So BFL is finally sending me my 60 GH/s miner and I am trying to calculate profitability to determine if I should sell it or if I should mine with it. I am using: http://www.bitcoinx.com/profit/With the default settings, except wattage I bumped up to 400 Watts, Hash rate to 60 GH/s, cost of hardware to 1,500 and time frame to 12 months. I am getting a profit of just under 8k in the first year, but I must be missing something. The deal seems to be too good. Can someone tell me what I am missing? Bitcoin difficulty: 112,628,549 Bitcoins per Block (BTC/block): 25.00 Conversion rate (USD/BTC): 130.16 Hash rate: 60 GH/s Electricity rate (USD/kWh): 0.15 Power consumption (W): 450.00 (computer on some sort of inactive mode, while miner at 300+? dunno if this is accurate) Time frame (months): 12 Cost of mining hardware (USD): 1500.00 Profitability decline per year: 0.61 Results Difficulty: 112,628,549.00 Mining Factor 100 : 0.06 USD/24h@100MHash/s as in these charts Average generation time for a block (solo): 93 days, 7 hours (can vary greatly depending on your luck) Hardware break even: 47 days Net profit first time frame : 7957.73 USD Coins per 24h at these conditions : 0.2679 BTC Power cost per 24h: 1.62 USD Revenue per day: 34.87 USD Less power costs: 33.25 USD System efficiency : 133.33 MH/s/W Mining Factor 100 at the end of the time frame: 0.04 USD/24h@100MHash/s Average Mining Factor 100: 0.05 USD/24h@100MHash/s Power cost per time frame: 591.70 USD Revenue per time frame: 10049.43 USD Less power costs: 9457.73 USD 0.61 profitability decline per year? There's your false assumption. |
|
|
|
The truth is no one knows the TRUTH.I think I am an Atheist,but not because i know there is no GOD,but because religion.Religion is the real problem in the entire world.We could have restaurants on the moon by now if there was no religion.Watch Zeitgeist 1 (it is a free movie) for more information about religion  The bolded snippet is an entirely false statement. Basically, you are saying "it is the absolute truth that the truth is no one knows the truth." Not all truth is relative, and to assert so is to immediately contradict yourself. Don't just throw out cliches without realizing what you're saying. Most atheists are bandwagoners whose only real rationale for believing no god exists is peer pressure. |
|
|
|
|
Hm...Biocryptography?
Public key + fingerprint/private key = send transaction? All someone has to do is cut off your fingers...
|
|
|
|
You mean, The Illuminati Meeting?  It''s an awkward time for US citizens. On one hand, people mock conspiracy theories in the face of government denial. On the other hand, nobody believes what the government says anymore. |
|
|
|
As I posted in a similar thread:
Time to cut through the rhetoric and talk about what this conflict is really about: gas. Natural gas, not chemical weapons. In a nutshell, back in 2009 (IIRC), qatar wanted a pipeline from its rather recently discovered massive (actually, world's largest) North Dome gas fields to the EU. This pipeline would go through SA, Jordan, Syria to the Mediterranean and/or Turkey. Syria refused, because it would threaten the stranglehold its Russian ally has on the EU gas market though Gazprom. Instead Syria pursued an alternative pipeline from Irans South Pars gasfield (actually the same gas field, but on Irans side of the persian gulf) through Iraq to lebanon and the Med, with an option to connect to Turkey. A $10B deal that was signed in 2010. Not much later, the "uprising" began. No coincidence.
Qatar and later SA fund the "rebels" (better word is jihadists or mercenaries) for billions of dollars to get rid of Assad and install a more sunni friendly regime. Failing that, plan B is to split the country in 2, allowing the north/eastern "free Syria" to run the qatari's beloved pipeline to the EU, instead of Iranian gas flowing to the EU. Thats whats going on. The vast majority of "rebels" arent even Syrians, they are jihadist mercenaries from all over the world, and most of them religious fanatics generously paid for by the Saudi's and qatari's.
The US really doesnt really have a horse in this race, except placating to its allies saudi arabia and israel. And weakening Iran by not allowing Iran to sell gas to the EU, although the only real reason the US wants that is because Israel and SA want that. As for Israel, it doesnt want a Saudi controlled extremist sunni regime at its borders, but it doesnt want a strong Assad supporting Hezbollah (and Iran) either. Lacking a better option, Israel wants perpetual war in Syria, weakening all fractions, including Hezbollah.
