Bitcoin Forum

Well, there are always going to be disagreements between experts.

The daters of standard world dating, themselves, express that they are only using guesses to set up an organized standard. Currents date standards are flawed in various ways.

The evidence for the flood has been found all around the world, and is recorded in many cultural records as well as cave paintings.

The same mountain of evidence for evolution can much more easily be used to show creation, adaptation, and like-begets-like.

Mathematics is not something invented by humans, it is discovered by humans... mathematics is the same in any language, on any planet... 1 + 1 = 2 is a provable concept and does not change based on societal norms or

Wrong cause in the binary system 1+1 = 10. Therefore mathematics is also evolving and changing just like religion

~

When scientists disagree, they publish papers with evidence and experiments to back up their claims... the winner gets a nobel prize

When religions disagree, they kill each other... nobody wins

.....There are several things happening in our present day, that men predicted accurately several years back without scientific aid. Today, meteorologist forecast weather conditions and the world is celebrating. In my traditional religion, there are so many feats these men achieve at a lower cost than using scientific methods. Examples include finding missing items, controlling weather condition etc.....

I don't think so.

I am quite familiar with modern weather forecasting. It's quite good up to 10 days, and this has came to be by using supercomputers.

Weather forecasting is not "a feat" but it is impossible for it to be a thing that could be claimed to be done by a religion.

.....There are several things happening in our present day, that men predicted accurately several years back without scientific aid. Today, meteorologist forecast weather conditions and the world is celebrating. In my traditional religion, there are so many feats these men achieve at a lower cost than using scientific methods. Examples include finding missing items, controlling weather condition etc.....

Most religions seem to be incompatible with each other.

Religious nut jobs are forever killing every one else in the name of their one true god, same cant be said about mathematicians.

Religion and science are actually very related, and have gone hand in hand for several decades, up till the concept of creation and the source.

Both comprises of zealots, who are totally opposed to the other.

Although one is based on faith, and the other faith in facts

If science is faith in facts, what is religious faith?  Faith without facts?  How is that better?

"Faith in facts" is an oxymoron... the word faith implies lack of evidence/facts.....

In ancient times, one king might have said to another...

"It's a fact that my zealous religious cult soldiers are not afraid to die".

The other might have said,

"My populations are taught that homosexuality is evil, and that sex with a virgin is wonderful. It's a fact that this increases the birth rates and maximizes the number of soldiers for my troops. Let's combine these two methods."

Facts?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact)
"A fact is a statement that is consistent with objective reality or can be proven with evidence."

Given zero evidence is provided, neither statement is a fact

The fact that you asked the question tells me that you don't even understand the word, fact

I REALLY hate that religious people try to change the meaning of words to confuse everyone

-snip-

Thanks for the perfect example. I rest my case.

Thank you for agreeing with me, finally.      :D

My meanings are as the dictionary meanings are.

Let people see that by the definitions, all people are religious

.....

Anecdotes are not facts... you are still wrong, just stop with your nonsense
.....

-snip-

1. Nobody knows that God doesn't exist somewhere, and that God has simply hidden Himself from people to observe people in private; nobody knows that this isn't the way things are;

2. The atheist is trying to set himself up as god, simply by trying to force himself to believe that there is no God in the face of knowing #1, above; so when he sets himself up as god, he is contradicting the exact thing that he is proclaiming for himself... atheism.

Since the atheist is doing these things, he has a religion going for himself, even though it is not a religion like other religions. Why? Because he is trying to believe that he can be an atheist even though he knows that God might exist somewhere, and even though - if he thinks about it - he is attempting to set himself up as god simply by trying to be an atheist.

Atheism is a chunk of stupidity... barely a religion. After all, anybody who attempts to be an atheist, knows that he is a liar, because:
1. Nobody knows that God doesn't exist somewhere, and that God has simply hidden Himself from people to observe people in private; nobody knows that this isn't the way things are;
2. The atheist is trying to set himself up as god, simply by trying to force himself to believe that there is no God in the face of knowing #1, above; so when he sets himself up as god, he is contradicting the exact thing that he is proclaiming for himself... atheism.

Since the atheist is doing these things, he has a religion going for himself, even though it is not a religion like other religions. Why? Because he is trying to believe that he can be an atheist even though he knows that God might exist somewhere, and even though - if he thinks about it - he is attempting to set himself up as god simply by trying to be an atheist.

In a similar way, science is a religion when scientist and others try to believe that a science theory is a fact, because they know that being a theory, it can change. but facts don't change. Only things that are believed to be facts when they aren't can change. These people even know science theory can be dropped from theory status if enough evidence against it is discovered. Because of this, believing it to be fact is like a religion for them.

