Tuesday, July 11, 2017

Trump Junior

Show me where the meeting was actually about Russia providing info on Hillary. Yes, it was a set up, whereby an individual lured the meeting, But show me where she was an operative on behalf of Russia. Show me what policy she was pursuing on behalf of the Russian regime. Jr. did NOT meet with any agent or policy negotiator for Russia. If you say he did, show me the agent, the authority of the agent, the Russian policy being negotiated, etc.
Re: Discussions could violate. Yes, and Jr., Hillary, and you COULD all be late blossoming kool aid lovers of Jim Jones. I think we should investigate that. At least, that is how the "evidence" could be interpreted. S/
Re: "... a federal crime to conspire with anyone, including a foreign government, to ‘deprive another of the intangible right of honest services ...."
"That would include fixing a fraudulent election, in my view, within the plain meaning of the statute."
Define "fix." Did Trump pay Hillary to play politics poorly, so she would lose, like for the Black Sox? That kind of fix? Are you saying opposition research is criminal fixing of an election? OMG! Now that's funny, I don't care who you are. Did Trump register dead people to vote? Did he invite hordes of illegals to invade and corrupt the republic and the political process? Did he encourage motor-voter registration of illegals? Did he trade political favors to launder campaign contributions? Define fix, then give me your "evidence" that Trump engaged in any fixing.
Re: "Laws have apparently been broken": I'm sure a lot of laws are broken every day. Give me your evidence that Trump violated any law. Other than that you and Progs don't like him.
So far, were I judging, I would say you don't have a glimmer of a scintilla of an evidentiary fact that could be pertinent to anything other than this: Oligarchs doing all they can to put their train back on the tracks for completely destroying the republic, except in its name. My evidence for that is strong! Trump wants to make America great again. He wants to enforce the borders. He does not want to endanger us with non-assimilable cultures. Your guys are the exact opposite. I say investigate them! The evidence against them is profound.
Why do you want to help the forces that so obviously want to divide and destroy the U.S.?

Collusion IS going on ... to destroy the republic. It is collusive coordination among media owning oligarchs who kick bs at Trump and Conservers of Liberty, 24/7/365.
Their purposes and methods need to be investigated. Why do they want to promote open borders, floods of uneducated socialists, breakdown of family units, hatred for the founding ideals of the republic? Is this collusive enemy of the representative republic entirely within, or is it also colluded without? What is the quid pro quo?
How many in Congress and the bureaucracies have been compromised by it? Does it amount to treason or war against the republic? Should it require forfeiture of licenses and assets? Forfeiture of pensions for treasonous profs? How deep does the corruption go? How much does it threaten the republic, and the world?

What did the Russian regime offer Trump, when did they offer it, when did Trump accept the offer, what was the quid pro quo, when was it agreed or consummated, and what law was violated? Crickets?
What did the Russian regime offer Hillary, when did they offer it, when did Hillary accept the offer, what was the quid pro quo, and what law was violated? Uranium?
How do domestic Oligarchs weaken the U.S., when do they weaken it, how do they coordinate constant and continuous talking points that undermine every politician who seeks to salvage America, what do they get in exchange, and what laws are they violating? Borders/cheap labor?

Jr. met with someone who was not an agent for Russia, who had no authority to bind Russia, who had nothing to offer, who was promised nothing, who never met with DJT, who someone thought had dirt on Hillary, so Jr. met to see if there was dirt, Jr. did not get any dirt, Jr. ended the meeting, and there was no quid pro quo. That's about it. So, of course, the stoopid party calls it a smoking gun. That's because they are looking feverishly for something, anything, that can get them back on their track for killing the republic.
The Oligarchic puppeted MSM has nothing, so it kicks up dust, like Billy Martin when he managed the Yankees. Except Billy Martin did not kick up dust constantly, continuously, 24/7/365.
What do we get from this? Well, if one has a brain, one gets that the Oligarchy is very upset with DJT for trying to salvage the representative republic from the clutches of the NWO wannabe people farmers and their toolish farm-ees.
This s is very tiresome, very old, very juvey, very stoopid. Time to turn off the indoctrination machine and take a ride through the beautiful mountains. There's too much in the mountains to waste time on progloids. Take 10, and then start figuring out ways to punish the progloid media that wants to erase our borders, flood us with liberty illiterates, and turn us over to the NWO despotism. Freaking f the bastids!

Friday, July 7, 2017

Gay Marriage

The USA was founded to be a representative republic. Not a Sheikdom. Not a Communal Grope Society. Not a marriage of citizens to Big Gov. Only recently have Western States embraced the idea of Gay Marriage. Whether they can continue to do so and remain representative republics is far from clear.
I am not aware of any representative republic that endured very long in history while embracing gay marriage. If anything, it appears to me that militant gays are leading the West down a primrose path of destruction by advocating for Big Gov to force tolerance for every kind of *poison to representative republicanism. Indeed, the destruction of republics and their replacement with an open society NWO (people farm) is what the oligarchy wants! So it's hardly a coincidence that the oligarchy would be "all in" for something as poisonous and destructive to the fiber of a nation as gay marriage.


To argue that Christians as a group are bashers is, well, rather biased bashing.  By that broad brush method, I could as easily argue that all gays must be bashers of Christians.
Since you raised the topic, I would remind you that there is a difference between sexual relationships versus marriage ... under the traditions of a society and the laws of a State.  Whatever may have been the religious or other practices in Ancient Egypt would have no bearing on that.
I'm sure sex slavery, chattel sex contracts, and polyamory also predated the Bible.  However, the people who founded the USA were mainly from Britain.  Their legal usages were from the British Common Law.  (They were not immigrants to the USA, because the USA did not exist before they founded and created it.  When they founded the USA, they joined via a Constitution. ) In main, the various States had adopted common law usages from Britain. 
During that time, Britain did not recognize any legal form of marriage between persons of the same sex.
The USA was founded to be a representative republic.  Not a Sheikdom.  Not a Communal Grope Society.  Not a marriage of citizens to Big Gov.  Only recently have Western States embraced the idea of Gay Marriage.  Whether they can continue to do so and remain representative republics is far from clear.   I am not aware of any representative republic that endured very long in history while embracing gay marriage.  If anything, it appears to me that militant gays are leading the West down a primrose path of destruction by advocating for Big Gov to force tolerance for every kind of poison to representative republicanism.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LGBT_history_in_the_United_Kingdom:
390  – The Roman emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I, and Arcadius issued an imperial decree to the Codex Theodosianus, that criminalizes "all persons who have the shameful custom of condemning a man's body, acting the part of a woman's to the sufferance of alien sex (for they appear not to be different from women), shall expiate a crime of this kind in avenging flames in the sight of the people."
1541  – The Buggery Act 1533 only ran until the end of the parliament. The law was re-enacted three times, and then in 1541 it was enacted to continue in force "for ever".
1680  – A same-sex marriage was annulled. Arabella Hunt married "James Howard"; in 1682 the marriage was annulled on the ground that Howard was in fact Amy Poulter, a 'perfect woman in all her parts', and two women could not validly marry.
1828  – The Buggery Act 1533 was repealed and replaced by the Offences against the Person Act 1828. Buggery remained punishable by death
1866  – Marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman (preventing future same-sex marriages). In the case of Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee (a case of polygamy), Lord Penzance's judgment began "Marriage as understood in Christendom is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.
2004  – The Civil Partnership Act 2004 is passed by the Labour Government, giving same-sex couples the same rights and responsibilities as married heterosexual couples in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
On 17 July 2013, Royal Assent is given to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013.


Now you're not advocating for gays generally, but for rich gays. I would agree that rich people often find an easier path by knowing whose ass to kiss. I believe the acronym is KUSD. That tends to be a default mechanism for selecting out representative republicanism and replacing it with people farming. Which is precisely what the NWO wants to bring about: The undermining of national and moral borders to replace them with a one world people farm -- to be run by oligarchs and their tools. Maybe that's why fascists often make such fashionably dressed goose steppers? And this would make the world better, how?

Schumer is scary smart about knowing things that are evil and stupid. Who does he serve? Not ordinary, decent, free-thinking Americans. Nope. He serves people farmers and their tools. Big Nasty NWO Gov.

For NYC, it'd be tough to call who would make the best fit for Mayor. Carlos Danger, Hellary, Al Franken, or Chelsea Clinton. A lot of dogs are coprophagians. New Yorker's, too. What can you say about a city that voted 79% for Hillary?

 We are now plagued with Four Poisonous Horsemen: Islam, BLM, La Raza, and Gov Forced Sponsorship of Gay Marriage. They are poisonous to a representative republic that is based on free-thinking about decent values.
Christianity is based on freedom of conscience. There is nothing Christian about advocating for drinking poison.
Show me one representative republic in history that has long endured while under the control of Muslims, Race baiting codependency, Race based entitlement mindedness, or Homosexual de-defining of marriage. Evil has united to form a fist against decent civilization. Meanwhile, our leaders are mainly wussie men and feminazis.

Alinsky Nutjobs in a nutshell: Pagan Commies who demand Christian charity, but who want it their way --- free of Christian obligations. As long as that's their style, they can ESAD.

Too many Americans allowed wussies to pretend massive codependence is a virtue. This is why we have so many men who want to become women and so many children who want never to have to grow up.
Now, we are getting more men who see this as a deal breaker. They do not want to be made responsible to take perpetual care of people who see themselves as entitled.
So, the wussies seek replacement care providers, by importing third worlders. Yeah, that's a solution! S/

When everyone wants to marry the gov, the gov needs revenue. Taxes. When gov takes over employing most people, it needs ever more taxes. Which leads to ever more regulations. Intrusiveness. Break up of community, volunteerism, and family life. When faith, family, and fidelity are undermined, you get Big Gov, with big misery.

