Archive for September, 2014

ICANN and Internet confusion, domain names and monopolies

September 28, 2014

Trutherator: “You could also say that Microsoft didn’t ‘muscle out’ any competing software applications, but we can understanding rejecting such ‘technical’ (picayune) points. They did it by using their entrenched de facto position.”

SC: I take it you support competition law, then.

Trutherator: What I do support is competition in a genuine free market.

I do NOT support “competition law”, I support competition. There is a BIG difference, because “competition law” does not respect true competition. It is decreed by kings in monarchies or in true republics, it would be created by legislators, enforced by executives, and each case decided by judges.

It’s like Ron Paul said about so-called “free trade agreements”. They have nothing to do with free trade, and everything to do with managed trade. It is only international commerce regulation.

Free trade would mean elimating all tarrifs. It would take four lines of legislation, and a lot less customs personnel.

+=============================+

SC: ICANN is a non-profit “recognized” by California law.

Trutherator: The more proper word is “created by” the state of California, with the intention of deciding the rules for DNS. This inescapable fact has justified the occasional demands that the UN take over the function.

SC:True enough, The same thing can be said about property, too. Also, your use of “state” is slightly off. A state is a sovereign political entity. A state has a government. Just as there are different forms of government, there are also different types of states. The United States and Russia, for example, are both federal states. China, on the other hand, is a unitary state. The European Union exists in its own sort of category.

Trutherator: First, the same thing cannot possibly be applied to property. This is another example of the confusion in the minds of people that are taught that without government there is no concept of “property”. No, government arose historically when big bad guys conquered their neighbors and started issuing decrees involving property. Ludwig von Mises’ books, “Human Action” and “Socialism”, are resources that clarify the origins and definitions of “property”.

ICAAN, on the other hand, would not exist without a decree from the state of California. It is a rule-making body that controls the DNS.

+==============================+

Trutherator: “In the real world, though, one of the reasons that ICANN began adding new top-level domains when it did (‘info’, ‘biz’, and others), was precisely to cut out the free market attempts to alternatives that were already providing DNS indexes with those precise suffixes.”

SC: No. Just no. The domain name system has nothing to do with the market. Totally different context. Domain names are a type of property.

Trutherator: Of course I understand that the “domain name system has nothing to do with the market”! That is the problem I am talking about! And that is why when you go to the ronpaul.com domain name, you get a group of people whose only claim to it is that they laid claim first to the name for their own purposes and claimed that they were using their profits to advance Ron Paul’s campaign.

In a true free market inter-networking system one may claim it would end up in a similar situation, but one may not claim to know how it would.

The concept of “domain names” is viewed as property in the context of how the Internet grew and I can understand how this can cause confusion. Within my company’s network, internally, we can name our nodes (individual computers) however we want, and we can network them however we want.

IBM formerly used token-ring methodology to link systems, and I suppose it may well still be used lots of places, for example.

But now IP dominates both within company intranetworks and now, out-facing, meaning, Internet, and the address protocol. Domain names are simply “address books” where you look up a name, a “domain name”, and it gives you the “IP address” or “Internet Protocol address”.

I expanded a bit on the detail for the sake of readers that may not know it.

The domain names by which we all know how to get to web sites or send email, are controlled right now by an organization created by the state of California. Its behavior has been acceptable in general so far, but we know two things that make this arrangement rife with danger for the purported aims.

One, state law and federal law can conceivably begin encroaching;

Two, the deciding members can change;

Three, it is vulnerable to the whims of international intrigues and backroom deals and political shenanigans;

+==============================+

SC: You seem to believe property can only be tangible, but this is not the case. Debt is a type of intangible property. As are stocks, spectrum rights, bonds, and copyrights.

Trutherator: The concept of “property”, unfortunately, that we grew up with has been conflated with “whatever government says it is”.