Thats the short story.
Bingo, but I think this is connected to a larger issue. The only thing keeping the dollar alive is a mountain of bullshit, and everyone knows it. On the other hand, the Chinese yuan is the next best bet for a global reserve currency. Aside from the obvious explosive growth of the Chinese economy, China has also been doing something else in recent years - they've been buying fucktons of gold, even above market price. Unfortunately, no matter what happens the dollar is going to fail. But, with enough war, enough chaos, and enough disruption in a region of the world that will draw some of the world's largest superpowers into the scuffle, you might make everyone so sick, tired, and disgusted with the current plan (i.e. building mountains of bullshit) that they'll settle for any solution, such as "plan B." What's plan B? Introduce a new global reserve currency. Edit: Don't confuse my plan B with your plan B  |
|
|
|
4th dimension is just time. We are all perfectly capable of experiencing it. Someone who actually exists on that level will just be able to see everything that has ever happened and everything that will ever happen at the same time. But they won't see the 5th dimension, which is all the other time lines running parallel and intersecting with ours.
Why do you guys say we don't understand what consciousness is? Our understanding of how the brain works is pretty advanced...
...Yet so limited? Can we measure it? E.g.: How many grams does consciousness weigh? How much energy does it have? During delicate surgical procedures (or epic parties), can it be safely stored in a freezer (or some other non-human vessel) and put back in later? Can we transplant it from one person to another? Or across the species barrier? Seems to me that there's practically zero evidence that it even exists in the "physical world" (zero mass and energy?!), yet it somehow exists. If it weren't for that, then my philosophical zombie body would gladly bow down to our new Atheist overlords I am sorry are you trying to be "scientific" here or something? Who claimed that our "scientific" understanding of consciousness is something that we weight or it is measured by an "amount" of energy. Can you please pick an intro to neuro science in lament terms before you post such nonsense. thnx Saving a lengthy explanation, I think that consciousness is distributed across large swaths of spacetime. Although I'm saving the lengthy explanation, this idea is foudned upon another idea, the idea of identity as a distributive, syntactic property of any system (in the easiest of conceptual terms, this is similar to how 1 multiplied by any number results in that number, and so 1 is thus analogous to a distributive property of identity). Energy, on the other hand, is something that I've been working on for the past few years, and I'm getting close to a point where I'll be ready to submit some models and equations for peer review. The most interesting of these equations is an equation for Universal energy which I derived in part from Einstein's formula e=mc^2. A graph of my equation for Universal energy suggests that perception itself is inherently entwined with energy and plays an important role in the distribution of energy among conditional events in the Universe. On a serious note, I seriously hope that I've been on the right track, because I believe the models and equations give plausibility to zero-point energy systems. |
|
|
|
Do you think that is what eternity will be? Just simply existing? I expect it to be beyond our wildest imaginations, with plenty to do. Basically all of the time to pursue our interests and dreams and talents without any obstructions.