Competent people can be happy alone or with other people. Miserable people are never happy, but they do love company for their misery. So much that they feel compelled to impose their misery on everyone else.
Miserable people push drugs, corrupt youth, want to screw everything and everyone, tear down all monuments to heritage, and corral the masses into pens --- where law droolers regulate them up the wazoo. They call this "social justice." They tend not to like children because they want to be the children.
The formula for producing hordes of miserable people: Undermine faith in a caring Godhead, undermine traditional families, and promote admiration for burdens on society (anti-patriots, anti-police, anti-borders, anti-decency).
Lefties want to be burdens, forever.

I don't care about your private make believe. What I care about is using the law to forcibly indoctrinate kids. Shoo. Get off the gay pile and read and learn a little further. There's a whole internet out there.
Is general profiling of Christians a Prog thing? Americans generally are NOT obsessed with bashing gays. They tend only to be concerned that gays ought not be licensed to use gov (in the name of tolerating gays) to forcibly regulate and require the people to indoctrinate and groom their children.
They do not tend to believe gov ought to be specially and monetarily rewarding expressions of gayness. They tend not to believe gay unions, formally encouraged and favored in law, are conducive to the preservation of a decent republic. They prefer traditional families over minutiae-regulating government.
Professing Christianity probably has little to do with the underlying concern. I think you are demonizing people who admire the teachings of Jesus under much too broad a brush.
Will militants among gays be satisfied when the institution of marriage has been de-defined to the point of meaninglessness? I doubt it. Modesty does not seem to restrain them in anything else.

Sovereigns v. Globalists. Americans v. Totalitarians and their Tools. Free Thinkers v. Law Droolers. Human Beings v. Corrupti and Ignoranti. Responsible Adults v. Codependent Scientisimists.
Sovereign Americans can do for themselves or incentivize help. Globalists will always force misery and be miserable. That's why they want to screw everyone and everything, and reduce it to the lowest common denominator.


To not notice how water runs downhill is to be oblivious. Water will do that, whether or not it offends you. Con-spire just means to breathe together. A conspiracy does not have to be planned or malicious. A society of care-less people can easily fall to a lowest common denominator. If you don't apprehend that, then your avatar (Truth&Morality) is just an insult.

I read enough of your history to see you show no great fondness for representative republicanism. Your attitude (Supreme Arbiter?) bespeaks elitism. I suspect the ideal of a society of independent and free-thinking citizens offends you. IAE, I don't detect much concern from you about how to establish or preserve any such a society. Perhaps because you take the condition of mass enserfment under the rule of elites to be not just a default condition, but a good one?

I don't see the truth or morality in your rationalizations. Just rationalizations for your wannas.

Maybe if humanity evolves to a society of pre-programmed and sexless (or omnisexed?) cyborgs, then we will have no need or desire for raising children or for individual freedom of conscience within anything like a representative republic. But when the day comes that freedom of conscience becomes irrelevant, then we truly will have become the farmed subhumans.


We are all in service as perspectives of the same Godhead. Consciousness is Consciousness. If your consciousness had been associated with the body and context of a different perspective, the feedback for your life path would have followed the same as that perspective.

What is managed is the Information that accumulates to each perspective. Information that serves a reconciling, unfolding purposefulness is preserved. Information that does not, is not. What we find joy in affects what the Reconciler finds joy in.

No system of patterns can stick -- to repair and replicate itself as needed to nurture and sustain itself --- unless it has means to find its likeness to be attractive. That "means" is conscious appreciation. It's why patterns, as they happen to be programmed to develop, happen to be programmed to attract likeness.

Sinning pertains to bad faith and bad will. The story of Jesus is to illustrate that the Reconciler has not "left the building." That God knows our pains, angst, joys. Jesus wept. Endured mortal death. Disclaimed yolo. Christianity is a story about how the Godhead cares and reconciles. It is less a blood cult than a care system. (Godless pagan omni-sexism-hedonism, otoh, seems to be a feces cult.)

If everything were physically, measurably equal and equally charged (if symmetry were not cracked), could anything manifest or any value find expression? it is only because our experiences and contexts are different (unequal) that we can each express ourselves as a different person. To rebel against that is to rebel against humanity. That leads to corruption and idiocy. IOW, Sinisterism (Leftism).

What the sinister Left really wants is equality for itself (without earning it), and servitude for everyone else.


Gov, brought to you by people farmers, will be inviting everyone to call every kind of relationship a marriage. So gov can regulate it, tax it, pander to it, open borders to it, and gain power over whatever progeny may be produced by it. This will be In the (fake) name of equality and social justice. Per Obama, the proponents of this think we should all say, "Thank you." Once decency is dead, evil has a clear field.
Some Libs thought, ok, we can tolerate this. Which we could, if we were still able to define limits. But, so far, all the defining has been to erase. To erase limits, borders, nations, families. Toleration has moved to celebration, to required celebration, to required indoctrination, to prosecution of opponents as hate mongers. Evil loves to prosecute its opponents. Soon, no one will be able safely to resist. This is "progress"? When personal pleasure is the only guide star, what principles can possibly resist the abysmal fall to every depravity?
Transhumanism and gov control over progeny requires that marriage be de-defined, and then eliminated once it has been rendered meaningless. At that point, families will become irrelevant, and the masses will become the livestock of oligarchs. Under fair minded principles of science, of course. S/
Along the slippery slope, independent nations, to most effects, will be eliminated. Of course, Progs will lie, claim the slippery slope is not there (even as it operates right before your eyes), and divert the attention of its dombies with prog-candy. We are beyond respectful argumentation with such people, because, apart from what pleasures them, they have no concept of truth.


Thursday, July 6, 2017

Power of Positive Consciousness

It seems reasonably to be conceptualized that the only thing that actually exists is the Godhead, being for its aspects comprised of Consciousness (including Unconsciousness), Substance, and Information.  Its expression would seem to unfold with Consciousness (including Unconsciousness) using Math to correlate with Math-Verses to express the aspects of the Godhead.  Consciousness is expressed as a correlate with manifested potentiality.  Unconsciousness abides as a correlate with in-manifested potentiality.  What is manifested is that which has become incorporated as Information into a record that can be sussed by at least one perspective of Consciousness, that happens to correlate with the manifestation.

Consciousness feeds back with Math-Verses, to imagine models, tinker with math, tinker back with each model, until it is ready to expand on the model.  By imagining and acting as if a model were true to a purpose, Consciousness tinkers to make the model true to a purpose.  This is the power of Positive Consciousness as it feeds back with Math.  In our own human realm, we have power to imagine systems of virtual reality, and then to make them so, perhaps even to inhabit them with our Consciousness.  Thus, we can design new systems of forms (Substance), wherewith to accumulate new systems of Information.  (Is anything posted on the Internet ever really lost?)


The reason I is continuously renormalized:  Is because each aspect is continuously expressed in respect of the other two.

Consciousness is that which has capacity beyond mortal measure to function with math-verses to produce appearances (manifestations) of Substance that is measurable within whatever the limits as happen to be established for each math-verse.
Substance is not produced merely out of math, but out of C that has capacity, functioning with math, to express S, that will, consistent with math, pass into I.
Mortal POC perspectives of consciousness are what associate with each manifestation that appears as S.

No appearance is collapsed as an expression of S unless there is associated a way to sense/interpret/record it, as I.

Whatever senses/records a manifestation is, then and there, at some level, conscious of it.

Higher C is that which retains potential capacity to express manifestations that have not yet been determined, as well as capacity to reconcile all those that have been determined.
It may have capacity to experience the qualitative feelings of all lesser mortal POC, that is at least coextensive with whatever math-verse it sponsors.

For every manifested pattern, manifested to sensation, there is associated at least one mortally attached POC.

A recorders is a level of C.

The way to believe, to have one's I preserved, is by expressing GW.  Mere profession of incantation is important only to reinforce that end, not as an end in itself.


Would sustenance of life in a derivative virtual cloud be at the mercy of the laws of nature of our present math-verse, i.e., limits to the speed of light, etc.?

Or could it "break through" to expand and redefine new limits for a new math-verse?

Ex.: By arranging for a parallel array of computers, calculations could exceed the SOL.
To exist, the new math-verse would have to be defined by renormalizing limits of some kind.  But how may our present limits could they break through?

May we, by designing out own math- based math-verse simulations, inhabit a tech cloud, perhaps thereby to immunize ourselves to black holes?
I have no opinion on this.
May some higher consciousness already have designed such a higher math-verse, to which select POC's may be invited?  heaven?

May an informational record of dead people be revived, to resurrect some such perspectives to such a heaven?  I have no opinion on this.

From my perspective, I do not think in terms of a series of collapsing cosmic waves as accounting for all that is expressed with the cosmos.
Rather, I think in terms of a continuous, math-based, feedback flux of CSI.

Now, for measurably practical and expanding limits of tech, I may think in terms of collapsing waves.

Moreover, I suspect those limits are altered and phase shifted, however slowly, by our participatory feedback.

What we can dream, we can often move towards.
On this, I think David Deutsch has some interesting ideas about the nature of science in his The Beginning of Infinity.

POC's associate with appearances of patterns, but we do not abide "inside" such patterns.

