Meaning is not potential. Fool.

Did you fully read what I wrote? — schopenhauer1

I must have missed that part sorry.

...

Long before Paul or Jesus or anyone here on Earth as you reference them, the prophecy existed. The restrictions we are required to follow by penalty of damnation (Ten Commandments/Noahide Law), will one day be lifted by a prophesied Messiah ala "Savior". This is the Jewish prophecy. If you believe this prophecy has been fulfilled, you're a Christian. If you believe it has not but will be, you're a Jew. There's no other avenues. Other than yours, that it's all a bunch of crazy stories and the most miraculous event or series of events are nothing but coincidences, for what other possibility is there? Aside from the IRS scammers.

taken from Christianity — schopenhauer1

No, see, there is no "Christianity" without the fulfillment of the original Jewish prophecy ie. the Old Testament (specifically the times of it). The Old Testament (Abrahamic religious root prior to Christianity/prominence of Jesus) states, we are sinners, essentially damned, and will work until we turn to dust. If they didn't at least believe in the idea of Messiah, they were ignorant of Jewish law/prophecy/their true "alleged" religion and faith. It's just that simple. They did reject Jesus, and quite so, solely on the grounds they did not believe the prophecy was fulfilled and he was a false Messiah. But that's beyond the point. Just sorting it out for those reading who are curious. But, as you say, fiction, why not argue over whether or not the Easter Bunny is light or dark pink right?

Just to remind everyone of the meta here, and if you are a skeptic and disbelieve that's fine, I'm essentially discussing the absolute points and intentions of the fictional Santa Claus or Easter Bunny here, nevertheless, there is fact and fiction even in.. straight fiction. So.

Both Christians and Jews believe in the Old Testament assertion of a Messiah, sent from God, to lead humanity. Now, the differentiation comes in two forms. First, most if not all Christians believe Jesus was in fact this prophesied Messiah, and did in fact absolve humanity of it's sins, crimes, and eventual punishments as described in the Old Testament, essentially replacing the Ten Commandments with the Great Commandment. In other words the words, commands, etc. of the Old Testament are now annulled, replaced with those of the New Testament. Some, I repeat some, Christians believe Jesus was God in the flesh while others believe he was simply the messenger, this is relevant because Jews believe God never shows/appears/manifests himself in human form. This is in contradiction to the belief of most if not all Jews that Jesus was in fact not the prophesied messiah and was essentially just some guy, or even a sorcerer, as he was accused of "having a demon" and yes, using sorcery ie. healing on the Sabbath, etc. Which I find interesting as you realize in whatever society the Bible is truly from it implies "magical healing powers" were not only normal and commonplace, but so much so that they were codified into law, thus resulting in forbidding of "healing on the Sabbath". Which just gives you some context into.. I dunno something or another. :lol:

Basically, both groups believe in the idea of a Messiah. The difference is one, Christianity, believes he came, thus nullifying the Old Testament, Ten Commandments ie, Noahide Law (and most importantly it's punishments from above) .. while the other, Judiasm believes, he was not the Messiah, and so all the aforementioned are still in effect, ie. the punishments for breaking the commandments/Noahide Law.

I would be horrified to have it confirmed that this is the only planet with life, that no where out there is someone doing it better. Just depressing as hell. — Book273

Thankfully, due to the one-way nature of black holes- we, here, would never know for sure. How delightful, is it not? :grin:

Say I'm old and dying. I managed to amass considerable wealth in my lifetime and am slowly beginning to realize I cannot take it with me. I have two kids. Or none, even. I want my life's passion to be nurtured by someone caring and dedicated who is capable of respecting whatever it may be, perhaps even seeing a young version of myself in them, or something. How do you go about ensuring this will be so?

Placing a half-age ad in the largest paper in the city saying "million dollar business looking for young, smart, financial guru to take the reigns"

Or...

Finding a smaller niche magazine for whatever that interest/business/passion is and writing a humble black and white classified "small, rustic business of 50+ years looking for passionate, young enthusiast to manage and keep her afloat"

In the first example, someone who couldn't care less about what the business is about other than the money or benefit they could gain, probably just selling it off to a company that would turn it into a Wal-Mart or something after pocketing a sizable return would be the most likely, qualified candidates.

In the second example, there is no "huge payday" promised. If you truly have an interest in whatever the business is about, that would be the sole reason you would apply.