I think "eternity" works like this: 1. You die, you decompose,, you become word food, you become fertilizer, you become energy via grass, you become a mouse that eats the grass, you become a bird that eats the mouse, etc (but you don't get to "control" the animal, your energy is just allowing it to exist). 2. Your ideas last forever along with some on and offline content, and things you said to people will always be remembered 3a. This is a theory. But I think when we die, we are no where. There is nothing. We are completely happy... And we wonder why we ever cared about anything on this planet. 3b. We enter the 4th dimension, and live with length, width, height AND a dimension we could never comprehend. With creatures that have been here around us all along, but were invisible to us as we can't see the 4th dimension. What dies? Your body? Are you your body? When I (subject) perceive my body (object), am I the body? If I (subject) perceive a tree (object), am I the tree? It seems that one or both of two things is/are true: 1) You are your body, and thus you are also a tree and everything else (i.e. you are 'one' with everything, for simplistic phrasing, and subject is the same as object), and/or 2) you are not your body whatsoever and you are absolutely different from it, somehow so different from it that you can't even share with it a relationship of absolute difference. If #1 is true, then that means you are also 'one' with, or the same as, every instance of a death or dead person you've ever observed. But yet you're still here... If #2 is true then please explain to me what the fuck you are, and then describe the death of such a thing. The point I'm making is that I question some of your assumptions implicated by your beliefs. Death is just electricity. My 11 year brother died 3 months ago, and he was still there even though he couldn't breath, or feel things. He was there for 2 days, then his head went cold. His brain didn't have any more oxygen. His body was still pumping blood, but his brain was too swollen to accept it. He still had electricity in his body, we all have a little electricity. That is how our hormones move, that is how our nerves operate, that is how our muscles do what they do. And once there is no oxygen feeding it, it goes out. Like a fire. Like I said in option 3, maybe he is in the "4th dimension" or something. But that's just theories. I don't know what happens, and no one knows what consciousness consists of.I'm sorry to hear about that experience :\ My thoughts and prayers sincerely go out to you. To respond otherwise, I think that thinking about consciousness in terms of its "consistency" is sort of a "fail before you start" kind of thing. I mean, I know consciousness...don't you? Consciousness is directly evident at all times through experience, It's a true no-brainer. You can't really say much else about it. You want consciousness? Bam, in your face. People need to just sit, take a breath, and just 'be' for a second. It will teach you a lot. I think if more people did this they would understand that some truths are just always there, and to deny them is, in my honest opinion, is a global form of insanity. That is not an explanation of what consciousness is. Yes it is a "fail before you start kind of thing" but only if you don't care to actually ever find out, and are ok with accepting your own or other people's guesses. I am not. Consciousness is the difference between an involuntary, and voluntary action. Breathing, a "non conscious" task that we preform without thinking about it. Even when my brother was in a coma, they looked for signs of breathing. And heart beat, they don't care if your heart is beating, but that is a non conscious task. Fighting. You don't just make a fist and put it in someone's face, you may do it "naturally" but you don't do it "non consciously" We know that conscious activity is preformed mainly in the frontal lobe of the brain, but we still don't know what it really is. One day we will know though. No. You don't need to hear from me or anyone else what consciousness is. You can know it absolutely right now, in the direct sense. The 'activity' that you're talking about are the effects of consciousness. If I intend to move my arm and do so, you don't point to my arm and say, "see, consciousness." This is evidence of consciousness. And while you look to the frontal lobe, or perhaps more generally, the brain, to try and 'find' consciousness, all you are really looking at are more effects or "evidence" of consciousness (evidence means "that which is apparent"). You can know consciousness directly or indirectly. To know something indirectly is the approach utilized, for example, by the scientific method. Utilizing this approach, you can only refine your theories with increasing accuracy up to, but neither meeting nor surpassing, a threshold of absolute knowledge. To know something directly requires an absolute lack of evidence, and in fact, a lack of ratio (again, ratio is the root word of rationale). You can do this anytime you like. I'm just letting you know that there's another way to learn about things, one where you aren't trying to find certain things to help explain something else. Or, phrased another way, there's a difference between knowing something and knowing about something. You can find all the evidence you want and you'll just know 'about' consciousness. The difference between knowing something vs. knowing about something is like the difference between going outside and feeling the sun's warmth vs. looking at a thermometer and saying it's 100 degrees. |
|
|
|
Do you think that is what eternity will be? Just simply existing? I expect it to be beyond our wildest imaginations, with plenty to do. Basically all of the time to pursue our interests and dreams and talents without any obstructions.