The best parsing out of the whole concept of “property” that I have seen is explained in Ludwig von Mises’ book, “Socialism”, available as a downloadable pdf without charge at the following link:
https://mises.org/books/socialism.pdf

I would recommend it for those who at least would like to understand how libertarians regard the word and concept “property”, as in the real world and not one decreed by the whims of politicians and people who run governments.

Legitimate “debt” is something that comes from voluntary agreements between two or more persons. One may not impose a legitimate “debt” upon another without his agreement. Such a “debt” is extortion, and if it is “collected”, it is pure theft.

That is why the income tax is theft write massively large. Its “necessity” is imposed. I do not consent. But it is extorted. I did not agree to any social contract.

“Copyright” is a government grant of monopoly and censorship that I never agreed to. It is a completely arbitrary extortion scheme in essence. There is no easy “natural” way to define it. That’s why we have the legal brambles in case law on it. “Fair use”, for example, has a great big blurry definition. Obvious exceptions to make it workable were made for “fair use”.

So “look and feel” is supposed to be copyrightable, but the courts made an obvious exception when they ruled against Apple over the “look and feel” of the first
Windows “operating system”, which was really just DOS, with a wrapper that was meant to emulate the Mac’s “look and feel”.

Now, as a developer, somebody can come along and write the obvious optimal algorithm to solve a computing task, but if I already put a copyright on it, I can force him to fork over some of the fruits of his intellectual labor even though he used none of mine.

A believer in a free market should regard copyright laws and patent laws as grants of monopoly power by governments, and anti-competitive.

BIG DIFFERENCE DISCLAIMER HERE TO AVOID MISUNDERSTANDING (Caps to emphasize the point and to aid in focus): I am a strong believer in giving credit where credit is due. That’s why I prefer a free market in information, which would most likely resolve the issues that copyright and patents are supposed to address and do so poorly with. It would surely take care of the “trademark” concept too.

+==============================+

Trutherator: “The creators of the United Nations have claimed a monopoly on its ‘functionality’.”

SC: That still doesn’t make it a monopoly. You’re using that word in a strange way. Nevertheless, there are still other international organizations like the ICC, NATO, and others.

Trutherator: NATO is a UN-chartered organization, something never mentioned in most news and information sources.

The ICC established the UN-deference relationship when it “gave” the United Nations the power to expand its own venue. The UN is probably mentioned in its charter as well.

+==============================+

Trutherator: “This would be in the interest of a power-hungry clique of already powerful elites, not at all for the rest of us.”

SC: This is kind of ironic given accusations like this are made against libertarianism.

Trutherator: So what? Ad hominems and ironies are useless in parsing the issues here, and you are more intellectually honest than that heretofore.

We’ve heard this song before

September 28, 2014

Fool me once, shame on me.
Fool me twice, shame on you.
Fool me over and over and over again, ENOUGH ALREADY!

Cubs or White Sox? Miami Dolphins or Dallas Cowboys? Cleveland Cavaliers or Miami Heat? Them or Us? Your side or mine? Hatfields or McCoys?

Is it worth it to die for the same people that created al Qaeda, ISIS, Vietnam, and corrupted General Electric into a monster sucking on the tax teat extortion racket?

Lockheed or Boeing?

Barry McGuire sang Eve of Destruction and sure, back then, people didn’t believe we were on the eve of destruction, but today that’s what they keep telling us so we’ll let out more war whoops:

What is war good for?

Fundamentalism, extremism, violence: three very different things

September 20, 2014

Note the subtle Newspeak dictionary push on these two terms, oft appearing in posts by some atheists: “using the term fundamentalist when he really means extremist”. And the phrase “ALL religious fanaticism”.

Remember, Newspeak was the 1984 Orwellian Big-Brother idea of changing their subjects’ thinking by narrowing their language.

