God is a con in my opinion, it completely abstracts what good means. I don't like when people conflate morality with God-ism--- morality is a nice clean concept in itself.

Most of the bible on God is fluff, but it's mixed in with some wise words and supposedly an historical account. I don't think the bible in its current state is what it was once was envisioned to be.

God brings about more evil in the world; and that's separating God from the rest of the bible, which could credibly bring about good in the right context.

I'm not even sure if the original bible contained God. It could just be another act of evil(editing a good, educational book for thought control).

No. We're extremely evil to the Earth, and the Earth isn't just a planet to us. It's our home, in multiple senses, such as it's also a mental foundation that governs our lifestyles.

And as a side note, if life were multi-planetary, then it's ok to sacrifice a planet for another, or completely fail at one planet if it couldn't be helped.

Think about taxes. How it's often debated whether the poor should suffer or the middle and higher class should make a sacrifice. There should be no suffering and no forced sacrifices. There's something wrong with the system, it's because the hierarch moral conduit is being neglected for the lesser moral conduit.

it is impractical for society but necessary, and it isn't impossible, it's just energy consuming. It would be like going through a drug comedown, such as stopping alcohol when you are an alcoholic.

If we're willing to do it we can produce a societal system that's far more harmonious than the current system.

However, because of how impractical it is for society, we likely won't ever complete this necessary task(and thus cause our own extinction). You're right to be hopeless, but at the end of the day it's a stupidity of mankind that is making life thousands of times harder than it should be.

No, that's just one example of Evil and not all examples.

Evil is something against the living standards of a particular locale, and it's specifically evil (maleficent) to that locale.

If there is a greater locale encompassing a lesser locale, and what's good and evil conflicts because they are not the same and their rules interject--- it's evil when it's against the greater locale's living standards.

Such as by cutting down all trees on the living planet, that would be an act of evil to the planet(though it may be good for society, they'd have a lot of wood).

The reason it is immoral in that case is because it would destroy both society and Earth, and consciousness couldn't progress.

There's not some mystical reason for that resolution.

Basically, evil is anti-life or in some cases anti-progress--- but there is a situational hierarchy. This means the most high morality over-rules the lower moralities(such as Earth being higher, in the situational hierarchy, than society; if something is immoral to Earth living standards in society living standards, then good and evil in society living standards is negated until the conflict is resolved).

If the NPC hypothesis is true, it's likely a lot of reality is fake, and it would also point towards solipsism(one person in the midst of NPCs and a very compact simulation) or a small group of existents(otherwise it may be ultimately a war of spirits and NPCs).

An interesting note: it's likely also true, if NPC hypothesis is true, that all posts in this forum come from an upper-plane and aren't actually spurring from hands typing somewhere in the world--- meaning a true observation is reality is reversed.

there's something fundamental about the way seeds work, that could propagate without a conscious mind. Seeds are a true concept, their concept is stand alone and/or fundamental. And just as a concept too, if I had infinite simulation power, I could make a seed and then leave the boundaries of that simulation so only a seed existed there. It is right under our noses, something fundamental can exist without a conscious mind.

Teaching by example; putting them in a difficult situation earlier than usual, such as by to operate a small town where they work fields, and run shops--- and other things you'd expect to see in a town, under the guidance of trained teachers.

Being civil and training them manners and to take pride in their chores(not just doing it for the parents), all by the trained teachers or parents doing this themselves, and asking them to pay attention.

do the fundamental particles and forces contribute to the higher order of a 'table'? If no, then the forces and particles aren't really doing anything...

I would suggest that the forces are immaterial and the particles are material. It's what makes it so we can perceive the higher order products; otherwise we'd be conjoined or everything would be a solipsist.

Matter and fields. Consciousness lay above the fields, and matter lays below the fields.

The universe also exists as a concept. We can talk about a hypothetical world in a conceptual universe. We can even begin to imagine a conceptual world from its genesis to the modern era. Does this world exist beyond perception? It can exist as a concept in so far as there is a conscious mind.

