It is more likely that some aliens that were playing "Cops and [Devils]" decided to make things a little more visceral and dig-out some caverns.

This response provides an alternative view to the typically-proposed false dichotomy of Evolution vs. God:

I've always been fascinated by interpretations of data associated with evolution.  Accordingly, I have two main points I'd like to add, one of which focuses on the data itself, and the other focuses on a priori philosophical knowledge, i.e. knowledge that is evident independent of any evidence.  An example of such knowledge is the law of identity, i.e. x = x.  Because of this knowledge, we know right off the bat that we don't need to go searching for something that is not itself because we know a priori that it's a logical impossibility.

1) In consideration of the overwhelming body of evidence collected in support of Modern Evolutionary Theory, I'd like to point out that there exists other, equally-plausible interpretations of the same data set that lead to different theoretical conclusions.   For example, it is valid to conclude that the data suggest that the evolution of conscious states leads to evolved physical states; in contrast, modern evolutionary theory concludes that evolved physical states lead to evolved conscious states.

These are what we call "mathematically uncertain" theories because it is uncertain which theory is 'more correct.'  Mathematically uncertain theories are constantly overlooked as the vast majority of people -- even those with advanced educations -- lack the awareness that mathematically uncertain theories exist.  To this end, we must either find new evidence to help distinguish between multiple equally-valid theories, or find flaws in either our methodology for interpreting and explaining the data.  This brings me to my second point...

2) As mentioned previously, a priori knowledge -- which is real and should not be outright discredited because it does not rely on empirical observation -- helps us to know certain things in advance so that we don't waste our time exploring ideas that are logically impossible.  If it weren't for this sort of knowledge, it would be impossible to devise the scientific method in the first place.  Right from the get go, science carries certain assumptions based upon a priori knowledge. A fundamental example would be the knowledge that observation must be the basis for any and all empirical study; we did not need any empirical study or evidence to reach this conclusion.

Accordingly, we can look to see what types of a priori knowledge might be useful in helping to guide our interpretation of the evolutionary data set.  In my opinion, one of the most fundamental logical principles is the sameness-in-difference principle, which simply put is the idea that differences necessarily arise from similarities.  Put in more complex terms, it means that any two relational entities A and B must share a common, relational medium.  Therefore, it is impossible for any entity to be absolutely different from any other; to state that A and B are absolutely different is to reinforce their similarities by binding them together such that, at the very least, they share a common medium of absolute difference .  If two things actually could be absolutely different from each other, then it would be impossible talk about them in the same sentence.  Descartes, though obviously an intelligent fellow, overlooked this error when proposing his idea of Cartesian Dualism.  He attempted to place an insurmountable barrier between physical and mental reality, thereby violating the sameness-in-difference principle of logic.  Science abides by this split since it assumes a Positivistic Universe does not, will not, and can never be influenced by observation itself to any significant degree.  

The implications of such a principle are vast as they speak to the core nature of all entities. Perhaps most notably, it points to a shared relationship between mental and physical reality.  This is important because it allows room for talk about things such as Universal Consciousness (God?) and an inherently meaningful Universe.  

I'd also point out that there is a case to be made for a Universe that relies more on the abstract rather than the physical.  Observation by itself employs a metric (a standard of measurement) which allows us to distinguish between the things we want to study and examine through empiricism.  Without this metric, it would be impossible to define *any*thing.  Scientists talk about the Universe as if it could be described if all conscious agents were removed from it.  Unfortunately, they forget that without any conscious agents it would be impossible to define the Universe and all entities contained therein.  Accordingly, anybody who tries to tell you anything about what the Universe would or could be like if all conscious agents were removed is wasting their time; it's simply impossible to say *any*thing about such a Universe.

A few things:

1) Try faith?  I agree.  But Jesus advised having faith the size of a "mustard seed"; mustard seeds are tiny but can grow.  Faith shouldn't be primary.

2) "If we all used our bitcoin earnings..."  What's with this "we" business?  You don't have any bitcoin earnings.  It must be nice to tell everyone else what sacrifices they should make without being capable or willing to make the same sacrifices yourself.

3) Who needs money?  Apparently you do in order to accomplish your dream.  Why not just go to bed and create the music festival in your mind if you have the ability?  If conjuring worlds and music festivals in your mind is so significant, why do you need the money?

