1. God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.
2. If god is not real then God is not that than which nothing greater can be conceived.
Ergo,
3. God is (merely) real.

Then your formulation of God, Hell and worlds is false. God is omnipresent, so everything is in God. God is not "in" anywhere, He is what everything else is in. — Hallucinogen

If it were true it would make your god is everywhere inconsistent, oui?

Hence if God exists in one universe He exists in all of them -- this is in other words, not "possible" but necessarily true. — Hallucinogen

God being everywhere is inconsistent with hell, as I already explained. However, if god were everywhere, He would be necessary.

Why is my formulation of hell false? Is hell not for hurting (punished + punisher)? You know we could go on and on, I seen no end to this back and forth, si?

By symmetry, a negative IQ occurs about as often as one over 200. They’re out there. My youngest is at about 67 or so, low, but not newsworthy low. My other kids are over 100.
Any ideas whether intelligence genes have been identified?
They’ve found at least 22.
We could breed geniuses then, eh? I wonder of normal folks would approve - it gives me Nazi eugenics vibes.
Bad vibes presumably. I’m all for the posthumans, but not so much for mingling with them. Current gilded-age morals forbids most of the solutions to problems discussed in this topic. — noAxioms

We're doing it anyway, oui monsieur?

Again, is theism true or not true? What are the truth-values of its claims? If any or all of them are not true or undecidable, then isn't theism as a concept empty or not true (i.e. there may be a deity but it is not "theistic")? I claim that theism is not true.

Forget about "god", amigo, and focus on theism (and its static shadow deism). Why is that so hard for you/them? Or maybe it's my 'focus on theism instead of "god"' that's misguided and you or somebody smarter than us both, Smith, – like Gnomon or Wayfarer or @Gregory – can explain it to me/us. :point: — 180 Proof

First off, agree that what I call the God hypothesis is, wonder of wonders, testable (re the problem of evil & Epicurean riddle) i.e. it's a scientific hypothesis, unfortunately/fortunately falsified. Perhaps this is the reason why you're an atheist despite the emergency repairs attempted by theists (free will).

When you say "forget about "god" [...] and focus on theism [...]" do you mean that's barking up the wrong tree because theism doesn't care. Had they, theism would've never existed.

:up: The immune system itself turns malignant (leukemias, lymphomas) sometimes, oui?

Have you ever wondered - are we (humans) a highly virulent cancer/infection? Mother Earth's already developing a fever (global warming) and Covid-19 and other pandemics could be an immune response. :cool:

Well, if one asks for a reason, atheists are big on reason, the only one that seems to me appropriate is to withhold belief until such a time as strong evidence is found to swing the scales of truth.

Notice though that atheism is also the stance that god doesn't exist which is a belief. Clearly, this is inconsistent with atheism being a lack of belief, unless, as you seem to think, withholding belief = belief that false.

Yeah – empty glass, another round, barkeep. :pray: :sweat: — 180 Proof

:up:

Well, since the crux if the issue is theism's truth-value and not god's non/existence, your "moot point" is also moot, Smith. One can believe or disbelieve whatever one wants, but what I think is decisive is what we know / don't know and what we can know / can't know. We don't know / can't know g/G beyond the predicates we claim as (uniquely) g/G's, and yet we do know / can know whether or not our claims about g/G are true or not. Why? Because a g/G without discernible, or attributable, predicates is indiscernible from not being a g/G, so knowing the truth-value of claims about a g/G (assumed to exist) is inescapable.

When scriptures (or testimonies, visions, legends, superstitions, etc) say "g/G did XYZ", this means that something (somewhere somewhen) has been changed in a way that only g/G could have changed it, and therefore, we can check it out in order to learn whether or not such a sui generis change – which could have been caused only by g/G – has happened. When you know any claim's truth-value (or that you can know it eventually), mi amigo, "belief" is irrelevant. :fire: :eyes: — 180 Proof

Interesting. There are testable claims pertaining to god (predicates) and as the Epicurean riddle demonstrate, none of the attributes of god pass the test. If so, god's an inconsistent (internally and externally) idea - it sticks out like a jigsaw piece out of place.