In both examples, the work could be observed and a judgement could be made, however in just one, would this be a true test of passion, dedication, and determination, not solely motivated by money. Sure a few may sneak through in the second example, but by only exposing a fraction of what the true inheritance/assets would be, in a rustic, run-down environment that still manages to test the applicant within the context of a scaled-down version of the true job/assets/etc to ensure the qualifications/ability is still there, you effectively screen out 95% of those who are just in it for the money/benefit who couldn't care less about what you care about after you're no longer in the picture.

Imagine this wealth/passion in life was about sailing and boats. You have a multi-million dollar shipyard loaded with yachts and other worthy vessels that would have to "go to" or otherwise be managed by someone. By seeing how they perform in a small run-down boatyard with maybe a few average vessels and one small yacht, perhaps even saying none of those are "included", or even saying none of it is "included" and it's just an hourly/per-task job... you remove any factors that would affect the performance and passion of the person who you may potentially wish to carry on your life's work.

It makes for more than just a heartwarming story of "young man with a love for the sea and sailing, spends life savings to buy small shipyard, ends up inheriting multi-million dollar seaport" it's now damn near the only way to do things. The only way to make sure your passion in life is preserved and will live on, and not just the money it accrued.

Does this apply directly to your scenario? It would appear not. But you never know.

"Has made peace with them" is not gonna cut it for this happiness -- this is not contentment, but acceptance when all else failed. — Caldwell

This may be true however do we agree that these two states, happiness and unhappiness, cannot co-exist in the same mind, body, at the same time and place? That is to say, there is a single door of "mood" or "feeling" with only one being able to reside within at once. Not to say one could not merely be passing through with the other close behind.. simply that, yeah the answer of "both" to the question of "are you happy or unhappy?" is generally not applicable.

If you agree with this, then my point was, by having "made peace with them [sources of unhappiness]" you have now removed any obstacle to achieving "happiness" and are now on the path toward it. At the very least making it considerably more reachable.

The consensus seems to be, we can be content without being happy, we cannot be happy without being content, and we cannot be content while being unhappy. All terms substantiated even if only in the contexts of a few moments. What's the way forward?

I don't think you did, actually. Which is what concerned me. Coherent = able to be understood.

...

I'm not sure what the antithesis of that would be or how it could even be discussed.

I don't understand what you mean by that.
How would showing that it's worth bothering about other people have as a consequence not knowing who the people you don't want to have around/in your life are? — baker

I can see that. You're conflating two separate ideals here. Those two being the ability to do so and the requirement to do so, respectively. Each offering their own benefits and drawbacks, with only one providing the function I mentioned.

Coherentalist? That's.. that's definitely a new one.

It [the Internet] is often used as an outlet, a vent. When you see a real person in front of you, you often see more than a face but a person with hopes, dreams, expectations, a soul perhaps? Someone just like you. With random words on a screen it's easier to focus on attacking ideas and concepts and unleash your full criticism of these concepts unabated and in full force, much more so than in person. Along with the fact some people are big and the human form can be quite squishy.. :lol:

Excluding politics, which undoubtedly shape the world and laws of the world or society we all will live in, including those who come after us, and to an extent religion, this is a pretty chill and logically focused forum. I like it. Very much.

I truly believe there's a valid point in your argument I might have missed. The possibility, at least. Even so, there's always the explicit logical counterarguments you could engage with. The only thing I was expecting of you to do. If you would choose to do so that is. Still, I suppose the point we're now debating "religion stigmatizing science as evil resulting in the creation of weapons of mass destruction", or were at least, is a far cry from the original premise stated in your OP as "what if there is life on Mars". My mistake, undoubtedly.

Let's get back to that then, shall we? Or, anyone else who wishes to continue in your place.

I mentioned the possibility of microorganisms as having little prominence in my opinion, if not from the fact that microorganisms were inevitably brought there via not only this probe but those before it. Between the actions of the instruments of the previous craft introducing them and the possibility of solar wind and lack of atmosphere spreading them and perhaps cosmic radiation mutating them into forms now unrecognizable or.. alien :grin:, I'd suggest there's still little cause for a "eureka!" moment.

So. What if it's beyond that of a microorganism. Say a "space algae" of a sort. I'd still default toward the belief this is hardly a game-changer. Now.. something with a nervous system and full-fledged brain on the other hand.. would be a bit of an eyebrow-raiser. Though still nothing outside of the realm of scientific possibility.

