If Christ really existed, that could have been the reason! Too perfect. Too good to be true. Did Christ have a Jesus complex? — Hillary

Well based on the tiny 57 years I have been on this planet (compared to the 13,8 billion years for the Universe), Humans might admire or even seek to understand perfection or become perfect but we will then refuse to accept it as if we achieve it then we have nothing left to aspire to. Only entropy would remain. Some state beneath perfection. The existence of God would be a perfect disappointment for me as it would mean all my efforts to improve myself were pointless as the omni's by definition, can never be surpassed.

Gods are only human... Some of them, that is. Life in heaven is exactly the same as here. Look around you and you see heaven. The difference is that life in heaven is eternal, and we don't go there after dead. We are material, mortal, finite copies of heaven, like all of life and the universe we're living in. Luckily they figured it out "perfectly" (there you go!). It starts all over again every big bang. So in a sense, we never die.

Gods are only human... Some of them, that is. — Hillary

I don't mind your 'only human' gods, Humans can cope with other humans who apply the god label to themselves but you also type 'some of them, that is,' so, our dialogue on that part continues.

Life in heaven is exactly the same as here. Look around you and you see heaven — Hillary

You also see hell, does your vision of heaven have room for serial killers and Donald Trump?
Ok, I accept that It might be a little unfair to place the big orange-faced horror straight after my use of the label serial killer. (One of my shortfalls is to hate political opportunists like Trump a little too much!)

The difference is that life in heaven is eternal — Hillary

It would be interesting to get your view of what you envision would be 'a day in the life of a member of heaven.' Have you ever tried to think about it? Do you think you would still get to do science? or would that be meaningless?

and we don't go there after dead. We are material, mortal, finite copies of heaven, like all of life and the universe we're living in. — Hillary

So for us then this place has no value. It's like a parallel Universe. If I am a facsimile/copy/clone of me in heaven/parallel universe then what significance does that have to my daily life here?

Luckily they figured it out "perfectly" (there you go!). — Hillary

Figured what out?

It starts all over again every big bang. So in a sense, we never die. — Hillary

Do you mean like the Penrose bounce (different Universe every time) or the whole Universe plays again like a movie on permanent replay? What would be the purpose of permanent replay?
If we all come back and play different roles then that's more akin to the reincarnation advocates, yes?
Which flavors are you offering here?

Gods are only human... Some of them, that is.
— Hillary

I don't mind your 'only human' gods, Humans can cope with other humans who apply the god label to themselves but you also type 'some of them, that is,' so, our dialogue on that part continues. — universeness

Well, what I meant was that some gods are human, some are stegosaures like, some are mice-like, and others parrot- or lion-like and slipper animal-like. All life in the universe has an eternal part in heaven.

Figured what out? — universeness

How to create the material the universe is made of.

Do you mean like the Penrose bounce (different Universe every time) or the whole Universe plays again like a movie on permanent replay? What would be the purpose of permanent replay? — universeness

The purpose would be to fill the void of the boredom that fell upon heaven after their eternal playings. They created elementary particles and space. So a big bang can appear periodically. Kind of Penrose-like but with a different mechanism.

Well, what I meant was that some gods are human, some are stegosaures like, some are mice-like, and others parrot- or lion-like and slipper animal-like — Hillary

So are we back to shapeshifting gods or do you mean a god that is an actual mouse?
If so how far do you want to take that? An insect god? a lice god? a quark god?
Can you describe a typical action of your mouse god and is this god a lesser god compared to your lion god?

All life in the universe has an eternal part in heaven. — Hillary

For what purpose was this done by these entities in this place you have called heaven. Why did they need to replicate themselves and how can you be sure that you are not just projecting human attempts/wishes to replicate themselves as a means of lifespan extension onto the god posit?

How to create the material the universe is made of — Hillary

You know in science how much of that happens, don't you just need a first cause.
Don't you think humans will be able to eventually figure out the rest of how this universe works?

The purpose would be to fill the void of the boredom that fell upon heaven after their eternal playings. — Hillary

So we are a mere entertainment for bored gods? Are you ok with that as your ultimate purpose?
You are a mere toy for the entertainment of gods?