That a pattern is sensed does not mean it is conscious.
It just means at least one POC senses it.
Moreover, POC's at levels below that of humans abide.
Every pattern that is sticky is, in that sense, sensory and conscious at some level.
The C as the general level of the Godhead is conscious of all reconciliations of participating wills.
And it is qualitatively empathetic of each P.
Because each P is simply a limited, blinkered, P of the general C.

No real time in itself.
No beginning of time.
No film at edge of soap bubble
No age of universe.
Just an age during which I concerning such age happens to be accessible to associates for what happens to be the math-verse that defines the experiences to which our senses and capacities are adapted.

What so empowers and leverages the general C?
The math for which it has innate capacity to be the activating ingredient.
Stored appearances that are not presently associated with any mortal POC, such as an early Big Bang out of a black hole, are simply math-based artifacts of the flux of the CSI Godhead.


When no C any longer supports any appearance, the math behind the sponsoring light cone simply winks out.

The senses of each POC is mathematically limited to a renormalizing light cone that defines its mortal limits.  Each such light cone arose in a sequence by transversing through a renormalizing black hole.

During its life, and the lives of its progeny    will perceive its field of appearances to be expanding outward in entropic disorganization.

Even as it accumulates I.

Matter is stored I.
Energy is transmitting I.
All present S is a transitory combination of M and E (stored and transmitting I), that is to be accumulated into past recorded I.

When no mortal POC is associated, then whatever the storeage/transmission, it is a function of flux of the CSI Godhead.

No pattern is in itself C.
But some patterns are associated with POC's.
And all patterns are associated with the flux of the CSI Godhead.


The so-called origin, instead of from a point in space, may have come from a sequence beyond which, from our access from our math-verse, I has been lost.

Our Universe/Cosmos may be in a Steady State, after all.

Had POC been around, 13 B years ago, more I, further back, may have been available to them.

Moreover, their sensory interpretation of the Universe/Cosmos at that time may well have been re-normalized to have been somewhat different from ours.

Why do appearances seem to be flying apart?
Does that have to do with where we are in our I cycle?

May black holes be instruments of renormalization to preserve the Steady State?
Is every POC inexorably headed to a black hole?


Not soap film.
Diff math-based systems of dimensionality. for defining separate universes, with which the inhabiting M-E and POC so happen to be attuned to sense, record, interpret, communicate, transmit, renormalize.
Even if so, that suggests the inhabitants are all connected with a communizing C, which is a basis for their innate capacities for empathy.
Whatever availed the communizing C, therewith availed empathy, i.e., the Golden Rule.
Sagan:  I don't know why we should respect the GR, but we are unlikely to have evolved as he have if we had not.

But, why is survival an important purpose?
Because, without a predator instinct --- for elites to rule masses --- our economies would not have happened to have evolved as they have.
NOTE:  They myths we adopt affect the way we evolve, which in turn affects the myths we continue to adapt and adopt.

***??? Does the communizing C care about "me"?  Does it empathize/feel my joys and griefs?  Experience, recycle, preserve, learn, appreciate
Left the Building?  Feedback, connection, reconciliation

Is Big Bang v. Steady State really resolved???
No matter the POC, it would always be renormalized to experience the appearance of rainbows, i.e., a false end of the apparent universe, and a false record of a spacetime "point" of beginning.

I is lost.
But it is lost only in ways that renormalize so that no one can know what was really lost.  What is lost can no longer be known.

Lost I is what lies behind the so-called Beginning.  Not any real "point" in S-T dimensionality.

RAINBOW -- receding
If manifested M-E is necessarily associated with C, and C adopts perspectives, and perspectives overlap among various math-based layers and levels, then whatever connects C fully appreciates each and every perspective of it.


Opponent is postulating a common S-T, which is amenable to the collapsing of innumerable "bubbles" and differential dimensional experience.
Different systems of math-based rules for connected POC to inhabit.
Still, if C is C, then it would be the same Creator, creating/collapsing each and every bubble.
The collapsing/creating does not take place "in" S-T.
But with no-thing but a field of math.


Sinning is bad faith and bad will.
God not left the building.
God knows our pains, angst, joys.
Jesus wept.  Endured mortal death.  Disclaimed yolo.
A way to show cares and not left.
Not a blood cult.  A care system.
Not a feces cult.


For our math-verse, there is no ultimate algorithm in itself.  Whatever the math-verse, it is applied by and to the C that accompanies it.  Whatever the nature of any math-verse that we ferret out, there always abides behind it potentialities for an infinity of collapses, shifts, choices, applications.

With what math does DNA provide a frame for an organic body/form to direct the building, repair, replacement, and mutation of appendages and cells, at the cellular level, in the transmission and reception of math-charge-based signals?  How do math-based electrons "know or decide" where they want to go?  How far up and down does C extend?

Implicate something other than math, which is not measurable by math.  So, how does it relate in any relevant way?  A: It relates to innate intuition, empathy, via GF and GW.

Energy is what is signified as I is carried/transmitted.
S is what is expressed as I is stored/organized.

E-M are aspects for carrying and organizing our ongoing accumulation of I.

C Awareness is associated with every collapsing manifestation of newly recording/accumulating/storing/carrying of I.
As the process produces complex bodies, able to coordinate, sense, and store I on many levels, animal and human POCs emerge.

Beyond the M-E, something spiritual renormalizes/reconciles/feedbacks for the various POCs.
Otherwise, choices from possibilities would not be effected.

Our bodies are not the causes.  Only the significations.

Because C consists in being aware from a P of I, and I is what is fluxed to be carried and stored, therefore, M and Ë appear to be physical because locally contextualized P's experience them as such.
To what purposes are I  thus contextualized?
"I" am a locally contextualized, renormalized system of stored and carried I -- expanding and transcending Information.

Is part or all of what unfolds pre-determined, contemporaneously determined, or post-rationalized?


How is it that all Matter that absorbs E is preserving pattern reorganizations that will preserve Information --- as if all M were sensible/aware/receptive of I.

C, at some interconnecting level.

So, what is the ongoing goal purpose of C?
To appreciate art from among many reconciling perspectives.
To reconcile Ps to communicate appreciation of art/beauty reconciliation.

At math-quantum levels, M-E fuzzes.
All M is stored/organized E.
All M is stored/organized I.
All E is reactive/radiating M.
All E is I being activated within limits defined in math.

As I step, I apprehend a world of supporting casts of POCs, contemporaneously renormalized.

Functions of fractal infinities

As one POC steps/apprehends into a realm of fractal math, it does so as others also so happen contemporaneously to be inclined. ...
So as to support the appearance/renormalization of Substance.
In some fractal possibilities, there is only fuzz, awaiting happenstance activation.


By remaining empathetic with GW, we are obeying God, thus exhibiting GF.

Be Empathetic.
Try to be understanding, which may well entail tough love.
Place for wussie atheists and gay jesus people to prevent anyone from questioning their "truths".

As near as I can tell, a number of them are not sites for informing insights or debating issues.
They are more like e-harmony fast-date services for gender-fluids and snowflakes.

If IT has power to set the math-based laws and allow for choices, then I see nothing in science to defy intuition that IT retains power to feedback to guide the choices.

As I is signified to a POV and contextualized to a locus, it re-presents as measurable S.
As S forms complex patterns with feedback and means for taking in nourishment and preserving itself, it expresses a level of awareness.
As levels of A become more complexly organized, self-A emerges, coordinate with the locus of S-T where and when it is expressed.
The reconciling C, as it chooses and guides the forms it purposes to express, necessarily appreciates when and where some forms feedback to become more resistant or accommodating to change and flux.

The Reconciling Consciousness RC is appreciative of forms associated with C at all levels and layers.
No form/level/layer can be expressly manifested and made a part of the I record that is beyond the appreciation of the RC.


I wonder:  May the math-verse we inhabit be amenable of being sensed differently, depending on how our group of inhabitants happens to be formed?  I, and all who happen to share my general context, may sense the stars to be receding at such and such an accelerating rate.  (Regardless of whatever the loci for the general context I happen to inhabit, I suspect every present observer from every star would measure the away-acceleration of other stars, in all directions, to be at the same rate.)
However, may there happen to abide other perspectives, in parallel aspects of our math-verse that are beyond our potential experience, that may sense stars to be receding at a different rate?
May our math-verse be such that, whatever the rate of away-acceleration of stars, that rate will be renormalized to fit the experiences of whatever the form and context of observers that happen to inhabit our math-verse?  May we live out our lives chasing an away-acceleration, much as a country boy may chase one or the other of the ends to a rainbow?
Perhaps the ideas of an originating point in space or a limiting ceiling in expanse, may fit, ultimately, more with illusion than with measurable reality.  What we measure may be more fit to whatever renormalizations are needed to sustain our math-verse as it appears to us than to fit with any "real" nature of physicality. 
Whatever the math that defines our math-verse, perhaps it is intimately related to the character that avails our perspectives of consciousness.  Perhaps a unifying theory of substantively measurable physics must remain forever incomplete, because our physics seems to be so intimately related to an immeasurable aspect or capacity of our consciousness.  (In itself, the math-verse as we occupy it need not itself occupy space-time.  Rather, space-time would be a derivative of the math-verse being activated by a reconciling aspect of Consciousness.)
Even so, by postulating and acting as if various models of empiricism could offer a more complete explanation, we do seem able to tinker to express and bootstrap astonishing capacities ....


C at every level


Cracked Symmetry
At each instant  C, at whatever level, takes a contextual POV from one perspective, it simultaneously takes a POV from every perspective that is necessary to support its reconciliation with S and I.
At every fractal layer/level of manifestation.

