The BIG BANG Insanity

Common sense tells us (and any non-physicist) that the Universe could not be created ex nihilo.

That is, if the Universe is the totality of existence (reality), it could not have sprung from an infinitely small “atom” as conjectured in the Big Bang Theory.

There would have had to be something into which that Big Bang atom could “explode.”

Mentally we can’t envision the supposed void that physicists propose the Big Bang atom was surrounded by when it generated.

Moreover, from whence did the Big Bang atom derive?

Even if we accept the postulations of the Big Bang physicists, we can’t account for the creation of the primordial “atom” that gave birth to the Universe we inhabit.

Of course, if the Steady State Theory of the Universe remained viable, that is acceptable, as is the theological position that God is internal, infinite, and brought the Universe into existence from nothing – into the existence that is God itself, the “body” of God as conjectured by Teilhard de Chardin (and others).

The expansion of the Universe doesn’t presuppose a burst of cataclysmic energy, especially from a pinpoint source.

Expansion of the Universe that we can perceive could be an exhalation of the Universe for the time-frame we’re part of, and the Universe will contract eventually as the Vedic accounts have it.

Expansion is not necessarily intrinsic to the Universe.

And we’ll be exploring the physicists’ mental aberration about the Big Bang even more, upcoming….

The Failure(s) of Philosophy

Philosophy has never provided answers to anything.

The conjectures have always been convoluted, obscurant, and even senseless.

For instance, a Professor (D. Moore) at Indiana-Purdue University (IPFW) in Fort Wayne, Indiana had a lecture recently wherein he provided the usual canard that Plato was a realist and Leibniz was an idealist.



The actuality is that Plato was an idealist, as is obvious from his writings, and Leibniz was a realist, as accounts of his life and studies show.

But philosophy instructors and advocates always turn reality on its head.

Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God – that than which nothing is greater – convolutes the simple question “Is there a God?”

Hume and all other philosophers have beat the dead horse of God’s existence, with no denouement.



From the beginning of philosophical thought – Thales, Anaximander, et al. – the ruminations pertaining to the meaning of life have made the examination complex and confusing.

In an effort to appear wise and/or erudite, philosophers encrusted their arguments with questions that perplex but do not answer anything – have not answered anything.

Three thousand years of philosophical queries have produced not one iota of information or thought that has been helpful or beneficial to mankind.

Theologians, such as Aquinas or, more recently, Barth, haven’t helped either, and both (among others) were brilliant.



Philosophical conundrums posed by Aristotle, Boethius, Descartes, Vico, Nietzsche, and everyone else, have fallen flat when it comes to human destiny.


The Existentialists – Heidegger, Sartre, Jaspers, et al. -- recognize(d) the silliness of the philosophical pursuit but actively engaged in it themselves.




The great literary master, Herman Melville, provided an entertaining look at the nature of God (Moby Dick), good and evil (Billy Budd, Foretopman), and the existential dilemma (Bartleby the Scrivener) that settles (arguably) most of the philosophical questions posited before and after him.



Melville provided, in three works, the whole of philosophical questioning, and offered answers, of a kind, to all of it.

Socrates’ maxim – Know thyself – is pithy and not recondite but it tells us nothing.

Descartes’ offer – I think therefore I am – is also a concise statement of reality but it takes us nowhere.

More recently Gramsci tried to flesh out Marxist thought, but that time has passed.



The meaning of mankind’s purpose is still up for grabs.

Politicians can’t help. Theologians are up against a denial of God’s existence, in light of the absolute absence of God in the lives of humankind.



And philosophers are as defunct as the Roc, which makes us wonder why anyone would take up that educational mantle.



Philosophy is an arcane methodology, no better than alchemy, and more confusing actually.

So, please, let us move on to things more intellectually productive…whatever that might be.

Cancer and Quantum Theory

Schrödinger’s hypothetical cat and the quantum idea that observation or measurement of an event alters the event can be used to explain why some people die of cancer and others do not.

Everyone, virtually everyone, has cancer in their bodies.

Once a cancer is observed (measured) or found and acknowledged it is altered by the finding (observation) and become active, in a detrimental way, just as Schrödinger’s cat is dead or alive once the box in which it was (figuratively) encased with a vial of radioactive poison is hypothetically broken.



