War strategists can learn from chess or go, in the same way war strategists can learn from poker or a video game; recently Mark T Esper said "America will never lose it's ability to dare" - which I'm sure is a poker/gambling reference.

I'd say collectively, every type of game, is only quart of the truth about war - and China is wrong to have suggested it should be thought like Go. War is not always played; war is like a performance, war is like a race, like food, etc. The best way to think about war logically is more about a mind-game than it is a man-made game; in theory, China played a bad mind-game here which will be easy to retaliate to, and it may end up problematic.

Our parents have morality; we have morality - parent morality is guidance to kin morality, until that kin becomes a parent.

My mother's and father's morality, was enough righteous for me to become wise; that being so, I now rule my own mind without parental guidance.

Earth has parental morality, it parents kin, and I have parental morality, but I don't parent kin other than my heart.

I can be good to myself, and to others, but my good doesn't mean Earth must be good, to me.

A God's morality is thought of as morality which is in the most high position in a hierarchy. If I claim that 'something is evil', it means nothing - a super-morality is required.

Let's take Earth as the closest super-morality; there are common wants and needs, of people (who are a part of Earth), and judging by the majority vote, too much pain is evil.

Let's take the universe as another example, planets and stars form harmonious families so judgement is anti-family-harmony is evil.

That doesn't mean that too much pain or anti-family-harmony must be evil to everyone, it's just in the case of the super-morality-agents.

I want you to reset your mind here, and think about this; God watches over you and says 'I find this evil', then do you say "I find this evil too", or do you point yourself at the good-route based on a God's lesson?

What I'm proposing is everything I said prior to the previous paragraph was false, due to the fact I'm not talking in proper language.

If God finds thus evil, I do not find thus evil, but I repent God's evil to be good (I'd exchange God for 'super-morality' but I don't know how to type that).

God finds thus evil, thus I find thus evil; no, because that's equal to being a flower; but God does find thus evil, and I find thus evil...

The universe is small, and we're just very advanced beings that perceive it as if it were big; the beings that see it for it's true size are what you call God and I call other beings.

How I see good and evil is it's personal, like you, except when I exist in a universe, I presuppose a father and mother, and I can also do good an evil by my parents; what's good to them is what's good to me; you, alien life, so I assume there's some consistency.

(Without causing you to outburst in rhetoric; you know - heaven and hell logic. Where if you do good you are rewarded, and if you do evil, you are punished).

(It's a very hard topic - you may be right where I am wrong, or vice verse;' I(and mostly anyone)'ve not come up with an answer I can trust with a whole-heart. I imagine there's some doubt in your mind. I'm a little bit un-confident in myself, but I prefer my argument to yours)

Cause is over-rated. — Banno

Memories make us insecure - I'd prefer to be a machine.

Now, some may say, without memories we'd experience less sensations like those involved in sex, but they underestimate the mind.

Correct; there is no before in context of universe-time; universe time begins at the big bang.

Given it had a cause(something I brought up that is continuously ignored), I'm not limiting myself to illusions or abstractions of nothing.

There was nothing - contextually: universe life - before the big bang.



Yes, ancient simulations, other simulations, now you're hearing me out. I don't think it's illogical like you suggest though, simulations of this universe may only be one segment of another simulation - such as the space where the super computer exists that observes it.

That's what the mathematics says.

"before..." at

You lost me.

Usually, there is a before, during and after. The mathematics you claim to know is, during and after but before makes no sense.

Again, you lost me. I've had enough of this, I'll leave God to you guys.

I don't understand why there isn't a "before the big bang"; do you care to elaborate?

Prior to the big bang was potentially many simulations like the universe; why must we be the only existence?

Isn't that small-minded?

Why nothing? Nothing is lack of anything; if there ever was nothing; how did it become a big bang? If it was nothing, then how did it gather the power needed to become something?

I expect you to say "I don't know" to my question, and given that I tend to agree with my own theory about ancient simulations (involved in big bang science).

I completely understand what you mean by there's no evidence to suggest g/G that there is no evidence to suggest ancient civilizations - but when deducing what may have caused - and I'm saying there was a cause to - the big bang, other life seems reasonable.

When I take in your comment about nothing being there I'm confronted by the questions I asked earlier; how did it become a big bang?

If nothing undergoes transformation and becomes a big bang, that transformation is the part I'm pointing to.