No system of patterns can stick -- to repair and replicate itself as needed to nurture and sustain itself --- unless it has means to find its likeness to be attractive.  That "means" is conscious appreciation.  It's why patterns, as they happen to develop, happen to attract likeness.  This is a derivative of patterns that happen to be formed by C as it images with math-verses.  Something ineffable about C avails it with capacity to image/imagine/in-form S out of its inter-functioning with math.  Something ineffable about C allows it to advance empirical technologies by bootstrapping them.

Tuesday, July 4, 2017

Gov v. God

Lefties blame the gov, even as they want ever more gov.  They blame oligarchs, even as they are funded by oligarchs.  They are being farmed, but they are too stupid and corrupt to know what to do about it.   Of course, the way not to be farmed is to become a competent, independent, free thinking human being.  Not a whiny sheeple.  What "good" did whiny sheeple ever do, except to divert the attention of the sheeple while they are fleeced and farmed?
What did "tend my sheep" mean?  Did it mean to take over authority to command and farm the people?  Or did it mean to continue to show the way by leading example?  Did it mean to invite and nurture followers, or did it mean to capture and force followers?  Did it mean to deploy love to reduce the need for gov, or did it mean to increase the role of gov to diminish the need for love?
If more free stuff from gov promotes gratitude, good will, and mental health, then why do so many recipients of gov welfare hate America so much?  Why are the radicals who clamor for using gov to force "equality" so filled with hate?  Instead of helping people feel justified in gang banging to force "equality," wouldn't it be better to help them become individually competent and more spiritually understanding?  If increased gov is good spiritually, then why are so many Dems atheists?

Regarding Honest Democrat:
Say you need an honest person.  A person comes to you who has a recent history of supporting:
Fake victim pranks, the making of non-pc speech into hate crime, the punishing of people who decline to recognize 50 genders, the shouting down of persons invited to speak at universities, the need for inner city denizens to be availed space to destroy, free chits for everyone except white Christian males, a scheme for handicapping social benefits based on skin color scales, forfeiture of property as needed to make material redistribution equal, assistance for illegal evaders of border enforcement personnel, general violence against police, destruction of monuments concerning heritage, antipathy against Christians, blind advocacy for carbon banking, conflation of scientism with science.
Could you find it in you to trust such a person's honesty?  (But hey, Dems, even with their crime stats, are just as moral as anyone else, donchaknow?)
I agree.  Honest Democrat is an oxymoron.  Only in their delusions are they the least bit honest, morally competent, trustworthy, or American.  Only by being primed to lie to themselves do Dems convince themselves they are honest.

The Left already has equality. Equality in idiocy. Leftism is equally as idiotic today as it was yesterday.

This Wetland grab seems to have been going on for some 40 years. This nonsense would startle Camus, Kafka, and Orwell.

Ghetto people elect Representatives on their intellectual level, that they can relate to. These Reps speak on a 5th Grade level because that is their intellectual level, as well as the level for their base. That's why their funders select them. That's why they are safely in the pocket of their funders. That's why the system has come to float crap.
Trump functions at a much higher level, but he tends to speak at a 5th Grade level. He does this for various reasons. To expand his base; to lull his media detractors into a false and vulnerable sense of superiority; to hammer his points home. Trump is a Jedi Master at fighting the floating crap.

The lowest rung just get farmed. The agitators, apologists, talking heads, race pimping blackmailers, and politicians definitely get paid.

Lefties blame the gov, even as they want ever more gov. They blame oligarchs, even as they are funded by oligarchs. They are being farmed, but they are too stupid and corrupt to know what to do about it. Of course, the way not to be farmed is to become a competent, independent, free thinking human being. Not a whiny sheeple. What "good" did whiny sheeple ever do, except to divert the attention of the sheeple while they are fleeced and farmed?
What did "tend my sheep" mean? Did it mean to take over authority to command and farm the people? Or did it mean to continue to show the way by leading example? Did it mean to invite and nurture followers, or did it mean to capture and force followers? Did it mean to deploy love to reduce the need for gov, or did it mean to increase the role of gov to diminish the need for love?
If more free stuff from gov promotes gratitude, good will, and mental health, then why do so many recipients of gov welfare hate America so much? Why are the radicals who clamor for using gov to force "equality" so filled with hate? Instead of helping people feel justified in gang banging to force "equality," wouldn't it be better to help them become individually competent and more spiritually understanding? If increased gov is good spiritually, then why are so many Dems atheists?

Radicals are often funded, infiltrated, and infested by capitalistic oligarchs. They become the tools of the oligarchs, who structure the economics so they can hedge, tip, and win --- regardless of how the wind blows. They own the players, then decide which way to tip the game in order to make the biggest financial killing. The idea of radical redistribution of wealth is not any kind of practical philosophy. It loots and destroys, but it never comes close to achieving the equalization of redistribution that it promises.
The design for the American Constitution was genius. Over time, it became insufficient in itself to ensure the representative republic. It allowed the assimilating ideal and faith to unravel. It allowed oligarchs to profit immensely by mooching from the central gov in order to sell out the nation. Its amendments and people did not keep pace with the unfolding challenges.
Franklin was not confident we could keep the republic. And now it hangs by a thread. If the thread breaks, we will default to a system for farming people, regardless of how we label it. Such systems go under many names for misdirecting aspirations, but they all arc back to a kind of enserfment of the masses.
In trading individual freedom for group security, fake fairness, and free equality, the maddening masses merely tighten their own chains. Mooching Oligarchs and their toolish dombies absolutely deserve every bit of ridicule and acrimony that Trump directs their way.

The Left has become little more than a hodge podge alliance of gang banging parasites. There is no more principled philosophy in them than in a swarm of malaria carrying mosquitos.

Sunday, July 2, 2017

Logic and Triviality

Basic courses in logic are fine, for going deep down the empirically quantitative rabbit hole.  But what about the subjectively qualitative rabbit hole?

1)  Is a statement of appreciation for beauty not a statement?  Must it be either true or false?  Or may it be conditionally true or false, depending on time, place, and observer?  As well as changes in the mood of the observer. 

There are many similar examples that seem often to trouble Progs operating under a little training in logic.  A random sample of similar statements may be:

Ambiguity is (or is not) your friend.
Faith-based systems of morality are (all) bad.
Rule under elites who rely only on science is the best form of government.
Profiling, intolerance, and inequality are always bad.
The moral best is the quickest, most painless and permanent release from pain.
The slippery slope is a fallacy.
Democracy is the best form of government.
It is true that I feel bad.  Except now I feel better.  Maybe.

Many qualitative statements concerning fleeting subjective feelings (about the truth of one's feelings, or judgments about goodness or beauty) are necessarily incomplete.  To suggest that a statement that a thing must be either true (or beautiful) in itself, or not, is not a statement that is amenable of an either/or kind of logic or math.

I do not say that ambiguity is my friend.  I say it can be my friend for some purposes in some contexts, but it may not be my friend in others.  Moreover, my original judgment about the truth of my feeling may be subject to change upon additional reflection.

2)  A like problem carries over even for things that we assume to be quantifiable.  This is because our models in respect of what we are measuring are often incomplete, uncertain, expanding, or changing.  Because no non-trivial model can support a complete explanation for everything, it may be that hidden, fluxing, or changing variables preclude a final judgment about the truth or falsity of important concerns (such as what is appropriate for human purposefulness) that remain beyond the trivial.  On that account, perhaps it would be folly for a citizenry of free thinkers to surrender their freedom to so-called elites of science and logic?

3) Moreover, how much can we trust our empiricism to so-called unchanging or objective laws of physics?

Do those laws flux and phase shift over time?  Upon active input by change agents?  How much of what we take to be laws of nature are renormalizations of appearance?

Does it make logical sense to believe there is really any such thing as a particle-in-itself?  Or a real point of origin of the so-called Big Bang?  Or a measurable end to our universe?  Or a present "now-ness" that applies throughout our physical universe?  Must every mortal at ever spatial locus in our measurable universe presently measure its age at some 13 billion years?

Is Information really always preserved, or is it simply renormalized to so appear to observers?  (If all representational record of a bit of Information truly were lost, how would any mortal mind know it?)

4)  Given concerns such as those listed above, it seems to me to be folly to expect that every purposeful judgment "should" be confined to some kind of incomplete or pc system of so-called true-false tests of logic.  Rather, I think human reason should also entail respect for that which seems to be self evident, intuitive, and/or empathetic.  That would be meant to restore the human factor into decisions that concern humanity.  Citizens of experience may want to consider, if they value a representative republic, what kind of fundamentals about faith, family, and fidelity are necessary or conducive to sustaining it?  That kind of question is not legitimately answerable by moral scientists or true-false logicians.

I wonder:  How many kids in college who learn about debate fallacies are also learning about the limits of logic and non-faith?


‽ Based on current trends among schools of thought, there is presently no consensus for a standard classification of maths --- except to suggest that any attempted model for classification of maths would be outside an accepted consensus regarding philosophy ‽


I understand that those who claim statements must be either true or false must be defining statements in a context that excludes broad moral statements. However, even then, I doubt they are as rigorously correct as they imagine. For a non-trivial statement to be true or false under an explanatory model, the model itself would generally need to be complete. However, most, if not all, non-trivial models are incomplete. That said, for many practical tinkerings, it works well to take some statements to be "true" and others to be "false."