It takes an observation of the cat in the box to determine if the cat is alive or dead after the radioactive vial is broken. Before the observation, one doesn’t know if the cat is alive or dead, and the cat is, according to quantum theory, neither alive nor dead until it is looked at – observed, measured.

Once a cancer is found – and, again, everyone has a cancer in their body – the observation of it will activate the cancer in a deleterious way.

Just as Schrödinger’s cat will surely be found to be dead, once it is observed, one’s cancer will surely become deadly once it is observed.

The idea that early detection stems cancer’s advance is a canard. Early detection merely shortens the life of those who have the detection.

There is, however, a quantum possibility that one can, just as Schrödinger’s cat could (hypothetically), collapse the observation – in quantum physics, it’s a “wave” that is collapsed – and not have a killer cancer.

Consciousness of a positive kind might deter further growth of a cancer or put it in remission.

Some people do this, and prayer, as a deliberate conscious act, might also be a positive element in keeping cancer contained.

But it is the detection of cancer and it’s measurement that brings on the deadly aspect of the cancer; that is, the cancerous growth is accelerated by its observation.

Those who don’t have a medical examination, but who have a cancer within, will not be affected by the cancer in an abnormal way. They will die naturally, late in life, with the ordinary malfunction of human organs and the vicissitudes of old age.

So if you think you should have an MRI, think again. Quantum theory is your out.

UFOs: A failure to communicate

If UFOs are depicted in primitive petroglyphs and the stories in the Hebrew Bible are authentic [The Ezekiel vision and the Elias episode for instance], the message inherent to those early sightings remains cryptic.



AmerIndian myths and accounts of UFOs (or things similar to them) are still without clarity. The message, if there was one, was obscure and is still obscure.



The alleged Alexander [The Great] sighting(s) and Constantine’s “cross in the sky” epiphany, despite the accrued Christian context, were devoid of a clear message.



And the Middle Ages battles of UFOs seen in the skies left nothing to explain what that was all about.



In the modern era (of UFOs), starting with the airship occurrences of the 1890s up through the 1947 raft of flying saucer sightings and into the year 2008, UFOs (and their progenitors, if any) have provided no message to humankind, no decipherable message anyway.



The absence of any message – and UFOs have had ample opportunity to leave a message if the things wanted to – is significant.

Like God, after the Torah, and Jesus, in the New Testament, who spoke in parables, UFOs have been obscurant. Why?



If alien beings pilot UFOs (or some of them), they’ve had enough time to understand the human mind-structure, and ability to communicate or receive communication.

The hypotheses by some “ufologists” that UFOs have left messages, via symbols or symbolic behavior, is just flaky, unless UFOs, like God, are playing a game of some kind with humanity.



But because so many years have gone by, eons actually, the game of UFOs (and God) has worn thin, to the point that human beings don’t or shouldn’t care.

If there is a message being proffered by UFOs, we humans are either too stupid to get it or the message is a garbled mess, by insane creatures, a message that can’t be deciphered because it is totally irrational (like the message of the Creator).



Or there has been no message to be gleaned. UFOs just can’t communicate, or are as confounded by us we are of them, and choose to remain mute.

Either way, it’s a sum-zero situation, with no winners…..

UFOs: A Reason to Party?

A Canadian film-maker who likes UFOs takes umbrage with our idea that he and his cronies diminish the seriousness of UFOs by using them as a front for beer-drinking and womanizing.

Most ufologists think some UFO phenomena are serious matters, even going so far in some quarters to say they represent an apocalyptic omen.

Other UFO blokes (us included) think that UFOs are a benign (thus far), unknown intrusion of several phenomena, one of which may be serious (an alien presence of some kind).

Science eschews UFOs because the field has been, since day one, infected by crazies who have tried to use UFOs (sometimes successfully, as in the case of George Adamski) to augment their ego-needs.

Serious “ufologists” have distanced themselves form the crazies but there is a renewed effort, by the Canadian film-maker and his pals, to re-invigorate the nonsense element within the UFO community.

The recent release of some British government UFO files has created an environment that might generate a sensible interest by the public and media in the UFO phenomena.

But that sensible interest will be undercut by those who use UFOs as a pretext to act silly and be cavalier, all the time pretending to be investigating UFOs seriously.

The 1950s created an atmosphere of looniness about flying saucers, but with the alleged abduction of Betty and Barney Hill, UFOs took on a sinister aspect.