From www.merriam-webster.com

Fundamentalism:

1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching
b : the beliefs of this movement
c : adherence to such beliefs

2: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles <Islamic fundamentalism> <political fundamentalism>

Anyone can be “extremist” in what they believe. Walter Block, Rothbard’s most prominent disciple, is an “extremist” in applying the *fundamental* principle of non-aggression to every social interaction. Property owners have the right to shoot trespassers dead for the mere act of trespassing, even if the trespass is to prevent death by starvation. He says you have no obligation, based on the NAP, to save the life a guy clinging to your balcony on the 30th floor.

(Having seen him speak by Skype at a meeting once I think he would try to save the clinging guy and would probably not shoot such a trespasser, but agree that the NAP imposes no such obligation (even though God does for his believers).

What is happening here is the push of a meme that tries to equate these three concepts when it is applied to “religion”, but to try to keep it separate at all costs from the religion of “philosophical materialism” (which is philosophically equivalent to the application of so-called “atheism”).

The anti-God, anti-Christian meme tries to conflate three very different, and incompatible, concepts into one:

#1- fundamentalism
#2- extremism
#3- violence, especially when the violence is brutal

Fundamentalism was a term coined in mid-20th century for some Evangelical Christians that emphasized returning to Biblical “fundamentals”, such as a belief in the straightforward narrative of the Bible, the “Trinity” (“these three are one”), expiatory salvation, the Resurrection, and so on).

Extremism derives of course from “extreme”, as in taking one’s beliefs to an extreme. But this is not always bad. The sort-of libertarian-leaning Barry Goldwater once said, ” I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” Walter Block is “extreme” in the application of the non-aggression principle: no exceptions. Atheists are not immune to having their own versions, of course, because they are people too. Ayn Rand is an example. In John Galt’s famous interminable speech in which he took forcible possession of every private and public network to broadcast his speech, Ayn Rand took her extremism to the maximum in condemning God as if he forced anybody to do anything. But not just any God, but the Biblical God.

Then there is the violence. Probably most pagan religions have, or had before Christian and Western influences, were very violent. The Aztecs and many Mayans and the Incas when the Spanish arrived, the Arawaks had eliminated the previous tribes from Hispaniola generations before Columbus, and many North American tribes were warrior cultures. Charles Darwin once wrote a rebuke to those who would condemn missionaries as evil, reminding them that at that time world travelers were always relieved to see a church steeple on a remote island, when they found themselves having to port at the island. That way they knew they would EAT dinner instead of BE dinner.

The story of Abraham and Isaac (the sacrifice) is one that is more a protest against the child sacrifice and infant sacrifice of those days. The Canaanites were Baal worshippers, and Baal required human sacrifice. Molech was another.

“The End of the Sword” is a book-based movie about the missionaries who eventually won over the Huaorani. That was a tribe in Ecuador that took itself close to ethnic suicide with all the violence. God listed the ubiquitous violence as one reason for the Flood.

I do not regard Walter Block, who is atheist, as anti-Christian. In fact he has proclaimed an enthusiastic welcome among libertarians among their numbers. He has even gone farther than that; he has said that there are two institutions of culture that are the strongest cross-generational defenses against totalitarianism and all state institutions, all other things being equal of course.

To say that Mother Theresa’s extreme Catholicism, or the Amish Protestant extremism, is as dangerous as the Inquisitors’ or of the power-seeking Jesuits is preposterous. And to equate it on a danger scale with the public beheadings of journalists or of adulteresses in Saudi Arabia is simply put, outrageous. It is not only ignorant; it is willfully ignorant.

Equating them all is like following Janet Napolitano’s enemies list. This is the one biggest gap in Ayn Rand’s NON-reasoning, and it is a fatal flaw.

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, – Luke 4:18

<Tags: religion, Bible, infant sacrifice, atheism, anti-Christians, extremism, fundamentalism, Mother Theresa, Amish, Jesuits, Huorani, The End of the Spear, Barry Godlwater, Walter Block, Murray Rothbard, libertarianism, non-aggression principle>

The “Protectors of National Security” want to protect us from our liberty

September 20, 2014

Remember the scene with the new (Democrat Party) Missouri-governor-appointed police chief in Ferguson, Missouri, where he was walking with the protestors?