8)

Atheism: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Well, thanks... for confirming that atheism is a religion for you. You are not bored pointing out. You are worn out dogged tired, because you know that you can't find anything to prove me wrong. The things I say are not proving things. They are thinking things, and you can't find anything wrong with them. If you could, you would say it rather than continually saying that I am wrong, without having anything to show as wrongness in me.

Again, science theory, when it is believed to be fact, is a religion for those who so believe. The dictionary definition I pointed out shows it by definition, that anything you believe in is a religion for you, or part of your personal religion.

8)

A theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking

Here's the difference between science and religion. Religion has the answers to the main and most important questions of the universe. Science has a tiny touch of some of the details, and will take thousands of years to catch up to the important things religion already has... through revelation.

8)

You forgot to add "blah, blah, I can't hear you, blah, blah...evolution is a hoax, blah, blah, I can't hear you, blah, blah".

Here is the difference between the two:

Religion provides answers without evidence.

Science provides answers based on evidence.

Aw, did I hurt your itty-bitty feelings?

There is lots of proof for the fact that God exists. Simply check out the "Scientific proof that God exists? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.0)" thread to see the proof.

The simplest of the proofs is the machine nature of the universe. Machines have makers.

Either you believe that God might exist, because you know that there are many place you haven't checked for Him yet, and He might be in one of those places...

Or you firmly believe that God doesn't exist, which makes you into a god, so God does exist in you simply believing that god doesn't exist. After all, it takes a god to make the faithful pronouncement that God doesn't exist, especially when it is possible that He might exist somewhere that you haven't checked out yet.

Either way, God/god exists. So, not atheist, really. But even if there could somehow be an atheist, atheism is a religion with a god... the atheist, himself.

Or can't you think clearly enough to understand all this?

The difference between atheists and the Dawkins unicorns is this. Atheism is like a unicorn trying to believe unicorns don't exist. Atheism is like a god trying to believe God/god doesn't exist.

In the God-proof thread I linked, above, there are proofs listed for God. I even mentioned one of them. This means that people who understand the proof, absolutely know that God exists. This means that they lack belief in the existence of God. Why would they lack belief in His existence? Because they know He exists by the proof found in nature and other places.

The ironic thing here is that this makes people who know that God exists, more atheists than atheists themselves. Why? Because part of the definition of atheist is "lacks belief in the existence of God." People who know that God exists, lack belief both in His existence or His non-existence, because they are outside the realm of believing or not believing such a thing. They know God exists... no room for belief or unbelief or non-belief.

I mean, when you sit down at the table for supper, you don't believe the plate of food is there. Either it is there and you know it, or it is not there and you know it. No belief one way or the other involved at all. But look at the definition for "atheism:"
1.    the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.    disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
It has to do with belief or disbelief. When you know, you don't believe or disbelieve.



Theories that can't be debunked are facts, not theories.



8)

If you took all the religions in the world and destroyed them, in 1000 years there would be entirely new religions, completely different from the old religions...

If you took all the science in the world and destroyed it... in 1000 years there would be EXACTLY THE SAME SCIENCE

Mathematics is not something invented by humans, it is discovered by humans... mathematics is the same in any language, on any planet... 1 + 1 = 2 is a provable concept and does not change based on societal norms or which deities they currently worship

Newton and Leibniz are credited with the co-discovery of calculus... they did not invent it, they both discovered it at the same time... math/science is universal, religion is not

-snip-

So what? Many religions have recognized psychoactive substances as being related to the spiritual.

I don't think so. Not defending religion here, but the user reports of psychoactive substances effects go far beyond "hallucinations." That's a pretty strictly defined term in psychology. Reported effects include deep insights, feelings of being one-with-the-universe, etc, etc. They explicitly include experiences which said users describe as "spiritual."

I just don't think Moloch can successfully argue against religion on the basis of some of the events described in the books being attributable to psychoactive, instead of some pure mental state or whatever.

There are many ways to argue this issue well but this isn't one of them.

Who said I was arguing against religion?  I simply pointed out the difference in viewpoint between religious and scientific interpretations of this particular event

Many people who have taken psychedelics consider them "spiritual" events just like Moses did.  From the reports I have heard about DMT, there is no doubt in my mind this is what happened that day.  DMT is said to be a profoundly mystical experience... the type that could start a religion... particularly if a person didn't know they were taking drugs, and thought the hallucinations were real


Anyway, I think you are wrong... I would definitely argue that a person who "spoke to god" through drug use was... unreliable to say the least

Would you believe someone these days who took LSD then claimed they spoke to god?  Of course not... why is Moses any different?

Assuming the myth has some basis in fact, after this experience Moses went and wrote some profoundly simple rules defining good and bad behavior on some stone tablets. That sets him pretty far apart from today's drug user.

Massive amounts of DMT cure everything.

