Comments

  • The moral character of Christians (David Lewis on religion)
    Many Christians literally can’t stomach criticizing their god even a little bit. Much less as harsh as Lewis has done. For whatever reason, (their upbringing, they’re too afraid, they think he is perfect..whatever). They just don’t. — laura ann

    That's an interesting observation, are you saying Jews or Muslims allow criticizing God more than Christians?

    Do you not fear their revenge for offending them and their God with your atheism? — baker
    True atheist does not defend atheism.

    There are 2 kinds of atheists, those who don't believe in God and those who believe there is no God, they are a sort of believers.

    You see, those who believe there is no God will defend atheism and sometimes attack those who believe in God, while those who just don't believe don't give a sh* about what believers believe, they simply don't believe God exists.

    Therefore if you ever see someone "revenging" at atheists, it must be defense of their own faith rather than attacking atheists.

    It's easy to spot both kinds of atheists, some of them judge, others don't, so who is taking the revenge?
  • The moral character of Christians (David Lewis on religion)
    Again this is an impossible question to answer, because we need to agree first on who a Christian is, and for that we need a definition — god must be atheist
    It's actually simple to answer, a Christian believes in Jesus such that it does not deny it.

    Are you saying there is a possibility of being Christian but not agreeing to his teachings? isn't that denial?

    If not, then what would be definition of being a Christian according to your interpretation?
  • The moral character of Christians (David Lewis on religion)
    Ah, but there is the rub. The character, essence and teaching of Christ are up for interpretation. — god must be atheist

    From the perspective of somebody who is either not Christian or somebody who is in doubt or somebody who is agnostic yes, in that case interpretation is very much desired because it serves to search for God or to search for truth.

    However from perspective of somebody who considers him self Christian knows that interpretation is the job of holly spirit. not because of blind faith but because that's fundamental to the teaching of Jesus who is the central figure of Christianity.
  • Is life amongst humanity equal?
    Would you agree that whatever is real exists, and that whatever is not real does not exist, and that, similarly, anything that exists is real, and anything that does not exist is not real? — Leghorn

    Subject to knowledge,
    Universe is real but we didn't know it exists for a very long time.
    Therefore saying that something is not real because it does not exists is potentially false instead of factually false.
  • The moral character of Christians (David Lewis on religion)
    Those who do not believe in god, when they die, will be cast into eternal torment.

    This is a punishment out of all proportion with the offence.

    Christians hold that the person who inflicts this unjust punishment - God - is worthy of worship.     — Banno

    David Lewis may be good philosopher, but that quote above is unchristian.
    No knowledgeable theologian or priest would ever say such a thing.

    I understand that Christianity today is split into millions of dominations, no wonder philosophers use the fact of different teachings to construct dogma based on inconsistent teachings.
  • Infinites outside of math?
    while(true){
    print("I am an infinite loop")}     — emancipate

    lol man, that's not infinite because if computer loses power, your loop will end as well :razz:
  • Question about the Christian Trinity
    What I don’t understand is in the Bible, Jesus communicates directly with God. Wouldn’t this amount to nothing more than talking to yourself? — Pinprick

    It's wording not concept, trinity is God in 3 persons, Jesus him self said he's talking with (or praying to) father, and we know father is not son, both are God but Jesus didn't talk to both, but to father, therefor he didn't talk to himself.

    How could Jesus feel forsaken, as he famously declares on the cross? — Pinprick
    The meaning of his words of being forsaken is well explained in Psalms 22,2 which start with same famous quote.
  • What's the difference between opposite and negative?
    positive is opposite of negative AND negative is opposite of positive, therefore it applies to both.
    negative only applies to one side, which is the opposite of positive, but conversely does not apply.

    In other words, opposition does not imply negativity, while negative does.
  • Argument against free will
    Do you have free will regarding your thoughts? Well, first notice that your thoughts occur linearly through time in succession. This means that you think your thoughts one at a time, one after another. Thus, every thought is your next thought at some point in time. According to Slattery’s definition of free will, you must always have more than one viable option to choose between for your next thought in order to have free will regarding your thoughts. However, it’s never possible for you to have more than one viable option to choose between for your next thought. — Paul Michael

    Aren't thoughts, one at a time, limitations of a mind?

    Using same analogy you have free will to visit WC or not until end of your life.
    Obviously you have a choice and free will but due to limitations of your body you won't withstand.