Friday, June 30, 2017

Model of CSI --2

I don't think natural laws are based only on math.  I do not think math maths itself.  I think Consciousness, operating with math, as a Mathematician, correlates with every expression of measurable Substance.
I see that your position is that Substance, as determined by natural law, simply is.  That is the position based on an assumption that everything is derivative of measurable Substance.  That is a form of metaphysical belief that I tend not to accept.  I prefer my alternative belief about metaphysics.
You seem to believe in the importance or validity of good will (Golden Rule).  I think that to respect good will among humanity is to respect good faith towards God.  IOW, the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule may be collapsed in this:  Be empathetic.
You seem to say "be empathetic" in a kind of Carl Sagan sense:  You don't know why, but our society would not otherwise have evolved as it has. 
My concern with that is:  I don't think that formulation helps inculcate widespread continuation of the kind of empathy (fellow respect) that is needed to sustain decent civilization.   As I look at what oligarchic elitists are doing to our republic, to undermine its borders to import liberty illiterates and lead us to mass cheap labor, I think undermining faith in an innate basis for good will is among the last things we need right now.
You close on an interesting question that I have thought about.  If you are interested, perhaps we can continue and I will get back later.  Meantime, my Harley throttle connection went bad yesterday, and I have to go to the dealer to get it fixed for the rest of the Weekend.  Interesting discussion.  Thanks.  Have a good weekend.  And, assuming you may be an American, have a happy Fourth.


Math-verse:  I conceptualize that a system of math-based laws defines allowable parameters that happen to allow human beings to communicate about measurables.  I don't think any math-verse in itself occupies space-time.  I think the experience of space-time is a derivative.
Substance:  I conceptualize that Appearances happen to become amenable of potential measurement and recordation, for Beings (Perspectives) that happen to be adapted to sense them.
Unified Universe:  I conceptualize a system of connections, such that experiences of measurable appearances can tend to reliably sequential communication.
Regarding wave function in the loose and expansive way you use it:  I don't see that the idea is rigorous enough to support any pretense that it is other than faith based in the way that you use it.

Note:  I see I was unclear and perhaps inconsistent regarding universe/cosmos.  The concepts CAN be conceptualized differently.  Not so much in terms of separate soap-like bubbles, but in terms of possible/fancied separate math-verses. 
The math-verse whose appearance we experience may be said to be our universe.  Other math-verses, if any exist, may be said to constitute the cosmos.  That is the way I am thinking about those concepts.  I am not sure whether others may conceptualize those terms differently. 
My intuition, not empirically testable nor meant to be, would be that, regardless of differences in math-based laws and dimensionality, every expression of a math-verse would correlate with a flux of Consciousness with Math, to avail expression of measurable Substance and accumulating Information.


I think my terms can be understood well enough in context.   Can you define what you mean by a wave function that "contained" the laws of the cosmos?  What does such a wave function look like?  Can it be measured?  Has it ever been seen?  Does it contain all the laws?  If it only contains all the observable laws, does that mean we know what all the observable laws are?  Is the number and kind of observable laws affected by advances in science or by changes in models?  How many of those laws may expand or phase-shift, in response to our input and feedback? Does this kind of "cosmic wave that contains the laws of the cosmos" contain enough laws to make it a reliable indicator?  Does it contain enough certainty or uncertainty to make it a useful idea?    Does this kind of cosmic wave relate to a testable hypothesis, or just an after-the-fact rationalization or assumption?





different a priori assumptions


Re:   "[W]e cannot describe the cosmic causing consciousness beyond stating that it is conscious."
I tend to agree.  We cannot measure consciousness -- whether from the perspective of our math-verse or from whatever our math-verse may have originated from.  And, I agree that we cannot know the mind of God.
I do not agree that makes God irrelevant, because I do believe, in spiritual concerns, that the essential concern relates not to knowledge, but to self-evidence, intuition, and innate empathy.
A few thoughts:
1) The idea of innate, connected empathy does not require much more than recognizing/stating (that it is) conscious.  Consciousness is consciousness.  Each of us has a qualitative experience of our perspective of it, that is self evident to us.  Each of us can intuit that our feelings and interests would likely be much the same as that of any other perspective, had our bodies and brains been cycled through what it has been cycled through.  It is not measuring consciousness that tends to interest me for reasoning about morality.  It is qualitative appreciation.
2)  When I, as an observer, am involved with the collapse of a wave function, I do not become "outside the context of the building" for that collapse.
3) IAE, I am not confident it accords with good reasoning to apply observations from perspectives based on our math-verse to assume they must apply also to perspectives that may (or may not) abide a-part from our math-verse.
4) I doubt there are measurably manifest applications that are implicated by your line of reasoning about the relation of humans to other math-verses that would be inconsistent with mine.
5)  When you apply your line of reasoning to postulate other math-verses, or to argue that Consciousness does not function in a way that is consistent with reconciliation of all lts perspectives, you are beyond empiricism and into faith-based metaphysics.
6)  Since empiricism will not resolve the issue, I think other forms of reason are appropriate.  They would entail such aspects as self evidence, intuition, innate empathy, and, insofar as reasonably possible, tests for consistency, coherence, and completeness.
7) You seem to be wanting to assume that existentiality entails that every possible "parallel" math-verse must be a derivative of a cosmic wave acting in space-time. 
But I am arguing from an assumption that math-verses derive from (or with) Consciousness functioning with Math to express Information.  I am saying Substance (such as cosmic waves functioning in space-time) is not the superior from which everything else is derived.  I am saying Substance is either an inferior derivative, or, at most, a coordinate aspect with an innate condition of Consciousness.
8)  If you take your assumption, you can construct a fancy system of rationalizations.  But so can I, with my assumption.  You cannot disprove my assumption simply by indulging your own assumption. 
Moreover, my assumption supports the Great Commandment (good faith) and the Golden Rule (good will) --- which I believe to be nearly self-evident, and, from History, to be essential to the establishment and preservation of a decent representative republic that respects the freedom and dignity of its citizens.
9) It may be more interesting to think about how Consciousness could be reasonably modeled or rationalized to guide and reconcile each and every one of its perspectives.  You have not touched on that, I assume because you consider it to be irrelevant so long as you remain committed to your a-priori system of assumptions?
10)  Here are some recent links that might be interesting.  I do not vouch for them because I have not read them.  Their titles look interesting, so I will likely peruse them, to see if they might add any insight.  Also, one pertains to Michio Kaku.


I don't think a wave-function collapse "caused" our universe.  I think wave-function collapses are continuously renormalizing.  I think the expression (manifestation) of our universe is a correlate (not a cause) of a perpetual flux of Consciousness, which necessarily signifies its perspectives in systems of math, which produces appearances of measurable Substance and accumulations and renormalizations of Information.
I don't think a cosmic wave function can come into being by itself.  I don't think math can math itself.  I think a math-based system of natural laws implicates a Mathematician.  I don't think math-in-itself (without a Mathematician) has, or produces, a locus "within" which math itself must be "contained."
I have meetings later today, so I will look at this in more depth later.  It's an interesting train.  We are assuming different axioms.  You seem to want to believe or conceptualize that everything is derivative of Substance.  While I conceptualize that Consciousness (and perhaps Information) is on at least an equally necessary plane.  If you leap in faith to take your axiom as "truth," you may rationalize it in ways similar to as you have done.
For now, I will say that I don't think everything flows down from measurable matter, energy, space, time (what I mean by Substance).  I think of Substance as what is appearing to be measurably manifested, just before it is transferred to a sequential record as stored Information.  I think Substance is an apparent derivative of Consciousness as it fluxes with Math.  What collapses is not out of Substance (space-time), but out of Consciousness as it fluxes with a math field (laws of Nature).  Substance abides only as a fleeting appearance, before it is absorbed as Information.
It may be that different math-based systems for Laws of Nature are used to sponsor different systems of dimensionality (worlds).  But I doubt those worlds would be defined by any "thing-in-itself" that actually exists "in" (or out of) space-time.  I don't think there exists any soap-film like edge to set apart or define our universe --- or any other.  I think any separateness, if any, would be more due to something like a receding rainbow effect.  A continuous renormalization (of appearances), that abides perpetually, rather than as a "big bang" event from any point "in" space-time (Substance). 
Renormalization entails continuous addition and loss of Information, such that we cannot capture the end of the rainbow or say what happened before the point of renormalization (big bang).  As Information is lost, we would have no means to remember it.  We would simply re-rationalize as if it had never been part of the record.  (Indeed, we may even try to rationalize that Information cannot be lost.)
Now, if you can locate the actual point of origin of the Big Bang, or the edge of our universe as it separates us from others (or if you can capture the end of a rainbow within a system that is not artificially apart from your own), then I may alter my thinking.
I suspect you want to say, with the Deists, that whatever the Consciousness that fluxes with Math to produce our system of dimensionality, it has "left the building."  That seems to me to be the interesting issue.  I don't believe or conceptualize that to be the case.  I suspect Consciousness necessarily remains involved and interconnecting.  That may be worth more consideration and elaboration, later.


Christopher Yoder:

I have updated my argument based on further research
P1. A wave function is a set of the probabilities for the quantum superpositions of observables.
P2. The von Nuemann-Wigner Interpretation states that a consciousness is required to collapse the wave function.
P3. The cosmos was created by the collapse of, what I will call, the cosmic wave function that contained the natural laws of the cosmos as its observables and that our cosmos is only one of a set of possible cosmos described by the cosmic wave function.
P4. The Cosmic Wave Function exists necessarily apart from the quantum superpositions it describes and the reality resulting from its collapse.
P5. A consciousness that collapses a wave function cannot be contained within the set of observables of the wave function.
C. Therefore, there must be a consciousness external to our cosmos that caused the cosmic wave function to collapse. Furthermore, we cannot describe the cosmic causing consciousness beyond stating that it is conscious.