They created elementary particles and space. — Hillary

Don't they already have space and elementary particles in their heaven place?
Would they not get quite bored with us new toys quick quickly if they got bored with everything eternal heaven had to offer them?
Does this all still sit 'perfectly' well with your own internal rationale?
I am not asking this in an attempt to ridicule your viewpoint I genuinely want to understand your rationale.
If you reject my 'roleplay' accusation that I claim has been further induced by your frustration with the current cosmological hierarchy then I am at a loss to try to understand/appreciate/ your rationale.
I understand the need for some humans to believe in something 'bigger and more powerful,' than themselves. You know I think such individualised needs are based on primal fear.
I remain of the opinion that your dalliances with polytheism are due to some combination of the reasons I have suggested and is probably also influenced with other aspects of your background story that I don't know about.
I don't ever wish to deny you or anyone else the freedom to believe in whatever you choose to.
I could not call myself democratic/socialist/humanist if I did but I will continue to argue against anyone who presents any theistic viewpoint as truth.

So are we back to shapeshifting gods or do you mean a god that is an actual mouse?
If so how far do you want to take that? An insect god? a lice god? a quark god?
Can you describe a typical action of your mouse god and is this god a lesser god compared to your lion god? — universeness

No quark gods. The heavenly life is non-material. The lion-gods, mice-gods, etc. just live like here. For all gods in heaven there is a material counterpart in the universe. Heaven is not made of the same material as the particles and space they created. The can't create a copy of heaven itself. They are not omnipotent or omni in general. A mouse eaten by the lion just continues living. They put a magic element in the particles they created, namely physical charge. Only with charge, a temporary copy of heaven can emerge.

For what purpose was this done by these entities in this place you have called heaven. Why did they need to replicate themselves and how can you be sure that you are not just projecting human attempts/wishes to replicate themselves as a means of lifespan extension onto the god posit? — universeness

They created the universe for good reasons. I don't mind they created it for their own selfish purpose! I give them a nice show to watch! But I realize the human gods are not the only gods. All of universal life has a counterpart in heavenly paradise. Be it a musquito or a fish. But the humans have fucked up during the creation efforts. They put a twist in the particles that evolved into life. Humans like to investigate the material of creation. This material doesn't exist in heaven.

heaven place?
Would they not get quite bored with us new toys quick quickly if they got bored with everything eternal heaven had to offer them?
Does this all still sit 'perfectly' well with your own internal rationale? — universeness

We can only hope they don't get bored. But who cares? Maybe they got bored already and have continued their eternal play. I don't think they bother do destroy their creation.

I could not call myself democratic/socialist/humanist if I did but I will continue to argue against anyone who presents any theistic viewpoint as truth. — universeness

They are no scientific truth. They can't be proven by measuring material stuff. But they offer a reason, explanation why there is a material world in the first place. As you know, I have a model for periodic big bangs. But how to explain that model? Why it exists? I guess one can be satisfied with the model alone, and don't get me wrong, I am! But still, without a reason that it exists, it seems an empty model, no matter how beautiful life is! There has to be something unexplainable that is explainable! The eternal gods! But don't worry... I don't worship them or listen to them, or derive moral from them insofar human relations are involved. The only moral I take from them is that creation is performed for all beings in heaven, not only for human gods. Creation was performed by and for all gods. Be it the virus or the whale god. Which doesn't mean we can't fight the virus though.

Keep talking to your self...this is what you do after all. You are done....is this difficult for you to understand?

Gods are only human... Some of them, that is. — Hillary

Oh!ok , I had the wrong impression they were gods...lol

You had the right impression! Human gods. There is a Nickolast god even. Laughing his pants off because of your scrabblings. :lol:

No , you need empirical verification to identify the correct criteria and principles. — Nickolasgaspar

verification can only occur when there is something to verify... so verification comes after hypothesisation.