I think "eternity" works like this: 1. You die, you decompose,, you become word food, you become fertilizer, you become energy via grass, you become a mouse that eats the grass, you become a bird that eats the mouse, etc (but you don't get to "control" the animal, your energy is just allowing it to exist). 2. Your ideas last forever along with some on and offline content, and things you said to people will always be remembered 3a. This is a theory. But I think when we die, we are no where. There is nothing. We are completely happy... And we wonder why we ever cared about anything on this planet. 3b. We enter the 4th dimension, and live with length, width, height AND a dimension we could never comprehend. With creatures that have been here around us all along, but were invisible to us as we can't see the 4th dimension. What dies? Your body? Are you your body? When I (subject) perceive my body (object), am I the body? If I (subject) perceive a tree (object), am I the tree? It seems that one or both of two things is/are true: 1) You are your body, and thus you are also a tree and everything else (i.e. you are 'one' with everything, for simplistic phrasing, and subject is the same as object), and/or 2) you are not your body whatsoever and you are absolutely different from it, somehow so different from it that you can't even share with it a relationship of absolute difference. If #1 is true, then that means you are also 'one' with, or the same as, every instance of a death or dead person you've ever observed. But yet you're still here... If #2 is true then please explain to me what the fuck you are, and then describe the death of such a thing. The point I'm making is that I question some of your assumptions implicated by your beliefs. Death is just electricity. My 11 year brother died 3 months ago, and he was still there even though he couldn't breath, or feel things. He was there for 2 days, then his head went cold. His brain didn't have any more oxygen. His body was still pumping blood, but his brain was too swollen to accept it. He still had electricity in his body, we all have a little electricity. That is how our hormones move, that is how our nerves operate, that is how our muscles do what they do. And once there is no oxygen feeding it, it goes out. Like a fire. Like I said in option 3, maybe he is in the "4th dimension" or something. But that's just theories. I don't know what happens, and no one knows what consciousness consists of.I'm sorry to hear about that experience :\ My thoughts and prayers sincerely go out to you. To respond otherwise, I think that thinking about consciousness in terms of its "consistency" is sort of a "fail before you start" kind of thing. I mean, I know consciousness...don't you? Consciousness is directly evident at all times through experience, It's a true no-brainer. You can't really say much else about it. You want consciousness? Bam, in your face. People need to just sit, take a breath, and just 'be' for a second. It will teach you a lot. I think if more people did this they would understand that some truths are just always there, and to deny them is, in my honest opinion, is a global form of insanity. |
|
|
|
Do you think that is what eternity will be? Just simply existing? I expect it to be beyond our wildest imaginations, with plenty to do. Basically all of the time to pursue our interests and dreams and talents without any obstructions.
I think "eternity" works like this: 1. You die, you decompose,, you become word food, you become fertilizer, you become energy via grass, you become a mouse that eats the grass, you become a bird that eats the mouse, etc (but you don't get to "control" the animal, your energy is just allowing it to exist). 2. Your ideas last forever along with some on and offline content, and things you said to people will always be remembered 3a. This is a theory. But I think when we die, we are no where. There is nothing. We are completely happy... And we wonder why we ever cared about anything on this planet. 3b. We enter the 4th dimension, and live with length, width, height AND a dimension we could never comprehend. With creatures that have been here around us all along, but were invisible to us as we can't see the 4th dimension. What dies? Your body? Are you your body? When I (subject) perceive my body (object), am I the body? If I (subject) perceive a tree (object), am I the tree? It seems that one or both of two things is/are true: 1) You are your body, and thus you are also a tree and everything else (i.e. you are 'one' with everything, for simplistic phrasing, and subject is the same as object), and/or 2) you are not your body whatsoever and you are absolutely different from it, somehow so different from it that you can't even share with it a relationship of absolute difference. If #1 is true, then that means you are also 'one' with, or the same as, every instance of a death or dead person you've ever observed. But yet you're still here... If #2 is true then please explain to me what the fuck you are, and then describe the death of such a thing. The point I'm making is that I question some of your assumptions implicated by your beliefs. |
|
|
|
Coke and heroin should be legal, too, IMO.
No reason we can poison ourselves with some substances but not others. As long as I am only shooting up in my veins, then what makes it an issue with the federal government?