Your train breaks down, especially at Point 3.  Our one unifying universe, given a connecting sense of the Cosmos, connects everything -- including the wave function, the particular observers, the ongoing series and unfolding of collapses and events, the laws of Nature, the record of the past, the flux of the present, the potentiality of the future.
[EDIT:   Instead of unifying universe, I should have said unifying cosmos.  The intuition being that every math-verse of the cosmos is an expression of Consciousness, that avails the (derivative) expression of measurable appearances (Substance) and an accumulating record (Information).  And that such Consciousness feeds back to guide every perspective of it, in every math-verse.  How could IT leverage such power?  By math, delegations, fractal iterations?  Why should such power be intuited?  How could IT know each of us intimately, and yet be a-part from us?]
The idea, as I would have it, does not conceptualize anything -- measurable or immeasurable -- that is not connected as a part or aspect of the Cosmos.  (If space-time is a secondary illusion, derivative of Consciousness and Math, then it is an illusion that any thing other than appearance collapses "inside" the Cosmos or that any perspective of Consciousness actually resides "inside" space-time.  Rather, the encompassment is of a connecting and math-based fluxing nature, not a spatial nature.  I do not envision bubbles of universes "inside" spheres of soap-like films.)
That's why the model conceptualizes our Cosmos as the re-presentation of one Godhead, functioning in 3 fluxing aspects:  present Consciousness, past accumulation of Information, and future potentiality of measurable Substance. 
I did not suggest that present Consciousness is the only face/aspect of the Trinity.  I agree that present Consciousness does not simultaneously perform the function of the other two aspects of the Trinitarian Godhead.
You still haven't answered WHY any perspective of Consciousness should apply the Golden Rule, rather than simply do what its glands want, and then call that "moral."  IOW, your solution seems to remain trivial.  I agree we should respect the Golden Rule.  But I say it has a spiritually immeasurable and innate basis that is beyond triviality, glands, lusts, feelings, instincts, and pleasure.
Why, for example, "should not" a culture of elitists seek by using its accumulated control over all institutions of persuasion, to fool the masses into believing they are subject to a rule of law, which the elites intend "should not" apply to them?  IOW, do you believe the Golden Rule actually abides as a fundamental aspect of the Cosmos, or just as a contrivance of convenience for pleasuring gang-bangers and elites while they loot or rule the masses?

You have not explained how your idea of morality can inspire any society to determine or condemn that which is poisonous to it.
Yes, I can act morally on your behalf. When I acted to earn a living to support my children, I was acting morally on their behalf.
I think you meant to ask, can I be moral in your stead? On that, I may agree with you -- No.
Which is why I have a problem with the Jesus-as-sacrificial-appeasement model. What I don't have a problem with is the idea that being moral entails choices, which entails foregoing alternatives, which entails sacrifices. (If Jesus is God, then Jesus was not sacrificing to appease Himself, but to inspire humanity to apprehend the general necessity of sacrifice in order to function morally. IOW, to make choices within a system of conservation, even when hard, and not to try to tolerate everything.)
My only evidence of higher mind is my own direct experience of consciousness, together with my observations about how consciousness seems to emerge, unfold, compete, cooperate, and reconcile.
Perhaps you mean to ask what is the evidence that the cosmos requires observers? That consciousness seems to be required to collapse the wave function?
There are various models and interpretations about that. I tend to skip those and go to this: If in the beginning there was no-thing, because everything was in a state of annihilation on account of being erased by mutually opposing charges, then what we experience as manifest existentiality arose because of a crack in that symmetry, whereby much of what we interpret as matter and anti-matter split to opposing camps.
So that "no-thing-ness" was not entirely nothingness, but an immeasurable kind of "somethingness."
I can think of two fundaments, in innate connection with that which we interpret as the physical things that can be measured, but which themselves are not measurable. Those two things are math itself, and the qualitative aspect of consciousness (which may be imperfectly rationalized at various times and places as love, empathy, enmity, joy, fear, avarice, astonishment, respect, awe, etc.).
Once things split, that consciousness associates -- at higher level to preserve unitary connection, and at lower levels to experience perspectives from variously split loci in space-time.
While thus associated, those perspectives that are dependent on their attachments to local patterns are subject to disruption upon the disruption of those patterns. They are mortal.
Although they are mortal perspectives, that of which they are perspectives, i.e., consciousness, is of the same enduring and fundamental essence. Consciousness is consciousness.
To me, that seems intuitive almost to the point of being self-evident. Being the a-priories, that math and consciousness cannot be proven by their derivatives --- i.e., systems of math that are stored as In-form-ation, aka matter, and transmitted as in-form-ation, aka energy.
IOW, as a model, this can at best be intuited, but it cannot be subjected to empirical proof or falsification. What it can be tested for is internal consistency, coherence, and/or completeness.
Why do I think this to be important? Because the idea that we are each a perspective of the same fundamental aspect, Consciousness, is a basis for inculcating respect for decent empathy, i.e., good faith and good will. Which leads directly back to Jesus and the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule.
From that, if one wishes to sustain himself, his family, progeny, culture, and nation, he must judge (even when he cannot know) what is required for that sustenance.
A citizenry, to assimilate and endure as a nation, requires common standards (not just common approval or omni-tolerance) by which to judge what is necessary to sustain it.
Neither an individual nor a nation can long endure by tolerating everything and everybody.
From human perspective, by what standards are (or should) part or all of what unfolds in space-time be thought to be pre-determined, contemporaneously determined, or post rationalized?
Because I believe in contemporaneous participation in the effecting of determinations, I believe, not in Free Will, but in a feedback process of reconciled and Participatory Will. Of that Will, the moral absolute requires good faith and good will. But the particular aspects of that depend on assimilations of judgment.
For that, a test is this: What kind of society do we want to try to establish, and what principles are needed to nurture it?

If acting morally is entirely an individual action, then does not your concept of morality reduce to a trivial label, to call whatever you choose to do "moral"?
I don't think the standard of morality is entirely objective or subjective. I think it is a reconciliation of a Higher Mind to different individual contexts and subjects (persons). For example, Jesus did not command us to come to Him, nor did He prescribe detailed rules for every situation, as law-drooling Pharisees seem to do. Rather, He spoke in parables and of the Great Commandment (good faith) and the Golden Rule (lynay -- good will). To me, a tendency towards good faith and good will is innate to the Cosmos. I believe an aspect/face of the Trinitarian Cosmos is necessarily conscious of that reconciliatory unfolding. Something about the unfolding of the Cosmos seems to require a coordinate Consciousness/Awareness/Observer.
Isaac Asimov played with such an idea. He seemed to believe it. I don't know how he did that and still thought he should label himself as an atheist. Maybe he thought he must be an atheist if he did not believe in the Bible literally?

You "am that you am"? I wonder if a Reconciling Principler believes that "He just am"?
To justify Morality, I think you're putting a lot of faith in (pre-determined?*) Nature.
The Founders provided the language you borrowed: "right to life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness." Most of them expressed belief in "Nature's God."
I am glad you believe in moral principles beyond yourself. I wonder why you believe your moral principles should apply to anyone else?
You think your basis is other than metaphysical, even though it is "evidenced" only by self-referring intuition and empathy. IOW, nothing in science-based, measuring empiricism evidences that your moral principles "should" be applied to judge others.
I also believe "you am." I just believe "you" are among many other perspectives of am-ness ... that are necessarily judged and reconciled in respect of a Moral Principler.
*Many quantum thinkers do not believe each succeeding event has been pre-determined. To get around that, they necessarily resort to metaphysical leaps of faith -- such as by imagining Many (non-testable and parallel) Worlds, or by supposing that a Godhead contemporaneously reconciles the unfolding choices. Either way, a non-empirically provable leap of faith is entailed.

I don't see it that way. I think we journey as imperfect, mortal perspectives of God. The Godhead is the Reconciler, in a feedback relationship with each of its Perspectives of Consciousness.
MUSING With A Word Salad --- Not To The Taste Of Many:
To seek explanations for moral purposefulness is to necessitate reasoning (that something more than math-in-itself and/or particles-in-themselves be modeled) ... to account for our pre-determinative choices.
We cannot fathom the ultimate cause of ourselves. So, looking into ourselves, how do we choose which causes to serve? Well, looking into ourselves, we intuit and empathize, to suss our purposefulness, based on a leap of faith that something immeasurable, beyond ourselves and our cosmos-as-sensed, is purposeful.
Regarding Purposefulness and Salvation, I would suspect/model:
IDENTITY: Our separate experiences of Identity serve a Reconciler of Consciousness. Information regarding our Identities is preserved/carried forward to the extent we continue to serve the spiritual tastes of the Reconciler with regard to unfolding pursuits of truth, beauty, and artistic expression.
SALVATION: Not all Information is preserved, but Information that is lost is removed from the memory of all lesser spirits and mortals. Their ways of modeling and thinking will renormalize, as if the lost information had never been manifested.
ILLUSION (Maya): What we take to be Matter and Energy are, more fundamentally, re-presentations for the manifesting, transmitting, and storing of Information.
Matter, Energy, Bodies, Brains, Senses seem to exist in local contexts because our perspectives are renormalized to seem to exist with local contexts.
However, at a quantum level, possibilities for newly unfolding expressions of relationships among matter and energy may be as infinite as math -- and math, itself, need not occupy local space or time.
To deny a thing is just (that it ought to be a certain way) is to affirm that the thing should be a different way. To deny a thing is beautiful is to affirm that it is not beautiful, which is to presuppose a sense of beauty. To deny a particular responsibility is to affirm a responsibility to do otherwise. Consequently, the sense of justice, beauty, responsibility, is self-evident and known from within. To consciously deny the existence of these qualities is to affirm conscious appreciation for what they are. To rationalize the lack of a meta a priori, one must invoke an a priori. Thus, no one can proceed in this life without a leap of faith of some kind.
I do not think general truth, beauty, and morality are the OBJECTIVE specific same to every SUBJECTIVE perspective of consciousness. However, I do think they represent a general ideal or truth that applies to each subject perspective, as he/she seeks after them in his/her context of experience.
IOW, the Objective (changeless) Source (Godhead) is in a state of (changing) feedback with each of its perspectives, as it guides them towards enlightenment --- even though no perspective that is attached to a local contextualization can ever achieve perfect enlightenment or become or replace God. Mortals pursue enlightenment, but do not achieve it.