I'd even go as far to blindly guess that intelligent life existed.

This isn't something I'm assured of, I'm making a suggestion - it is a 'God-of-the-gaps' typo proposition. This is based on my experience of people's will-to-live, their creativity and so forth.

Do I think life before the big bang was possible? Why can't a different simulation form like the universe? Do we take up all the space in existence? This is what bugs me.

(I might be wrong - I don't know - you're confusing me with confidence).

Let me tell you, it's a whole lot better than believing in:

a) God, and then the big bang.
b) Nothing, and then the big bang.

a) and b) are equal in stupidity.

How small-minded and boring must one be to confidently express that nothing or God came before the big bang?

I'd rather assume that ancient simulations and intelligences had existed before - we don't have evidence of these because we're too far away - in too strange of a simulation.

Just saying; nothing, is not a sensible answer - it's equal to God in stupidity. What makes you think nothing came before? You have no evidence, it's not like you rounded it down either.

Massive, elemental, big bang, filled with lot's of stuff. How did it get here? "Oh, nothing - or God".

So "I" is defined as "certain of existence"?

'I think therefore I am', means nothing. It is the same as saying:

• I sense, thus I am.
• I move, thus I exist.
• I fart, thus I live.

You can take any key part of your experience, and say that because of this, the simulation exists.

It gives no idea of what "I" is, the pronoun I is not explained; the key words in that phrase are "think" and "am", and both can be exchanged in multiple ways.

The problem is that you walk away from this thinking I is explained.

So you think, therefore, you exist (no random thought about 'you' should come to mind; because it lacks meanings). Therefore, 'you' is? A thinker?

I'm not a Theist, I'm an Atheist; to no permanency, my stance is definitely disposable, anti-God briefing...

At the moment a majority Theists argue for a male God; saying the creator was Father without Mother. I, on the other hand, claim that a Father and Mother were involved.

This is not God-ism, I can be an Atheist and have this view; there are plenty Mothers and Fathers around. in fact, I don't know one child, whether conscious or not, who didn't come from opposites.

Good is not only man's flourishment. Good is simulation-success, and flourishing is a sign of success, but there would be other simulation-successes.

What does man's flourishment attribute to? A more bustling planet? Lot's of flowers, flourishing? And what does that achieve?

I'm saying a male and a female, and male and female connecting parts (I've not defined quality) are the only reasonable God-excuse.

A male God, as I have said before, means that universe creation, must have come from his mind and hands when nothing with reproductive capability has, ever, come from our mind and hands. He, as 'not God', must have met a female, as God, and had reproductive sex. Imagine an ancient civilization, who's parts were 'the necessary parts' to form all those elements for the big bang; the ancient civilization had within it the male parts, and the female is what was hunted for. They had sex, boom!

What your stance lacks in strength is due to the missing female and the all-male equation; it even rubs off in your own mind with boring God logic.

You would contend against pseudo-Atheists who are half foolish easily with even a Theist stance...

You wouldn't contend against me with your logic if you continued to talk of an all-male God. Would you? If I said what I said to the others, what would our debate entail?

I prefer the theory of an ancient simulation.

Our words are written left to right when good languages must be completely justified.

There is God, and there 'is not God', and these don't mean what you think they mean (because they are written in our language, we're prone to errors in understanding "simple math") - they are male and female opposites.

"God" and "not God" resulted in the big bang; the word "God" is stupid.

There is possibly a way to define "God" and "not God", but it's nothing like Christianity and is scientific.

The big bang got big and banged somehow...

The singularity "Black Hole", consumes stars, potentially the most crucial phenomenon to all existences of our simulation; he/she who is capable, of anything, can do anything.

In context, yes, everything is 'free', but I ask "what is everything"?

We don't have unlimited funds and the simulation is not a shopping centre; it's different kind of 'free'.

Hahaha. I don't think stage 2 'big bang', can happen without stage 1 'preparation'.

My proposition is only that there was stage prior to the bigness, and the bang, of the the big bang; and your proposition is that the big bang, got big, and banged, randomly(what is this?)

My guess is that during this 'preparation stage' was the perfect male, who hunted for the perfect female, and their relationship resulted in the big bang.

I don't feel stupid for suggesting this, I feel inept.