Is a magnet sentient? It responds to one of an opposing polarity. Baking soda responds to vinegar. It reacts to certain things. Radioactive isotopes are in constant dynamic fluctuation. Like cells we can't ask it "how it's doing". Is the idea of a brain, the only object found to hold consciousness, the only thing in existence capable of consciousness, even a form we can't detect/understand?

I do I just think it's wrong. Lol.

Eh idk. Maybe you're right. So, to clarify, your assertion is the following:

Because some body described by an arbitrary term you've yet to define ("the Church") said something, people used the process that created the ability to make and defend themselves on par or if not greater than others, as they always did... but suddenly would have stopped, again doing what they always did, randomly, for no purpose whatsoever, other than/because of "the Church", again which has yet to be defined.

Science, a tool by definition, rather a process of discovery, would not have been used as a tool if this group of indeterminate definition ("the Church") did not say that it was bad. Can we substitute "the Church" for "mainstream/majority belief of the time" or no? If so then at least that finally defines every term or variable in the argument, thus allowing proper analysis.

"[Religion prevented us from having] recognized science as an understanding of reality"- my point was that reality is what we make it, we either have controlled demolition or collapse in the contexts of villages or nation-states, progress/innovation/inventions that result in no more fatalities than a village/small society OR uncontrolled obliteration in the context of the entire planet from nuclear holocausts, germ warfare run amok, etc. as nearly occurred several times since, inevitable due to human nature.

I still wish to pinpoint any logic or rationale in words and ideas you deem me as having missed. To circle back, if religion (the idea or absolute existence even of a supreme being or afterlife) was non-existent, we would have overcame our biological inclinations toward survival, groups of similar appearance, genetics and familiarity, disinclination toward the unfamiliar, and just all held hands and sung kumbaya, which again never occurred due to the two realities of limited resources colliding with the human ego. We would have never created weapons to defend ourselves, no people would have ever committed a grave or unforgivable crime against another people warranting retribution or justice (with the understanding that there is only one life to live and someone permanently ruined or destroyed it), and we would have all just created Utopian cities where peace and understanding was prevalent and strife and discord was rarer than a total eclipse?

Is that your argument? Help show me the light here.

we would not have created nuclear and biological weapons. — counterpunch

Why would we create small guns, then larger guns, then just stop all of a sudden. Someone makes a gun, you make a bigger gun. It goes back to the same dynamic "if you don't do it, somebody else will" or "you snooze, you lose".

To your point though. I'm not sure if "the Church" is some single malevolent organization disingenuously masquerading as an envoy of a greater power to lull those who believe in the possibility into conformity and submission to you or just those who believe there is something greater and chooses to live in accordance to that or not, if we take the scientific approach you admire we still have the drawbacks and potential doomsday possibilities as a result now that we did not have before. That's fact, whereas your quoted theory remains exactly that, a theory.

This isn't the 16th century where the Church was part of government and heliocentrists were locked away. Nearly all professors, scientists, and men of position are not theists. This occurred long before even the hydrogen bomb. Back then, I think explosive barrels on catapults were the maximum damage potential available via science.

Science is the process of observing and testing hypothesis in the natural world in order to gain some benefit. The hijacked definition of science is that because of this, there is no room for religion, faith, spirituality, etc. You continue to push this dynamic of opposite and opposing forces ie. the ultimatum of one or the other. I humbly reject this, along with many other people.

I am literally living in fear for my life every day, and this guy is getting away with it. — baker

You've yet to explain what they are actually doing. What are they doing?

Are you an introvert who's disinclined to be "neighborly" with your other neighbors? Like was said before there's strength in numbers. If they decrease your property value, they decrease not only their own but others around them. Which removes the "morality for the sake of morality" dynamic.

The last thing I'll say is probably the most important; and it's that religion made a mistake making an enemy of science. Science could have, and should have been welcomed as the means to know the Creation - rather than been rendered suspect of heresy, true knowledge should have moral worth. Why? Because, as implied above, survival is a matter of the application of the right technologies. We do not have a limited amount of resources we are consuming, and once they're gone, we're done. That's not how it is. We create resources by the application of technology, and have not applied the right technologies because science was made a heresy - rather than valued as true knowledge of Creation. — counterpunch

Humanity and unrestrained science do not mix. The world almost became an irradiated wasteland SEVERAL TIMES now due to NON-WILLED NON-HUMAN NATURAL OCCURRENCES/MALFUNCTIONS. See nuclear false alarm incidents. We create all these germs and mutations in things that have the potential to kill us all, there's so many science fiction movies about this that nevertheless speak from a strong position of scientific fact. Please just honestly stop reading, thinking of a reply, and just think about that for a few minutes.

