You can train your neural network to be more positive. Try to think glass half full rather than glass half empty. Over time, positive thinking should take hold.

Avoid Atheism; Atheists are depressed (and depressing).

If you're trying to define x, you can't include x in the definition. — Terrapin Station

But you can define good/evil for the individual and then the sum of that for society. If people are making the right decisions then this should be right for society too.

If you take any example of a conflicts of interest between individual and a well functioning society; it is always the individual at fault; thats what we have prison for.

Good = the (inter)personal behavior you approve of, the (inter)personal behavior you feel is recommendable, etc.

Evil = the (inter)personal behavior you disapprove of as strongly as you can disapprove of anything — Terrapin Station

If society is functioning properly, you can define good and evil in terms of what's good/evil for society and the individual.

An individual is part of society so interests usefully align; whats good for the individual is good for society. 'Conflicts of interest' between individuals and society are down to unreasonable behaviour or expectations of individuals.

Eugenics would end natural selection in the human population — Jeremiah

But natural selection is mis-functional in the information world; it does not select for a big brain.

You are a rude and ignorant person. Please do not breed.

Survival of the fittest is the natural selection process, — Jeremiah

But the definition of survival of the fittest has chained in the information age; it's smarts that lead to success Our breeding strategy should relict this. Sorry of that sounds a little cold.

How do you feel about eugenics? — Relativist

Got a bad wrap in WW2 to say the least. Because of modern society and social support structures like the welfare state, evolution / survival of the fittest is not taking place to the same degree as it does in nature. So human progress and happiness could be accelerated with Eugenics. So Eugenics would be a good thing if done right

Many actions are right in the short term and the long term — princessofdarkness

There are a few, I call them right-squared. For things that are both wrong in the short and long term, they are wrong-squared.

Murder is wrong or wrong-squared depending on if you are a sadist or not.

If good is white and evil is black which shade of grey is the dividing line? If that line can't be ascertained then surely good and evil are one — TWI

All that counts is pleasure Vs pain:

- If you do something right, you get long term pleasure, short term pain
- If you do something wrong, you get short term pleasure, long term pain

All we need to judge between the shades of grey is the pleasure minus pain calculation; as long as there is more net pleasure than pain, we are doing the right/good thing.

If you are a sadist it might appeal but you would regret it later. I am not one personally.

Not joking, it's what I believe, that what we call 'God' is the only thing that exists. So if you/I/we exist then you/I/we are God, quite simple really — TWI

It's a model with much pedigree. You can think of it like this:

- In the beginning there was God and some stuff and God made the world from stuff
Or
- In the beginning there was God only and he mad the world from himself

I don't belief in creation ex nihilo so that gives a 50% chance that Pantheism is true.

Because he's not Omnipotent, the God I have in mind is powerful but does not do magic.

Creation is a giant game of Conway's Game of Life, we are generated via brute force algorithms like evolution. This is because it was too difficult for God to design life from scratch; it had to be evolved.

Sad events decrease with time as society becomes more advanced.

Possibly God foresaw that 'all should end well' and went ahead with creation anyway.

I think you are making that blank statement because you are unable to follow me — Jeremiah

He was trying to correct you. As was LD Saunders and myself.

In fact I suggest that things are very good, overall. ...in spite of the local not-so-good-ness in some of the hypothetical life-experience-stories — Michael Ossipoff

And (as the Beetles sung) things are getting better all the time...

There should be a finite number of ranks (actual infinity is impossible) and the GCB belongs to the top rank.

The GCB would be at rank 1 by definition of the GCB surely?

But the GCB would be the GCB from the top rank so you can't do G = B + 1 because there is no B + 1.

this universe does not support life to a degree far exceeding your 99.999% — tim wood

This universe is remarkable in its life sustaining abilities. Nearly all hypothetical universes one can construct in the mind consist just of particles bouncing off each other endlessly - no adhesion. The fact that the atom holds together at all in our universe is just remarkable; the strong and electromagnetic forces have to be just right for atoms to be stable. There are many other examples of fine tuning for life but this is the wrong thread for them.