    We have free will to think or not to think about anything, but that's not possible because of limitations, it's impossible to think nothing. but that's mind-body limitation not absence of free will.
  • Is technological ascendancy an impossibility for human kind?
    https://www.universetoday.com/147546/beyond-fermis-paradox-xi-the-transcension-hypothesis/amp/ — 180 Proof

    This is very interesting article, I've read almost all :smile:
    The idea of perfection of inner space (ex. solar system) sounds more plausible and more possible than colonization of outer space.

    Firstly, the death of religion, then we'd merge with (be uplifted by) artificial intelligence and perhaps, in the end, attain transcension... — 180 Proof

    This is possible, but I think bio technology, genetic engineering, medicine etc. is way beyond the branch of computation and mechanics.
    For transhumanism both is required, it is more likely we'll just stay humans as masters of robots and AI for a very long time.

    You provide no explanation as to what the limit of exploitation on the planet Earth actually is, so I fail to see why the colonization of space is necessary to achieve technological ascendancy — Sheffwally
    Various metals, types of fuel and similar are not unlimited We are consuming the future

    The effective counter measure to nukes is the possibility of offense (M.A.D.). It's pretty hard to call this ineffective, considering the world hasn't been destroyed by nukes since their creation. — Sheffwally
    For now yes, but hard to predict, mass destruction weapons are less than 100 years old invention compared to 7K+ years without them.

    Also, consider the fact that we live in the most peaceful time in human history WITH the most powerful weapons. — Sheffwally
    True, that's truly something but only thanks to advancements in economics and agriculture, trade and business become much more profitable than wars.
    However this also resulted in larger population and population growth which can't end up good.

    Either global war or "peaceful" depopulation is IMO inevitable.
  • Is technological ascendancy an impossibility for human kind?
    What will be required for this to happen (ie war, climate change, civil unrest, etc.) I don't know but it is likely it will take quite some time unless there is something to motivate both people and the powers that be that something needs to be done so that we don't remain just as we are. — dclements

    I can't not to agree with all that you said.
    For technological advancement, biggest problem seems to be insecurity and wealth inequality, there are 200+ countries each seeking security and spending a lot on military, and then also 85% of global wealth is in hands of 12% of the population which only contributes to social instability and government insecurity, ex:
    Distribution Of Global Wealth

    I don't see what kind of technology could help solve these seemingly unsolvable issues, not even world war or revolution could help.
  • Solving the problem of evil
    You must have received a specific piece of revelation supplied by god to come to the conclusion that guilt => punishment. — ToothyMaw

    Guilt is guilt, and your comeuppance could reasonably come from anyone it seems to me - unless god stipulates that it is only he who can punish certain acts in certain ways. And if god doesn't make that stipulation, then, according to his own laws, he might be rendered not so omnibenevolent, and thus not exist. Or be evil. . — ToothyMaw

    Please enlighten me and tell what is the difference between an evil God and a God that is good if neither of them punish in any way?
  • Is technological ascendancy an impossibility for human kind?
    ↪180 Proof

    It makes sense to think about ascention as evolution from biological into machine in a sense of transhumanism or AI-machine with human memories that control it.
    It also makes sense because it's not new to us to have desire to leave traces, for example pharaons built pyramids to be remembered for thousands of years because pyramids (structures) stand the test of time more than anything else we found.

    Robotics, AI and transhumanism would sound like stupidity to our ancestors 400+ years ago, but same way life that is neither biologic nor AI\memory driven machine may sound like stupidity to us today.

    Why would alien life have to be either biologic or machine\AI?
    Or why wouldn't intelligent alien life be of microscopic scale like < 5cm or like 20+ meters?
    Or why would alien being have to be visible to human eye or touchable by our body? (ex. stealth suit)
    Or why to think about machines as computer or electricity driven systems?

    I think of intelligent alien life as something that is extremely unlikely not only to find but also to perceive and understand if found.
  • Is technological ascendancy an impossibility for human kind?
    ↪180 Proof

    ↪Marchesk

    I see you already grasped alien life beyond what I ever imagined :up:

    However, is there any reason why would some super advanced space kind interfere into our technological advancement?

    Technological advancement isn't the only thing that counts toward superiority, if "they" are naturally more intelligent than us then that's the only thing that matters to retain safety.

    For example, animals for us as just animals and we don't have to care about animals getting more powerful because animals will never reach our cognitive capabilities.
    We may look like animals compared to some alien life.
  • Is technological ascendancy an impossibility for human kind?
    K-T Boundary — James Riley
    And still time for something else to do it all over again; many, many times. Just like the ones before us. — James Riley
    Awesome insight!