(Defuse thinking or Fast thinking (Daniel Kahneman).
At the end of the day we will need to Objectively evaluate every thought we make so imagination and fantasy are not necessary or sufficient or credible ways for the progress of our epistemology and philosophy. — Nickolasgaspar

Ahh Kahneman... Objectively with a capital O... It does not impress me much. Of course imagination and fantasy are not credible. No one will state that her hypothesis is a product of pure imagination. It also is not. Hypotheses are the product of informed imagination, the knowledge of current debate, the knowledge of the literature and knowledge of current empirical findings. However, they are organized and considered in a certain way. One cannot do that without imagination, the forward looking assessment of states of the world.

The old god is the one in power before the enlightenment. The new god is the impersonal, so-called absolute, objective god of scientific thinking. Just look at all the tasks to be completed, the problems to be "solved" in the learning books, especially the math or "exact" ones. Which is all nice, I love them! But why, for example, should astrology not be learned by law? — Hillary

What do you mean by learning astrology 'by law'? Should apply a legal perspective to astrology, or an astrological perspective to law? I really do not understand, it is not meant sarcastically or anything.

verification can only occur when there is something to verify... so verification comes after hypothesisation. — Tobias

Argument from Ambiguity fallacy. You are talking about the steps of a verification process(after the validation of a principle) while I refer on the method we recognize the value of Verification as a principle...or any other principle.
i.e. The three logical absolutes ((1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity.) are principles that we verified empirically every time we use them.
We may not have an absolute proof about them and we didn't declare them to be trues true their constant empirical validation is what allowed them to become principles and rules of logic.

Ahh Kahneman... Objectively with a capital O... It does not impress me much. — Tobias

- I think Daniel will be very sad hearing about your disapproval(or was your disapproval aiming my capital O?) .(Either way I will make this joke) I hope he finds some consolation and comfort by cashing the check he received along with the Nobel Prize we won while studying human heuristics....(.no offense).

No one will state that her hypothesis is a product of pure imagination. It also is not. Hypotheses are the product of informed imagination, the knowledge of current debate, the knowledge of the literature and knowledge of current empirical findings. However, they are organized and considered in a certain way. One cannot do that without imagination, the forward looking assessment of states of the world. — Tobias

-Why didn't you include my first sentence? "Imagination and fantasy can only help us to come up with out of the box hypotheses and make connections that our trained minds can't make."
You cherry picking a part of my reply allowing you to argue "against" something that we are in agreement ...lol

I refer on the method we recognize the value of Verification as a principle...or any other principle. — Nickolasgaspar

Circularity. You cannot empirically verify the value of empirical verification... One has to have had the idea that that is a pausible way to go beforehand. We also have that idea. Intuitively empirical verification makes sense. We have such notions pre-scientifically, practically.

((1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity.) — Nickolasgaspar

We cannot verify them emprically, they are a-priori truths. We can for instance not devise a test to falsify these axioms. Let's try to find a door that can be open and closed at the same time...

- I think Daniel will be very sad hearing about your disapproval(or was your disapproval aiming my capital O?) .(Either way I will make this joke) I hope he finds some consolation and comfort by cashing the check he received along with the Nobel Prize we won while studying human heuristics....(.no offense). — Nickolasgaspar

I have nothing but respect for professor Kahneman. His book 'thinking fast and slow' was the text book from which we taught (my institution, not me) first tear students the introductory course on psychology. It is just that it seems so eminently quotable. Someone says something and drops the name Kahneman. Especially those that dabble in psychology from other disciplines. That might not include you, but just an explanation for my reaction. It is like someone on this forum citing Bertrand Russel. Nothing but respect, but it seems the first go to source or something. An yes, the capital O exacerbated the the situation ;) I am sure though you are knowledgable so nothing bad meant there.

-Why didn't you include my first sentence? "Imagination and fantasy can only help us to come up with out of the box hypotheses and make connections that our trained minds can't make."
You cherry picking a part of my reply allowing you to argue "against" something that we are in agreement ...lol — Nickolasgaspar

We might well be in agreement. It happens often on the forum. However your 'only' seems to imply it is a secondary category, something only applicable when we think 'out of the box'. I hold that also in the box (the average everyday paradogm) we need imagination cobbling together insights from literature arguments that stand the test of logic plausibility and possiblly but by no means always, empirical data. So while we may well agree, there is a difference of nuance.