No wonder government and the medical try to keep us away from pot and other hallucinogens.

You are using these terms loosely and not in the correct sense scientifically. You're likely looking for "paranoid schizophenia."

I have not seen evidence of paranoid schizophrenia in the handed down reports of behavior of Moses.

People in mental hospitals ..... let's just say that they are the extremes of the spectrum of mental illness. Today, most are at home taking drugs, which control their illness until they forget to take them, and then perhaps they go shoot up a Schoo[l].

just to show you how off-base you are, the bush could have been next to a rock formation with special vibrational qualities. Some joker could have been hiding in the rock formation and tricking Moses. Moses didn't have to be hallucinating. He just might have been tricked.

When we apply real DMT science to religion, aren't we turning science into religion?

When we apply real DMT science to religion, aren't we turning science into religion?

You are using these terms loosely and not in the correct sense scientifically. You're likely looking for "paranoid schizophenia."

I have not seen evidence of paranoid schizophrenia in the handed down reports of behavior of Moses.

People in mental hospitals ..... let's just say that they are the extremes of the spectrum of mental illness. Today, most are at home taking drugs, which control their illness until they forget to take them, and then perhaps they go shoot up a Schoo.

LOL.  Having hallucinations and delusions is a textbook example of schizophrenia.

https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/schizophrenia/index.shtml

He did have delusion/hallucination of talking to God.   So the only question is how severe were his symptoms.

No, those are not "textbook examples." Schizo. is defined by disassociation of cognitive patterns primarily. Halluc. / delusions can have many causations.

Have you ever known or associated with such people?

Schnieder's First Rank Symptoms for schizophrenia include both auditory hallucinations and primary delusions.

Similarly, both hallucinations and delusions are among the DSM-V list of symptoms required for a diagnosis of schizophrenia.

Yes, there are other causes, but af_newbie is right - hallucinations and delusions are literally textbook schizophrenia.

No, science is hypothesizing that Moses hallucinated via known mechanisms.  This is based on the facts which I already presented.  There is no request to "take it on faith" or any of that jazz.  I presented facts and evidence.  The evidence I presented could be tested by anyone.

That's the whole point of science.  You can test it for yourself.  Unlike religion, where you are asked to trust the writings of an ancient desert dwelling tribe without the ability to test any of their claims.

Then why science "can't explain the existence of life and why science can't explain if where did the evolution begins". That can simply tell us that science can't explain everything. Just imagine how did they concluded that we came from apes based on charles darwin's theory yet he cannot explain the core of evolution that he presented.

If we came from apes then where did the ape came from? From the fussil? Where did the fussil came from? So basically science cannot dig in deeper to that which makes science not completely rational IMO.

I just hate the fact that people thinks that science is perfect which is obviously not.

Everytime I ask some atheist to why science can't just simply explains everything they will always tells me that because science is still progressing. Lol seriously? That is just a pure common sense that because there is someone who created everything

Science knows it doesn't know everything, because otherwise, it would stop.

---

The Ancestor's Tale by Dawkins is also a great resource. It follows human evolution all the back to the origin a life. A great read for any one interested.

Great sci-fi story.    8)

based on the fact that not all things are explainable.

Sure, not all things are explainable yet, but that doesn't mean you can fill in the blanks with whatever made up nonsense you like. If the whole world did that, we would still think the Sun goes round the Earth, thunderstorms are the Gods being angry, and diseases are caused by evil spirits.

If you are truly interested (you did ask the question after all), here is a video series by Aron Ra explaining it all to you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXQP_R-yiuw&list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMLnubJLPuw0dzD0AvAHAotW (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXQP_R-yiuw&list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMLnubJLPuw0dzD0AvAHAotW)

Aron has compiled a series of 34 videos so far, tracing human evolution from bacteria to the current day... after 34 videos, he is almost up to where humans evolved... almost

I haven't watch the video yet but ok lets assume that this person is right. Did he explain where did the bacteria came from?

His video series is about evolution.  Abiogenesis is a completely different subject.  Wikipedia has a decent article on abiogenesis, complete with 335 cited sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis)

There have been several experiments which show how abiogenesis is possible.  The first was the Miller-Urey experiment in 1952:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment)

Of course science doesn't just take the word of Miller and Urey.  Repeatability is a foundation of science.  A single experiment means nothing until it is repeated by a completely separate group of scientists.  This test, and similar tests have been repeated with positive results many times:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment#Other_experiments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment#Other_experiments)

If you took all the religions in the world and destroyed them, in 1000 years there would be entirely new religions, completely different from the old religions...