Pardon my simplistic (Theravādin's?) interpretation – I think Buddha teaches that attachment to impermanent 'relationships and things' as if they were not impermanent – e.g. trying to hold on to smoke (i.e. maya) – causes dukkha (i.e. frustration, distress, anxiety). Yeah, 'attachment is desire', but it's how one attaches, or desires, that causes dukkha, and not just "desire" itself; thus, the Buddha teaches the Noble Eightfold Path as exercises, more or less, for sustaining habits of aligning expectarions with reality – to align letting-be with impermanence – such that ego-desire (craving) transforms into nonego-desire (renouncing) and then trannsforms further into eco-desire (à la wu-wei), or as you've pointed out, Smith: understanding samsara. :fire: — 180 Proof

:fire: :clap: :pray:

To tell you the truth, I quite like what bylaw is getting at. The Buddhist recommendation to end suffering by extinguishing desire seems to me a trivial solution, like morphine drips for everybody are in hedonism. Thus I second your motion - "how one attaches, or desires" - which you seem to relate to my view that samsara needs to be understood rather than transcended.

I know this Buddhist monk who likes the occasional drink and he always makes it a point to say (paraphrasing) "drink, enjoy, but do realize, it is empty (sunyata)" :lol:

God seems to be a model worth looking into.

To err is human, to forgive divine.

As @180 Proof regularly reminds us, getting it right, especially all the time, is nigh impossible; ergo strive to reduce error. The guy who gets an A⁺ is the one whose paper has the least number of errors, not because it had the right answers.

Any man is liable to err, only a fool persists in error. — Marcus Tullius Cicero

Apologies if you're offended. Believe me I'm not in the habit of hurling ad homs at other people. Look up my post history and be satisfied. In fact you'll see I've been on the receiving end of a lot of vitriol.

Desire is a cause of suffering. When you say it isn't then the onus probandi on you to demonstrate why not. As for evidence of the second noble truth, visit Wikipedia on dukkha and find out why this is a truth.

There's only one way to attain power and it's the same way you retain it, via corruption, in colloquial terms you have to be the biggest jerk in town. Sad, but true.

Nobility isn't correlated with power.

Presumably the Original Poster thinks his thread has gone wrong..... — Wayfarer

:lol: He was well-prepared ... fled at the first sign of trouble.

Does what we have now in academia approximate your proposal? When you talk about 'bad ideas', do you include evaluatively (morally, politically) bad as well as shoddy/low quality ideas? Content regulation as practiced by journals and universities is fairly liberal when it comes to evaluative regulation, but is more variable when it comes to epistemic regulation (you can troll some journals by showing how bad quality articles can get approved, e.g., the Sokal Hoax).

But it seems like you're just talking about censorship, not affirmative action. You could have your proposal implemented alongside affirmative action, as far as I can tell. — Welkin Rogue

I misread you - I thought you wanted to discuss regulation of ideas. If yes then censorship is one way of doing it.

In my universe, possible means consistent although not necessarily true à la scientific hypotheses. Omnipresence is consistent with god being in all worlds, but not in hell. There are only 2 kinds of beings in hell - those who hurt and those who hurt and god can't be either of them for He is sinless.

I wonder what's up with autoimmune disorders? Do you have any idea whether they're linked to cancers? I know diabetes type II (some kinda immune-mediated destruction of pancreatic beta-cells that has been correlated with increased risk of pancreatic cancer).

Yes, it always pours! At least in my place. Can't have a break. Just a small rain, Mr Murphy! — Alkis Piskas

Rain has always been viewed as bad luck - picnic cancelled, game cancelled, concert cancelled. It's the classic case of Murphy's law in action - rain on someone's parade. :smile:

Can x make y more intelligent than x? It seems possible
— Agent Smith
That's the whole idea of the singularity, that x can make its successor.
base matter (inanimate) has an IQ of 0
No. IQ is a bell curve centered on 100, but can have a negative IQ, which is still vastly more intelligent than inanimate matter.
but humans, on average, have an IQ of 130
On average, humans have 100 IQ by definition.
Humans emerging from matter isn't really the matter 'making' us, but rather a natural process, sort of things making themselves. We can short-circuit that natural process and actually modify our genes to produce more intelligent offspring. That would definitely by a case of x 'making' y where y scores better. Right now the human race is not being selected for intelligence, so it's probably trending downward. — noAxioms

:up:

Danke for correcting my error. I also didn't know IQ could be negative. So you think it's possible to make ourselves more intelligent by tweaking some of our genes. Any ideas whether intelligence genes have been identified? We could breed geniuses then, eh? I wonder of normal folks would approve - it has a Nazi eugenics vibe to it.

No, I had to google it. Subtracting the non-essential to improve the chances of success at achieving a goal, seems very valid to me, in situations which don't have any moral issue associated with them.
But if there are issues of human morality involved, then there must be judgement involved, that must not prioritise the goal over all other consequentials involved.
I accept the 'lesser of two evils,' type scenario's etc, as horrible as some of those can be in certain circumstances.
I assign no value or significance to:
"The idea comes from a Latin phrase used initially in Christian Theology to explain what God is by focusing on what he isn’t.
If God transcends all things, humans cannot apply qualities and attributes to him in the affirmative (God is light, God is love, etc.). Instead, via negativa presents God as a mystery that humans cannot describe in words." — universeness

In me humble opinion, via negativa is one apposite approach to emergence. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts (holism). Emergence is not just an increase in magnitude of an ability, it's the development of a whole new one.