What do you mean by learning astrology 'by law'? Should apply a legal perspective to astrology, or an astrological perspective to law? I really do not understand, it is not meant sarcastically or anything. — Tobias

What I mean is that what we learn at school or universities is science. Math, physics, economy, chemistry, biology, etc. By law you have to go to school and learn about it. I don't care to learn, I was fascinated by physics and even voluntarily studied it at the VU (which you probably know). But why shouldn't, for example, astrology be learned by law? What's inherently better about science?

By law I mean that it's written in the law to go to school from young age already and learn about science.

"Imagination and fantasy can only help us to come up with out of the box hypotheses and make connections that our trained minds can't make." — Nickolasgaspar

Indeed. And your mind is trained to demand a kind of proof for a claim for which no such a proof can be given, and every proof for such a claim is reduced to fantasy, of which it is exactly the question if it is a fantasy. If I say the gods can maybe interfere by means of hidden variables of QM (by adjusting the outcome of interactions between particles, which involve wavefunction collapse) or that I saw them in a dream you say it's nonsense. But did you check if all collapses during all interactions in the universe are as probability expects them to be? No. You expect that all interactions, measurements, are conform the laws of QM, but these laws allow for improbable events.

'Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. — Alfred Lord Tennyson

So yeah, aligning myself with Tennyson's mindset,

'Tis better to have lived and suffered than never to have lived at all. — Agent Smith

Most interesting! :chin: — Ms. Marple

Tis better to have lived and suffered than never to have lived at all. — Agent Smith

During the suffering though, this feels differently... What if the suffering continues?

During the suffering though, this feels differently... What if the suffering continues? — Hillary

Yep!

Ouioui!

What I mean is that what we learn at school or universities is science. Math, physics, economy, chemistry, biology, etc. By law you have to go to school and learn about it. I don't care to learn, I was fascinated by physics and even voluntarily studied it at the VU (which you probably know). But why shouldn't, for example, astrology be learned by law? What's inherently better about science?

By law I mean that it's written in the law to go to school from young age already and learn about science. — Hillary

Of course I know the VU, been there lots of times. The reason why we teach chemmistry, physics, math etc and not astrology is cultural, but not arbitrary. It is cultural because in th Middle Ages one didd study astronomy (perhaps not astrology) but many forerunners of the scientific method were astrologers, such as John Dee. So it depends on the cultural one grows up in. It is not arbitrary though. Currently we are very interested in what works and less in written dogma. Therefore we teach the kids stuff that has a proven track record of obtaining results. things tht more accurately predic the behaviour of the natural and social world than astrology doesn. In regard to the natural world, physics an chemistry obtain more accurate results. The social world is more problematic, but also there sociology and psychology tend to offer more in terms of results than voodoo or the Kabbalah.

Currently we are very interested in what works and less in written dogma. — Tobias

Central dogma of molecular biology

Currently we are very interested in what works and less in written dogma. — Tobias

And how did that work out? Just take a look around you to see...

Of course I know the VU, been there lots of times. The reason why we teach chemmistry, physics, math etc and not astrology is cultural, but not arbitrary. — Tobias

No, of course it's not arbitrary. But why is scientific culture better than other cultures (of which many have been wiped away from the face of the world by science and western religion)?

. Therefore we teach the kids stuff that has a proven track record of obtaining results. — Tobias

Every culture has a proven track record of obtaining results.

Sure, science has axioms, but those typically do not come from mythical lore. There is also a difference in dogma from law and from the natural science. Dogma in law is the reiterated doctrine of the authors, based on conceptual analysis. Dogma in science depends on laws of nature, perceived patterns of behaviour. When scientific dogma stops being an accurate description it will be replaced.