Can anything exist without a conscious mind? Presumably it's possible because I have experienced the universe and I have registered that it can exist without conscious minds. We wouldn't be discussing it, but beyond this ineffable predicament it's still possible for a universe only to exist.

I have seen that some parts of the universe do not rely on consciousness logically though it may be a superficial part of its simulation, if any.

It's also likely that something that isn't a conscious mind predates conscious minds.

I don't see how eugenics could insult people. It's not that everyone can't reproduce, there's just a program happening where beautiful people are matched together.

Whether it comes 'prior to' human perception, doesn't make it any more real. If it happened as human perception was introduced, it's the same, the universe as it stands may be real but we currently misunderstand it's history(what people think is that because it 'just appeared' as perception arises, there is evidence of something fake occuring--- but that's wrong. It's no less real it just has an abstract, very short, history). If the mind creates the universe, and there is something like computer code and framework happening under-the-bonet, pulling wool over our eyes, it's still no less real--- there's just more to it than meets the eye.

If the universe has been around for billions of years, that's a whole different discussion, it being there 'prior to' perception doesn't suggest it's been there for more than a minute nor that if it has been around for a minute, it's fake.

The big bang may be only an essence; a resource for our minds to create the universe. In that regard, it never happened, it's just the simulation of the result of such an event.

There's a lot of things wrong with the world, the way beauty is treated is just another one of of those problems. The only answer is there is something wrong with the people who believe it's the right way to act. Why they do it is because of human stupidity, and weakness to natural urges that would allow us to think otherwise. There is nothing truly beautiful about this way of thinking, it completely misrepresents what beauty is about--- it's completely artificial.

Great sex and relationship education, as well as philosophy, would improve the way our society treats beauty.

Eugenics would be a good idea to promote good health in reproduction, it's better than treating children as a father or mother experience(like parents own the child's spirit). I quite like the idea of the Government rearing beautiful children.

A deformed body can be a great pain; a perfect body is healthy.

We desire beauty because it's a sign of good health(the parents had good genetics, the beautiful one is comfortable and healthy in all fields). When sensed, a beautiful person may be more attractive to the senses; this is proof of their good social health.

Each body part has a function, the mind is all the body's functions online collected into a spirit.

Beauty is a sign of good genetics(as if it was a mark of having good genetics). If you think you've seen a beautiful person who has proven that his/her genetics aren't good, then I would ask you, how beautiful was this person? If it's just a cute face, I wouldn't class that as beautiful. The best of the best beautiful people tend to have good immune systems, great minds and perfect bodies.

Imagine if we had to create our own beauty, such as by selecting the universe to be born into, selecting the parents, and competing against others for those selections. This would add a bit of fairness to beauty, as it would have to be earned.

There are some really beautiful people, far greater than the famous, with genetic mutations resulting in larger smiles, more symmetrical noses, carved out, 'arc'd' eyes, sharper complexion and red lips and so forth.

Beautiful people tend to have symmetrical and perfectly shaped body parts, such as perfectly shaped feet and hands. If the genes are the best of the best, everything about you is a higher quality than the rest...

People tend to prefer the more perfect bodies and minds to the lesser ones. It's in our nature to create idols and we idolize beauty because it gives us something to hope for, to hope to become in the future.

Discussions and debates also contribute to teamwork involving a conjecture--- so the more polite we are to each other, the more gets done and the more gets properly filtered. There is no point in suppressive techniques unless the conjecture has already been through the filter and doesn't require an easy team effort.

When we consider the universe to be real or fake, what do we mean?

If it is real, does that mean it is all loaded in at once, in one big containment; and if it is fake, does that mean it's load is efficient, such as by having local systems load in and far away systems not loaded in?

Some people believe it's just Earth that's loaded in. That would be a very fake view. I'm more for the idea that other planets and stars exist, but only as signals until you reach their locale and they load in fully.

The senses belong to the brain and the body belongs to the heart, the duality of both creates a spirit and that switches the brain to a conscious-brain. Consciousness is a mark of ownership of vessels, beginning in the heart and ending in the brain. The state of being conscious, is of a spirit of heart and brain creating a mind of sense-data and body accepting blood flow; resulting in a sensory play-pit with modal trajectory that one can move through, depending on dimensionality. In all fairness, it's not an illusion, but a product of the heart’s and brain’s spirit using the vessel structure it has constructed.