Body, Soul, Spirit: Substance, Information, Consciousness: Re-present-ation of Information, Accumulation of Past In-form-ation, Present Apprehension of Information.

Well, define what "Moral" means to you, in a way that is meaningful, i.e., not trivial to subjectively conditioned pleasures. Can you be compassionate, tolerant, and respectful for everyone and everything? I don't see how such a mind set (weak willed leap of faith?) could long survive, in an individual or a nation.
"If" presupposes a logical construct, which seems to presuppose a logician. Math itself is not a verb. Math does not math itself. Math is activated by a Mathematician.
As you presuppose a logical construct, I think you are presupposing a Logician. If you think you are not, I think you are engaging a Leap of Faith, i.e., a faith that no logician is requisite in order for logic to "exist."

Son of God is a metaphor. It gives a poetic, shorthand way for assuring that God, more like a parent than a distant monster, is concerned with the unfolding development of each individual. If more explanation is desired, instead of arguing literalism against a metaphor, delve into philosophy.
Moreover, our cosmos DOES appear to us as an ineffable, trinitarian mix of consciousness, measurable appearances, and cumulating records.
The idea of a single changeless originator (like a thing-in-itself) makes little sense when we see that every measurable thing in fact does appear to change. Though it may seem to jump logic, the apparent FACT IS that an essence sponsors change, i.e., a Changeless-Changer, i.e., the Godhead --- not an impotent or monster-grooming idea of a singularity-by-itself.

No conception or story about God can be other than a less than perfect re-presentation of God.
I think an adult parent tends to want to raise a child to become a responsible individual. Along the way, this entails a lot of tactics, often including tough love.

Well, there is no coherent sense involved in your position. If no faith is involved, are you saying you know? Dang! You should write a book to reveal your great knowledge! Or maybe you have scientific proof you can submit to Michio Kaku for peer review?
What kind of agnostic are you? Are you the doubting kind, the knowing kind, or the dramatic kind? In the sense that I do not claim to know, I share some doubt. Does that make everyone who does not know but who tends to believe, an agnostic in your intended meaning? Do you have any idea what your intended meaning is?

Where did I claim to be morally superior? What I claim, Dimmy, is that a cultural assimilation of a sense of morality is essential if a representative republic is to be sustained. Learn to read.

What do you mean by personal morality? Is it like moral anarchy? Is that represented in some parade alongside the proud genitalia marchers? Do you imagine manmade laws do not take public mores and sensibilities into account?

My faith, properly understood, is copasetic with the faith of every decent person who believes in the representative republic. Your faith in being able to divine my faith from a single comment is incredibly shallow. Perhaps your faith is mainly in your genitalia and gratifications. I don't know -- just asking.
Btw, even a-theism entails a leap of faith. If you think a clear wall can separate what is religious or spiritual from what is morally philosophical or a proper subject for political law making, you are one very deluded puppy.

The Ten Commandments are an historical specification for rules of good faith and good will. A person who does not believe there abides any reality behind such rules of intuition and empathy, who believes he should instead be his own god/force seeker of pleasure, will not want any contrary moral teaching or specification to become popularized. Such incorrigible corrupti and ignoranti will celebrate when such a monument is smashed, just as they will celebrate when the faith, family, and fidelity needed to sustain a representative republic are smashed. They care not and know not what they do, because all their moral instruction comes from their hormones, children and succeeding generations be cursed.

I am in accord.
Regarding Purposefulness and Salvation, I would suspect/model:
IDENTITY: Our separate experiences of Identity serve a Reconciler of Consciousness. Information regarding our Identities is preserved/carried forward to the extent we continue to serve the spiritual tastes of the Reconciler with regard to unfolding pursuits of truth, beauty, and artistic expression.
SALVATION: Not all Information is preserved, but Information that is lost is removed from the memory of all lesser spirits and mortals. Their ways of modeling and thinking will renormalize, as if the lost information had never been manifested.
ILLUSION: What we take to be Matter and Energy are, more fundamentally, re-presentations for the manifesting, transmitting, and storing of Information.
Matter, Energy, Bodies, Brains, Senses seem to exist in local contexts because our perspectives are renormalized to seem to exist with local contexts.
At a quantum level, possibilities for newly unfolding expressions of relationships among matter and energy may be as infinite as math -- which need not itself occupy any local space or time.
One way of modeling an infinite potentiality may be by way of an idea of Many Worlds, or a Multiverse --- wherewith all possibilities are expressed in some world. I think that view is more absurd than a model that intuits a Reconciling Godhead. In my view, the Reconciler guides, reconciles, effects which among possibilities to make manifest, then continues to allow them to unfold --- as a canvas of art might unfold for an Artist. The Artist engages in a feedback appreciation and unfolding reconciliation of His art. Each perspective has a personal relationship with the Reconciler.
My view detracts nothing from empiricism or math because it does not model the Godhead as giving expression to any measurables except in accord with a conservatory math. It is at least as parsimonious as a metaphysical idea of Many Worlds. Moreover, a Many Worlds idea does not dispense with an implication of a Godhead. And, an idea of a Reconciling Godhead can implicate an idea of feedback among perspectives of good faith and good will -- without which hardly any idea of a decent civilization would have a prayer (pun intended).
To deny a thing is just (that it ought to be a certain way) is to affirm that the thing should be a different way. To deny a thing is beautiful is to affirm that it is not beautiful, which is to presuppose a sense of beauty. To deny a particular responsibility is to affirm a responsibility to do otherwise. Consequently, the sense of justice, beauty, responsibility, is self-evident and known from within. To consciously deny the existence of these qualities is to affirm conscious appreciation for what they are. To rationalize the lack of a meta a priori, one must invoke an a priori. Thus, no one can proceed in this life without a leap of faith of some kind.
I do not think general truth, beauty, and morality are the objective specific same to every subjective perspective of consciousness. However, I do think they represent a general truth that applies to each subject perspective, as he/she seeks after them in his/her context of experience.
IOW, the objective Source is in a state of feedback with each of its perspectives, as it guides them towards enlightenment.

It is self evident that Consciousness exists. It is strongly evident that it exists beyond the space-time perimeter of any individual person's skin. The existence of Consciousness seems to be at least as fundamental in its expression as space-time. If there was a Big Bang out of otherwise nothingness, then that preceding nothingness must have been somethingness.
To model as if there are many bubbles of Big Bangs is just an alternative regression on the paradox. Moreover, it is absurd. Is there supposed to be some soap bubble film at the outer layer of our universe and other universes? Is there supposed to be some spatial point of beginning for the Big Bang? Is there supposed to be some fundamental building block particle-in-itself that accounts for all the matter and energy in our universe, like a system of legos blocks (in lieu of a connecting logos)? If those individual things account for all the transforming interconnections that we experience, and they are each a thing-in-itself, then how, except in respect of something beyond themselves, do they interconne and trans-form?
Fundamentally, the idea of a system of particles-in themselves as the basis for the expression of our materially measurable universe cannot be reconciled to any consistent, coherent, complete system of logic or reason.
if the preceding somethingness was more than mere math, but animated in respect of conservatory rules of math, and if it cannot be fathomed or measured as legos-like building blocks, then what was/is it? Not any thing measureable. Not any thing that makes more sense than innate Consciousness operating in respect of a chosen system of math-based rules.
Given that kind of Consciousness and Math, measurable Substance and cumulative Information seem necessarily to flow from or with it. Consciousness seems to be at least as fundamental an aspect for the expression of the Cosmos as Substance and In-form-ation. If so, the Trinitarian Godhead would seem to be expressed as (apprehensive) Consciousness, (measurable) Substance, (cumulating) Information.
Why is innate Consciousness important to any model of religion, morality, and empathy? Because Consciousness is Consciousness. A reconciling face/aspect of the CSI Trinity. A basis for empathetic connecting between each and all of its adopted perspectives.
Appearances do not exist in themselves, outside an interpretive context. As they come into appearance, Consciousness at some level must be present or in potential to sense the appearance. As appearances of what is measurable seem to expand, the experience of Consciousness seems to expand with each such appearance.
No-thing-in-itself "really" lies beyond the sensory limits of Consciousness, because there is no such a thing as any particular measurable-in-itself. There is no particle-in-itself. All appearances of Substance flux, phase, and shift, in coordination with a contextualizing flux of CSI.
Appearances to be found may contemporaneously lie beyond the senses of a particular expression of Consciousness. But such appearances cannot lie beyond the potential and contemporaneous sense of all expressions of Consciousness. As potentials for senses of Consciousness expand, so also do potentials for appearances to their senses --- coordinately.
Because all that is measurable consists of what is apparent, and what is apparent depends on senses evolving for perspectives of Consciousness, no-thing (no Substance of space, time, matter, energy) that is measurable to any mortal can come into here and now existential expression without a correlating expression of, or potential for, Consciousness for it to be presented to or recorded for.
It is not unreasonable to believe that, without a unifying and Reconciling Consciousness, the cosmos of appearances and re-presentations could not be expressed.
Regarding illusions, appearances, rainbows, and renormalizations:
From Wiki --- Māyā --- a spiritual concept connoting "that which exists, but is constantly changing and thus is spiritually unreal", and the "power or the principle that conceals the true character of spiritual reality".