No good reason to believe otherwise? Only if you either lack the capacity to reason at all, or choose not to. (Choosing not to is both a respectable and viable option; it's called faith. But if it's a matter of faith, you really shouldn't be making unqualified categorical statements.) — tim wood

Your statistics is faulty; if 100% of sampled universes are life supporting, you would come to the conclusion that 99.999% of universes are not life supporting?

I would have one overarching God creating the multiverse. The multiverse and universes would all be fine tuned for life.

Atheists use the Strong Anthropic Principle and say that all the universes should be different with nearly all being non-life supporting. I would counter:

- We have a sample size of 1 saying ALL universes are life supporting. There is no good reason to belief otherwise
- All universes start in a similar state, go through similar phase transitions and end up at the same temperature and density so they should all come out as life supporting.

It's also clear, if we are in a multiverse, the the multiverse itself has been fine-tuned to create life supporting universes.

Numbers are concepts in our minds, they are not real so they cannot be created. The fact that God can't create something that cannot be created takes nothing away from his Omnipotence.

From nothing, nothing can be obtained thus the universe always existed — MathematicalPhysicist

The universe always existed outside of time.

If the universe is eternal (inside time), it has no temporal start point, so it can’t exist.
Also if the universe is eternal (inside time), an actual infinity of seconds has past, which is impossible.

Also:

- Could an event have occurred infinity long ago?
- No, because there is no way for the effects of the event to ever reach today (-oo +1 = -oo)
- So nothing can have occurred infinity long ago
- All events must of occurred finitely long ago

Proof Eternalism is Correct

First prove that time has a start:

- The universe follows rules that our described by mathematics. Negative infinity does not exist mathematically. Proof: there is no number X such that X< all other numbers because X-1<X. Hence eternity (in time) is impossible

- If time did not have a start then an actual infinity of time has passed so far which is impossible

- Imagine an eternal being; impossible to exist; he would have no start. Being is possible we therefore conclude Eternal is not

- If reality is eternal (in time)
- it has no temporal start
- so it can’t exist

- Time came to a stop at the Big Bang (likely candidate for start of time).

Next, prove Eternalism:

- Time had a start
- Imagine a timeless being
- Looking at a universe
- Which version does he see?
- ‘Latest’ does not mean anything timelessly
- So it must be all versions
- IE Eternalism

Euclid's proof by contradiction logically there are an infinite number of primes — anthonyshinex

I'm interested by the possibility that (say) the domain of natural numbers doesn't have a beginning and end in time. — Wayfarer

Numbers only exist in our head as a potential infinity; they don't exist in reality as an actual infinity.

How about existence of truths which has always been the same unaffected by time — anthonyshinex

Yes, I should of called the article 'everything real has a start'. There are concepts that do not have a start for example, like 'love'.

Therefore, this potential is both an intrinsic part of reality and can neither begin nor end — SnowyChainsaw

Its impossible that an actual infinity of time has past so time must have a start. Put another way, say you have an eternal being. He cant exist because of no temporal start. Being is possible so Eternal can't be.

I was thinking about eternal beings:

- Imagine an eternal being
- Impossible to exist; he would have no start in time so could not exist
- 'Being' is possible so we conclude Eternal is not possible

So that reenforces the idea that time has a start?

What you are claiming is that if something always existed, then nothing could exist — LD Saunders

I'm claiming things can't exist without a temporal start. If the big band did not happen, would the universe be here? If you were not born, would you be here?

Since out of nothing, nothing comes, it's more rational to consider the universe as having always existed. — LD Saunders

That leads to an actual infinity of time which is not allowed.

Or put another way, if the universe has no temporal start, then it has no temporal middle or end so we are not here. For example, if you take away Monday could Tuesday still be said to exist? No, so the time and the universe must of had a start.

That's compatible with the 2nd law of thermodynamics which tells us that a universe that had always existed would be in heat death by now (and we are not so time had a start).

7. would only follow from 6. if Presentism and Eternalism were the only two possibilities. — Metaphysician Undercover

Presentism posits the existence of only now. If its false then more than only now exists so some form of Eternalism then.