What is the goal of science? To extend and benefit human life? What do you think that will work out to with enough time. The end of true life, and us all being a series of 1's and 0's in a simulated machine. There is no other outcome. We must turn back. And now.

Given this state of facts, the only conclusion is that morality is overrated and evolutionarily disadvantageous.
Why bother about other people, their lives and their property, when you can get away with endangering and damaging it.


I dare you to prove this wrong. — baker

Say I did. Then you'd never know who the people you don't want to have around/in your life are. Until too late.

"The utopia you imagine is actually a dystopia of the worst kind."
- Anonymous

It's one person (or couple, family, what have you) out of billions. Just remember that. Though, as I'm sure you'll come to contemplate, it's quite a bit more than that. We generally create the life and fate we wish. Now, I'm not going to automatically take your story at face value, perhaps there's more to it you're either neglecting to share or feel is not relevant. Still, at face value, if they feel no desire, need, or responsibility to correct damage done either willful or unintentional, they likely don't expect any recompense or recourse when it's done to them, ie. those who are hard on others are often hardest on themselves. Misery likes its company, they say. Not sure where you live but they are generally small claims courts or similar avenues to pursue.

Interesting dynamic you say they "have connections with the local authorities". What support or evidence do you have of this? If those connections are worth jeopardizing the social fabric over (ie. documentable proof of conspiracy) it is unlikely you live in a poor or average neighborhood. A fact you should not take for granted.

Imagine how many microorganisms are on the surface/interior or tools or probes near computer elements that are protected from the extremes of space that are only opened/utilized on the rock itself. And from all those before. Even if the ones from before mutate due to radiation or wahtever. I imagine it may be hard to distinguish between what was brought and what was already present if anything.

What to you, would be happiness. It wouldn't be anything you've experienced because then you'd know or at least be able to rationalize why not everything is so simple. I've posted this a good two times (actually probably only one here), in fact I summed it up quite well previously, though again it could be a simple parroted derivative of the piece I'm about to show, but...



No not everything can be reduced or explained in a sentence, a few, or even a video, but- when it comes to things that have been omnipresent since the beginning of time, sometimes people manage to peg one or more things down.

I dunno some people have all the luck. Perfect life, finances, career, relationships, etc. Then perhaps they get fatally impacted by a sudden falling asteroid. Though the happiness technically did end, seeing as the life it was enjoyed in did, it's almost like it didn't. Lol. There was never any unhappiness in this hypothetical (yet existent albeit rare) scenario.

Quite. I must have. Paint however is not mathematics, it consists of molecules of a finite and measurable size, or else it is no longer paint. Though perhaps "paint" is implied to be simply the smallest unit of measure available, ie. an atom or the smallest known subatomic particle being a quark (which is still measurable). Or does it transcend even this? Basically, how can something be infinitely long if it's slowly decreasing from a measurable state or point? Writing off the world we live in for numbers that could in theory go on forever.. it's still kinda confusing lol. Almost seems kinda like arguing over a glass being half full or half empty. Which of course is actually simple. If it was an empty glass filled up, it is half full. If it was a full glass, with half removed, it's half empty. Unfortunately, this does seem to boggle the mind. Hopefully not by design.

I never liked math. Perhaps someone who does can shine some light on this for the both of us? Basically, what is the largest number that can be reached, and is it any closer to infinity than 1? What is the smallest unit of measurement to reach infinity? What is the smallest fraction that can be reached without there being nothing left, etc. The universe, at least the world we live in, seems to disprove the existence of 'infinity' beyond "oh look a solid figure".

If it were truly infinite, in the context of decreasing in size, it would reach such a small size beyond what is possible due to the makeup of this world, ie. smaller than an atom. Or perhaps not as we're constantly talking with the implied context of "reality" ie. things as they are at the moment of observation. Before then even, once it becomes smaller than what allows a single molecule of paint, it would of course "fill up". Though it is interesting because assuming once we reach the point of smaller than a molecule, you could still paint it's exterior because even though it's girth or width may not be able to hold a single molecule of paint, perhaps it's length would... actually no. Molecules, as we're told are symmetrical. There is probably a single point after a molecule of paint would no longer fit, where due to the structure itself counting as at least one molecule or atom, there is a point where the exterior can be painted (one molecule of paint can reside on the outside past the point where one molecule of paint can no longer pass on the inside). I couldn't imagine in a million years where this "paradox" would ever come up or be relevant in.. literally anything would ever do or ever come across but, isn't free society fun. Lots of time for non-productive speculation.