Do those who routinely eat babies think that what they're doing is evil? No. I don't think they tend to espouse belief that it is good or evil. Not unless they have fomented some religious notion that they have been specially blessed and chosen by Allah to devour other people's babies.
Rather, I suspect they tend to think they, and everyone and everything, are beyond good and evil. I suspect the only basis for good and evil they may espouse is pleasure, gratification, instinct. I doubt they respect any idea of sacrifice or delayed gratification in the service of an innate moral connection among and between all the various perspectives of consciousness.
This is not because such basis is beyond innate intuition and empathy, but because respect for its espousal has been brutalized, trained, or mutated out of them.

Well, why is it evil for people to eat babies? Why is it not just Nature, experimenting with another evolutionary pattern? Maybe the baby was very tasty. Or the participants were being prepped for some new social order. S/
Except as a label for personal changing preferences, in what way does the concept of Evil pertain to anything that commonly exists?
EDIT: To appreciate Evil, it may help to consider what Good is not. A good person does not lead other people into evil.  A good person does not, without good reason, subjugate other adults to a subhuman status. (He may defend himself from others who already have chosen a subhuman status.)
For the most part, he does not remove freedom of thought, communication, association, speech, or enterprise from another person.  He does not shout down invited speakers.  He does not seek to hire or promote waves of demented profs or talking heads, to brainwash students and citizens so as to remove their capacities to reason for themselves.
A good person accords respect to other adults who present themselves in good faith and good will, and tries for persuasion to rely on reason.  That is not to say that he fails to take into account the interests, feelings, and passions of others.  Nor is it to say that he so coddles young people as to raise them to be wussies.  Nor is it to say he is unwilling, when necessary, to be rude to persons who do not incline to present themselves in good faith or good will.

To rally condemnation against any actions or actors, you need a higher standard against which to condemn or judge them.
There are various ways to serve NO Higher Standard. The Pollyanna Doper way is to espouse that this, no matter what, is always the best of all possible worlds. The Self-Godding way is to pretend that your personal gratification, no matter how it changes, is the standard against which all others should be assessed. The Toolish way is to surrender your mind and body to the use of another Mouthpiece or Gang of Mouthpieces. The Rationalizing Indoctrinated way is to let your mind be trained to reason in circles, using slippery words to promote a program to flim-flam yourself and others. The Gamer way is to see others only as pawns in a game to test who can win by accumulating the most stuff. The Pagan way is to espouse that everyone must serve one's own needs and instincts under the Natural Order, which prescribes that everyone be good in his own way. The Homey way is to tag and gang-bang with others on some superficial basis -- like skin color, place of origin, diet, or dress. The People-Farming Law-Drooler way is to devise schemes for imposing order by using subalterns and shills to dispense favors and punishments in order to impose rules over the masses that are not applied to the elites.
The Only Way to inspire people towards an Ideal of Higher Mindedness is to rationalize a model that will inculcate a society whose members, as they pass into responsible adulthood, will each respect the freedom and dignity of the others. This requires a Leap Of Faith to inculcate generalized good faith and sustainable good will.
That is what Jesus did, under His teaching of the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule. That teaching is needed to inspire people to find ---- beyond all the noise of the Pollyanna Dopers, Self-Goddings, Tools, Rationalizing Indoctrinateds, Gamers, Pagans, Homeys, and People-Farming Law Droolers --- the still, quiet voice of common empathy and decency that abides with every perspective of consciousness. The Good News is: That voice is not beyond reason. And ITs significations are traced and written throughout the Good Book, the Cosmos, and the Mind of every reasoning perspective of consciousness.

The more our central gov takes on the duty to re-raise us, the less competent we seem to become as individual adults. This feeds a need for the central gov to take on even more duties to re-raise us, which makes us even less competent as individual adults. How low can we circle the drain in this way, before our society falls into it?

FWIW, here is what I think.
Trivial truth, mathematical truth, does not change. But the truth about what may be morally best for a particular person or society fluxes and changes frequently, as opportunities change. So I don't think it sheds light to proceed from an axiomatic belief that moral truth does not change in its applications depending on changes in contextual relations.
For example, a representative republic based on general respect for individual rights and responsibilities may be best for one society, but inappropriate for others. When a people are ready for it, a representative republic seems best. When they're not, trying to force it on them can be a fool's errand.
A society that was appropriate for a representative republic may become not appropriate, if it is flooded with liberty-illiterates or if its replacement generation is wrongly schooled or indoctrinated. If you drive a person or child or moral cripple to the middle of a desert and force him to get out, without water or food or clothes, and tell him to go now and be free, that tends not to be in the practice of a timeless and good principle.
There abide general moral principles whose truths do not change. They are the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule. However, in specific and material applications, because different mortal perspectives are necessarily different, those absolute principles are applied differently to the different perspectives of each subject participant.
This is not strictly situational ethics or absolutist ethics. Rather, it is objective ethics reconciled to the perspectives of various subject persons. This is why we leave it to God to judge the souls (essential essences) of people, but we take responsibility ourselves to decide how to deal with them on earth.
Man-made law is filled with prescriptions and proscriptions, but nearly all of them are subject to exceptions, not all of which have been specifically provided for. To try to nail all those down tends to become errands for law-drooling fools. If there is a place where absolutes always apply equally, I doubt it is inhabited by human beings.
As an aspiration, I do believe it best for a person and society to aspire to become individually responsible, free, competent, and decent. We can try to teach that to children and to people who have lost their way. Moral truths can abide as general ideals. As detailed instructions for every particular application, not so much.
Unfortunately, it can also become necessary, if a representative republic is ever to be restored and not to perish from the earth, to make tough decisions to separate from or banish certain kinds of hard corps moral delinquents. Drastic times may call for drastic measures. This is why a sustainable republic has to establish and enforce borders. It cannot fix or ensure the physical or moral health of everyone. Of course, those who are banished will tend to curse the ones who are trying to banish (or change) them.

No measurable thing would exist, but for cracked symmetry. It is asymmetry that gives us matter and anti-matter. IOW, the cosmic big bang. Asymmetry means innate in-equal-ity.
No pattern or form becomes receptive as a perspective of consciousness unless it is specially (unequally) favored and reconciled. Without inequality (symmetry breaking), there would be no measurable thing to manifest, no basis for any equa-tional unfolding.
Maybe Dems bent on equality hate their very existence? Maybe they have a beef with the Almighty for "making" them be miserable?

On a meta level, consciousness is consciousness. On a mortal level, "all people should be equal before the law" is something a proponent of a decent and representative republic should say. It has to do with rule under a framework of law, as opposed to rule under despots over minutiae.
In that respect, I believe in the Golden Rule and the Veil of Ignorance. But I apply them differently from most Proggies. To love your child as yourself is not to give him everything you have, but to help him learn how to become responsible for himself.
I believe in tough love. I don't believe entitlement-teaching is "love." I do not believe in trying to impose perfect equality in results, but I do believe each person should try to respect what seems to him/her to be the unfolding concerns of the Reconciler.
I think human freedom and dignity necessitates that each and every subject adult learn to take subjective responsibility for his/her own pursuits, raising his/her own family, and preserving his/her own values, culture, and republic.
I believe the existence of a Source of Higher Mindedness is a Reality, under which all mortals are subject. But I believe the last thing that Source seeks is to make every human being an equal replica of every other human being. Or to dictate minutiae of diets, dress, and ceremonies. I loath the tendency towards hive-mindedness of incompetents, losers, perpetual infants, wussie-people, and conning parasites and moochers.


What I love is a society that defends the freedom and dignity of its members.   For that, some things about Canada and the U.S. are admirable, and some are not.  I do not admire the willingness of many Canadians and Californians to enforce pc with criminal punishment. 
You might also suffer from a distorted or overly literalistic belief about the god you say you don't believe in. 
I don't believe in an old guy in a long beard, either.  To me, the Trinitarian Godhead is what reconciles the fluxing expression of qualitative Consciousness, measurably manifesting Substance, and accumulating Information.  (Do you believe in consciousness, substance, and information?)  For substance, matter is stored information, while energy is transmitting information.  No expression of substance is entirely matter or entirely energy, but a mix.
In practice, Atheists tend to indulge their own leaps of faith about moral connections and reconciliations (good faith and good will), but they have a fetish-like aversion to the letters G o d.  Also, a metaphysical belief that banishing the sequential use of the letters G o d would result in more happiness and fewer conflicts.  I agree, it's not a fancy belief, just a simplistic one.
Do Canadians need more hugs?  The thing about churches (forums for assimilating community good will) is that they tend to dispense hugs and help assimilate feelings of moral purposefulness.  Which tends to help strengthen and preserve societies and nations.