There are many interesting initiatives underway which, in theory, will reduce the Greenhouse gases contributing to Global Warming. Given time, a reversal might be achieved. I don't believe we have enough time. The "Elephant in the Room" is the population explosion which is an exponential increase. Humanity is hurtling toward a population level that will not be a sustainable. The first thing to go will be the Welfare State, Economies, Rule of Law and Civilisation will collapse under the load, and technology will be too late.

Truth about what?

No human being has ever possessed esoteric, secret, or individual revelations about the nature of reality. — Drazjan


I mostly agree with your post but not this part.

For starters, you phrase it as a logical fallacy that you cannot prove and second, we are not sure of all the aspects of reality.

For instance, I hold the knowledge that telepathy is real and that belies your views. Science has confirmed telepathy between twins as well. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

What you disagree with is fundamental equality. Like God, it cannot be proven. But God-freaks do not have a monopoly on belief. If you do not believe in our equality in the nature of reality, there is no further point communicating.

Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."

Please listen as to what is said about the literal reading of myths.

"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."

Matt 7;12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

This is how early Gnostic Christians view the transition from reading myths properly to destructive literal reading and idol worship. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I like what the Rabbi said, but I would probably have rejected his cosmology, just as I reject the Greek commentator's. No human being has ever possessed esoteric, secret, or individual revelations about the nature of reality. Those who have claimed such are either deluded or charlatans. In the perception cosmic truth, we are all equal. To believe otherwise is to insult one's own intelligence. However, there is very large swathe of humanity who easily persuaded by claims of the brand of knowledge that cannot be understood until it is already "believed." Its obvious, that people use the word "belief" very loosely.

I voted NO, but what I meant was not yet, maybe not ever. Is there any reason why AI should develop ethics? Many creative and highly intelligent people are compete arseholes. Caravaggio threw acid in his girlfriend's face. Does this mean that an artificial intelligence will also be capable of being creative and arseholish at the same time too?

despise the moronic support of minorities simply because they are minorities
— Drazjan

Spoken just like someone who’s never been a minority. — praxis

I am an not going to apologise for being lucky. That is what the above mentioned morons do.

I listen carefully. Have ever widening interests. Have been a hero to a few and a villain to others. Extremely artistic but not particularly innovative. I value sense of humour and tenacity. I prefer any decision rather than none. Hate to see others embarrassed. I sympathise with the underdog, but despise the moronic support of minorities simply because they are minorities. Empathise with animals but am not vegan. Powerfully attracted to the opposite sex. Would be a Leftist if they were not suicidal. Would be Rightist if they were not so so insular. Credit no person, past or present, with esoteric knowledge of cosmic truth.

In speaking with a mentor, questions were brought up about God's existence, sin, free will, and heaven.
Understanding, for context, that the God in question is one of euro-Christian belief from the bible, in what world is God just and fair?

The question was posed as such:

There were three universes in God's domain. The first having the perfect world with no sin, no freewill, where everyone was created to be perfect. The second universe has free will, but before people are born, God looks through their life and sees if there were any points in which they were not perfect: committing no sin. If these individuals break any of God's laws, then He never allows them to exist. The third universe is our universe, where, as far as we know, God allows for free will, sin, and salvation. Would God create the first or second universe? Is the first and second universe ethical to create? Which of these universes follows the biblical interpretation of heaven? Etc.

I want to leave this post as open-ended as possible. Thoughts? — Anonymys

I am open to the idea something beyond human comprehension, but I am unlikely to accept what you have referred to. It is so obviously created by, and within, the limits of the human perspective. I am still waiting for a description of God that is interesting.

However, today we see branded as irrational anyone who does not condone homosexual practices
— Drazjan

Not so.

We brand them as immoral and bigots as they discriminate without a just cause.

Irrational might apply but a persons morals, to me, are more important than if he is rational or not. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

It is so. And you have been doing up until this post.

A phobia is an irrational fear. The disapproval of a practice is not a phobia. Terms like Islamophobia and Homophobia are more often used in rhetoric and sophistry to defend those groups.
— Drazjan

If not fear, what motivates homophobes to discriminate against gays without a just cause to the point of wanting to deny them a lifelong loving relationship?

Or do you think homophobes have a just cause to put sex above love? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

You are still mixing two things up. Disapproval is not phobia. What actual casebook Homophobes do or think is another matter, and I would not even guess. However, today we see branded as irrational anyone who does not condone homosexual practices. How homophobes rate sex and love I would not guess. Love is intangible. Sex happens between genders. These aspects of the human condition are hard to escape.