And how did that work out? Just take a look around you to see... — Hillary

I see a computer desk with a small notebook, thin and light. Next of me is a cup of brown liquid drawn from beans that originated somewhere in Africa or south America. I am communicating with someone possibly many miles away (or possibly my next door neighbour, since you understand Dutch and has a stint at the VU so I cannot be sure). I see a prosperity the world has not witnessed before and an abundance of what life has to offer... I know my generation will, if we are not wiped of this earth, live to become 80 years old... I know there are bad things too, but undeniably human life became a lot easier and pleasant with the scientific method.

No, of course it's not arbitrary. But why is scientific culture better than other cultures (of which many have been wiped away from the face of the world by science and western religion)? — Hillary

It is not necessarily better in any normative sense. Wiping out other cultures is a great atrocity. However now this is realized in any case in many parts of the world it is accepted as international law.

Every culture has a proven track record of obtaining results. — Hillary

Yes,, but those were generally less effective. One of my favourites, the Ottoman Empire had science and advance up to a par or better then Western Europe. However, Ottoman science stayed rooted in religious mysticism. Eventually its bureaucracy (great though it was in the 16th century) and milityary (equally great) could not keep up and were outpaced. Science based on mysticism simply did not get things done as effectively as the turn to empiricism in the 17th century did.

Circularity. You cannot empirically verify the value of empirical verification... One has to have had the idea that that is a pausible way to go beforehand. We also have that idea. Intuitively empirical verification makes sense. We have such notions pre-scientifically, practically.

((1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity.) — Tobias

Do you all in here come from the say school of sophists????? oh boy here we go again.
I can validate empirically the value of Objective Verification....don't play with words just to earn impressions!!!!

Look at science's run away success in epistemology. Look at what makes a Logical Fallacy ....a Fallacy. (unverified premises).
The reason why Objective Verification has become a principle...IS BECAUSE its value is validated EVERY SINGLE TIME by the epistemic value claims have when they are are Objectively and Empirically verified.

You essentially argue in favor of Magic. Magically an idea about the value of empirical verification came in to our minds without empirical input !!!
And for the sake of the argument lest say that this idea came about magically.....what criteria did we used to confirm its value and ability to produce high quality epistemic results...AGAIN it was done by being objectively verified every single time we demanded it in our Standards of Evaluation.

If you observe children you will find out that they are prone to accidents and the smart ones use those accidents to correct the model of reality in their minds. This is the first empirical indications we get about the value of Objective Empirical Verification..obviously not all of us have realize that.
Systematized methods like Logic and Science just defined it and included it in their principles.

-" We also have that idea. Intuitively empirical verification makes sense. "
-Intuition isn't magic, it doesn't come out from thin ai. Our intuition is shaped and "trained" by our previous empirical experiences about our world. Read Daniel Kahneman's book on intuition and other heuristics. He won A Nobel Prize for his founding. Don't try to do philosophy without being aware of our Scientific Epistemology. IT is always a recipe for Pseudo philosophy.

-"We have such notions pre-scientifically, practically."
-What a pre scientific era has to do with our discussion sir??????? Empirical methods able to provide Objective results did not start or stopped with Science?
Science is nothing more that an attempt to systematize those Standards.
WHat on earth are you arguing about! Have you ever taken a course on Philosophy of Science?

I am not interested in what magical sources you believe our Principles come from in but in what you can demonstrate Objectively as their source.
The principle of Objectivity was acknowledged by humans....after "we" were conned way to many times by others who just offered Promises and False claims during our transactions not Objective evidence.

I wont even go to your rest of your claims before you acknowledge that you are wrong and after you remove magical agency behind our principles and of course acknowledge the fact that REAL WORLD experience lead to therealizations of principle. Your feet are in the fire until you do that.

I see a computer desk with a small notebook, thin and light. Next of me is a cup of brown liquid drawn from beans that originated somewhere in Africa or south America. I am communicating with someone possibly many miles away (or possibly my next door neighbour, since you understand Dutch and has a stint at the VU so I cannot be sure). I see a prosperity the world has not witnessed before and an abundance of what life has to offer... I know my generation will, if we are not wiped of this earth, live to become 80 years old... I know there are bad things too, but undeniably human life became a lot easier and pleasant with the scientific method. — Tobias

Pretty alike what I see, except I type on a phone, listen to the Belfast Child, pet my dog and answer my wife what's that on her face. Probably Im around your corner! Somewhere in the center, not far away from Utrecht. I rather had seen more nature though. It looks like a Mondriaan painting from above! But what can we do? It just is as it is...