If you took all the science in the world and destroyed it... in 1000 years there would be EXACTLY THE SAME SCIENCE

Mathematics is not something invented by humans, it is discovered by humans... mathematics is the same in any language, on any planet... 1 + 1 = 2 is a provable concept and does not change based on societal norms or which deities they currently worship

Newton and Leibniz are credited with the co-discovery of calculus... they did not invent it, they both discovered it at the same time... math/science is universal, religion is not

....
I assume you mean math/science is fact-based not faith-based... math/science is based on facts which you can show to another person... I can show you that 1 + 1 = 2... I can show you how to do an experiment that proves the Earth is spherical... science shows you the evidence, rather than asserting claims without facts or evidence which can be shown to someone (the way religion does it)

Science is based on observations, and the scientific hypothesis.

This is different than "facts."

Math is based on mathematical proofs.

Science is based on observations, and the scientific hypothesis.

This is different than "facts."

Math is based on mathematical proofs.

Clear, obvious difference. Science = fact + evidence. Religion = fantasy + stupidity, gullibility, desperation.

All facts are observations... that's a fact, Jack

Science is based entirely on observations... repeatable, verifiable observations

"If you can't show it, you don't know it" -Aron Ra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact)
"Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement"

Actually, you are cherry picking the article in wikipedia to support your rather lame understanding of the matter. The article supports exactly what I said.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.[20]

I'm guessing you took the idea for this topic from watching Ricky Gervais, unless it was said by someone else previously - which I'm sure it has???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOi2AgNfQCg

I am definitely on the side of science, as even though it is constantly proving itself wrong, it accepts that and continually evolves into an ever improving version. Religion (in general) tends to ignore any other possible 'explanations', basically sticking their fingers in their ears and mumbling incoherently whenever anyone dares to question it.

Well, sorry to have to correct you, but religion seems to also evolve. Not necessarily in directions I/you/we would like.

I get your point, but only partly agree with it. Religion, as you detailed in your post, is impacted by 'local cultural practices'; for example, someone born in the Middle East is likely to be raised a Muslim, whereas someone born in Ireland is likely to be raised Catholic. This doesn't happen in science. What is true in Saudi Arabia is true in Ireland, or anywhere. Someone's religion is (99% of the time) directly linked to their place of birth, or at the very least, by those that raise them. This isn't true with science. So while I accept that religion has evolved, in some respects even diluted, it is only in how people choose to practice it or which 'almighty power' they worship.

....
As for religions adapting, well, they don't have a choice.  They cannot kill all the scientists.  They tried, but failed.

Teaching children that God created universe in 6 days, and that Earth 6000 years old is child abuse.  But I digress.

Actually the latest science says that a religious upbringing improves children's health into adulthood.

Religious upbringing may be protective factor for health, well-being in early adulthood
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2018/09/17/raising-kids-with-religion-or-spirituality-may-protect-their-mental-health-study/#68c6ba2c3287

Belonging to a social club, meditating and exercising all have the same effect, without a boogie man or Santa Claus.  Not sure what your point is.

I would not hire anyone who believes that Earth is 6000 years old, or believes that the religious scriptures are the "word of God", no matter how happy and social they are.

People who believe those things lack critical thinking skills and have poor judgement.

So I guess his 1755 earthquake in Lisbon (on All Saints day when all people were in church, the tallest buildings in the city) was a practical joke.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1755_Lisbon_earthquake

Nice going God...

Need I go on?  AIDS in newborns, flesh eating bacteria, cancer, birth defects...The list is endless of "his" creations.

The sooner you realize that there are natural forces at work, not the supernatural the better, for your own sanity.  Continue to ignore the obvious, it does not matter what you folks believe, the nature will continue to evolve, regardless of your belief in the Jewish Zombie myth.

There are three kinds of evil in the world. The first is based on the fact that man is a physical and temporal being. Because of this, we are subject to physical ailments, whether based on weaknesses in our own constitutions or exposure to harmful agents in our environments. But creation and destruction go hand in hand; the same temporal nature that requires us to ultimately perish is also what enables us to come into existence. We therefore see that our physical nature, with all its limitations, is the result of God’s kindness. And, despite our limited natures, evils of this type are relatively rare. Most people are in fairly good health and physical defects are rather uncommon.

The second type of evil is the kind that people inflict on one another, such as by physically abusing others. These are greater in number than the first kind of evil but they are still not ubiquitous. It’s pretty uncommon for a person to scheme to rob or kill his neighbor. Large numbers of people can be affected by this kind of evil in wars but, again, these are relatively infrequent in the big picture of all inhabited countries.

