I don't think so, he has no interest in killing anyone in the name of God.
Well, we don't know that. The guy was pretty much crazy to travel there to do what exactly? Talk to people about Jesus? Does this sound rational to you? The guy was a lunatic, IMHO. Who knows what his true intentions were? Maybe he was a pedophile looking for his next fix. This island was pretty isolated, and the Indian government tried to make contact with them in the past. The people on the island were hostile to any intruders. This was a known fact. I don't know his intentions, maybe he hoped to be the first man ever in history to successfully make peace with the Sentinelese. It would make big news for sure, maybe that was what motivated him. |
|
|
|
Wow, that is a big conjecture right there.
First of all, if that were the case, how would you distinguish God from something that does not exist? So it is safe to put God in the same bucket as things that do not exist.
Snow White might exist just as well as any of the Gods people wrote about over the years.
Do you believe Snow White exists? How about Santa Claus?
We have no evidence that God exists, that is all we can say.
Fantasising about things that might exist does not get us any closer to the truth.
You are right, we have no scientific evidence that God exists, only anecdotal evidences. Regarding the conjecture, I am not sure it is a big ask to be honest. If even God has to follow the laws of physics (must only be at one place at one time, must be subjected to the laws of gravity, must be able to be detected by our techno scientific instruments etc), then God ceases to be God. He would not be any different to you or me. I would not compare God to Snow White or Santa Claus because the experience of God is a global phenomenon from people from all cultures around the world throughout the history of mankind. |
|
|
|
|
I don't think so, he has no interest in killing anyone in the name of God.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, people should be allowed to buy and sell crypto freely, it is a matter of personal freedom.
|
|
|
|
|
I enjoy playing Sequence, it is a board game played with cards
|
|
|
|
|
Enron was a corporation with corrupt CEOs, they were lying to their employees and shareholders. Kenneth Lay was an extremely trusted public figure, who is a trustworthy public figure in Bitcoin?
|
|
|
|
Let's see the footage of God then. Where is it? There are billions of videos on youtube, not one is from God.
Anyone who reads this thread and can talk to God, please ask God to post here.
Why does God need salesmen? He does not care to show up for work? I would fire his ass in a New York minute.
Sorry I edited my answer to add a bit more info. I wanted to say that if God shows up on Youtube, it would mean that the nature of God is no longer a private relationship, but rather a public one. |
|
|
|
The personal spiritual experiences are real. Those are internal to a person's brain. How do we know? We see their brain activity on the brain scans.
Unfortunately, the object of those experiences is not real UNLESS other people and instruments/cameras can observe/record EXACTLY THE SAME experience.
Many people believe that they are Napoleons. Their experience is real to them. However, we know they are delusional just like people who see, hear or 'feel' Jesus.
Yes, but if we could also experience those things too, the nature of God would no longer be personal. It would be public to everyone. For all we know, God does not follow the rules of science and physics. God could easily be invisible to our eyes and our instruments, does that mean God does not exist? Then this would mean that we are God, because either we can observe it or it does not exist. |
|
|
|
Those are brain malfunctions. Unless you have some objective observers verifying the experience, these "spiritual experiences" are just that, confined to a person's brain. Just like dreams or conscious thoughts.
The human brain is very complicated. Many people suffer from mental disorders. I think believing in something that is not real is a delusion.
Religion is a mental disorder.
Yes, but how do we know what they experience is not real. Their experiences could very well be as real as the keyboard you are typing on. Is it because we can not observe God for ourselves? What if the nature of God is a personal relationship? If we have no personal relationship with God does that mean others can not have as well? To dismiss their relationships with God would be lying to ourselves. |
|
|
|
|
Welcome to the forum! Thanks for offering your advice and expertise in cryptocurrency, it is a great plus to our forum.
|
|
|
|
You need an open mind to evaluate if the evidence presented is true.
Accepting religious stories without evidence is being gullible, not being open-minded.
You can say I don't know if a God exists.
The evidence presented in the scriptures definitely rules out the existence of those Abrahamic Gods. End of story.
If you have evidence of any other Gods, let's hear it.