I'm in agreement with you, yet I suspect that the main line of reasoning has to do with things like the cost of healthcare for chronic drug users. Trust me, it escalates quickly. Drug use is much higher among the homeless, for example, and guess what type of healthcare the homeless usually have? Public aid! And while public aid doesn't typically fund substance abuse treatment, it does fund dual-diagnosis clients, and that's virtually any drug user that's had a serious hospitalization of some kind. Here's a typical cycle, especially in inner cities: 1) Person consumes drugs often and frequently 2) Symptoms of mental illness arise; financial situation declines. 3) Person becomes homeless, is hospitalized, or both. 4) Person gets dually-diagnosed: (Poly)substance abuse + serious mental illness, often depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or schizoaffective disorder. 5) Person applies for public aid. 6) Public aid funds psychiatric care, some medications, medical aid, and counseling services. It also makes the person eligible for residency in places like nursing homes or group homes. 7) Person lives in institutional setting funded by public aid until they relapse. Then they go back to the hospital. 8.) Repeat from step 4. Depending on how long this cycle lasts, you could easily be looking at $100,000+ in public aid per person every couple of years. |
|
|
|
The problem I see with human-like gods is that they always seem to be an appeal to magic rather anything we can actually have faith in because we know it to be true in the same way that I know that I exist. If you have faith in a 3rd-person god, then let's test that faith. How do you know this god exists if it's somehow outside of you and you can't consciously detect it? The only kind of consciousness that I know exists for sure is my own, see: philosophical zombies. What do you mean by a "3rd-person" god? Monotheistic gods, such as the Christian god, do not seem to be 3rd-person gods. "I am who am" in the Bible was God's definition of himself. Are you referring to polytheistic gods? But the monotheistic Christian god almost always seems to be referred to as a "He" rather than "I". That seems confusing to me, and the above discussion about whether or not god is our own consciousness, doesn't help in that regard. It can be extremely confusing. These types of debates often go round and round because people typically aren't aware of when they shift the vantage point from where they attempt to base their argument. There are two fundamental vantage points that one can take when attempting to discuss god: 1) from a lower vantage point, and 2) from a higher vantage point. Speaking from a lower vantage point is like trying to talk about 4-dimensional spacetime from our 3rd-dimensional frame of reference through inference. Speaking from a higher vantage point is like drawing a tesseract on a 2-dimensional plane and deducing its properties. When speaking from a lower vantage point, infinite regressions result because of irreconcilable paradoxes. When speaking from a higher vantage point, paradoxes become self-resolving. |
|
|
|
Observer participation, verifiable through experiments in quantum mechanics, demonstrates the interconnectedness between mental and physical reality. The mathematical proof for the boundary of a boundary = 0 establishes the concept of sameness-in-difference and demonstrates the illusionary nature of separation.
These concepts alone indicate the plausibility of god to the extent that it lays the foundation for a universal consciousness. Then, toss in the fact that the reality we study is the output of internal processes, and then you realize that it's impossible to explain any event or process without invoking some form of mental causation.
Personally, the more I study reality empirically, the more evidence I find that supports the existence of god.
I think what you are mistaking for "god" is just the "universe". It is a giant organism of some sort, proof of its consciousness is US. Proof of its pulse are stars, etc. But just because it exists, doesn't mean it knows or even cares about us... Or that it even has the capacity to do those things. And it surely doesn't mean it created us, who knows if it knows how it started. The problem I see with human-like gods is that they always seem to be an appeal to magic rather anything we can actually have faith in because we know it to be true in the same way that I know that I exist. If you have faith in a 3rd-person god, then let's test that faith. How do you know this god exists if it's somehow outside of you and you can't consciously detect it? The only kind of consciousness that I know exists for sure is my own, see: philosophical zombies. What do you mean by a "3rd-person" god? Monotheistic gods, such as the Christian god, do not seem to be 3rd-person gods. "I am who am" in the Bible was God's definition of himself. Are you referring to polytheistic gods? |
|
|
|
Let me start by making it clear that I am an atheist.
The problem I have with the atheist agenda is that is stops at 'the non existence of God' - the same logic is not applied consistently to the whole of the human condition.
If I examine my life and use this same 'spaghetti monster' logic, I am drawn to the same conclusions about all my actions and activities - they are all as equally pointless and irrational as worshiping God.
If I rationally examine my sense of self I realize that it is just a genetic innovation - it encourages self preservation - genetic selfishness creates a genetically induced illusion of self worth.
My desire to survive is itself as delusional as a belief in God - pain and my fear of pain are a genetically induced survival mechanism I am in thrall to.
If I believe in God and survive then it is no different to not believing in God and surviving - nature will select for survival.
But my actual survival is meaningless whether I believe in God or otherwise.
This is the only conclusion that can be logically formed from a real examination of life.
Atheism is merely another tribal display - a peacock's tail trying to attract a mate through a verbal display of intelligence.