A phobia is an irrational fear. The disapproval of a practice is not a phobia. Terms like Islamophobia and Homophobia are more often used in rhetoric and sophistry to defend those groups.

Catholics have always used idolatry. Praying to statues etc. Buddhists do it too. When Christ was crucified, his followers were left isolated in a pagan world. Pagans loved gimmicks including idolatry. Some pagan gimmicks survived the spread of Christianity. The Christmas tree is one. I suspect the tricks (miracles) were invented to capture the attention of pagans, including Christ's unproven rising from the dead. Too bad they didn't have cell phone cameras. Notice how flying saucer sightings have diminished since the spread of smart phones?

The idea is to look into the varied thought processes that have taken place over millennia of human cultures and practices. The premise is, explain God. — BrianW

Explain God. You don't ask for much, do you?

There is a problem right off. It is impossible to really know what anyone else means by God. Or anything that cannot be detected. Sure, you can agree with someone, but that does not mean you are talking about the same thing. Creator of the Cosmos? That question is a human construct expressed in English and doesn't carry any description. So, to discuss God, one must first accept some kind of meaning already applied, even before you have a meaning. It just goes around and around in circles. The only thing one can do is make a prediction, or as in the case of the major religions, talk about faith or belief, and that is not going to help except to provide a sense of belonging for those who feel vulnerable. With the God of Abraham, they don't seem to care, other than to provide a father figure for grown-ups.

Using our best (so far) processes of acquiring information and knowledge we have deduced that the universe has over 13 billion years of existence. Compared to human intelligence (the intelligence humans project through their conscious interaction but not the intelligence operating their life mechanisms), the intelligence manifest in the operation of the universe is unimaginably advanced. However, humans, having designated themselves as beings, have been attempting to conceive of another being - GOD - but with capacities greater than those witnessed in the universe. Why?

Why, when we admit the existence and operation of the universe long before human (or any terrestrial beings) existence?
Why, when we refuse to conclusively accept the logical possibility of highly intelligent life outside our planet's perimeters?
Why, when we inevitably strip God off of every vestige that makes us 'beings'?
Why, when the reality of our existence does not alter no matter the augmentation of the narrative? — BrianW

Paragraph 1 question: Possible reasons could be a desire to understand our circumstance, and a fear of the dark. Its not a one-size-fits-all situation. Unfortunately, the word God does not actually explain anything.

I take it the "when" in the subsequent four questions are to qualify the first question.

Question 2. The Universe's age does not affect the existence or non-existence of the God concept.

Question 3. I know a lot of people who acknowledge this possibility. What they do not factor into their calculation is "irony."

Question 4. Inevitably strip God? When we attempt to conceive God? (Q1)

Question 5. The static fact of our reality, does not, in my view, change anything about possible answers to Q1.

The way you frame your questions is extremely convoluted, to the point that I am not sure I understand the original premise.

A meaning of Life is one of those questions that is older than dirt.The problem with the question is that "meaning"is something ascribed by humans, and as humans did not create Life, any meaning we come up with for Life is going to be guesswork.

↪Drazjan Deception or self-deception is unethical, I agree. I'm primarily interested in the medicinal research that's being done with more freedom and funding these days. And as some medicines are indeed poison to some users, everyone is responsible for finding the meds that work best for them.

Cannabis does have negative effects on some people in some circumstances, but I'm not about to make a sweeping generalization about it based on that fact. In that sense your statment seems a bit irrational. Also, I don't understand what the problem is with people who like to get high. Please don't make another sweeping generalization, or I won't take you seriously.

I cultivate Cannabis and I make tinctures for various people, including a biology professor whose anxiety is markedly decreased and a few clients with ADHD whose focus is much better with Cannabis than with ritalin, and without the latter's side effects. — uncanni

You agree, but then accuse me of making a sweeping statement that is irrational. My previous post is not theory, it is made from experience, which should be the basis of any worthwhile philosophy. As for condescending to take me seriously in the future, don't bother yourself. I am not interested in your pompous approval.

I think what is unethical is to pretend cannabis use has no negative side affects, socially or for the individual, just because you like to get high.

I think all you are going to get is opinions. Mine is that it is not inherent, but indoctrination and/or wishful thinking. Youth is more susceptible to such influence through natural naivety.

I don't disagree with your premise, but the idea that such worship is an instinct contradicts the idea that it come from indoctrination. As for the progress of humanity, it may be planned for, however if Conrad is correct, it comes about in a fog.