The third kind of evil is the type that a person inflicts upon himself. This is the largest category of evils, far greater in number than those in the second class. Only a few people are not guilty of this kind of self-inflicted harm. This type of evil is spoken of by such prophets as Malachi (1:9 – “this has been of your doing”). King Solomon also wrote of it in Proverbs. For example, in 6:32 it says, “one who does this destroys his own soul,” while 19:3 tells us that “the foolishness of man perverts his way.” Solomon also discussed this topic in Koheles (Ecclesiastes). In 7:29 he tells us, “God has made man upright but they have come up with many thoughts.” These thoughts bring evil upon man.
The evils that a person brings upon himself are because of his vices, such as a desire for more food, drink and sex than is actually necessary. People engage in too much of these things, or they enjoy them inappropriately, and it causes them both physical and spiritual injury. Since the soul resides in the body, if one accustoms himself to superfluous amenities, he simultaneously conditions his soul to crave unnecessary things. This is especially bad when you consider that actual necessities are relatively few in both number and required quantities, while superfluous things are potentially without number.

People’s thoughts can become so twisted that they’re in constant agony over their inability to acquire as much silver or gold as someone else. They will expose themselves to great danger in order to acquire things they don’t really need. When they come to ruin through their own decisions, they blame God. They curse the circumstances they blame for their inability to acquire as much wine, women and song as money could buy as if the world exists solely for their gratification. Some go so far as to disparage God, saying the if He were able, He surely would have created a world more fair than this one.

Wise people, on the other hand, live their lives consistent with the words of King David in Psalms 25:10, “All the paths of God are mercy and truth to those who keep His covenant and His testimonies.” Those who keep their own role in the universe in context see God’s mercy and truth in everything. Rather than railing against God’s judgment, they seek to better understand His ways. Their needs are modest – food and clothing in limited quantities – and they are happy with their lot. In truth, all the self-inflicted injuries stem from a desire for that which is unnecessary, so that man cannot be satisfied that his actual needs have been met.

1) If God created the universe, and everything in it... that includes evil

2) If God created evil, God cannot be omnibenevolent

If your god is defeated by simple logic, it probably doesn't exist

Why did God create a universe that allows for human suffering? Perhaps because understanding and then overcoming evil is necessary to achieve the highest good.

You missed the point... Christians claim their god is omnibenevolent... which itself is a claim that god would prevent all evil from existing... it is not my argument, that is the Christian argument...

Yes and I replied highlighting the problems with this logic.

Omnibenevolence does not demand God prevent all evil from existing.

Are you equally torn up about the millions of animals killed in terror every day to feed humanity or the plants ripped from the ground and consumed to feed those animals?

But you of all people know that God created things perfect, and that it was mankind voluntarily and knowingly eating the fruit in the Garden that started the chain of destruction among people.

Now we just need to wait on BADecker showing up to tell you why you didn't mean what you said, and that you actually meant what he wants you to mean, because an online dictionary says so.

God does everything. ...
8)

For every evil act, there is a possible benevolent act that can undo its harm (if only the technology or wisdom was available).

Humm in a single post you managed to:

1) Demand others personally ask God to manifest before you.
2) Insist God eliminate a living species from the planet at your request.
3) Proclaim that God not does not exist.
4) Call believers of God freaks.
5) Break into laughter presumably at your own wit.

I don't see much point in further discussion. You clearly have made up your mind and show no interest in reflection or exploring the topic in a non superficial manner.

I will bow out of this thread and leave it to those with an interest in this flavor of discourse.

Humm in a single post you managed to:

1) Demand others personally ask God to manifest before you.
2) Insist God eliminate a living species from the planet at your request.
3) Proclaim that God not does not exist.
4) Call believers of God freaks.
5) Break into laughter presumably at your own wit.

I don't see much point in further discussion. You clearly have made up your mind and show no interest in reflection or exploring the topic in a non superficial manner.

I will bow out of this thread and leave it to those with an interest in this flavor of discourse.

The whole system is just overly complicated if the primary purpose of the creation was a specific member of the Ape family to worship and believe in the creator. You would have to be an idiot to design something like this if you just wanted obedient primates who would believe in you.

If I was God, I would just...

Why would he create life in the first place? What would be the purpose?

If you took all the religions in the world and destroyed them, in 1000 years there would be entirely new religions, completely different from the old religions...

If you took all the science in the world and destroyed it... in 1000 years there would be EXACTLY THE SAME SCIENCE

Mathematics is not something invented by humans, it is discovered by humans... mathematics is the same in any language, on any planet... 1 + 1 = 2 is a provable concept and does not change based on societal norms or which deities they currently worship

Newton and Leibniz are credited with the co-discovery of calculus... they did not invent it, they both discovered it at the same time... math/science is universal, religion is not

LOL.  It is like offering a pack of cigarettes to someone who quit smoking 30 years ago.  No thanks.

What is actually the worst possible outcome is to have one strategy, religion, or culture adopted by everyone.

Science is based on discovering and proving, religion is based on believing - there're no proofs there and it doesn't need them.

