipotent when they discovered that those notion were inconsistent. The 
>> correspondence between cantor and a bishop shows that christians can have a 
>> conception of God quite similar to the neoplatonician one, still in the 19th 
>> century. Only atheists defends the fairy tale religion, I guess to just mock 
>> it.
>> 
>> I got problems with "atheist scientist” which are shocked by the vocabulary. 
>> For a very long period, the terms which shocked them was not God, but 
>> “consciousness” or even “mind”. That is because they confuse physics and 
>> metaphysics, and that is rather natural after 1500 years of metaphysical 
>> brainwashing.
>> 
>> If you have just one evidence for a physically *primitive* reality, you can 
>> show it to us.
> 
> Can you show one evidence for anything being *primitive* reality? 

Yes. But you might need to revise some of my papers. If all of S4Grz1, Z1* and 
X1* depart from nature, that would 

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 31 May 2019, at 18:12, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 4:44 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> >  if you read the “Element of Theology” by Proclus...
> 
> ... then the time you spend doing that would be time you're not reading a 
> book written by an author who, unlike Proclus, *did* know where the sun went 
> at night.

Penrose said gross stupidity on Gödel’s theorem, but that does not make its 
spin networks and all its contribution if physics less interesting.

Yes, in physics, both Aristotle and Plotinus, and Proclus, have regressed, with 
respect to Erathostene, for example, but here we discuss theology, where you 
seem to have regressed to literal christianism.




> 
> > even Christians have argued that God cannot be omniscient and omnipotent 
> > when they discovered that those notion were inconsistent.
> 
> From the Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7 page 792:
> 
> "The son of God is omniscient and omnipotent knowing history in advance and 
> being able to control its course”.

The Pope Jean-Paul 2 made explicit that all statement of that kind are parabola 
and should never been taken literally. Of course, that is debated by some 
catholic, bu I have still never met a christian who believe in the anything as 
naive. You might read the book by Jean Trouillard or Paul Valadier. You might 
change your mind on this, but perhaps you don’t want to change your mind.

Bruno 



> 
> John K Clark
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2hrdsgiQ2u0erPkZnA6-XHdzpYj7GHxf%3DC-a847g4yvQ%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/E33AD7D6-9397-4E16-BA9D-A0B118FE7AD0%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 31 May 2019, at 17:52, Samiya Illias  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 31-May-2019, at 4:34 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>> 
>> Samiya. I am still not sure what was the point of your post, but thanks for 
>> the information.
>> 
> It was a response to Philip Benjamin’s post. 

I saw that.But each response is addressed to everybody.  Hmm… my remark still 
apply but I will not insist. 
I suspected something interesting, but you make me doubt, to be honest,

Bruno


> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/A86FA1BA-5BA5-4721-A7E2-5A573201038D%40gmail.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/77D8EC79-935A-488E-8DFC-3A9A376634D7%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 31 May 2019, at 20:40, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/31/2019 12:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 30 May 2019, at 18:58, John Clark >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 3:12 AM Bruno Marchal >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> >
>>> 
>>>   !
>>> 
>>> > But science has not found any solution here.
>>> 
>>> It's true Science has not found a solution to every problem, but theology 
>>> not found a solution to ANY problem.
>> 
>> Theology has asked all problems which led to science.
> 
> Nonsense.  The earliest known science was from the school of Thales of 
> Miletus.  Thales rejected all explanation in terms of spirits, demons, and 
> gods.  This was already contrary to the theology of the time.

Contrary to popular religion and myth, but that is what Plato and especially 
the followers will “cure”, even “Aristotle”. That is the origin of science, 
including for a millenium theology. 

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
>> You are still confusing theology (the greek science from which both math and 
>> physics, and mathematical logic, are born) and the rigid pseudo-theology of 
>> the institutionalised religion who have created a fairy tale theology (the 
>> opium of the people) to steal our money and to control us.
>> You are helping the charlatan by spreading their lies. By definition, God 
>> exists (because its original definition is what is real), the debate is on 
>> the nature of God. Is it a thing like the tao, or like a physical universe, 
>> or is it a mathematical structure, or a person, or something else, etc.
>> 
>> People who claim that God does not exist are those taking their “god” (in 
>> that general sense) for granted? Usually they take some primitively physical 
>> reality as granted, but, as I have explained this makes non sense once we 
>> assume digital mechanism.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> > Why atheists are so “religious” in metaphysics still astonishes me.
>>> 
>>> Why you think that lame insult will still be efective even after you've 
>>> repeated it verbatim 6.02*10^23 times over the last decade astonishes me.
>>> 
>>> John K Clark
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>>> .
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3mZypaDzSNisRvDGg%2B0aQ2G2mgbEpUnsqMMut5Mibs-A%40mail.gmail.com
>>>  
>>> .
>> 
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/30BF631F-53E6-45A8-A19F-391602501A8A%40ulb.ac.be
>>  
>> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f2a8cec2-b333-90fa-561b-79a9ed71acbc%40verizon.net
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8DCDFAE5-60F4-4F2F-9F71-7A4AE4A83903%40ulb.ac.be.