I dont see how you can think rationalism has a purpose while being agnostic

Rationalism suppose rational truth => gnostic ,  no ?

Everything is an illusion  

It's zen principle lol


Moreover, Zen firmly believes that nobody knows the answers to those questions and that they are impossible to answer because of our limited condition. Life is a dream, a grand illusion that we perceive through the filter of our personality, our experiences, our ego. This is a great piece of theater in which we do not see all the actors and in which we barely understand the role of those that we see.

Zen gladly accepts the idea that men are only men and nothing more. Man, being what he is, cannot answer life's impossible questions without falling into the trap of illusion. No one knows the answers to the deep questions about life and death.


The spoon is from matrix when neo see the Oracle with the Kids trying to bend the spoon, saying like if you want to bend the spoon, you must change your perception of reality or something

The final conclusion is there is no spoon at all. The only thing that exists is the concept of the spoon in the mind.

It's more or less what they say in "What the bleep do we know"

5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

There is no spoon ! 

Many people would say veda is the original religion, some says jesus would have received some teaching from yogi in the east on the years he disapeard

The theory from veda

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/evolution.asp

http://eternalreligion.org/evolution/

This explains the scientist and Vedic theory of evolution.

The Scientific Theory of Evolution – Charles Darwin Theory

Charles Darwin is famous worldwide for his evolutionary theory. According to his theory, one life form evolved into all the species that are existing today. Thus one body changes into another, then into another, and so on. We evolved from the animals, our closet relatives in the animal kingdom are the monkeys.

The Vedic Theory of Evolution

The Vedic scriptures specify an evolutionary process, but the definition is different from that of Charles Darwin. Instead of one body (species) changing to another, the Vedic knowledge is that the soul transmigrates from one body to another. There is an evolution of consciousness from one species to another. Based on the inclinations of the soul, it moves from one body to another to satisfy it’s desires and deserves. The variety of species is due to the variety of mentalities developed by the souls when in the human bodies. For example, if a human likes to eat meat, then he is better off in the animal kingdom as a tiger, where he can enjoy the best meat daily and fresh into the mouth. God is fair, just, and He satisfies our desires and deserves via the variety of species.

 


And even if you decode darwin and Freud,  it come close to veda.

And those two are the most misunderstood genius of history, darwin is not limited to ape to man, and Freud not limited to oedipe complex, those are the anti religion troll arguments.

Darwin studied bio dynamics very deeply, much more than studying skeleton and ape to men, and Freud studied psychology dynamic very deeply too, and he is most famous for getting against religion saying libido is good, and would be hard to deny libido has to do with evolution, but that's deeper look into veda and evolutionary forces.

But taking darwin most known "moto" about necessity & chance, knowing the depth of thinking and appropriation of theory for political mean , it require some deeper understanding.

Already if you are scientific, world obey to reason, and chance is just unknown force . ( and it's also what the bible says)

And the concept of necessity is meaningless without an intelligence.

There is no "absolute objective necessity" if the world is just random. Necessity is always subjective.

Necessity is the product of desire from a conscious being.

Evolution is necessarily the product of intelligence, and recognition of desire for life to paliate it's own percieved deficiency.


Freud was actually jew and a believer most likely, and it would not surprise me that darwin was also a believers, despite the uproar of the catholic hierarchy of the time.

I dont deny evolution lol

But how can the "good"  of the mutation that make it stay lead to a result that has zero obvious interest when it come by.


It's not like understanding time dilation do any good to a monkey peeling his banana.


Evolution is not goal-directed, whatever works is what is preserved, it isn't aiming at a specific outcome many generations in advance.

It's really this point that I find moot.

And it's something that has been issued by many great minds, including Nobel.

But im in vacation, I dont have my books here and im with the tablet so I feel a bit handicaped to really demonstrate this lol even typing 3 sentences look herculean lol

But if you are interested in more than hamering a doctrine , I will be able to find more water to this point.

If you really study the thing, you will see this point is hard to really hold.



You obviously dont know what I understand

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+2%3A6-16  

God’s Wisdom Revealed by the Spirit

For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

For me,this is only a part of the problem, because even so you could have the 200 concomitent mutation, it's only part of the problem when it come to explain the continuity through the whole chain of evolution, in sort that the first bacteria already have what it take to get to mozart, and there is still a sort of string of evolution which make that the "good" of those mutation cant always be known "a priori" only from the point it evolve from.

It's impossible for a monkey to know what "good mutation" get to einstein.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/leib-met/

5. Necessary Being

The complete concept of Caesar, according to Leibniz, cannot explain itself in its entirety. Expressed ontologically, this means that Caesar himself provides no explanation of why Caesar should have existed at all--Caesar is a contingent being. "Contingent" here simply means something that could have been otherwise; in the case of Caesar as a being, then, it means something that could have not existed at all. The principle of sufficient reason must not only apply to each predicate in the complete concept of a subject, but also it must apply to the concept itself in its entirety as the concept of an existing thing. Thus, there must be a sufficient reason for why this particular substance, Caesar, exists, rather than some other substance, or nothing at all.