UFOs have a patina of eeriness about them that is more than subliminal, even though nothing untoward about UFOs has been proven, in the scientific or military sense.

But UFOs may contain a serious threat to humanity, or not. We just don’t know.

Yet, UFO aficionados who use the phenomena as an excuse to get wasted and traverse the world as playboys and playwomen do an injustice to those who want science and media, even the public, to give UFOs a bit more concern than has happened since the contactee days.

The party-people diminish UFO study as their ballyhooed shenanigans give continued credence to others that UFOs are the bailiwick of the fringe, and not anything that should be taken seriously.

So our plaint that the film-maker is subverting ufology, and the investigators he has shilled into his fun-loving approach to UFOs, is only that: a plaint.

The film-maker can have all the fun he wants, but let’s not use his tomfoolery as a template for ufology or UFO research.

Life is short, and partying is okay, if one is a hedonist or epicurean.

But for those who think there’s something serious going on, within the human condition, and that UFOs may be a part of that, then the UFO happy-crowd should be ignored or avoided.

UFO wackos

Here are representatives of the current UFO community:



Does anyone wonder why science and media don’t take the phenomenon seriously?

Mike Heiser's Blog

Mike Heiser is PhD who deals with Semitic religions usually, but he also has an interest, surprisingly, in UFOs.

Check out his new blog:

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/UFOReligions

God’s not quite immortal remains

As the writer using Shakespeare’s name has it in Hamlet, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy,” there is, indeed, more things, and here’s one of them:

Following Teilhard de Chardin’s thesis that reality (the Universe) is the mystical but physical body of Christ (and therefore God), we conclude that Dark Energy is the remnant of God’s demise, the decaying elements of God’s “body” and Dark Matter the remnants of Jesus/Christ’s “body.”



The total corruption of God’s and Christ’s remains will take millennia as physicists conjecture when they theorize about the end of the Universe.

But Dark Energy and Dark Matter “prove” for pantheistic agnostics the death of God (and Christ thereby too).

When the demi-urge (demiurgos), acting as creative agent for the Ineffable, produced the Earth and the creatures on it, there wasn’t an evolutionary plan that incorporated human beings. (The demi-urge may be equated with the Evil face of God as enumerated in Jung’s concept of the Quaternity.)



The great lizard/birds, dinosaurs, ruled the Earth for millions of years until a natural or purposeful catastrophe occurred and mammalia arose, culminating in apes and then man.

The short period of man’s (accidental?) transcendence was beset by the early demise of the demi-urge (as noted in our previous post) and is now threatened by the death of the Ineffable God (and Christ), evidenced by the discovery of God’s (and Christ’s) remains:
Dark Energy (and Dark Matter).



If there was (or is) a purpose for life, that purpose is meaningless now, and theologians and physicists move into an abstract forensic that is academic, and nothing more.

Atheists may find this satisfying in some way, while believers shall scoff, but we accept our “God is really dead” hypothesis as actual and nihilistically complete…

God is dead, Jesus too…

…and the Holy Spirit may be in a coma.

When did God die, and we don’t mean in the Nietzschean metaphorical sense?



God’s demise seems to have occurred shortly after Jesus/Christ’s crucifixion.

If God sacrificed himself, in the form of Jesus, to expiate His sins against mankind, as Carl Jung postulates in his "Answer to Job,” He did not recover from the experience on the Cross, even though it appears that the second nature of God, Jesus, did survive the ordeal, for a time anyway.

But Jesus seems not to have lasted much beyond the crucifixion Himself.

(We discount Saul of Tarsus’ “epiphany” where he thought Christ spoke to him when he was on the road to Damascus; that was an hysterical, psychotic reaction that Saul – St. Paul – suffered because he was actively persecuting Jews who were Christians.)



The third “person” of the Trinity, The Holy Spirit, manifested itself, overtly, for the last time in 312 A.D. when Roman Emperor Constantine had a vision of the Cross before a battle.



After 312 no element of the Godhead has been evidenced objectively. Subjective awareness of God, and Jesus, as persons’ personal savior, have been rife throughout the time period following the Roman persecutions of Christians, and continue to this day.

But nothing concrete related to the Divinity has been palpable since 312 of the Common Era.

(The appearances of Mary, the mother of Jesus, throughout history, even into our modern era – although such visitations have been rare of late – might be attributable to another phenomenon. But even if they represent or represented real Marian appearances, that doesn’t remove the perception(s) that God and Jesus are not longer “alive.”)