    This makes me think of understanding evolution as being split into multiple "boundaries" that span millions of years, where each next one contributes to:
    1. Higher state a being or intellect
    2. Renewal of available energy thanks to long time span

    whether any alien civilizations have technologically ascended. That would clue us in to the possibility. Of course we would need to detect one, which raises the Fermi Paradox and the Great Filter solution as a possibility. No civilizations ascend. — Marchesk

    A "technology ascendent" xeno-civilization is, much more likely than not, undetectable by our comparatively primitive technologies. We're observing one or more now and interpreting them only as natural phenomena (i.e. background radiation, etc) like a mayfly obliviously buzzing around a dog park in the heart of Los Angeles, Rome or Bangkok. — 180 Proof

    Good point,
    Possibility of an alien life exists, but whether is it intelligent or not I think this is not a question of discovering alien life alone, but rather discovering alien life multiple times over until intelligent one is found, a logic which reduces the chance of intelligent life but not alien life.
    Driven by this logic, further the chance to discover intelligent life that ascended technologically is therefore very low compared to just discovering alien life.

    One explanation however, in addition to our limitations could be, if there is intelligent life near us it's possible they got their hands on some sort of stealth technology that prevents us from discovering them.
    For example, just because planets in our solar system seem baren, this doesn't necessarily mean no one is out there.
  • Is Social Media bad for your Mental Health?
    Is social media making society more mentally ill?

    Are there more mental illness now vs. before Social media was discovered?     — TheQuestion

    Social media is nothing else but a branch of "information technology".

    To understand it's implications one has to answer 2 questions:
    1. What's the purpose of information technology?
    2. How did information technology evolve over time?

    First information technology ever is the discovery of a letter.
    Thanks to discover of a letter we have been able to conserve knowledge and discover new inventions that require concentration of existing knowledge.

    It's not a secret that discovery of a letter is the biggest discovery ever, one without which nothing would be possible that we have today.
    Discovery of a letter is a break point of human invention.

    I don't know the motive behind this discovery or whether it was accidental discovery, but evolution of information is lead us up to discovery of computer, that is writing information down with 0 and 1.
    Instead of reading zeroes and ones directly, we have simulation programs that let us enter into virtual reality.

    Therefore "information technology" leads us into a new reality and endless possibilities and applications.
    However as with any technology there is a negative side of a coin.

    Discovery of printing press, television, internet etc. is also used by one group to gain advantage over other group.

    Propaganda, censorship, algorithms etc. is the tool used to limit free speech, and push agenda that serves no one else except those who push them.

    This is major reason why social media is wrong, since it's easier to talk with other people over social media (ex. due to distance or lack of time), it is now possible to limit and eliminate thought that may be considered as "harmful" or something that is against some ones else agenda.

    This answers your questions:

    * Fake News and how it is normalizing, paranoia and delusional thinking.

    * Division in our Society - promoting prejudice thinking

    * Creating a culture of wanting to be right

    * How Social Media can distort our cognitive perspective because of algorithms     — TheQuestion

    Mental illness here should be better called "enslavement of our mind"
  • Expansion of the universe
    But if space is expanding in all directions, and if I am not at the center of it, then it would seem that it could not simply start with an absence of itself in a single spot and expand from there. — James Riley

    Expansion of the universe is not relative to the point of explosion (BB).
    Explosion has it's beginning and end, a bomb when it explodes doesn't infinitely manifest the act of explosion, at some point parts of the bomb land and it's done.

    Expansion of the universe as we observe it now is caused by dark matter and dark energy, this means every point in the universe is a point of expansion. this is why we feel like being in the center of the universe.

    The universe does not expand, it's dark energy that makes the universe grow like a balloon, so every point is the center of expansion relative to surroundings.
  • Solving the problem of evil
    Is running good or bad? — khaled

    This question depends on context.

    It's good to run away from a wild animal if you have any chance to escape.
    Otherwise it's better not to run and just stay calm and hope the animal won't recognize your fear.

    good and bad therefore depends on context.

    Example 2:
    You are forced to choose between 2 evils, one grater than the other, which one do you choose?
    The lesser evil here becomes good, but that evil is not good by definition in every context.
  • A first cause is logically necessary
    In relation to quantum physics, first cause is subject to Schrödinger's cat

    The cat is either a live or dead until measured.
    3rd possibility is uncertainty, which is the cause of virtual particles and current state of science.