So there is no point for me to write this post, other than to convince myself that I have "free-will?" All human decisions are predetermined? That is fatalism. It is written . . . Life then, is just a game of sticks that fall in a complex heap. This would be true, only if we choose to believe it.

The population explosion is THE problem for humanity, and the world. It is likely to get ugly long before Elon Musk's Marstown is built. Humanity will turn on itself like rats in a barrel. I doubt the effects will be homogenous. It seems more likely that problems will start where the population is already dense. Expect more whacko prophets and doomsday cults saying "I told you so," and it will get harder to refute them. Its going to be a sad spectacle from the outer provinces. No . . . it already is.

I have great respect for language, and despise journalese. I never use religion when I mean belief in God. Accepted usage is often twisted, like quality to mean refinement instead of texture. I will not accept meaning that requires a nudge and wink. Words such as God, spirit, and soul are words which require prior claim of knowledge before they can be defined. Thats a conundrum. To me, no meaning is conveyed. It's just jaws flapping in the wind, whether for or against.

Atheism has been invented by those who fear God,
— Drazjan

It is not my contention that Atheists fear God.
— Drazjan


These are two direct quotes uttered by you. The referencing is easily done.

So... you later say that the TERM atheism has been invented by those who fear the Abrahamic god, and the term is to mean those who are heathens. — god must be atheist

The first quote is correct. Its cryptic, but its food for thought. I used to think I was an Atheist, until I discovered that it was part of a trichotomy that facilitates those who "fear God." I don't mind being categorised by something I believe, but certainly not something that is someone else's idea. As to the first quote : Atheists fearing God would be contradictory. So I do not see that as an interpretation.
The God-ists seem to need to codify reality as cosmic or mystical. I would not say that need is wrong, any more than the other neuroses that make up the human condition. But I doubt they would disagree with the notion that reality is something with which the individual comes to terms.

Perhaps the most amusing aspect of Abraham and his followers (and there is not much) is that they feel that one supreme "spirit" is more logical that several.

Do you propose that the "digital age" is a kind of second industrial revolution? — Grre

There are parallels, including a kind of technology conceit. Whether that amounts to a religion like scientism I cannot say, but the assumption that we are "modern" is old as the hills.

I am “going out on a limb” here, but I suspect those who have voiced belief in, and or, enthusiasm for future immortality achieved through technology, are forum contributors under the age of 45. It is a subject not unlike the conjecture that life exists on other planets. That is, it relies entirely on mathematical probability while completely ignoring a fundamental element human existence. Irony is something not appreciated until we have had a healthy dose of it.

Fantasy fiction is perhaps the most popular subject in publishing today, and the market demographic is well under 45, and if popular culture is any indication, this is a generation, or two, who are intoxicated with humanity’s technological prowess, something that should be remembered was also true of the Victorians. The future the Victorians planned and expected, and even fought to death for, never happened. That’s irony.

Can technology restore the North American bison migration? Can it stop microfibres of polyester from your laundry getting into the flesh of the fish we eat? Can artificial intelligence grasp the irony of a situation, let alone its humour? If it cannot, what’s the point?

PS I thought the "Great Equaliser" was Ketchup. It makes good food bad, and bad food good.

"Solipsistic," great word. It sent me running for my dictionary, figuratively speaking. Its always a great day when you learn a new word.

I detect the contemporary assumption that music equals "songs." Any room for instrumentals, tunes, improvs?

I am not going to make that judgement. I do feel that some of the best poetry has a philosophical element, and one good trait is that poetry needs to be concise, something a lot of philosophers could benefit from.

I too, tend to speed-read the subtitles as the acting says so much than script-writing. I do not speak anything other than English, but I have always been interested in language, so I know enough words in French, Spanish and Italian to catch the gist of a convesation. In addition to the art of the production, I use the dialogue to advance my understanding of the language. It develops quick ears. In English, I can usually place a dialect.

Hawking said words to the effect that any unified theory was without value, if is was not intelligible to the average person. I think it is also true of philosophical questions

The nuance of language may be lost in the translation of subtitles, but that's the price you pay. I have no trouble with subtitles.

Socrates did not fear gods. He just realized the god-concept is an unnecessary concept.

Most atheists I know don't fear god. If you believe something does not exist, then it's impossible to fear it. That is self-evident.

You seem to imply that atheism is born, or created, by a fear of god. That may be partly true, in some instances, but in most instances of atheism, people are raised without a god-belief and they simply follow the crowd, much like religious follow the crowd.