A prosperous world as never seen before? That's what they told you. In the old days it wasn't as good as today and scientific progress wasn't so far. The stone age, the iron age, the steam era, the electricity era, the atomic age, what's next? Science is nice, but why make it the norm?

I can point you at non-prosperity as well. Every culture has prosperities. Im glad prof. Kirschemann at the VU gave stuff to read about Feyerabend!

The statement is just as groundless as antinatalist position.

To have the value of ‘better’/‘worse’ existence is necessary. The only possible door in to this as a reasonable discussion is probably to examine questions that address ‘value’.

Comparing something with non-existence is fairly pointless.

Note: I did not say ‘nothing’ because that is a concept attached to absence.

Digging deeper the most common misconception I find around these terms is based in Kantian jargon. The noumenal is not something we can even refer to, so referring to it is only ever a demarcation of the ‘negative sense’ as a limiting factor in our understanding. The ‘positive sense’ is (ironically) also just a ‘negative sense’ because there is no way to address that which cannot be addressed (by definition).

Even reading back the above makes this sound far more complicated than it really is. You just have to understand that if there is something that cannot be talked about then whatever you are talking about necessarily cannot be the said thing you are trying to talk about. Understanding this contradiction is deadly important from my experience. Not understanding this leads many down roads of nonsense and understanding it only helps guard against going down such roads as often.

Recently on this forum there is a growing trend of ignoring the questions posed leaving them unexamined or poorly presented. Not all sentences with a ‘?’ at the end are worthy of the title ‘question’.

An example: If yellow was called blue then would it rain tomorrow?

The embedded claim within that question is that there is a correlation between the weather and how we use language to name certain concepts in day-to-day life.

Do you all in here come from the say school of sophists????? oh boy here we go again.
I can validate empirically the value of Objective Verification....don't play with words just to earn impressions!!!! — Nickolasgaspar

Don't play with capitalizations and exclamation marks to make a point.

You essentially argue in favor of Magic. Magically an idea about the value of empirical verification came in to our minds without empirical input !!! — Nickolasgaspar

Not at all, see my replies to Hillary. Of course we have empirical input, we are bodily creatures. I tried to google objective verification... did not yield much.

The reason why Objective Verification has become a principle...IS BECAUSE its value is validated EVERY SINGLE TIME by the epistemic value claims have when they are are Objectively and Empirically verified. — Nickolasgaspar

This sentence is gibberish, objectively verified.

If you observe children you will find out that they are prone to accidents and the smart ones use those accidents to correct the model of reality in their minds. This is the first empirical indications we get about the value of Objective Empirical Verification..obviously not all of us have realize that.
Systematized methods like Logic and Science just defined it and included it in their principles. — Nickolasgaspar

No they start learning behavior that woks, they do not necessarily form ' a correct model of reality' in there minds. A monkey that gets sprayed with cold water every time it touches a banana will stop touching the banana but not because it has formed an accurate picture of the world in its mind. God knows what the monkey thinks. Maybe it thinks bananas are wet.

-Intuition isn't magic, it doesn't come out from thin ai. Our intuition is shaped and "trained" by our previous empirical experiences about our world. Read Daniel Kahneman's book on intuition and other heuristics. He won A Nobel Prize for his founding. Don't try to do philosophy without being aware of our Scientific Epistemology. IT is always a recipe for Pseudo philosophy. — Nickolasgaspar

I am aware of the use of capitalization...

And on and on it goes. Can I sumarize your contribution by the imperative "Read Kahneman"? If so it is duly noted.

I can validate empirically the value of Objective Verification.... — Nickolasgaspar

Yes, I can too. God (gods) is, objectively verified, an important element in human life. You can't deny that. As a Greek you should know.