More Thoughts on the Penny

Hi, folks. I'm back again, nearly 20 years after beginning this blog. Blogs are definitely on the way out; I just noticed that none of the blogs I follow are still active. But as I monitor traffic to this blog, I see that, although it long since slowed to a shadow of its former self, readers do continue to trickle in. One of the artiles that have attracted interest is this one, on the demise of the penny. In the decade and a half since then, the Lincoln Head penny hasn't disappeared after all, even though the US Mint now has to produce it at a loss. I've thought about this, and have come up with two reasons why this could be so.
First of all, cash has increasingly become irrelevant in modern commerce. A woman recently posted that she hasn't written a check in years, and to a large extent this can also be said of cash. Most people go weeks or months at a time without ever touching a penny, which makes their very existence almost unneccesary.
Secondly, the expense of minting the few pennies that are needed to grease the wheels of commerce is negligible in the face of a multi trillion dollar federal budget: you can think of it as an advertising expense for keeping up the illusion that the US's fiat money is actually worth anything.
So, when will the penny eventually go away? I now predict that it will stay on, until cash is eliminated entirely--something I actually hinted at before, as a possibility. Once that happens, pennies will continue to have value as collector's items, but they will no longer circulate as legal tender. And even if owning them becomes a crime, few people will consider it worth the bother to turn them in, so it's likely a lot of them will just get buried. Future civilizations may wonder at these hoards.

Has anything really changed?

Although, as I pointed out in my last point, this blog is not attracting any new readers (the vast majority of all visits coming from bots), I owe it to the readers of my past posts to give an update on the topic of child abuse, which often takes the form of child secshual exploytatshun. I've been particularly hard on ABWE for their coverup of Donn Ketcham.
This update regards how well the extensive policies and procedures ABWE have put in place in the years since work: they don't. Although the case in quesition is of simple childe abuse of the mildest form reportable--bullying--the system STILL punished the victims and protected the perpetrators. 

These Baptists don't seem to be any better at handling in-house child abuse allegations than the Mormons. 

Going Dark (kind of)

 My Dear Readers,

Having returned from a busy weekend, I see that once again three months have managed to transpire since my last post. This dovetails with what I have been pondering considering its future.

Since oogle has seen fit to greatly limit traffic to this blog, it's now one of the least effective avenues for reaching an audience with my writing. I am therefore no longer planning keep up the posts. The blog itself will remain, perhaps for centuries, but I will seldom, if ever, post on it again.

I do have some unfinished series here that I'd like to wrap up some time, and of course things like book reviews will probably continue to show up here upon occasion. But don't look for anything current here. It's increasingly difficult to remain anonymous online, so I direct you to known internet influencers for your further edification.

Note: I tried to post this nearly two weeks ago and was unable to. Sign of the times.😞

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem falsifies Atheism (something I found online)

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem states:

“Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.”

To briefly state the implications of this:

All predictions about the future are inductive. Outside the circle. In Gödel’s language they are “undecidable propositions.” It’s probable you’ll still have your job next week… but maybe you don’t.

All scientific laws are based on inductive reasoning. All of science rests on an assumption that the universe is orderly, logical and mathematical based on fixed discoverable laws.

You cannot PROVE this. (You can’t prove that the sun will come up tomorrow morning either.) You literally have to take it on faith. In fact most people don’t know that outside the science circle is a philosophy circle. Science is based on philosophical assumptions that you cannot scientifically prove. Actually, the scientific method cannot prove, it can only infer.

(Science originally came from the idea that God made an orderly universe which obeys fixed, discoverable laws – and because of those laws, He would not have to constantly tinker with it in order for it to operate.)

All closed systems depend on something outside the system.

You can always draw a bigger circle but there will still be something outside the circle.

Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless. So by definition it is not possible to draw a circle around it.

If we draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and apply Gödel’s theorem, then we know what is outside that circle is not matter, is not energy, is not space and is not time. Because all the matter and energy are inside the circle. It’s immaterial.

Whatever is outside the biggest circle is not a system – i.e. is not an assemblage of parts. Otherwise we could draw a circle around them. The thing outside the biggest circle is indivisible.

Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause, because you can always draw a circle around an effect.

If you visit the atheist website Infidels, you will find the following statement:

As defined by philosopher Paul Draper, naturalism is "the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system" in the sense that "nothing that is not a part of the natural world affects it."

But according to Gödel’s theorem, every system is dependent on something greater being outside the system. Draper's hypothesis cannot be correct. Because the universe is a system, it has to have an outside cause. A cause that is not bound by time, matter, or energy, because it is outside of all those, and they are subject to its control. A cause that cannot itself have any cause, because it is outside the widest circle. A cause that is infinite in every way, because it's not a system that can be encircled. You can call that what you want; I call it God.

Atheism's denial of God flies in the face of a basic law of mathematics.

Air Safety Incident Website

 For those who follow my airline safety articles, here is an entire website devoted to the subject. Note how often computers are implicated in airline disasters and disorders.