My proposition is understandable, based on the fact that things don't just get big, and bang, from nothing (and if they do, there is at least a part missing from the big bang theory; how it got to stage 2(big, bang)).

We may be inept to answer this question; this may be a one-off. We (humanity) are tiny in comparison to the universe, not to mention what could be existence.

No, a) and b), only.

As long as you're not responding with, "because we (a tiny spec in the grand cosmos) can't find evidence for, nor understand what happened before the big bang, it can only be nothing, or it can't be" I'm happy to discuss or debate this.

"God" is just a word that names something to be accepted on faith. — tim wood

Discovering what caused the big bang is improbable, but by no means is that non-existent.

Proposing that the big bang didn't just pop up, and that something led to it's being, is by no means unreasonable.

Therefore, you have no means to reduce my reasonable and rational guess to faithfulness.

The big bang "just popping up" is stage 2 without stage 1 logic. Hypothesises of stage 1, are again, not faithfulness, but reasonable and rational; there is at least some illusion element if the super-event did "just pop up."

I find it sillier when posters here suggest that the big bang came from nothing, because that's a jump from void (this jump requires an explanation; and if we can't explain that, it doesn't make our guesswork stupid; just unverifiable).

Claiming that exact void is all that was before the big bang, is hypocritical if we're listening to your proposal; that's exactly the same as saying the Christian God created the universe, but there is no creativity attached (to the character of the void).

There's a lot missing from our understanding of how the universe began; the big bang theory is water-tight, but on earlier times humans are inept.

Every organism is born from a mother or using a mother part; wouldn't this suggest that the universe was also born from a female or female part?

This means that what you call God is truly named Mother, and the Father, is not God; the opposite.

In essence, God is a "unicorn-scam" though I agree the universe was born.

I can accept the word God but with a strict definition, a theory about the birth of a universe is irrational if thought to be from a lone male(which equates to masturbation). Male and female sex resulting in female-childbirth is a rational hypothesis.

I define God as the universe's mother and father partnership, or I address it directly; perhaps addressing it directly is the smarter alternative.

Thinking God is a male only(equating to masturbation), has led to beliefs about: a superhero God, a Christian God, a pure-loving God, and more non-scientific guesses.

Thinking God is a male and female partnership, is a more scientific guess, leading to beliefs about: super computational power, existences prior to the universe, other simulations, and more scientific guesses.

Thinking of a male-only God is a logical mis-match with creativity; no child is born from a male's penis, no sperm and egg is contained in a female's vagina.

Interest (in something).

My guess is, in the beginning of time, a symmetrical query is prevalent: 'why nothing rather than something?' This is because, if nothing existed, so did innumerable possibilities of something; and there was progression towards existence from some sort of interested party(ies).

Why must we begin from nothing? There's no evidence to suggest that at the beginning wasn't a filler of some sort.

Nothing is lack of existence; our best imagination of this is emptiness; what image(s), if any, can we imagine if we're pondering the beginning of time as nothing? I quickly imagine emptiness which is alike a void, but I can't quite pinpoint what this state is.

(Whatever it was, it must have been beautiful/ugly.)

Technically, good is superior to evil; quoting myself: 'if there is a greater evil, that is good in it's ill-doings.' Good succeeds in objectives, whereas evil fails; good is smart, whereas evil is stupid.

If the objective is to produce something, it's either evil to produce nothing, or the objective itself is evil (producing would be counter-productive in the good-owed, greater scheme). If there is nothing, the only step forward is good, as evil would fail at stepping forward.

Good and evil are opposites that revolve around objectives, but can be thought in a subjective sense, using the terms are good and bad, where most associations are quality-determinate (i.e. this game is good; this game is bad).

No, no no no no. Rules as such apply:

1. AA is 75% of the time, a severed hand, metaphorically, if still a pair on the flop; it is best to play AA by betting minimal until the end phase - don't just go all-in.
2. Play low-cards as a hidden-blade, sometimes.
3. Raise often, if 3 diamonds are on the table, then you may raise as a bluff signalling to others that you have a flush.
4. Betting rhythm is important to register, even better a face, but without faces, betting rhythm (which can work against you or with you; clockwise/anticlockwise logic) is the way the betting and cards rhythmically intertwine; for example, K4 of hearts is your hand, 3 5 6(h) is the flop, rarely you'll see a larger bet, in this case, so if someone does bet large, what do you think? Bluff, pair in hand, straight draw, etc. It's hardest to explain betting rhythm, but, again, no no no no, it is skill-based too.
5. Have a comfort zone, don't lose your ability to raise.
6. Don't fold if only the blinds are bet, because you may as well see the flop; if the blinds are humungous, maybe not.
7. Luck is that all these rules may not apply! :)

EDIT:

Unless you mean: "To win big at a low-level, you'd literally have to get lucky, and the chances are much slimmer on poker than they are on betting on sports.", then I agree.

