Personally in my humble opinion burdens doing a real good job better than the last clown

don’t doubt yourself so much. You’ve hit the nail on the head there

Yes, experiencing technical problems!

Mistake should have dedicated the topic to the lounge! Moderators…please assign it to the lounge category.

Thank you

Until of course it becomes goal oriented for its own end overriding it’s own roles on the way.

Then it is so for mutual benefit, to elaborate the machine of man by man NOT for man will be self seeking in its awareness of the task.

Biden good trump bad, trump bad Biden good,

“Imagine asking a robot to pass you a screwdriver in a workshop. Based on current conventions the best way for a robot to pick up the tool is by the handle. Unfortunately, that could mean that a hugely powerful machine then thrusts a potentially lethal blade towards you, at speed. Instead, the robot needs to know what the end goal is, i.e., to pass the screwdriver safely to its human colleague, in order to rethink its actions.” — ToothyMaw

Stop here. If it’s pre-programmed well enough the overriding mechanism shouold () meet its end goal…don’t you think ?

Very interesting point there.

worth considering then without naming names but yes it ought to be for the benefit of all mankind not the selective needs of the few

• not quite a table
  Not quite a fable

Politicos is left to politicians the decision making process has to meet some end

Following on from the above. That fact that something exists begs the question of where it came from or what created it. If it has always existed (eternally) then we either accept it as being what it is (a brute fact) or probe further. And probing further of course gets you more questions than answers. So I guess it still begs the question even though it’s paradoxical where did this eternal ‘something’ come from how did it come to be ? Confusing for sure … I guess we will never know … for now.

Has 'nothing' ever being identified; can it be identified, or are we talking about a theoretical nothing? — Tom Storm

It cannot be identified if it does not exist. A theoretical nothing can be defined. It would be the opposite of ‘something’. Having no qualities or characteristics such as time, mass, dimensions or other such characteristics that would define ‘something’. Essentially non-existence. Which would have continued to not exist infinitely…yet here we are there is something instead of nothing. And as something cannot arise out of nothing the essence and rules of ‘nothing’ would prohibit ‘something’ emerging from it. I then conclude that ‘something’ has always existed and has done so eternally.

Case closed ?

I believe in God … I used to be atheist then went through personal experiences which left me in awe …simple as that. I do not try to convert though …each to their own

I think God has delegated some of his benevolence to his prized creation … mankind …through scientific progress we have cured many things and will eventually end all biological suffering without impacting our free will. We sure have the mental capacity just more breakthroughs in the scientific fields are required. As for other evils that exist such as man killing man well again that is free will just because we’re imperfect does not mean God is.

Treat others as you’d like to be treated … that is do not take their land as this could cause a war…land grabbing has been the reasons for many wars throughout history … empires colonialism slavery etc…they were not following the golden rule…

Can we say then that morality is agreed behaviour between two or more parties ?

There was a true story about a German man who wanted to be killed and another party who agreed to do it … would you consider this behaviour moral under the golden rule principle as long as two parties agree on something even if it borders on the absurd then it is moral?

The Golden Rule is a recipe for immorality, because it can be used to justify whatever prejudice one harbors. For instance, ‘if I were a homosexual, I would want you to treat me as abnormal’. That prejudice justifies discriminating against others, without violating the Golden Rule. — Joshs

Yes I covered this there are certain scenarios like these that slip through the gap of where the golden rule has its limits as a basis for morality, the best bet is using it in its negative form which negates most unlikeable outcomes such as homosexuality, BDSM or other negative effects that one does not wish upon oneself or others

Yes, I do. The brain as a Central processing system for the physical world clearly exists. — Anonymys

No you have no evidence of this, unless you’ve decided to perform a brain scan on yourself you could can not justify that belief.

Morality has no existence beyond human behavior. — hope

Very true! It doesn’t have to be dog eat dog out there, in the jungle the rules are different … and morality has nothing to do with predators and prey but we are human. Treat others how you like to be treated is the one rule that defines my life

Do u have direct evidence of your brain right now? — hope

Nope! It is a true though that consciousness is an emergent property that cannot be reduced to its constituent part such as brain. And consciousness does not mean that it brains are the only way to achieve consciousness. It’s definitely one way of an object/subject recognising itself as conscious though.

laws of nature are the method of achieving it. — prothero

Sure I will go with this…laws of nature such as evolution for example (although time consuming) are one way of advancing a species to a higher form…perhaps God itself went through a similar journey evolved from non-organic matter to Godhood and finally to its source from which it came from. Giving existence to yourself blindly from nothing to consciousness…massive gamble and worthy.