    Therefore first cause is logically necessary until measured otherwise. (that is until the box is opened)

  • Can theory of nothing challenge God?
    Personally, I don't accept the specific god-models & creeds of most religions, but I also can't accept the notion of an accidental real world with laws & organisms. — Gnomon

    In other words, "God" (however you define it) is logically necessary but completely unknown?

    If yes, explanation of God forks into 2 possible parts:
    1. God is necessary but does not reveal or manifest it self.
    2. God exists and it reveals or manifests itself.

    Point 1 is critical because the question is: Why does God not reveal or manifest itself?
    Point 2 leads to religious revelations, that is specific religions we have today.

    For point 1, there are 2 possible explanations:
    A. God does not want or is unable to reveal\manifest itself.
    B. God existed but no longer exists.

    For point 2, there is only one logical path
    A. Logically only one religion (revelation) can be true and all other are necessary false.

    Do you have anything to add or to correct these propositions? and if not what would be your conclusion and why?
  • Eternity
    ↪Mp202020

    Very good question! here is my view:
    First I would not put eternity and infinity into the same basket because:

    Eternal is something that has no beginning nor an end.
    Eternal is tied to existence, that is for anything to be eternal it must exist.
    Eternal does not imply neither excludes the concept of time (both are possibly valid)
    There are no multiple versions of eternal, something either is or is not eternal.

    Infinity on the other side can be either "known" or "unknown", "predictable" or "unpredictable" etc.
    How? In other words there are 2 kinds of infinity:

    1. Infinity which describes unknown or invisible magnitude, something that is infinitely big, heavy, long, small, lightweight etc.
    Example: Exploring the universe in hope to find the end (the end is unknown and unreachable)

    2. Infinity which describes "approaching" to visible or known something, something that is infinitely close to a fixed known or visible point.
    Example: Approaching infinitely close to number 1 on a ruler, but never reaching 1 (the end is known but unreachable)

    This also explains why infinity is not necessary to describe something that exists, it can be either real or imaginary.
    Also infinity does not need to imply something that is endless or beginningless, for example we can assume the universe is infinite and mathematically describe it as such, but we don't know whether that's true.

    Eternal obviously can't be classified like infinity, eternal is self explanatory, infinity is not.
  • When is a theory regarded as a conspiracy?
    ↪DingoJones

    Nothing sorry, it appeared to me as if you're comparing 2 groups based on those who have proofs and those who don't, while in fact you generalized :grimace:
  • When is a theory regarded as a conspiracy?
    ↪DingoJones

    Bravo, looks like you found 2 opposing sides :wink:
  • When is a theory regarded as a conspiracy?
    ↪DingoJones

    Honestly, I don't follow Icke nor am I interested in his views, but what I do know is that his narrative changed greatly.

    The fact that flat earth used to be widely believed is irrelevant. It wasnt a conspiracy theory back then but rather erroneous science. Today, it fits every metric of a conspiracy theory. — DingoJones

    Agree with that.
    But I guess you'll never figure out what force is behind them or what are their motives :wink: (at least those few more "sophisticated")

    What I want to say is that conspiracy theory doesn't require you to choose your side, but rather ask questions and find answers to unlock the meaning.
    There is always something special to be learned.
  • A first cause is logically necessary
    ↪Olivier5

    Ah OK, I guess I'm uninformed then :worry:
    But you the famous question right, what is truth?
  • A first cause is logically necessary
    ↪Olivier5

    I guess you're referring to string theory and multiverse, because that's the only one that attempts to "solve" infinity or unobservable universe, which are theories for which one can't even perform experiments, so very far from any proof.

    If not then it must be a good joke unless they managed to prove Aristotle wrong.
  • A first cause is logically necessary
    so there can be no such thing as an uncaused cause — Olivier5

    Of course there is not such thing as "uncaused cause", because otherwise scientists would already long time ago sing their victory over God.
    The headlines would be all over the internet and local TV stations, common man.

    The lowest point that scientists come to are virtual particles, their sudden and fast appearance and disappearance is known as "uncertain", which is far from uncaused cause.

    Singularity breaks the laws of physics, it can be simulated only mathematically again into infinity therefore no result.
    To break that infinity we would have to know the limits of whole universe, not just observable portion.
  • Joe Biden (+General Biden/Harris Administration)
    ↪Benkei

    Ah OK, I didn't think of this that way, sorry.
  • Joe Biden (+General Biden/Harris Administration)
    ↪Benkei

    I'm not sure if I understand your question.