Remember the sign somebody was carrying in the background among the marchers that said “ISIS is here”?

That has the smell of a psy-war operation piece meant to fit with the rest of the beating war drums, as in “Be afraid, be very afraid (of ISIS)” mostly meant for the unthinking gullible as a prod under the conscious level.

When you hear “big [bigger, biggest] threat to national security”, reach for your wallet, your Tenth Amendment, and your Second Amendment to protect yourself against the “protectors” of national security, the politicians who keep on saying they will “protect” you, just give up a little bit of liberty for your security.

Perspectives on the ISIS “threat”

September 20, 2014

There is a spectrum of Americans on the issue, but mine is the Biblical-Christian perspective. Listen to this bitter blast against McCain for helping the monsters that killed her sister in Syria:

I met an Egyptian Christian woman in Nashville that lost a brother-in-law to the Muslim Brotherhood killings in Egypt. The second I heard who she was I said, “I’ll be praying for you”.

People who understand and empathize with the persecuted minorities in those areas will tell you that American troops have only made things worse for the people who are the best hope for them.

Even so, Christians are popping up everywhere under the radar, unreported, and suppressed where the bad guys can find them. Like Paul said in the epistles, “We can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth”.

USSAG (USSA government) intervention in the Middle East has unleashed a brutal slaughter of Christians, without exaggeration. The most effective forces that kept a lid on the wilder ones, and that were a shield for the Christians, have been effectively removed, with few exceptions. Saddam, the Iranian imams, Gaddafi, Mubarak, these were protective of Christians and Christianity within their borders. Members of the oldest continuous Christian community from Biblical times (Antioch and Nineveh) had representation in Iraq at cabinet level.

The “ISIS threat” is a Take Two of the “al Qaeda threat”. We’ve been there, done that. The Bush-Obama foreign policy is the same interventionism and aggressive attacks against phantom threats that become real through USG support and clandestine action too.

“Clandestine action” like CIA-led training for ISIS “militants” in Jordan. The CIA cannot see what everybody in the entire world can see if they look, that USG aid has pumped up ISIS –with Saudi and other Arab money– and that the USG has been actively arming them in Syria. IF the CIA cannot see it, then they prove that old military joke, “Good enough for government work”. If the CIA can see it, then the monarch-president we have is becoming even more blatant.

More and more Christians are standing up for peace, and effective deterrence. There are SIX TIMES more private security personnel in the US than there are official ones, because private concerns (and homes) cannot count on police authority to prevent bad guys. A blatantly unconstitutional day-long lockdown across an entire town in Boston and a forcible house-to-house search, was not able to find the one “terrorist”, but it only took ONE private citizen released from this “house arrest” FIFTEEN MINUTES to find the bad guy.

The Problem is attacks on Christian Fundamentalism by Atheists and Christians

September 18, 2014

The problem is shown here in the title of the post on this blog is “The Problem Isn’t Islam … It’s ALL Religious Fundamentalism”, and the content reflects the ignorance in the title.

The author quotes a “religion historian”, who the quotes show is an ignorant “historian” who does not know enough history to comment on this. For example, in the birthing years of Islam the wars of conquest were anything BUT “defensive”, whereas both Christ the founder of Christianity and his followers in the first three centuries laid down their own lives for the unbeliever. Later on, starting with Mohammed, Muslims laid down the lives of infidels to subjugate the surviving victims.

The Amish, fundamentalists by any definition, are as much a problem as ISIS? Really? Who do you think you’re kidding?

Regardless of what the Koran says, most Muslims are as peaceful as Christians, according to a Lebanese Christian interviewed today on Christian radio, who also said that most Muslims there are sick and tired of the bad guys. I once worked with a Lebanese Muslim and we were best of friends, and shared our faith with each other totally.

