Backlighting

From the May, 1962 edition of The Objectivist Newsletter by Nathaniel Branden: Question: Since everything in the universe requires a cause, must not the universe itself have a cause, which is god? Answer: There are two basic fallacies in this argument. The first is the assumption that, if the universe required a causal explanation, the positing of a "god" would provide it. To posit god as the creator of the universe is only to push the problem back one step farther: Who then created god? Was there a still earlier god who created the god in question? We are thus led to an infinite regress - the very dilemma that the positing of a "god" was intended to solve. But if it is argued that no one created god, that god does not require a cause, that god has existed eternally - then on what grounds is it denied that the universe has existed eternally? It is true that there cannot be an infinite series of antecedent causes. But recognition of this fact should lead one to reappraise the validity of the initial question, not to attempt to answer it by stepping outside the universe into some gratuitously invented supernatural dimension. This leads to the second and more fundamental fallacy in this argument: the assumption that the universe as a whole requires a causal explanation. It does not. The universe is the total of which exists. Within the universe, the emergence of new entities can be explained in terms of the actions of entities that already exist: The cause of a tree is the seed of the parent tree; the cause of a machine is the purposeful reshaping of matter by men. All actions presuppose the existence of entities - and all emergences of new entities presuppose the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. Nothing does not exist. causality presupposes existence, existence does not presuppose causality . There can be no cause "outside" of existence or "anterior" to it. The forms of existence may change and evolve, but the fact of existence is the irreducible primary at the base of all casual chains. Existence-not "god"-is the First Cause. Just as the concept of a causality applies to events and entities within the universe, but no to the universe as a whole - so the concept of time applies to events and entities within the universe, but no to the universe as a whole. The universe did not "begin" - it did not, at some point in time, "spring into being." Time is a measurement of motion. Motion presupposes entities that move. If nothing existed, there could be no time. Time is "in" the universe; the universe is not "in" time. The man who asks: "Where did existence come from?" or "What caused it?" is the man who has never grasped that existence exists. This is the mentality of a savage or mystic who regards existence as some sort of incomprehensible miracle - and seeks to "explain" it by reference to nonexistence. Existence is all that exists, the nonexistent does not exist; there is nothing for existence to have come out of - and nothing means nothing. If you are tempted to ask: "What's outside the universe?" - recognize that you are asking; "What's outside of existence?" and that the idea of "something outside of existence" is a contradiction in terms; nothing is outside of existence, and "nothing" is not just another kind of "something" - it is nothing. Existence exists; you cannot go outside it; you cannot get under it, on top of it, or behind it. Existence exists - and only existence exists: There is nowhere else to go.”

It wouldn't hurt to also get Rand Paul to speak (although I doubt he would accept an invitation). He certainly has a significant amount of steadfast supporters. The more ammo the better. --J

Now here's someone who doesn't mince words:

U.S. Gatling guns placed on North Korea boats http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2016/06/28/Source-US-Gatling-guns-placed-on-North-Korea-boats/7541467128633/

Mikee "I can almost understand the clueless media listeners but not the so called scholars and intellectuals voting for her because of hating Trump. Brings clueless to a new level" Yes sir. Also brings the phrase blank-out to a new level.

Scotland tightening it's grip on firearms and airguns(!) http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/over-12-000-weapons-surrendered-in-airgun-amnesty-1-4160230

I have smoke alarms, which were installed by the builder of my residence, at the highest point of the ceiling...about 12 ft. Rather than risk replacing the batteries via a stepladder, I'll probably just install wall mounted alarms on the walls, 6' up from the ground. Didn't know until recently that wall mounted ones were available.

It sure is, with perhaps the exception of it's usefulness (hand gun & rifle ammunition) for close quarters confrontations. -J

Faster Than a Speeding Bullet: A First Look at America's Supergun http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/faster-than-a-speeding-bullet-a-first-look-at-americas-supergun/ar-BBtyPuZ?ocid=spartandhp

lol. Perhaps I could put my offset printing experience to use. -J

Here's the "Undertaker", a guest on Neil Cavuto's show, with his take on the economy: http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2016/05/26/greenspan-western-world-headed-for-state-disaster.html

Kalifornia close to regulating ammo sales. Legislators passed a bill detailing such. It now goes to Governor Moonbeam for his signature: http://concealednation.org/2016/05/california-about-to-require-background-checks-for-ammunition/

What is the proper role of government? --J

Me paratrooper? No. Drafted the end of '67 and after basic at Ft. Jackson trained at Ft. Belvoir as an offset press operator. Spent all of '68 & most of '69 working in the Army's Printing & Publication Center in Kawasaki and living in Yokohama. I was one of the few who lucked out... didn't have to go to that god forsaken place, Vietnam. --Joe

Very interesting Brant...thanks for sharing.--Joe

"The futuristic ship is commanded by Captain James Kirk. If the ship is accepted by the Navy, it will conduct weapons trials in 2018" No it's not a misprint...James Kirk is in command. http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a20218/a-reporters-tour-of-the-uss-zumwalt/

Sheldon Adelson is putting some of his chips ($100 million) on Trumps table. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/14/report-gop-mega-donor-adelson-to-give-trump-up-to-100-million.html "Sheldon Gary Adelson (pronounced /ˈædəlsən/; born August 4, 1933) is an American business magnate. He is the chairman and chief executive officer of the Las Vegas Sands Corporation, which owns the Marina Bay Sands in Singapore and is the parent company of Venetian Macao Limited which operates The Venetian Resort Hotel Casino and the Sands Expo and Convention Center. He also owns the Israeli daily newspaper Israel Hayom, and the Las Vegas Review-Journal.[3] Adelson, a lifelong donor and philanthropist to a variety of causes, founded with his wife's initiative the Adelson Foundation. "As of June 2015, Adelson was listed by Forbes as having a fortune of $28 billion, and as the 18th richest person in the world.[4] He is a major contributor to Republican Party candidates, which has resulted in his gaining significant influence within the party". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Adelson

Looks like ol' Blood & Guts (Patton) on the offense. Go get em! -J

Would love to be a fly on the wall during Thursday's meeting. Adam, I see your Yankees are sitting on the curb with my Angels. What a terrible start for both. --Joe

Better still...be ruled by oneself. --J

Here's a short, good read pertaining to when you may use lethal force (firearm). It's paramount to know your State laws. https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/time-kill-lethal-force-can-used/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=20160506_FridayDigest_28&utm_campaign=/blog/time-kill-lethal-force-can-used/

Thanks & please excuse my aging memory. --J

Perhaps. Do you remember where that statement came from. Thought I read it in the Objectivist Newsletter or perhaps the Objectivist magazine.--Joe