Universal knowledge for everyone 

Facebook is not contributing that much to this :p

Designing Games for Ethics: Models, Techniques and Frameworks

https://books.google.fr/books?id=yqNeVKZbCiwC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=jonathan+blow+evolution&source=bl&ots=-V7HjDkClj&sig=0nYmenW6szuAn1K4Psw4UT5T8sU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi028P96ZLVAhXLAcAKHcciDg44ChDoAQhbMBI#v=onepage&q&f=false

Just like you do, full of stereotype and pre made idea about everything. You just read article on science today instead of other sites. I still have to see you coming with a though of your own that is not plain stereotype about religion.

Sometime the problem is not the problem but the attitude to what is percieved as a problem  

Searching for truth in honest maner always converge to the same things.

Believing in the bible is sin in which religion ? Your's ?

All religions agree on many things, only the impurity in the individual understanding create divergence.

Or cultural indoctrination that goes against the teaching.

Science can be told to be as much con as religion

Your preaching science and know nothing of it, just because you saw it somewhere .

That's how conning works.

But im not conned by your madness

Not more than by preacher of any sort.

Science doesnt prove much evolution  no more than you prove anything.

You dont even know what proof is lol

Typing in caps being drunk insulting people is not really a proof of anything outside of your own madness and authority complex .

I blame your parents for yelling too much at you to show their authority.

The basics of veda is very close to kaballah

The three big religions based on god & angels ( Judaism christianism Islam)  is based on kaballah the same that budhism is built from veda.

Vatican & England crown is another story. .

There is no axioms for the evolution, no metrics, no algebra, it's barely a science at all.

https://youtu.be/c5iKVUat80I

Namaste: Devi Prayer, Spiritual music, gentle, calming, peaceful music, relaxing music

 

Some movie are good, it can tell a story too

Maybe you dont know anyone who makes movie and think they are made by satan in hell ? Lol

The bible was not written  by ignorants, it's based on scholarship wisdom of the time like from platonism, philo of alexandria, and many others ..

It doesnt even  deny evolution .. no more than the Vedas. .

They even actually got the good order of how things got  created ..

Need to read the kaballah with the original void

All religion with god In heaven and angels as messenger are derived from the kaballah.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah#Tzimtzum.2C_Shevirah_and_Tikkun

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articles/kabbalah/Creation/creation.html


http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Realism/realism.html

I will quote from valerian as i just saw it lol

Love without limit, very cheap is the love that can be counted


This can apply for god too 

https://youtu.be/MExenJwI3ms

showtek - the world is mine  


https://youtu.be/bolWhLnawWw

Headhunterz vs. Psyko Punkz - Disrespect

https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/A_Few_Good_Men  

I want you to know that I think the whole fucking bunch of you are certifiably insane. This code of honor of yours makes me want to beat the shit out of somebody.

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0104257/

Those principle come from platonism or neo platonism.

Like plotinus
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plotinus

"Materialism" is more or less aristotle metaphysics / natural science / empirism.

"Rationalism" is more or less socratic/platonic/euclidian .

The thing of the illusion of changing appearence vs permanent truth is from parmenides.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides

All conceptions of reality are the result of a mental process, no more no less.

Cultivating the mental process of understanding  ( aka rationalism ) is more important than cultivating memory of facts ( aka empirism ).


The concept of true or false can be interpreted both in term of factual evidence, or in the context of rational analysis like euclidian axiomatic reasoning.  

In the context of axiomatic reasoning, truth is not about "factual evidence" but  about logical deduction from axioms.


There is no "factual evidence" that 1+1=2, arithmetics, or to euclidian geometric principle, just logical deduction from axioms.


Riemann show very well the problematics of finding the good axiomatic model or geometry / space to describe physics, as there is no manner to demonstrate which geometry or axioms are true or false in themselves as far as physics is concerned.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemannian_geometry

http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319260402
On the Hypotheses Which Lie at the Bases of Geometry.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

Relativity is special case of riemannian geometry, and show to be the more accurate model of space that correspond to physics so far.

Before riemann it was assumed euclidian geometry and axioms were more or less same than truth or physics.


Humanism is quite subjective concept, but it would be often considered platonic or socratic model are more humanist, they lead to republic in politics,  "science" derived from empirism, aka interpretation of facts lead to oligarchy, as long as this interpretation cannot be demonstrated rationally.


For plato truth is deeply related to good or justice, and concerned with humanism.


There are some good demonstration of this problematics in this book.

Between Leibniz, Newton, and Kant: Philosophy and Science in the Eighteenth

https://books.google.fr/books?id=D5fcBQAAQBAJ&lpg=PT118&dq=leibniz%20mechanics%20vs%20newton&pg=PT21#v=onepage&q&f=false

Things can exist as unmanifested "pure potential" before they "exists" as in manifesting themselves.

It's not because we dont understand the cause or reason that there isnt one.

Time is one dimension in the 4d  space according to relativity, and is affected by the nature of space itself.

God is not "sitting in the clouds" but exist as idea in the sky = mental plane = realm of idea.

They are already invalid since the beginning liebniz mechanics is more accurate and relativity totally obsolete it, not even speaking of quantum mechanics.


http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=767326

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Newton-generally-considered-a-better-mathematician-than-Leibniz

Ironically, we use Leibniz's notation, and the calculus we learn today is essentially Leibniz's (e.g. dx/dy etc.), and both Bernoulli and later Euler championed Leibniz's formalism over Newton's, relatively speaking, messy and incongruous work. Dx/Dy is straight from Leibniz.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57495/einstein-gravity-versus-newtons-gravity

Riemann is the mathematics behind relativity, newton is completely obsolete by it.