Not true really. I do not call myself "Atheist" but I'm sure plenty of people would. I don't believe in ANY god, I simply study culture, society, history and nature for a better understanding of the world. You seem to still be seeking a god... Once you figure out "God doesn't exist", that is not when you start trying to apply that logic to everything. That is when you decide what DOES matter (family, being the change, introducing new people to new things, etc) Observer participation, verifiable through experiments in quantum mechanics, demonstrates the interconnectedness between mental and physical reality. The mathematical proof for the boundary of a boundary = 0 establishes the concept of sameness-in-difference and demonstrates the illusionary nature of separation. These concepts alone indicate the plausibility of god to the extent that it lays the foundation for a universal consciousness. Then, toss in the fact that the reality we study is the output of internal processes, and then you realize that it's impossible to explain any event or process without invoking some form of mental causation. Personally, the more I study reality empirically, the more evidence I find that supports the existence of god. I think what you are mistaking for "god" is just the "universe". It is a giant organism of some sort, proof of its consciousness is US. Proof of its pulse are stars, etc. But just because it exists, doesn't mean it knows or even cares about us... Or that it even has the capacity to do those things. And it surely doesn't mean it created us, who knows if it knows how it started. It's deduced (not inferred) through the sameness-in-difference principle that I would share a fundamental identity with god if he exists. So, in certain contexts, I much prefer the phrase god because 1) i believe it more accurately reflects the dynamic relationship between mental and physical reality and 2) I don't equate god with the universe. All those "why/when/how" questions are much harder to answer, though I believe it's possible to deduce some of the answers from tautologies. Regardless, they are irrelevant until the existence of god is established. . Ex: Do you have a relationship with the cells in your skin? Sure, the universe is an organism... Which means it will have organs. And we can even see some of the structures (solar systems, galaxies, etc) It MIGHT have consciousness, but we really don't even know what consciousness is yet, so we can't just assume other things have it. Maybe it has to consume things to survive (gas, minerals, etc) But I mean, other than that, you and god aren't going to have much in common. Your concept of relationship in this discussion is different than mine. Yes, I absolutely share a relationship with it if we share fundamental identities. Yes, I absolutely share a relationship with the cells in my skin. I share a relationship with any observable, identifiable phenomena through a subject-object relationship. I (subject) perceive an event/thing (object). I (subject) perceive my cells and skin (objects). The question "is it conscious or isn't it?" with respect to those 'structures' is, in my opinion, an inferior question when compared with, "is it consciousness dependent?" Asking whether it's conscious or not invokes a false dichotomy and totally negates the ways in which things can and cannot be in a simultaneous state depending on your particular vantage point. Specifically, it is a question posited from a lower level of logical syntax that attempts to explain something at a higher level of logical syntax. Asking whether it is consciousness dependent is positing a question from a higher level of logical syntax to attempt to explain something at a lower level of logical syntax. This is because the former question fails to assume the sameness-in-difference principle (i.e. simultaneous states) while the latter question allows this assumption. |
|
|
|
Let me start by making it clear that I am an atheist.
The problem I have with the atheist agenda is that is stops at 'the non existence of God' - the same logic is not applied consistently to the whole of the human condition.
If I examine my life and use this same 'spaghetti monster' logic, I am drawn to the same conclusions about all my actions and activities - they are all as equally pointless and irrational as worshiping God.
If I rationally examine my sense of self I realize that it is just a genetic innovation - it encourages self preservation - genetic selfishness creates a genetically induced illusion of self worth.
My desire to survive is itself as delusional as a belief in God - pain and my fear of pain are a genetically induced survival mechanism I am in thrall to.
If I believe in God and survive then it is no different to not believing in God and surviving - nature will select for survival.
But my actual survival is meaningless whether I believe in God or otherwise.
This is the only conclusion that can be logically formed from a real examination of life.
Atheism is merely another tribal display - a peacock's tail trying to attract a mate through a verbal display of intelligence.