BUT Christians are marginalized, vilified and the present culture in the US and around the world is much more hostile to Christianity than Christians are to others. Most of the time when you might read that “violence broke out” between Christians and Muslims in someplace like Nigeria, the backstory is that Muslims attacked Christians.

It is more like a few manipulating powerful influences who want to set the two “religions” at each other.

An example of how the group of atheists that proselytize militantly (like the author of both the book and this blog did here) is more dangerous than the people he’s criticizing, is the danger exemplified in the way most of the statist media cartel treated the massacre at Utoya Island in Norway in 2011, when Anders Breivik killed some 88 young folks in cold blood.

In the first day of the story, for many hours (I kept checking back) CNN ran the story headline on the bottom of the screen, blaming the killer as a “fundamentalist Christian”. However the story had ALREADY broken that the guy called himself an ATHEIST defending the European Christian CULTURE.

So now CNN was calling a guy “fundamentalist” simply because they saw his first comments lamenting the loss of Christian culture, and more important for them, he did something bad.

Who needs a Janet Napolitano bad-guy list when we have sources like CNN and this blog doing her tyrannical dirty work for her?

The problem is fundamentalist atheism supplemented with a dose of Pavlov conditioning against anything “Christian”. Christians are very unholy sometimes, and the wars are evil, but this is not Christianity, And those wars have nothing to do with “fundamentalism”. The problem is the LOSS of “fundamentalism”, because the most basic Christian fundamental is the BIble, the Word of God.

Scofield, along with Darby in England, HATED the Bible and started Christians on the road to ruin and apostasy with the diabolical doctrine of “dispensations”.

Honduras needs free market capitalism

September 17, 2014

On the Honduras Weekly web site, there was an interesting discussion about the possible merits of socialism, in the context of the declared aim of the so-called “Partido Libre” in Honduras:
http://www.hondurasweekly.com/component/k2/item/20827-socialism-instead-of-neoliberal-capitalism

….socialism. For more than two-thirds of the people in the country who struggle to survive on $3 or less per day, this is probably a good idea because the primary outgrowth of such a move (if implemented competently and without generating excessive civil turmoil — both very big “ifs”) would be the redistribution of power, wealth, and control over national resources. For them, neoliberal capitalism has produced nothing but misery, so to them a new economic model emphasizing more balance in society through more government control and regulation sounds pretty nice.

It is impossible to implement any economic planning without deep understanding of economics. The problem with the study of economics in government planning is the fact that almost nobody in government planning offices have a good understanding of economics in the real world.

Government control and regulation has only made things worse where it is enforced. This is what has finally brought USA prosperity growth to a halt. That along with the boom and bust whiplash of central bank machinations, fiat money devaluation (“inflation”) that robs the poor and the elderly living on fixed-amount incomes based on questionable government-created COLA indexes, and so on.

For them, concepts like free trade, open markets, and private enterprise are of no consequence because they’re not able to compete in such a world, and so they keep getting left farther behind until all hope of ever having a good life for themselves and their children is gone

Most people don’t understand how free trade and open markets really work because private enterprise has not been truly free in the real world for a long time, except in a few isolated areas.

“Free trade agreements” might not seem to work, but that’s because we’ve not seen any. The ones they tell us about are really “managed trade” agreements where each side negotiates the best deal they can, not for the consumer or the poor, but for crony and special interests. The interests of a king or parliament or the corporate-government complex is not the interest of the housewife shopping in the grocery, or the corner store on the corner.

I don’t know offhand of any truly open markets either. Honduras does not qualify, although some of the street vendors might, when they are left alone.

The poor benefit from a free market left alone, where investors with capital area able to establish an enterprise that endures and continues to provide productive employment for those who want to work. If someone is willing to work for $3.00 a day, it is because the alternative is worse! Demanding higher pay without corresponding productivity increases for the labor will do one of the following: (1) increase the relative value of automating the activity and decreasing the labor pool (This has happened in the US, that’s why so much fast food production is automated); or (2) all other things being equal, decrease the profit margin and in some cases make the difference between bankruptcy and solvency.