Give me your best example of when God intervened to make "things that work".  I fail to see any "hand of God" in this universe.

That is the only reason why...  Cooperation and socialization.

This is the point I disagree with. I think we both agree that the optimal way to increase degrees of freedom for individuals is to allow and enable instead of controlling. A universal strategy is an essential foundation that enables freedom. Without that, we have the situation that is developing now with varying viewpoints where some sets are progressing toward destruction and others are being dragged into declining entropy. Competition can take place when there is room for growth but on a globally saturated scale, nobody wins.

Reproductive strategy is likely to become essentially irrelevant for humanity, possibly within our lifetimes. It seems inevitable that our existing biological bodies will give way to different forms that will carry us off-planet. At that point, allowing and enabling all individuals to thrive in a constructive environment becomes paramount. What then is the protocol that keeps that freedom from becoming destructive? Of course, my thinking is that the protocol is outlined in the Christian bible.

You answered this question yourself you just don't realise it.


What does God have to do with cooperation. This is a challenging topic so I will start with the comments of miscreanity who commented on it earlier.


This relationship between God and cooperation is as fundamental as it is necessary. God breaks us free from ultimately self-destructive conflict and enables ever higher orders of cooperative synergy. The more we bring ourselves into alignment with God the greater the levels of cooperation that become possible.

I discussed this point in some detail here:
See: Superrationality and the Infinite (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg21680790#msg21680790)

Common myths establish an immediate trust between strangers and allow for unimpeded cooperation.

That is why people who otherwise would kill each other work together and trust each other when they believe in the same religious or political dogma.

This of course has nothing to do if the underlying dogma is true or not.

Many UFOlogists would immediately trust other UFOlogists.  Same goes for FlatEarthers, Christians or Muslims.

The lower the IQ of individuals in any given group, the easier it is to establish that common trust based on the underlying myth or belief.

Common myths establish an immediate trust between strangers and allow for unimpeded cooperation.

That is why people who otherwise would kill each other work together and trust each other when they believe in the same religious or political dogma.

This of course has nothing to do if the underlying dogma is true or not.

...

God is so loving that He does what people request. People requested that God convert an aspect of nature into flesh eating bacteria. So, He did it for them.

God created everything including bacteria.
...

He does. That is why he is saving us inspite of ourselves.

Everybody dies. That is inevitable. The only variable is exactly how that death occurs.

The only offer of immortality on the table is through God and it requires an act of faith.

If the trust has been established, it remains even though the myths are shown for what they are... myths. How much stronger is the trust among believers, when the Bible is proven to be truth and fact.

8)

No it can't not on non trivial time horizons. Nationalism and politics require a common cooperative foundation to sustain them. Inertia can only holds things together for a limited time.
...

Science is build up on observations, experimentation and evidences, in other words driven by the so called scientific method. Religion is based on faith, which by definition is believing without evidences.

Scientific theories must be falsifiable, religious doctrines cannot.

The Bible is eye witness observations and records of things that God does among people. If you think that Bible eye witness accounts are false, then throw out all the not-known-to-be-fact science theories right along with it... theories that are known to not be known fact.

8)

And when your bible has comments Jesus made to your God with no-one around to observe, these were somehow observed by people who then wrote about them?

Whatever Fucktard!

Can't be eyewitness observations!

The Father was there, and the Holy Spirit. So, there are two or three witness. The Holy Spirit makes known what went on to the people who pen the words by Holy Spirit direction. Witnesses, one and all.

8)

If science wants to ignore such things as spirit, soul, supernatural, it isn't really science. Rather, it is a religion of limited investigation.

8)

There is no data; no science can be done on the subject of spirits, souls, and supernatural.

They do not exist.

I advise anger management courses meditation or perhaps formal counselling.

No it can't not on non trivial time horizons. Nationalism and politics require a common cooperative foundation to sustain them. Inertia can only holds things together for a limited time.
...

The most manifest characteristic of human beings is their diversity. The freer an economy is, the more this human diversity of knowledge will be manifested. By contrast, political power originates in top-down processes—governments, monopolies, regulators, elite institutions, all attempting to quell human diversity and impose order. Thus power always seeks centralization.

Capitalism is not chiefly an incentive system but an information system. We continue with the recognition, explained by the most powerful science of the epoch, that information itself is best defined as surprise: by what we cannot predict rather than by what we can. The key to economic growth is not acquisition of things by the pursuit of monetary rewards but the expansion of wealth through learning and discovery. The economy grows not by manipulating greed and fear through bribes and punishments but by accumulating surprising knowledge through the conduct of the falsifiable experiments of free enterprises. Crucial to this learning process is the possibility of failure and bankruptcy. In this model, wealth is defined as knowledge, and growth is defined as learning.