Not true really. I do not call myself "Atheist" but I'm sure plenty of people would. I don't believe in ANY god, I simply study culture, society, history and nature for a better understanding of the world. You seem to still be seeking a god... Once you figure out "God doesn't exist", that is not when you start trying to apply that logic to everything. That is when you decide what DOES matter (family, being the change, introducing new people to new things, etc) Observer participation, verifiable through experiments in quantum mechanics, demonstrates the interconnectedness between mental and physical reality. The mathematical proof for the boundary of a boundary = 0 establishes the concept of sameness-in-difference and demonstrates the illusionary nature of separation. These concepts alone indicate the plausibility of god to the extent that it lays the foundation for a universal consciousness. Then, toss in the fact that the reality we study is the output of internal processes, and then you realize that it's impossible to explain any event or process without invoking some form of mental causation. Personally, the more I study reality empirically, the more evidence I find that supports the existence of god. I think what you are mistaking for "god" is just the "universe". It is a giant organism of some sort, proof of its consciousness is US. Proof of its pulse are stars, etc. But just because it exists, doesn't mean it knows or even cares about us... Or that it even has the capacity to do those things. And it surely doesn't mean it created us, who knows if it knows how it started. It's deduced (not inferred) through the sameness-in-difference principle that I would share a fundamental identity with god if he exists. So, in certain contexts, I much prefer the phrase god because 1) i believe it more accurately reflects the dynamic relationship between mental and physical reality and 2) I don't equate god with the universe. All those "why/when/how" questions are much harder to answer, though I believe it's possible to deduce some of the answers from tautologies. Regardless, they are irrelevant until the existence of god is established. |
|
|
|
Let me start by making it clear that I am an atheist.
The problem I have with the atheist agenda is that is stops at 'the non existence of God' - the same logic is not applied consistently to the whole of the human condition.
If I examine my life and use this same 'spaghetti monster' logic, I am drawn to the same conclusions about all my actions and activities - they are all as equally pointless and irrational as worshiping God.
If I rationally examine my sense of self I realize that it is just a genetic innovation - it encourages self preservation - genetic selfishness creates a genetically induced illusion of self worth.
My desire to survive is itself as delusional as a belief in God - pain and my fear of pain are a genetically induced survival mechanism I am in thrall to.
If I believe in God and survive then it is no different to not believing in God and surviving - nature will select for survival.
But my actual survival is meaningless whether I believe in God or otherwise.
This is the only conclusion that can be logically formed from a real examination of life.
Atheism is merely another tribal display - a peacock's tail trying to attract a mate through a verbal display of intelligence.
Not true really. I do not call myself "Atheist" but I'm sure plenty of people would. I don't believe in ANY god, I simply study culture, society, history and nature for a better understanding of the world. You seem to still be seeking a god... Once you figure out "God doesn't exist", that is not when you start trying to apply that logic to everything. That is when you decide what DOES matter (family, being the change, introducing new people to new things, etc) Observer participation, verifiable through experiments in quantum mechanics, demonstrates the interconnectedness between mental and physical reality. The mathematical proof for the boundary of a boundary = 0 establishes the concept of sameness-in-difference and demonstrates the illusionary nature of separation. These concepts alone indicate the plausibility of god to the extent that it lays the foundation for a universal consciousness. Then, toss in the fact that the reality we study is the output of internal processes, and then you realize that it's impossible to explain any event or process without invoking some form of mental causation. Personally, the more I study reality empirically, the more evidence I find that supports the existence of god. |
|
|
|
|
I can get a used NES at my local GameStop for $19.99...the original one. With two controllers. And Mario/Duckhunt. $1000 price tags mean sealed in the box.
That being said, I'm actually interested in your NES lol. How many games?
Also interested in any PS2 DDR games if they include the dance pad.
|
|
|
|
Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security.
We might have a lot (more) of stoned idiots if it becomes fully legalized, but if we really need to protect us from ourselves, then we're already a lost cause.
Legalize all drugs and let people be responsible for themselves.
On of the countries where weed is legal doesn't seem to have a higher amount of the population being "stoned" It may not have a significnt effect in the sense that I'm not sure that a large percentage of non-smokers would suddenly begin smoking, but I think you'd definitely see people being more 'openly stoned' in public, for example by smoking while driving, while walking on the sidewalk in busy areas, and being high at work. People do these things already, but with legality comes more social acceptance and less stigma. I just think that those who typically do more to hide their behavior would be more casual and open about it. |
|
|
|
|
Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security.
We might have a lot (more) of stoned idiots if it becomes fully legalized, but if we really need to protect us from ourselves, then we're already a lost cause.
Legalize all drugs and let people be responsible for themselves.
|
|
|
|
We are all gods/god.
Sort of. Reality:god::thoughts:man. Reality is the constraint god places upon himself. Thoughts are the constraints we place upon ourselves. We're essentially isomorphic images of god. Lol |
|
|
|
We are all gods/god.
Sort of. Reality:god::thoughts:man. Reality is the constraint god places upon himself. Thoughts are the constraints we place upon ourselves. We're essentially isomorphic images of god. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