What, then, sufficiently explains a contingent being such as Caesar? Possibly other substances, such as his parents, and they in turn are explained by still others? But the entire course of the universe, the total aggregate of substances across space and time, are one and all contingent. There are other possible things, to be sure; but there are also other possible universes that could have existed but did not. The totality of contingent things themselves do not sufficiently explain themselves. Here again, the principle of sufficient reason applies. There must be, Leibniz insists, something beyond the totality of contingent things which explains them, something which is itself necessary and therefore requires no explanation other than itself. (Note, however, that this does not assume an origin or beginning in any sense. Even if time stretched infinitely into the past, there would still be no explanation for the total course of things.)

God, according to Leibniz, is the necessary being which constitutes the sufficient explanation of the totality of contingent things--why the universe is this way rather than any other. Thus far, God's necessity is the only thing mentioned about such a being (there is not much religious or theological about this initially bare metaphysical concept). God as a being may be necessary, but if the contingent universe were simply a random or arbitrary act of God, then God would not constitute the required explanation of all things. In other words, God must not only be necessary, but also the source of the intelligibility of all things. It must be possible, therefore, to inquire into the reasons God had for authorizing or allowing this, rather than any other, universe to be the one that actually exists. And if God is to be the explanation of the intelligibility of the universe, then God must have access to that intelligibility, such that God could be said to know what it is that is being allowed to exist--that is, God must have the ability to grasp complete concepts, and to see at once the "whole demonstration" discussed above. God so far is therefore (i) a necessary being, (ii) the explanation of the universe, and (iii) the infinite intelligence.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/#WhatSuffReas

Leibniz presents arguments for the existence of God from the PSR in a number of different places (for example, The Ultimate Origination of Things, G VII 302–3; L 486–8. Monadology §37). Suppose that God does not exist. If God does not exist, then the only things that exist are contingent beings. Would the entire series of contingent things have an explanation? The explanation of the entire series cannot be a member of the series since then it would explain itself and no contingent thing is self-explanatory. But the explanation cannot be outside of the series because we have assumed that there is no non-contingent being, i.e., God. Thus if God did not exist, there would be something unexplained: the series of contingent beings. Everything has an explanation. Therefore God exists.

Yes it's easy to understand !

One of the basics is into the link between events, and putting that for the universe to reach a particular state, it require a particular chain of event, and that what link one event to the next is basically "reason" or "truth", and there is one possible truth that link event to the next to make the universe what it is.

If instead of writing a "." Here I write a "," that imply an entierely different universe/logic.

It can be seen as wave in the ocean,  and the wave will be continuous over space & time, there is not a point where the waves physic will become something else.

All is continuous, the link between events is the same everywhere, all the time And there is only one "physic" For the whole universe.

What give the impression of different identity is only the limited amount of events that one can witness.

But the limited amount of event one can witness still contain the same truth than the other events another can witness.

It's this same truth everywhere, there is no fragmentation in the event chain anywhere,and there is only one possible existing chain of event to make up the reality.

But that's quick summary.

Need to read the whole thing, because the implication of this thinking applied to physics or mathematics are deep.

Liebniz argument are purely logical, the monad is not a physical particule

Monad is more like atomic consciousness, but it's a whole logic system, with the link between event etc

But im not philosophy teacher cant explain the whole depth of the thinking, would need to re read the course to explain better.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe



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

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/#DenMinBodIntAssPreEstHar

2. Denial of Mind-Body Interaction, Assertion of Pre-established Harmony


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



The laws of movement and of rest deduced from this principle being precisely the same as those observed in nature, we can admire the application of it to all phenomena. The movement of animals, the vegetative growth of plants ... are only its consequences; and the spectacle of the universe becomes so much the grander, so much more beautiful, the worthier of its Author, when one knows that a small number of laws, most wisely established, suffice for all movements.

— Pierre Louis Maupertuis

How many codon used to make a working human ?

Much more than 256 bits

Need very good hash power 

More like 2 billions.

Your opinion is probably meaningless to anyone but your scientific community btw.

If you have a good troll, you can always post it on the forum.

My 2 cents are free 

Did you read liebniz monadology ?  

For me it was last nail on the coffin of my atheism

It's also that sort of argument, but he is logic genius, and push this reasoning much further, with physics etc in the optimal universe theory

Cannot be atheist mathematician after reading the monadology.

For me it's similar to pow in bitcoin  

Usually as well geometry and linear algebra I understand quickly, but statistic could never really make sense to me.

But it's when shelby started to post about game theory, it occured to me how statistic can translate to"energy" or work.

In the case of dna & cell, we see it's still small statstics , and even with all our intelligence we struggle to create it.

It's same than hash power, even if the good hash is meaningless, and it's all statistic, if you want to create 20 good block in a row, it require determined high computing power. And you never get 20 good blocks in a row "by chance".

To me it's bit the same with dna  

DNA = proof of intelligent work 

A simple thing to show where I want to get at can be seen with the processus of sterilization .

We know that if we steriliize something, and isolate it from the world, it will be kept more or less intact, minus oxydation, or simple chemical reactions. Even if it contain already organic molecules more advanced than what we would find in the "primordial soup".

If abiogenesis would be so common, sterilization would be useless.

Would this imply that it required intelligent intention to make it happen ?

Or do we see this happening "naturally" without willingfull intention ?

Like you can have abiogenesis happening in your toilet ?

It doesnt look like a process that happen naturally so commonly.

Praying is putting good thought in the mind.