So time is just a false memory. — TWI

Time governs every particle in the universe via the speed of light limit law (speed = TIME / distance) so its a fundamental part of the universe.

Prove that Presentism is wrong:

1. Presentism posits that only now exists
2. Therefore only now always existed
3. Therefore time did not have a start
4. But if you take away the start (Monday) does the rest of the week (Tuesday...) still exist?
5. No, so time has a start
6. Hence Presentism is false
7. Hence Eternalism must be true

How does God know he's not a brain in vat? — Purple Pond

Nicely put. God himself has his own God. His unknown creator from the reality level above him. God has to watch his step like us else he won't go to heaven.

Maybe the top level God knows the answer to 'why is there something rather than nothing?' or is that ever possible?

Actual infinity is possible through linear time — eodnhoj7

If you take away the start of time (like Monday) then the rest of time does not exist (like the rest of the week). So time has a start.

A time interval is not composed of a infinite number of moments; a moment has length 0; so (interval length)/0 = UNDEFINED

I believe time has an end too; it exists in 4d space time as a finite object so it must have an end. The end could be coincidental with the start.

I have no idea where to publish, any recommendations?

No problem with #1, but #2 is more precisely written as: base reality exists at all times — Relativist

I don't think time existed initially: that implies time did not have a start; would the rest of the week exist if you take Monday (the start) away?

So time has to have a start and there has to be something causing time to have a start; hence timeless base reality.

Times were hard back then...

The Gnostic allegory says that a demiturge created — Michael Ossipoff

A demiurge I view as a distinct possibility. Its helpful to refer to the top level of reality as base reality and the top level God as base reality God. Then there could be a number of nested simulations each with their own demiurge; subordinate to base reality god, but the creators of universes none the less.

I suggest that God adopted us, rather than creating us — Michael Ossipoff

I think God is playing a giant game of Conway's Game of Life.

Considering the really horrible experience that are included in some lives — Michael Ossipoff

These are compatible with a benevolent Creator God who is powerful but not omnipotent. There is more good than evil in the world and this ratio improves with time. We are still at a very early stage of development by cosmological standards; our society should improve towards near perfection given time.

So God was fully justified in creating the universe; it was a 'good' act; he could not make the omelette without breaking a few eggs unfortunately; he's not omnipotent so its best endeavours only.

If space is finite, then what is beyond the end of space? I think it'd be more space. But I also accept nobody knows if the universe is infinite or not. It might even be something else. — GreenPhilosophy

There is nothing beyond; no space, no time, just nothing...

Logically the universe must be finite:

- Its expanding from a point (the Big Bang) so it must have a finite radius
- Anything expanding must be finite else it would have nowhere to expand to.
- Actual infinity is impossible (see the rest of this thread)

A world with an absolute beginning of space-time, and therefore cannot have been caused - because causes temporally precede effects and there is no time before the beginning of time. — Relativist

Our universe seems to have a absolute beginning of space-time, so that means causality must extend beyond time. Thats possible, photons are timeless yet they change. There must be a timeless realm in which our universe was created:

1. Something can’t come from nothing
2. So base reality must have always existed
3. If base reality is permanent it must be timeless (to avoid an actual infinity of time)
4. Also something without a start cannot exist so time must have a start
5. Time was created and exists within this permanent, timeless, base reality

Do you have an argument against steps 1->3 ? Because steps 1->3 seem to necessitate creation of time in a timeless environment...

Imagine all the metaphysically possible worlds, only one of which obtains by chance. There are very simple worlds, and extremely complex ones — Relativist

But all such worlds bar one suffer from the same problem; they are logically inconsistent because there is, unaccountably, stuff in the world. There is no first cause for this stuff. Hence it seems these worlds are logically impossible.

The only world the hangs together logically/does not need magic is the one with nothing in it. All the others present a logical conundrum.

Its a common sense principle that has been around for a long while:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_comes_from_nothing

Ideas about the pre-Big Bang universe do tend to suffer from difficulties collecting empirical evidence. Its probably axiomatic; like parallel lines never meet; we can not ever proof that, but we take it for granted. I think 'something can't come from nothing' is of the same ilk.