In any cases, it decreases the marginal utility of a laborer for the employer. This is why the estimated 150,000 poorest earners lost jobs with Zelaya’s sudden doubling of the minimum wage.

The economic differences between North and South Korea is the difference between socialism and capitalism. Chile introduced some measures that rid themselves of much of the socialism under Allende. Under the runaway socialist regime, the nationalized copper mines had been losing money, had increased rates of accidents, and political appointees instead of technical managers.

When they sold the mines back to Anaconda, they became tax contributors again and accidents went down. They introduced a choice in the retirement plans and did not force workers to contribute to a state controlled plan. One of the most frequent wish list items Ron Paul got from young people was that they wanted to opt OUT of the socialist social security system because they do not have faith.

I spoke this very day I write this with an employee of the Social Security Administration. She says she hopes there is still something left when she gets to retirement age!

This next point the writer made is absolutely true, more than he realizes I think:

Capitalism is all about competition and profit, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that… so long as there is a level playing field.

I say probably more because once you understand how economics works and how government works, you understand that there is a guarantee under government that there is never a “level playing field”. This is because government, especially with socialism, is based on force. If Mr. Tax Collector Smith takes your money under threat of force, it is theft. It does not matter in the real world who does it.

Remember Mohamed Bouazizi? He was the man in Tunisia who set himself on fire in protest. One of the last things he said that day to his brother was “Poor people have a right to do business too!”.

Earlier that day, he had gone to the plaza with his “capital good”, a balance to weigh the produce he was going to sell there. He was a poor street vendor. Since he was not paying the fees and taxes to authorities, since he was violating government regulations, a policeman confiscated his balance and sent him away.

Taxation is tribute, tribute is theft

September 16, 2014

Both dominant USG political parties are socialist, because their platforms and practice both make the basic assumption that all your money belongs to them to do with as they see fit, and they will let you keep enough to live another day to continue to “pay tribute”. This is the life of serfs and lords of the manor. Organized grand theft.

I never, not once, I NEVER agreed to ANY such “social contract” WHATSOEVER.

There is no government on Earth today that did not arrive to it by conquest. Today’s “lords” pretend to be more benevolent but they still have the warfare-welfare state to sell.

All the wars in the Middle East have a pivot point in Jerusalem. USG lined up to lay its reputation on the line, along with the sons of serfs, in support of Israel, which is a creation of what were called Zionists before WW2. Truman and other lords of the manor threw reports of Irgun atrocities in the trash and recognized Israel immediately.

Meantime, the Federal Reserve continues its counterfeit money operation. Fiat money makes it easier to wage war, so we have a runaway government waging unconstitutional wars with unconstitutional money. What they can’t get by taxing us out of house and home (in many cases literally) they get by robbing us in the greatest theft scheme of history, currency devaluation. They call it “inflation” so it doesn’t sound so bad.

When Krugman of the NYT says a little bit of inflation is good, he’s quoting Keynes, whose ideas corrupted the conversation and made most economists stupid. What neither Keynes or Krugman will admit publicly is that inflation is a direct theft of value from what “purchasing power” the “little people” have.

But politicians loved him. Durban said quipped “Keynesianism is dead” at the presser for so-called “Sequestration”. Sequestration had absolutely ZERO cuts to the budget over the previous year. So when USG complained about having to cut services, they were lying when they said it was stingy Republicans are blah blah. But the Republican Party is no better, they did the same thing to finance the wars too.

I told everybody in 2008 that Obama would do the same things Bush did. And I am so sorry that Obama did not only that but much much more than Bush could have hoped for.