1,200 hospital beds
18 palettes medical material, 60 surgical lights
protective clothing, surgical masks
600 safety glasses
1 field hospital (joint project with Estonia)*
field hospital (role 2)*
500 medical gauzes*
100,000 first aid kits*
67 fridges for medical material
medical material (inter alia back packs, compression bandages)
vehicle decontamination system
6 mobile decontamination vehicles HEP 70 including decontamination material — ssu

vs.

107 border protection vehicles*
4 mobile and protected mine clearing systems*
168 mobile heating systems*
20 rocket launchers 70mm on pick-up trucks with rockets*
15 armoured recovery vehicles*
13 tank transporter tractor Oshkosh M1070*
7 tracked and remote controlled infantry vehicles for support tasks*
143 Pick-ups*
216 generators
35 load-handling 8x8 wheeler trucks
26 reconnaissance drones*
36 ambulance vehicles*
36.400 wool blankets
12 heavy duty trailer trucks*
55 anti-drone sensors and jammers*
30 drone detection systems*
6 lift trucks*
Iris-T system and SLM missiles*
60,000 rounds ammunition 40mm*
18,500 projectiles 155mm
18 load-handling trucks 8x8
50 MRAP vehicles DINGO
3 bridge-laying tanks BEAVER*
10 unmanned surface vessels*
14,000 sleeping bags
Mi-24 spare parts*
ammunition for multiple rocket launchers MARS II
spare parts for heavy machine gun M2
20 frequency range extensions for anti-drone devices*
17 heavy and medium bridge systems*
5 multiple rocket launchers MARS II with ammunition
14 self-propelled howitzers Panzerhaubitze 2000 (joint project with the Netherlands)
200 tents
116.000 winter jackets, 80.000 winter trousers and 240.000 winter hats
405,000 pre-packaged military Meals Ready
30 self-propelled GEPARD anti-aircraft including circa 6.000 rounds of ammunition*
counter battery radar system COBRA*
4,000 rounds practice ammunitions for self-propelled anti-aircraft guns
54 M113 armored personnel carriers (systems of Denmark, upgrades financed by Germany)*
53,000 rounds ammunitions for self-propelled anti-aircraft guns
20 laser target designators*
3,000 Panzerfaust 3 with 900 firing devices
14,900 anti-tank mines
500 Man Portable Air Defense Systems STINGER
2,700 Man Portable Air Defense Systems STRELA
22 million rounds of ammunition for fire arms
50 bunker buster missiles
130 machine gun MG3 with 500 spare barrels and breechblocks
100,000 hand grenades
5,300 explosive charges
100,000 m detonating cord and 100.000 detonators
350,000 detonators
10 anti-drone guns*
100 auto-injector devices
28,000 combat helmets
15 palettes military clothing
280 vehicles (trucks, minibuses, all-terrain vehicles)
6 palettes material for explosive ordnance disposal
125 binoculars
1 radio frequency system
3,000 field telephones with 5.000 cable reels and carrying straps
353 night vision goggles*
12 electronic anti-drone devices*
165 field glasses*
38 laser range finders*
Diesel and gasoline (ongoing deliveries)*
10 tons AdBlue*
500 medical gauzes*
MiG-29 spare parts*
30 protected vehicles*
7,944 man-portable anti-tank weapons RGW 90 Matador*
10 HMMWV (8x ground radar capability, 2x jamming/anti drone capability)*
7 radio jammers*
8 mobile ground surveillance radars and thermal imaging cameras*
4 mobile and protected mine clearing systems*
1 high frequency unit with equipment*
To be delivered:
2 air surveillance radars*
40 infantry fighting vehicles MARDER with ammunition (from Bundeswehr and * industry stocks)
air defence system PATRIOT with missiles
114 reconnaissance drones*
17 mobile heating systems*
26 load-handling trucks 15t
2 Pick-up
18 wheeled self-propelled howitzers RCH 155*
90 drone detection systems*
2 hangar tents*
7 load-handling trucks 8x6*
7 self-propelled Gepard anti-aircraft systems*
7 tracked and remote controlled infantry vehicles for support tasks*
6 mobile and protected mine clearing systems*
42 mine clearing tanks*
3 mobile, remote controlled and protected mine clearing systems*
5 mobile reconnaissance systems (on vehicles)
393 border protection vehicles*
1,020 projectiles 155mm*
156,000 rounds ammunition 40mm*
5 armoured engineer vehicles
3 heavy and medium bridge systems*
16 self-propelled howitzer Zuzana 2* (joint project with Denmark and Norway)
78 heavy duty trailer trucks*
3 air defence system IRIS-T SLM with missiles*
12 communications electronic scanner/jammer systems*
20 frequency range extensions for anti-drone devices*
14 truck tractor trains and 14 semi-trailers*
2 tractors and 4 trailers*
10 protected vehicles*
5,032 man-portable anti-tank weapons
200 trucks*
13 bridge-laying tanks BEAVER* — ssu