Because the system is based more on ideas than on incentives, it is not a process changeable only over generations of Sisysphean effort. An economy is a noosphere (a mind-based system) and it can revive as fast as minds and policies can change.

That new economics—the information theory of capitalism—is already at work in disguise. Concealed behind an elaborate mathematical apparatus, sequestered by its creators in what is called information technology, the new theory drives the most powerful machines and networks of the era. Information theory treats human creations or communications as transmissions through a channel, whether a wire or the world, in the face of the power of noise, and gauges the outcomes by their news or surprise, defined as “entropy” and consummated as knowledge. Now it is ready to come out into the open and to transform economics as it has already transformed the world economy itself.

All information is surprise; only surprise qualifies as information. This is the fundamental axiom of information theory. Information is the change between what we knew before the transmission and what we know after it.

Let us imagine the lineaments of an economics of disorder, disequilibrium, and surprise that could explain and measure the contributions of entrepreneurs. Such an economics would begin with the Smithian mold of order and equilibrium. Smith himself spoke of property rights, free trade, sound currency, and modest taxation as crucial elements of an environment for prosperity. Smith was right: An arena of disorder, disequilibrium, chaos, and noise would drown the feats of creation that engender growth. The ultimate physical entropy envisaged as the heat death of the universe, in its total disorder, affords no room for invention or surprise. But entrepreneurial disorder is not chaos or mere noise. Entrepreneurial disorder is some combination of order and upheaval that might be termed “informative disorder.”

Shannon defined information in terms of digital bits and measured it by the concept of information entropy: unexpected or surprising bits...Shannon’s entropy is governed by a logarithmic equation nearly identical to the thermodynamic equation of Rudolf Clausius that describes physical entropy. But the parallels between the two entropies conceal several pitfalls that have ensnared many. Physical entropy is maximized when all the molecules in a physical system are at an equal temperature (and thus cannot yield any more energy). Shannon entropy is maximized when all the bits in a message are equally improbable (and thus cannot be further compressed without loss of
information). These two identical equations point to a deeper affinity that MIT physicist Seth Lloyd identifies as the foundation of all material reality—at the beginning was the entropic bit.
...
The accomplishment of Information Theory was to create a rigorous mathematical discipline for the definition and measurement of the information in the message sent down the channel. Shannon entropy or surprisal defines and quantifies the information in a message. In close similarity with physical entropy, information entropy is always a positive number measured by minus the base two logarithm of its probability. Information in Shannon’s scheme is quantified in terms of a probability because Shannon interpreted the message as a selection or choice from a limited alphabet. Entropy is thus a measure of freedom of choice. In the simplest case of maximum entropy of equally probable elements, the uncertainty is merely the inverse of the number of elements or symbols.
...
Linking innovation, surprise, and profit, learning and growth, Shannon entropy stands at the heart of the economics of information theory. Signaling the arrival of an invention or disruptive innovation is first its surprisal, then its yield beyond the interest rate—its profit, a further form of Shannon entropy. As a new item is absorbed by the market, however, its entropy declines until its margins converge with prevailing risk adjusted interest rates. The entrepreneur must move on to new surprises. The economics of entropy depict the process by which the entrepreneur translates his idea into a practical form from the realms of imaginative creation. In those visionary realms, entropy is essentially infinite and unconstrained, and thus irrelevant to economic models. But to make the imagined practical, the entrepreneur must make specific choices among existing resources and strategic possibilities. Entropy here signifies his freedom of choice.

As Shannon understood, the creation process itself escapes every logical and mathematical system. It springs not from secure knowledge but from falsifiable tests of commercial hypotheses. It is not an expression of past knowledge but of the fertility of consciousness, will, discipline, imagination, and art.

And belief in an imaginary friend will hold the society forever? LOL.  You base this on what? .

In the opening post of this thread I linked to The Rise of Knowledge (http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Demise%20of%20Finance,%20Rise%20of%20Knowledge.html) where Anonymint discussed the the nature of knowledge and its relationship to entropy.

Immediately up-thread I discussed the prerequisites of freedom. What freedom is and what is necessary to achieve it.

This post will explore the relationship between freedom and knowledge.

Knowledge and Power by George Gilder
https://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Power-Information-Capitalism-Revolutionizing/dp/1621570274

Knowledge is created by the dynamic interaction of consciousness over time. This process results in surprise (new information) which is the foundation of new knowledge. Entropy in this context is a measure of freedom, it is the freedom of choice. An information system with higher entropy allows for greater dynamic interaction of consciousness and thus greater knowledge formation. Freedom must be subject to the constraint of convergence. Some top-down order must be maintained to prevent destructive chaos aka noise that would otherwise destroy rather than create knowledge.