Newton is not physics.

They teach newton at school probably because it's easier to understand, but liebniz was already better since the beginning.



https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-theories/#4.2.1



4.2.1 Absolute Space vs. Galilean Relativity

Newton's proposal for understanding motion solves the problems that he posed for Descartes, and provides an interpretation of the concepts of constant motion and acceleration that appear in his laws of motion. However, it suffers from two notable interpretational problems, both of which were pressed forcefully by Leibniz (in the Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence, 1715–1716) — which is not to say that Leibniz himself offered a superior account of motion (see below). (Of course, there are other features of Newton's proposal that turned out to be empirically inadequate, and are rejected by in relativity theory: Newton's account violates the relativity of simultaneity and postulates a non-dynamical spacetime structure.)

Cause and effect can be seen as operation in a space, their actual effect and the logic built on them depend on the nature of space itself, it's what riemann demonstrate

It's funny that you try to take on newton thermodynamics which is for me one of the worst system to understand god

Liebniz or riemann > newton  


When getting into the Riemann habilitation theory , it's easy to see all newtonian physics based on euclidian space is actually a sort of mirage



https://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_91-96/963A_lieb_rieman.html

Briefly, the significance of Riemann's discovery, is this. Consider the form of algebra introduced to the Seventeenth century by the founder of the "Enlightenment," the atheistic Servite monk, and follower of William of Ockham, Paolo Sarpi. Consider the expression of this in the work of such Sarpi lackeys and followers as Galileo Galilei, Thomas Hobbes, and René Descartes. The proximate source of the Enlightenment forms of algebra, employed by René Descartes, Isaac Newton, and their devotees, is derived from an "Ockhamite" reading of what is most widely recognizable as that modern classroom parody of Euclid's geometry embedded in the mathematics curricula generally, as presented, still, in secondary and higher education during the time of this writer's youth, and earlier.

The fallacies of this algebra, are the starting point of Riemann's dissertation. His point of departure there, is that in the form of algebra derived hereditarily from the work of Galileo, Descartes, Newton, et al.: Discrete events, and their associated movements, are situated within a Cartesian form of idealized space-time. This point has been presented by the present author in numerous earlier locations, but, on pedagogical grounds, it must be stated again here, this time in a choice of setting appropriate to the connection we are exposing, between the ideas of Riemann and his predecessor Leibniz.

Riemann opens his dissertation, with two prefatory observations. First, that, until that time (1854), "from Euclid through Legendre," it was generally presumed that geometry, as well as the principles for constructions in space, was premised upon a priori axiomatic assumptions, whose origins, mutual relations, and justification remained obscure. The second general point of his plan of investigation, which he restates in the conclusion of the dissertation, is that no rational construction of the principles of geometry could be derived from purely mathematical considerations, but only from experience.9 He concludes his dissertation: "We enter the realm of another science, the domain of physics, which the subject of today's occasion [mathematics] does not permit us to enter." Riemann, thus, refutes the presumption on which a Newton devotee, of Prussia's Frederick II, Leonhard Euler, depended absolutely, for the entirety of his attack on Leibniz's Monadology.10

On grounds of the principles of Classical humanist, or cognitive pedagogy,11 the prudent course of action, now, is to reconstruct the conceptions at issue from the initial standpoint of simple, deductive theorem-lattices. This pedagogical approach leads us by the most direct route, to the central issue of Riemann's discovery: the validation of an axiomatic-revolutionary quality of discovery of universal principle, by reason of which we are obliged to construct a new mathematical physics, to supersede that erroneous one previously in vogue. Later, continuing that process of construction, to the point of examining the writer's own original discovery in physical-economy, we identify the cognizable feature of the individual person's mental life, in which we may then locate the significance of Riemann's revolution in mathematical physics.

In a metaphoric sense yes

In the absolute everyone long to reach hevean, or nirvana, hell is the force that drive people toward haeven

In budhism there is the concept of dukkha and the 4 nobles truth.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths

https://www.thoughtco.com/the-four-noble-truths-450095
In a more formal setting, the Truths read:

The truth of suffering (dukkha)
The truth of the cause of suffering (samudaya)
The truth of the end of suffering (nirhodha)
The truth of the path that frees us from suffering (magga)


THE FIRST NOBLE TRUTH: LIFE IS DUKKHA
The First Noble Truth is often translated as "life is suffering." Many people new to Buddhism tune out as soon as they hear this.

Much confusion is due to the English translation of the Pali/Sanskrit word dukkha as "suffering." According to the Ven. Ajahn Sumedho, a Theravadin monk and scholar, the word actually means "incapable of satisfying" or "not able to bear or withstand anything." Other scholars replace "suffering" with "stressful."

THE SECOND NOBLE TRUTH: ON THE ORIGIN OF DUKKHA
The Second Noble Truth teaches that the cause of suffering is greed or desire. The actual word from the early scriptures is tanha, and this is more accurately translated as "thirst" or "craving."

We continually search for something outside ourselves to make us happy. But no matter how successful we are, we never remain satisfied. The Second Truth is not telling us that we must give up everything we love to find happiness. The real issue here is more subtle—it's attachment to what we desire that gets us into trouble.



The problem of the bible is it's very esoteric, there are different levels of understanding of it, different reading possible ( 3 according to zohar )


Eastern tradition are somehow more practical and better documented, but it's the same basics.