:chin:

We better multiple, steal resources and invade other areas to maximise our chances of surviving." — Benj96

:lol: That, of course, eventually backfires, oui?

So, god as a mere projection of human fears and aspirations and not something that has an existent.
If that's what you are suggesting then, I agree. God, the best human would still be a mere fallible, mortal, limited, human who exists only within relative space and time.
No omni abilities whatsoever. — universeness

Something like that. Have you come across via negativa?

Well, there are various ways of interpreting probabilities. Yet, there's only one probability theory. And its laws are merciless — Alkis Piskas

The laws of chance are merciless, true mon ami! When it rains, it pours, oui?

So then desire isn't a cause of suffering. :chin: Can you tell me why you think that is so. Should the dog who's sniffing your testicles bite one/both off? You wouldn't suffer now would you? Imagine, instead of anticoagulants, the dog's saliva contains a strong anesthetic. I feel for you mon ami.

El Rachum mon ami, El Rachum, and Muslims say Allah rahim!

I think you're denying a truth that stares you in the face every single day. It doesn't matter though, it's a phase in understanding.

I vote for censorship. Good people rarely speak anyway. :zip:

Well, isn't desire a, if not the, cause of suffering? :chin:

Remember the "desire" to shut down the limbic system is proportional to the intensity of suffering one experiences. If one hasn't felt extreme pain, you'll be ok with having a limbic system, experiencing but mediocre emotions.

Just trying to make sense of it all mon ami. That's all.

Humans think, or do they?, that god is just the best human.

I feel you've grasped the wrong end of the stick mon ami. The Buddha was driven by intense suffering i.e. he was, if not a good thinker, a deep feeler. His first noble truth is life is suffering - to appreciate this truth, the limbic system must be on high gear. Have you seen people? Are they feeling the pain? Nope! The normal person or average Joe has, compared to the Buddha who was feeling for all sentient beings, the emotional range of a teaspoon (kind courtesy Hermione Granger).

:lol:

I don't see what that question has to do with AGI —> ASI ... — 180 Proof

Can x make y more intelligent than x? It seems possible , base matter (inanimate) has an IQ of 0, but humans, on average, have an IQ of 130 and the latter came from the former.

Intriguing! Belief is irrelevant insofar as truth doesn't depend on it and we don't know the truth.

1. God exists or does not exist [truth]
2. We don't know [knowledge]
3. We can believe or not believe [belief]

I don't have to prove god doesn't exist because I have refused to form a belief either way.

You could be more clearer (if you wished to).

Your argument from omnipresence is a good one; after all by that we can infer god's existence in all possible worlds. However, omnipresence has a specific definition as far as I know and from that definition, your argument is a non sequitur.

Coming to your belief being a possibility, one among many others, to my reckoning, no contradiction is entailed. As for it being necessarily true, I have my doubts (vide supra).

I thought "Our God in heaven" for a good reason.

What contradiction? You mean to say god's everywhere doesn't entail a contradiction in any world? But it does in our world (the problem of evil). What about the omnipotence paradox?

:rofl:

I've been wondering about the possibility of intelligence explosion. I've seen many students surpass their teachers for instance, but is that because the students were already more intelligent or were they made more intelligent by the teacher?

.....yes, I met the Buddha, recognized him, but found him judgmental and dualist in a way that I dislike and that I don't think he quite notices. I have sympathy for his concerns and intentions. But ultimately I consider him part of the problem. — Bylaw

Blame it on Brahma who, as per legend, descended from heaven with a retinue of other gods, and begged the Buddha to turn the wheel of the dharma. Buddha, very reluctantly, did as asked and here we are. The Buddha is a problem, I concur - inter alia, he provides one more reason for us to hate each other.

I believe I got it now - there's no justification either way i.e. belief is moot. Why should I believe god exists when it hasn't been proven and why should I believe god doesn't exist when that too hasn't been proven? It differs from agnosticism in that unlike agnosticism, it doesn't permit/allow beliefs like agnostic theism/atheism.