All seeing and all knowing … a badge well earned

↪Deus Sorry, you've lost me. — Tom Storm

No problem this can sometimes happen. You can’t have a philosophical position without an opposition. Consider aesthetics and beauty for example or the question what is art. In defining those terms there’s a chance that contradictory positions and explanations will emerge … it is these contradictions that constitute and are the bread and butter of philosophy. So it’s not so much to do with religion itself but rather the nature of these types of arguments…

Low rent Hegelian? I don't think every argument needs a counter argument, it's there whether you want it or not. The question is why do you think this is important and what has it to do with Jack's OP? — Tom Storm

We are not talking about the existence of the moon here but God. In certain such matters that are open for debate and especially where there is no proof and facts are wanting then arguments and counter arguments are necessary.

Aquinas, Pascal and other religious philosophers contributions are important in understanding various god-related philosophies

We certainly don’t know however we can speculate on Gods attributes all knowing all seeing. Creator of chaos and order … likes to roll the dice

I agree that every argument needs a counter argument…every position an opposition. Atheism needs theism etc. This is good for critical thinking and even if you are a theist you should respect and acknowledge the non belief viewpoint

Grateful for existing … however just because we cannot answer the question from our limited perspective does not mean there is no reason for us existing within this flesh and bone and worldly desires and spiritual desires too.

By avoiding war you start a conflict within yourself

Well existence is certainly a mystery, the biggest one there is and the concept of God is incomprehensible something that has no end or no beginning defies logic.

Indeed sir, Pascal’s wager does it for the gain. I did not wish to get involved in that as a loving diety would not cause his creatures and doom them to non existence even if they were atheist hence me trying to avoid the wager.

My question is purely from a non gain perspective but rather a gain towards knowing his nature and that he exists if he does exist and present himself after we are dead if he decides to do so. He could if he likes decide not to present himself even to believers although i doubt that.

The physicists have an explanation in terms of asymptote causation - there's a paper on it by Stephen Hawking. Preceding causes occur in shorter periods of time, giving an infinite causal chain in as finite period. — Banno

Thanks I will look it up :)

But now we are going off in the direction of arguments for god, not the distinction between theism, atheism and agnosticism. — Banno

Noted

Treating a belief in God as a bit of sport seems odd to me. — Cheshire

God is ok with that that’s all I can say. Odd though ? Probably

I'm not offended just curious. If I had subjective undeniable evidence, then this whole "what part did God do" song and dance would be unnecessary. I think you are looking for a reason to believe it; or it appears as the case. — Cheshire

Not at all my faith is firm here I just enjoy a bit of written jousting.

So, what is the point of leaning on this need to inject one's religion into a secular science? — Cheshire

Apologies …

...bland assertion. Can you do better? — Banno

Bland you say ? Let me spice it up for you. Let’s imagine the concept of eternity or eternal existence…no beginning no end … difficult to wrap my little human brain around … yet this is the possibility that we are facing we did not come from nothing and by nothing I mean the big bang there has always been something that has existed whether that be god or whatever you wanna call it. This eternal existence is fascinating it would have lead to an intelligence not much unlike ours but a few generations of big bangs ago before perhaps there was big bangs … there’s a theory I’m sure about this …cyclical big bangs.

Really, if this was shown to be false you would stop believing? — Cheshire

Not at all! My faith goes beyond that through first hand experience or religious experience which was refreshing to say the least.

What really interests me is how did existence itself came to be was god prior to it. What is he anyway ?

There was never* a theist who claimed otherwise. But then the argument did not go their way... — Banno

Don’t worry I’m not a special snowflake who cannot handle opposing views in fact I like them and find them interesting to say the least.

I'm pretty happy with 'I don't know' for most of those currently unanswerable questions. Was there a starting point? Maybe not. We don't know. Was there nothing before something? We are not certain. We can't readily define what nothing is. Do all things have a cause? Maybe not. We can't say for certain. — Tom Storm

Well this is what’s interesting about it our predecessor, God, who existed before we did. We sure as hell did not pop into existence by accident some God had a hand in all of this can assure you of that. My interest as a theist is not so much why he created us, he just loves it maybe, perhaps we are his first creation. What really spurs me on in my theism is understanding him who created him. I’m happy with I don’t know too

You suppose to know the outcome of God undeniably presenting itself to the world? Seems bold, like you imagine God thinks just like you. — Cheshire

Just making an assumption I do not think the almighty would reveal himself to everyone all at once. Perhaps to the occasional individual.