Is there an actual purpose or point to life or living? — Mtl4life098

How bad do you want to know. You have your answer.

Check out either this or this and see if you'd be willing to throw down a game with @praxis

I certainly wouldn't mind watching.

Edit: It's kinda finicky but once you get the flow of copying/pasting the img and url tags it's doable.

Just wondering if there's a reset button for the earth and even for the universe itself. K-Pg extinction event? — TheMadFool

First commandment. The eternal God, existing outside of time, who perhaps any attempted personification or manifestation would simply be: Father Time. Chronus I believe another name was. When man discovers how to disrupt the flow of time, and attempts to do so (ie. attempts to become omnipresent, omniscient, and to exist outside of time aka to "become God" or create an idol that attempts to rival or give man mastery over God or time such as particle accelerators) it will create a slowly-expanding black hole that will consume the entire galaxy. For a time. :grin:

Anything non-scientific aside, it is a "cosmic" book that urges humans to worship God as an eternal entity that exists outside of time (perhaps even alluding to being time itself), that this entity is to be respected and we are not to question or attempt to change it, or else, we may be doomed to a "lake of fire", perhaps due to said potential black hole(s) stripping the atmosphere away and leaving the planet at the mercy of cosmic radiation and the like. It lines up perfectly to be honest. Perhaps.. there is a face on Mars. The last thing a doomed civilization who mastered the sciences a little too well managed to sprawl out in their last moments... a galactic S.O.S. to any and all who would see it, a simple "hello".. and unfortunately, goodbye. Or who knows. Perhaps they made it to the next planet after all... who's to say. Kind of like the ending to Children of Men. What's the name of that book about men and women again? :grin:

According to several theories from various physicists at least (the possibility of a space-time rip not the Mars part). I believe Stephen King produced a book and later movie about this called "The Langoliers". Highly recommended if you haven't seen it by the way.

"Too much rope" comes to mind. Someone wants to promote a previously unheard of view, say abortion or even right of the unborn, women's rights, modern transsexual surgery as "intrinsic human freedom", emancipation even, we'll assume in the pursuit of this "liberty for all" .. someone can, accurately, point out how it offers potential to be counter-productive to the very concept. Some will say abortion infringes upon the right of an unborn person, others say it infringes on the right of a woman's freedom to choose. Some say women's "rights", in a society of laws, rules, and equality already, not only diminishes gender equality but their own right of equal potential/progression in manifesting skills not possessed or refined, arbitrarily paying them more based on their gender and not their work value, simultaneously/counter-productively labeling them as inherently "lesser" and so needing to be paid more without acquiring more skills to truly become an equal, simply for being a different gender.

Why stop there though, it extends beyond rational belief, because liberty, that is to say the extremes, are not inherently rational. Say I want to engage in carnal relations with deceased animals, or why stop there how about people. How dare you and your fascistic authoritarianism even pretend like it can attempt to deny my pursuit of happiness simply because it's different than yours. Say I want to drive around schools at recess yelling obscenities and playing pornography at full blast. Again, how dare you attempt to become an enemy of the Constitution and human freedom in my presence... Etc, etc.

the illusion of her — synthesis

For this exact point, I'd say your line of reasoning, at least in the context of this example is flawed. Happiness is not illusion (or is it?), some argue happiness is not illusion (though it is subjective, some even reduce it [emotion] to scientific terms expressed as chemical balances or imbalances), but ignoring that possibility for a moment. The more seemingly true yet false sources of happiness one removes from their life, mathematically/absolutely the closer one becomes to true happiness. Which is again subjective. Right? To me, you can't have happiness with unpredictability. And you can't have unpredictability without possibility of failure, misery, or misfortune. It's a cosmic dance the two opposing forces, feelings, and/or moods are forever intertwined in, the final result a one-of-a-kind tapestry that is "one's life". Reminds me of an old song, "Dire Straits - Walk of Life".

If happiness results in sadness, why be happy? — synthesis

You open a philosophical Pandora's Box with this question. Why be more than a single-celled microorganism while we're at it. Or a cat. Or a fish. Why even be alive? Because, you know you love it.

So what now? Last pawn standing?

Your move

Your move

Your move

Your move

Your move

Your move

Your move

Your move

Your move