The amount of top-down control needed increases in the presence of increased noise. A primitive population may require the iron fist of a dictator whereas an educated one may thrive in a republic. However, power always seeks centralization. Thus the tendency of both of the dictatorship and the republic will be towards ever increasing centralization restricting freedom beyond that what is necessary and hobbling knowledge formation.

I posit that that the only model of top-down control that facilitates knowledge formation without inevitable progressive centralization is Ethical Monotheism (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/mono.html). Uniformly adopted and voluntary followed it may be the only restraint on freedom that is necessary.

You state several times that it is easy to disprove any religious text. I would imagine that would depend on the particular religion but I would challenge this broad claim. Some religions texts cannot be dismissed so easily when approached with an open mind. Jordan Peterson approaches this very question from a very logical perspective and I recommend his video on the topic if you are interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w  

Thanks CoinCube, I watched some of the video you posted.  He uses a lot of word salads.  As a psychologist, well versed in the English language, I am surprised he has chosen such a complicated way of expressing his ideas.
...

As far as his fascination with the Bible stories, well, I will agree with him/you that the people in those times were inspired and drew inspiration from those stories and myths.  Religion played a role to unite people, to give them comfort, I do understand that.

Your welcome af_newbie.

I think we have taken this conversation and its parallel partner in the other religious thread to its logical conclusion.

We have identified limited areas of agreement and isolated some core a priori philosophical differences where we likewise part ways.

These differences cause us to reach profoundly different conclusions about the nature of the universe and our role within it.

I always enjoy a determined attempt to deconstruct my arguments as there is no better way to test ones logic. Thank you for the conversation.

...
Give your claim#1 to other scientists/enginees to look at. Get their feedback. I bet you you will find not one scientist or engineer who would agree that the world can be reconstructed as a set of arithmetic axioms.

BROOKLYN, N.Y. — Scientists have long used mathematics to describe the physical properties of the universe. But what if the universe itself is math? That's what cosmologist Max Tegmark believes.

In Tegmark's view, everything in the universe — humans included — is part of a mathematical structure. All matter is made up of particles, which have properties such as charge and spin, but these properties are purely mathematical, he says. And space itself has properties such as dimensions, but is still ultimately a mathematical structure.

"If you accept the idea that both space itself, and all the stuff in space, have no properties at all except mathematical properties," then the idea that everything is mathematical "starts to sound a little bit less insane," Tegmark said in a talk given Jan. 15 here at The Bell House. The talk was based on his book "Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality" (Knopf, 2014).

"If my idea is wrong, physics is ultimately doomed," Tegmark said. But if the universe really is mathematics, he added, "There's nothing we can't, in principle, understand."

The idea follows the observation that nature is full of patterns, such as the Fibonacci sequence, a series of numbers in which each number is the sum of the previous two numbers. The flowering of an artichoke follows this sequence, for example, with the distance between each petal and the next matching the ratio of the numbers in the sequence.

The nonliving worldalso behaves in a mathematical way. If you throw a baseball in the air, it follows a roughly parabolic trajectory. Planets and other astrophysical bodies follow elliptical orbits.

"There's an elegant simplicity and beauty in nature revealed by mathematical patterns and shapes, which our minds have been able to figure out," said Tegmark, who loves math so much he has framed pictures of famous equations in his living room.

One consequence of the mathematical nature of the universe is that scientists could in theory predict every observation or measurement in physics. Tegmark pointed out that mathematics predicted the existence of the planet Neptune, radio waves and the Higgs boson particle thought to explain how other particles get their mass.

Some people argue that math is just a tool invented by scientists to explain the natural world. But Tegmark contends the mathematical structure found in the natural world shows that math exists in reality, not just in the human mind.

In this also you are mistaken.

What's the Universe Made Of? Math, Says Scientist
https://www.livescience.com/42839-the-universe-is-math.html

Congrats you found one to confirm your bias.

It is quite obvious, as it should be, to me, that one is illogical, the other logical, one well reasoned, the other a conjecture of loosely associated fairy tales, one sound and well-thought-out, the other ill conceived, mental and a mess, one sensible, understandable and predictable, the other sense less, incongruent and completely unpredictable.

In short, one is Truth, the other Fake.

Both have truths and both have lies.

In this also you are mistaken.

What's the Universe Made Of? Math, Says Scientist
https://www.livescience.com/42839-the-universe-is-math.html

Saying that something can be expressed in Math does not mean you actually can.  We don't know anything about how the space time behaves when the length is less than the Planck's length or express events in less than Planck's time.  How can you say you can express these in the Math equation if you don't know what you need to express or simulate on the computer?  Ask any of the guys you listed above.

Don't take it personally, I actually enjoy talking to you.  My hope is you'll start thinking for yourself rather than just read what others said.

You know, I still think you are delusional but I engage all kinds of people on this forum.