Exactly. You need an open mind to evaluate if the evidence presented is true. The problem for both of us is the evidences are anecdotal. A guy says an unbelievable miracle happened in his life blah blah blah... Another guy says this unexplained miracle happened in his life blah blah blah... These are anecdotal evidences, they can not be proven by anyone except the person himself. I am not talking about the bible, it is not evidence. I am talking about mystical, spiritual experiences that science can not explain. How do we, as logical scientific-minded people, reconcile these experiences with our science? Are we to dismiss their experiences as being crazy and simply hallucination? If we say that, they would call us close-minded people. |
|
|
|
|
For me, light jogging tremendously boosts my energy levels.
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed. China brings great innovation and technology to the science table, and artificial intelligence is the all the buzz. I think life would be easier and more convenient for everyone with AI, and this spreads to all areas of life.
|
|
|
|
Of course. Present me with the evidence of God, and I will believe.
Describe what God looks like, provide testable evidence in his existence, provide means to communicate with him/her and I am in.
Instead, what we have is plenty of evidence that there is no God (or God does not care about this planet and this particular species of mammals), so yes, I am open-minded.
BTW, if God would appear in front of me right now, I would ask him: "What's up with all the hide and seek? Come closer so that I can punch your lights out for making people kill each other in your fucking name."
I know I am a better being than any God from the scriptures.
If I were able to present evidence of God, there is no need for an open mind. Even a closed mind would accept God if I can present God to him. An open mind accepts the possibility that there is God, but also accepts the possibility that there is no God. His mind is open. |
|
|
|
For me, I would rather be a flawed natural person than a "perfect human"，because I think that people who are transformed by science and technology will lose their souls, I am afraid of losing my soul.
What if today they offer you a scientifically proven, safe drug that stops you from aging and prevents you from getting any disease ever again. (Basically you will always be healthy) You would not take it? This genetic manipulation has nothing to do with your soul, it is your body that receives the full benefits. |
|
|
|
|
I don't think that Satoshi's anonymity plays a big role in the Bitcoin community, after all his fundamental principles are sound and the main attraction of Bitcoin is the economics rather than the identity of Satoshi.
|
|
|
|
I think a more interesting question is, why does God hide himself from some people but not from others? We hear all these stories about personal experiences with God. How come God chooses to reveal himself in such cases?
For some people, they never had any experience at all. This is mind boggling to me.
Because some people are delusional, while others are not. God is a mental image or a feeling. It is a product of an overactive human imagination. I think this God concept was needed to help us survive in the magical world we saw all around us. So, the idea of God is an evolutionary adaptation, IMHO. It is possible, but don't you think it is better to keep an open mind? |
|
|
|
Ah yes, this is like Pascal's Wager
Richard Dawkins, a well-known atheist, proposed a way to win this wager. He postulated the idea that God might reward those who have an honest disbelief in God and actually punish those who have faith in God blindly. He reasoned that the Supreme Being would surely value honesty and logical reasoning, and see no value in blindly following others' beliefs.
I'm amazed anyone is convinced by Pascal's Wager; it's so binary. Hajek's objective is a rejection of this binary choice by introducing additional Gods into the story. f you believe in God A, God B may damn you after death because God A is fictitious. God B may not punish a non-believer as hard as a false-worshiper. Hajek was one of the first people to push "mixed strategy" objection. The idea is that if we try to force Pascal's wager into our formalisms for calculating expected utility, then there are many options which will each have infinite expected utility. Some examples: believe in God; flip a coin, and believe in God if it's heads; roll a 1,000,000-sided die, believe in God if it's a 2, and otherwise cut off your legs; etc. And (as stated) the argument can't say why we should go with the first option.
You are right, actually Alan Hajek's proposal sounds very logical and reasonable. I agree with this. Pascal's wager is forcing us into a false dichotomy. |
|
|
|
|
Science does not have room for personal truths, it only deals with absolute truth. Either something is true, or it is not. There is no false dichotomy.
By saying that there are personal truths rather than absolute truth, there would no possibility for someone to experience something that convinces them that their "personal truths" were false all along.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