Jesus came to set at liberty those who are captive, give comfort to the poor, heal the sick, and most importantly save our souls. In Matthew 17 he exposes all taxation schemes as “tribute” extorted (stolen) by conquering looters. In saying “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar and unto God what is God’s” he was referring to the fact that Caesar and all extortionists (see Matthew 17) do not own anything legitimately. Romans 13 is no excuse for Caesar-loving 501c3 loving pastors, because if any government does not meet its requirements it means it deserves nothing.

Self-contradictory government

September 16, 2014

Whether for good or for filthy lucre, political office (or any government position) most of all attracts those who seek power over others.

C. S. Lewis pointed out that the worst atrocities come from people who supposedly are motivated by good goals, since they use those goals as a salve for their conscience.

Ends justifying the means,

They had to destroy the town to save it,

They put poor Terry Schiavo out of her misery,

They have to kill the baby still inside to save it from a horrible existence in a horrible world,

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few,

They had to put the unskilled out of work to enforce the living wage,

They have to steal from the productive sectors to support “good government”,

They have to bomb and invade and disrupt and shoot suspicious natives to give them “democracy”,

They had to stop a bad guy from developing nuclear weapons even though the CIA warned us off,

They had to inject a few blacks with syphilis (Memphis) (and we promise we won’t do it again?),

They had to lie about Gulf of Tonkin to help the war industry, er, I mean, stop Communism,

They (Custer’s troops) had to kill the women and children in the village because there weren’t any braves there,

They had to threaten Salt Lake City to get them to give up polygamy,

They had to destroy the economy and make everybody poor to eliminate inequality (stop looking at federal salaries!),

They had to fudge the numbers so people could be more optimistic about the economy,

They had to rob the victims to save the banking system,

They had to set up central banks including the Federal Reserve to hide their theft and corrupt the government,

…Never ending story…

But Jesus is coming back soon, and

“The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.”- Psalm 9:17.

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. -Isaiah 1:18

….

Check your assumptions

September 14, 2014

The common Christian definition of God is a being that is all-knowing. If this conjecture is true, then God knew the final outcome of the Universe & of all life in it before the Creation took place. So why did She bother to go to all this tremendous effort if the final conclusion (and all the intermediate stages) were known to Her beforehand?


First off, you expose your motivation in writing this as a troll trying to provoke hysterical response, a self-arrogant exercise in which you think yourself smarter than the audience while in reality showing folly.

You start off addressing yourself to the “Christian definition” then pull a fraudulent bait and switch by saying “She”, an obvious reference to some false god.

You then ask a question that is not a question so you can jump into an ignorant argument you think is new that you just picked up off some Internet forum or atheist website or other self-mockery. You were planning to mock whatever came back from it, I’m sure, because your use of “She” does not apply to the “Christian definition” and you obviously know that.

A perverse sense of humor comes to mind, to just sit back & watch wars, plagues, cancer, disease, famine & death torment the human race over millennia.


You think you’re funny, with your foolishness you think is wit. It’s just witlessness. This claptrap has been answered in a thousand different ways for millenia, for serious questioners.

That seems pretty silly. An all-powerful God should have better things to do than to just set up experiments where the conclusion was known before the start. So there either is no God & things just happened according to natural laws or God is not all-knowing & just wants to watch things play out.


Silly is to think your wit is better than God’s or Isaac Newton’s.

It all boils down to faith, and a lot of assumptions about the nature of God and its powers that have no basis. And to try to prove the existence of a God and a Creation by citing endless bits of quasi-scientific ‘proofs’ is an exercise in futility. Just like the Bible is not a science textbook. you will never be able to ‘prove’ the existence of things that are, by definition, unprovable articles of faith.


You have your own faith in your own unfounded dogmas and “a lot of [your own] assumptions about the nature of God and its powers that have no basis. It’s a foolish faith where you get something for nothing, a whole universe popping into existence from a singularity (another word for “nothing”. You probably even think Stephen Hawking is clever for saying we don’t need God because we have gravity.

He didn’t say why he thought gravity did not need a Creator.

Surely he had some course in Logic along the way?