If you have ever played poker, generally, the game is about patterns; more complex patterns exist simultaneous to the game, helping you to spot false randomization, or to win bets.

10 J Q K A(suited) is a high scoring hand in poker; I think about the pattern of my poker hand subjectively, or objectively and seek to construct good patterns.

Pattern recognition is a skill, and therefore I can become fluent in this skill-set.

To think of patterns as subjective only is an amateur understanding (in that progression to become fluent); as objectively, more is to be gained from successfully recognizing good patterns.

At the beginning of our universe, using current observations, seems to be a super-event, that we have theorized is 'the big bang'; that leaves us with two options:

1. There was something before the big bang...
2. There was nothing before the big bang...

Options [1] and [2] both result in the big bang, at some point...

To think that [2] is the answer, in correlation to the super-event, means at least, there was a chain of events that led to the big bang.

To think that [1] is the answer, in correlation to the super-event, means at most, a species constructed something that led to the big bang.

In the case of [1], there can be other beginnings prior to the big bang; and in the case of [2] there is only one beginning.

Therefore, [2], that nothing resulted in the big bang, is legitimately the stupider guess that reduces the 'wild card' outer-limits, to our science, to the most secluded view.

Therefore, [1], the chain of events is God.

There could be many answers and to suggest that any one of them is correct is ideological from humanity's perspective.

I believe there were other beginnings, but I can't prove this, however I'm not foolish to believe in this...

I apologize if this seems structured poorly but I have suddenly become sick. I will edit this post very soon.

If there is any greater evil, that is good in it's ill-doings.

I think all evil people use good with evil-intent or are mostly unsuccessful, the original post is confusing morality of all with morality on Earth (suggesting that Earth is one of the few evil's that were successful).

If we find the root of any human's power, that likely didn't begin with ill-doings, but maybe evil-intent (there are cases where that did.)

The universe is mostly good, but humanity's planet-upkeep is mostly evil, and people have lost their passion for good; so much so @theMadFool declares that good is something redundant.

I see, agreeable.

I will try again, some other time.

I will use this information to improve my standards on this forum; I'm not looking to reinstate my thread, I'm looking for a reason for thread-removal.

There is no 'contact a moderator' option.

I trade petty pleasure in this life for pain, in my effort to gain a greater afterlife from God; this is based on the opposite philosophy to pointlessness; I'm a constructivist.

On the one hand, I'm constructivist, and on the other, I'm nihilist.

If I was God, I would make sure that evil personalities never lived again(which is some people's, probably guilt-induced, ideology).

Where evil is concerned I'm nihilistic, but I think God is constructivist in both good and evil circumstances (i.e. you will live again but you will in discomfort if you are evil).

In a case where a good person doesn't want to live again, I think that's a fabricated outlook, as deep down there are impulses about living that they enjoy, such as: movement, sense, etc.

No, it's not(but I think the topic is good and expands on other similar topics).

mind is abstract. — OP

Mind is a sense-experience using a sensory-limb array and body, made possible with internal organs(who's root is in the universe).

The unutilized mind is mind-fiction, but it's utilization is a matter-of-fact.

I am entangled in mind-fact for periods of time, but I know a time will come where I'm blue estranged as the city in midnight. This will be at a time where I'm not employing the mind, but rather, where my brain is using my energy to exist.

God does exist but the idea of God is minute when compared to more accurate maxims, such as: a theory of a universe-creator who's character was less fantastical, and more scientific.

God, seems as if it's a story written by love-foolishness, instead of with self-control, who would've expanded on the original idea.

I agree with notions such as:
1. God watches us.
2. God is just.
3. God created the universe.
4. God is super-powerful, more probably by way of a super-computer; and less probably by way of super-computational super-power.

I don't agree with notions such as:
1. God agrees with the bible.
2. God is Christian.
3. God loves us.
4. God is a superhero.