    This news is circulating the internet probably to point out how world leaders don't give a sh* about climate change issues. (COP 26)

    Since this thread is about Joe Biden, I though it would cool to post it here.
  • When is a theory regarded as a conspiracy?
    ↪bert1

    political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith suggested that the term entered everyday language in the United States after 1964, the year in which the Warren Commission published its findings on the Kennedy assassination
    wikipedia

    My opinion however is that conspiracy theory has it's origins with UFO and alien abductions, it all started 1961 (3 years before 1964)
    Example story

    My reasoning is that UFO stories were much more plausible and had more potential to be labeled as "conspiracy theory" rather than Kennedy assasination.
  • Torture and Philosophy
    torture is of limited value as a deterrent. And torture desensitizes victims and perpetrators alike so they are less likely to avoid their own pain or feel empathy for those around them, making society more unethical. — Enrique

    1. I'm pretty sure a lot of those who got capital punishment wanted to escape but they couldn't.
    2. If one has to choose between torture or death, I'm sure most would choose torture, as long as that torture isn't way too harsh to endure.

    You said tortured victims would feel empathy for those around them, how about those who directly perform capital punishment? surely they either feel no empathy or they dream about their job, maybe even need to visit a psychiatrist sooner or later.
  • Can theory of nothing challenge God?
    This nothingness, which is colourless odorless touchless, and unobservable by its very absence of atoms is still a "thing" in as much as it is a "nothing." — SpinOwOza

    What you described is the same thing as:
    1 - 1 = 0

    Zero is not nothing, it's a number with no value!

    Zero represent "no count" or "no value" but it's still a number.
    One has value, it's count is 1 for each

    Problem is however, for zero to become anything else it must be added to something ex. 0 + 1 = 1
    however 0 + 0 = 0 is still zero, so nothing come out of nothing, there must be something to get any result.

    For what we might call "true nothingness" would appear to us to be an impossibility — SpinOwOza

    Indeed, that would be absence of number 0, true nothing.
  • A first cause is logically necessary
    ↪Verdi

    Conclusion:
    A sphere with a radius of 0, which has a curvature with infinity.
    A point with infinite curvature is known as singularity.

    This is possible to calculate toward singularity, but the opposite, that is to go out of 0 where curvature is infinite is impossible and unimaginable. It's like saying: infinity - 0.00...1 or abs(0, 0 + (+-inf))

    That's why I don't believe in BB and "infinitely dense mass" because it doesn't make sense to me.

    Thanks for the video though, very informative. :smile:
  • Joe Biden (+General Biden/Harris Administration)
    Joe Biden farts on COP 26 event
  • When is a theory regarded as a conspiracy?
    I'm not aware of any compelling evidence of a "conspiracy by the US government" to cover-up what actually happened on "9-11". — 180 Proof

    You know almost no country in the world (at least in modern times) goes to war without having an excuse (aka. Casus belli) to do so?

    Exceptions are chained (subsequent) wars, such as continued but independent wars against terrorism.
  • A first cause is logically necessary
    ↪180 Proof

    I see what you meant, sorry.
    I ques by "planck scale" you are referring to singularity (it's micro size), initial point?

    What I don't get though, in relation to BB planck scale must have converted to "macro" at some point because otherwise there shouldn't have been BB, but rather just stay at what it was, a singularity surrounded empty space and time.

    I mean, explosion itself is a reaction which must be caused by something or there is no explosion.

    At the singularity there was no mass yet. Only an extreme high spatial tension on the fluctuating field (which means, the virtual particle fields).The extreme high negative curvature (DE!) pushed that virtual stuff into real stuff — Verdi

    You're saying matter and energy come to be out of virtual particles and their tensions?
  • Higher dimensions beyond 4th?
    ↪TiredThinker


    4th spatial dimension to be seen with human eye like other 3 dimensions must be illusion of space, something like this:

  • A first cause is logically necessary
    ↪180 Proof

    You mean quantum gravity could be the first cause? ex. inside or outside singularity.
  • When is a theory regarded as a conspiracy?
    The thing with Flat-Earthers is that they see the imprinting, imposing, of the globe on the people as a conspiracy. — Verdi

    Flat earthers are jokers, a kind of trolls having fun, (but there are exceptions)

    Most of them don't know anything about flat earth, they don't even know to point out bible verses that support their flat earth idea.
    In fact there is no such thing as "flat earth" in the bible to begin with, only allusions that contributed to false dogma.
  • Can theory of nothing challenge God?
    I'm not in love with this model, based on string theory, in which I don't believe, — Verdi

    lol me neither, string theory and multiverse is a good story for kids before sleep.
Home » SpaceDweller