What is the evidence for God’s death?

The Holocaust comes to mind. And previously the Black Plague, and other natural calamities, but mostly man’s inhumanity to man, with no intervention by God, Jesus, of The Holy Spirit, not even symbolically or subliminally.



Richard Elliott Friedman suggests in his book “The Hidden Face of God” that God has merely removed Himself from interaction with mankind.

No, God is dead. It’s as simple as that.

Creation, put in motion by God, moves along under its original momentum, and can continue for some time period, but existence is winding down, and there is no ineffable being to halt the eventual terminus.

God is dead.

And we’ll take this forward, upcoming, as to how that death affects all the aspects of humanity…

Unanswered Everything

Noted here, at this blog, are all the quirks of nature and reality that go unanswered; that is, they remain unexplained.

Who really produced the Shakespeare oeuvre?



Is there a God?

What is consciousness?

Was there a Big Bang?



What are UFOs?

What is Dark Matter? Dark Energy?

What happened to Amelia Earhart?



Why did Neanderthal “man” disappear?

What is death?



Is quantum reality the real reality?

Does pi have an end?



What is the purpose of life?

And so on…

Do we have a point? Not necessarily.

Life doesn’t seem to have a point, so why should we?

To pursue the questions above is an idle pursuit of course. Socrates suggested that such pursuits are the philosophical point of human existence. But is that so?



As we go forward, we’ll be more nihilistic probably, just a bit short of Schopenhauer’s wonderfully depressive outlook, but with an epicurean stance somewhat.

And that’s all we have, right? That is if Sartre and the existentialists are correct…..

The Shakespeare Group

In determining who made up the raft of writers using the sobriquet “Shakespeare” we only have to find the following:

What contemporary/writer/colleague of William Shakespeare (who formed the Shakespeare consortium) was a devout Roman Catholic?



What writer was an insider to the Court of Elizabeth the Queen?



What writer was enamored of phantasmagoria?

Who was a master of the language?



What writer was primarily a poet?



What writer preferred Histories of his time?



What writer looked to ancient histories for his muse?

What writer was homosexual? (It wasn’t Will Shakespeare himself.)



What writer preferred male/female complications?



What writer looked to political machinations for his inspiration?



And what writer had a tendency to science, magic, or alchemy?



(The task at hand isn’t as difficult as it seems.)

The Shakespeare Mystery

Yes, Shakespeare, like the RRRGroup, was a writing consortium, consisting of major playwrights such as Christopher Marlowe, Edward DeVere, Thomas Kyd, Ben Jonson, and others.

The point of the consortium will be examined here, in ways that haven’t been tried before.

We’ll do, upcoming, a forensic examination of the writing, the lives, and the interaction of the writers who formed the group known as Shakespeare, including Shakespeare himself.

Admittedly, the idea of a Shakespeare writer who wasn’t Shakespeare himself is not new, but that several persons joined with Shakespeare to produce plays and sonnets is.

More to come….

The Insanity Gene

Lecomte du Nouy in his book “Human Destiny” hypothesizes that humans who will move evolution forward are mutants; that is, the mass of humanity is primitive (in many ways) and only those who are endowed with special sensitivities (talents, as it were) are capable of evolving the human species and civilization in a beneficial way, toward an Omega Point as Lecomte du Nouy has it.

(The Omega Point is also a feature of Teilhard de Chardin’s writings.)

The problem for humanity or the problem of humanity is that it is palpably obvious that the bulk of the human population is insane; that is, humanity, in general, is non compos mentis.

One doesn’t need detailed footnotes to show just how crazy humanity is and has been, since the Garden of Eden.

A cursory examination of history and media accounts of today provides ample incidents of insane behavior by man.

The pockets of humane actions by the du Nouy mutants do show up on occasion, but their existence does not offset the preponderance of mad activity that permeates human culture, and has always permeated human culture, even “civilization” itself.

The insanity is ingrained in humankind; it is, perhaps, the essence of humankind.

Since madness is an ephemeral thing, it can’t be found or investigated as genetic structures are able to be studied.

But it does leave tangible footprints, as Freud and others have outlined.

The insanity may be the “image of God” that was mankind’s creative template, and we’ll be presenting views about this probability...