There is a slim stratum of atheists, who are the most vocal, and their atheism is stemmed from their realizing that religions are self-contradictory, and although they would otherwise accept it, they can't abide by a system that is ruled by logical self-contradictory tenets.

For an overwhelming majority of Europeans life now is understandable and science answers more and more questions now, which could only be answered by religious faith before. The need for religion is fading fast in western type democracies in the Europe.

And there are a lot of needs of humans and societies, that can be satisfied, while no prayer or other appeals to gods are needed-- so mankind can and does cast those practices away, along with the belief in the supernatural.

I don't think you are right in saying that atheists simply fear god and therefore they deny its existence. Many people do use denial as a defence mechanism against anxiety, but the atheists mostly don't, they instead chose a no-god world view because they can and because it is conducive to their lives. In fact, if anything, then it is the LACK of fear of god that enables the atheist to cast away or stay away from a belief in god. — god must be atheist

It is not my contention that Atheists fear God. The Abrahamics are said traditionally to fear God. They invented Atheism as a term for convenience when dealing with people who do not see reality through their dogma. That is one reason I am not an Atheist. I am not going to buy into the trichotomy of Atheist-Agnostic-Theist. The sky is blue, now that's important.

The good thing about science is that it is self-critical. I am not an agnostic or an Atheist, yet I don't believe in any God as described to me so far. They are all pathetically human constructs. I am not an Atheist because I refuse to be categorised by what I am not. Atheism has been invented by those who fear God, to pigeon hole the rest of us. I suppose I could believe in a supreme Cosmic intelligence, but what good would that do me? I'd have to believe in some reward-punishment afterlife. Believe it or not, there are other interpretations of reality that don't adhere to belief or disbelief. But if you do subscribe to one of the two opposites, its going to take a bit of a leap. PS I don't believe in enlightenment either.

I heard great theory, about life elsewhere in the Universe, from a Christian friend of mine. He said words to the effect: It is highly unlikely there is intelligent life other than on Earth, because the Lord would have had to send is only son and saviour to die for their souls too.

I cracked up.

An answer to the original question is yes or no, depending on the moral concepts of the person being asked. It is sometimes thought necessary to put an animal down, to end suffering, yet many moralists would not extend that mercy to a human. Its not only about suicide, its also about avoiding liability, responsibility, and a sense of guilt. Its also about the value of life. In the case of the Abrahamic religions, the "soul" can only be saved while incarnate. The saved can also recant. Of course the faithful are not going to condone any kind of personal decision to end life. Ultimately, their morals are to serve God. The individuals earthly trials have a lower priority.

They were priviliged white men with no clue as to how the world worked, — Benkei

Organised the successful overthrow the British colonial establishment and convinced the population it was necessary, while not knowing how the world worked. Well, at least you have someone to blame. That's always nice.

One of the Supremes described the claim that Amendment II means everyone has a right to own a gun as "Stupidity". — Bitter Crank

Diana Ross? "Stop in the name of love." I think you are right about dicking-around with the constitution, although I can see dubious benefits being proposed by Leftist do-gooders as well as ultra Right nut-jobs. Its not the right to bear arms that is the problem so much as contemporary fire-power. The framers of the law did not envisage cheap, readily available, high velocity automatic weapons and unlimited ammunition in a society with a burgeoning element of mobile, post-industrial paranoids.

I have to shake my head in wonder, when I read on a Philosophy Forum statements like,"Everyone has a right to their opinion." Is that not the epitome of the redundant? Has it not been stated in one form or another, a thousand times before?

As to the Perfect. Perhaps everything is perfect, and any less interpretation is just the etherial monkey-chatter in the little human mind, which itself is neither perfect nor imperfect anymore than an arrangement of ones and zeroes.

On Wallow's concern number three: As far as I understand it, reincarnation is not a teaching of the Buddha, it being grafted on to what is called Buddhism from surrounding cultures. However, I am sure the more studious can fill us in.

This is a fairly long thread, so I will not address any previous posts. As a point of interest, when I contributed to this forum some years ago, this subject was discussed at length, but that's philosophy, no actual conclusions have ever been drawn, except by individuals. Science and religion have sometimes been at odds, but they do not have to be.

If one defines religion as belief in God, that is not a reason to reject scientific investigation. It could be argued that God created science. That concept appears in the writing of Einstein and Hawking. However, I should add that while I will always be willing to discuss the matter, I really don't give a rat's ass. But . . . religion does not mean belief in God, and that is why one has to be very careful how one words philosophical questions. If the question was meant to be - Are science and the belief in God contradictory, then it should be written as such.

I have a feeling the "but why?" post was tongue in cheek.