I ask you, are any of the facets of consciousness unexpected? (Vision is from the eyes, Smell is from the nose, etc etc). None of it is an illusion.

It makes sense that they are trying to live adequately given the knowledge at their disposal. It doesn't make sense that the same regime is worshipped today given new knowledge. Some of the methods, like God, can be reasoned with(as a medium of control or a faith inhibitor) - but are taken far too seriously so much so we drift off course(warring over whether a supernatural being governs existence).

If you were going to be burned alive, is jumping off a building a fair suicide? It seems to me that suicide is only ok if it prevents a life of greater suffering. Some evidence: some people in the World Trade Center incident decided to jump from the building rather than burn to death.

Can something be considered beautiful beyond whether some people think it's not because of prevalent high standard? Can good art be reduced to skill-input to declare itself beautiful above what is thought by anyone? Can good appearance be beautiful based on things like good genetics, and good parts, beyond whether it is deemed so by someone?

Can a child who paints a painting of value to many but takes little skill be considered by it's true beauty of having that child-like quality, less a property of an artist and more a nature?

I suggest that we are prevented, by a force of good, from becoming too mad and in control, we cannot throw stars around nor cause a cataclysm to occur universally. There are forces which make life secure from existential threats.

I have a more core view of the term beauty, it is not subjective at all. It is, accurately, the appearance of all. It's not necessarily to be associated with a high standard and can be poor.

That even the most maddest minds were captivated by some saintly force.

a framework is fine.

it is conclusive that God is synonymous with reality because it is an empirical footprint that leaves a trace. The face of reality is not God but it is in so much his likeness the face of reality shows God, and is a trace of God.

There is perhaps a young/long matrix in that, that you would have an inner element of great potential harnessing what you are not.

In my opinion, the face of "God", can be warped and have future effect, I believe this understanding of it is important for human prosperity and evolution, the fact we don't have to pay any attention to reality, and can focus on something else using our consc.(Consciousness).

God is the empirical footprint.

In theory God is above reality, not simply the face of it if he is as powerful as what being ultimately good would mean.

God can't leave the kind of sign that spoke untruth if he was ultimately good, thus God is the face of reality, because reality would be in the image of his likeness.

Is God the evolving master-class, supreme intelligence? If he desires us to be ultimately good then through it we would only become better?

To add, if God exists, it is omnipotent, and it's fair to say, egotistical.

Either 1 or 2.
1. We never do anything improbable(given enough prediction power).
2. The determinator catches up and re-determines from when an improbable act occurs.

It may seem bizarre, but it's more sensible than the original determinism which exhibits 'no control'.

fine. Then I concede. However it seems like a poor choice of words.

Let's say it's determined that I will go to do something and then deny that action because I want to test if it is inevitable. That's a determinable thing if someone has enough information about me. However, it doesn't mean that it is inevitable that I will do it. It just means that it's probable.

then it should be called inevitablism, not determinism. Having determined something will happen is not the same as it being inevitable.

your last paragraph sounds like word salad, it's completely nonsensical:

If determinism is true, and (it; who? What?) determines all our thoughts and actions, then...

If determinism is true that's that all our actions are determined. That's all. It doesn't mean it's determined by causes external to our will. If it's determined that I will write this, then all that means is that it was probable that I would, thus it was determinable prior to the act. If in the beginning of the universe, everything was determined, all it means is that something powerful enough has collected all the information and decided that evidence points to a certain conclusion. I don't know where determinists are getting the idea of no control from - having consciousness and a mind certifies control.

This is what you are saying: it was determined since the beginning, thus I have no control. That's false. What's true is that if it was determined since the beginning, it's probable that the acts that follow are the determined ones.

If it's to be argued that determinism means something else, it can be dismissed as pure fantasy and delusion that a consciousness, with a mind, is out of control of its own actions, due to some higher force. It equates God belief. You literally believe all your actions are guided by some force other than yourself.

Edit: I think you're confusing determinism with impossiblism.