Macro and Micro evolution are very different!  We have not seen evidence of macro evolution (changes of a fish to a dog for example).  The solution that evolutionary scientists give is just to throw "millions of years" into the equation so that they can rationalize that it took that long to happen. (still not long enough)  If the changes that occur cause differences that make it so the species cannot mate isn't that an evolutionary problem in itself?  Creationists completely agree with "micro evolution" because it is simply adaptations or changing of traits within a species.  It is such a huge jump from changes within a species to changes outside of a species though, one that has no fossil record or evidence to support whatsoever.

Just a note that "sin" in the Lord's Prayer (i.e. the Our Father) is equated to temptation -- "...And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil (i.e. temptation)."

1st: Why is Vod so much interested in getting back squall's money? Are you getting some share from it?

2nd: Does someone wants to bet on whether dank will return squall's money this year? Odds: Yes : 10x No: 1.3x

I'm guessing it's more the fact dank strolls around the forum like nothing has happened. Even having the gall to request more loans! Just to add insult, he preaches about greed.



So your intentions here are to weaken or destroy bitcoin?
Or are you just sulking because you flushed all yours down the toilet?

The "deity" gave me free will but His Spirit helps me make the right choices all of the time.

I need God to pay the price for the sinful choices I have made or the price I will pay is an eternal one.

But you have said that you believe that you have the power in yourself.  That is the risk you are willing to take with your soul. 

The flaw in your thinking is that you missed the part about, while God exists within this universe (for His own pleasure), He also exists entirely without the universe. God, neither entropy or non-entropy.

It's just really hard when you're homeless and due to your beliefs, tendency to share the unknown and failure of one transaction out of over 100, no one will loan to you.

That's the best path.  Then I can repay squall while not deterring from my journey to organize the music festival.

I'm reaching enlightenment, dreams are becoming very real, I can see them faintly before I fall asleep, though I still lose consciousness.  Anyone can do this, you just need a healthy brain and some will power.

Besides, who needs money when you can go to heaven every night and create worlds with your mind?  Sounds like a pretty fair trade-off.

I thought you would appreciate a point-by-point response. I know I would. I know Vod would.

But one question at a time is agreeable to me.  Whatever you work out with Vod is between you two.

Here's my first question:  Do you believe that focusing on the path you wish to pursue (i.e. a life of chicken raising, guitar playing, crop sowing, and spiritual preaching) will auspiciously provide more benefit for the world/Universe than making repaying your debt to squall your primary concern?  If so, why?  If not, why not?  If you don't know, why don't you know?

For your convenience:

Quote
aus·pi·cious
ôˈspiSHəs/Submit
adjective
conducive to success; favorable.
"it was not the most auspicious moment to hold an election"
synonyms:   favorable, propitious, promising, rosy, good, encouraging; More
giving or being a sign of future success.
"they said it was an auspicious moon—it was rising"
archaic
characterized by success; prosperous.
"he was respectful to his auspicious customers"

I'd like you to talk about and answer the questions asked of you...to have a "great debate."  So, basically I'm asking you to stay on topic within the thread that you created.  

 

Then why did you make this thread to have a debate when you don't want to debate?

You:  Let's debate!
Us:   Okay!
You:  I prefer to talk about existence.
Us:   and/or  


Irrelevant.  You *owe* squall a set amount of money that you stated that you would pay.  You no longer are attempting to pay squall back and are therefore a thief. Accordingly, you have retained more than is rightfully yours, thereby making you a thief.  We can toss that "scam" word right out the window if it causes confusion for you.  You're a thief.


Also irrelevant.  You're a thief.  Quit bringing up things that don't matter in an attempt to pull a fast one over on me.  It's insulting, and you know I'm smarter than that.  You can get 10,000 5/5 reviews, and you'd still be a thief.  Doing 'good' many times does not absolve you from the responsibility of being honest in other situations.  You're a thief, and what's worse is that you do anything you can to justify it.


Do you think there's any possibility you found Satan instead who has deceived you?  Do you think there's any possibility that someone else in this thread may have found God but got a better view?  Do you think it's possible that maybe you did find God but didn't automatically gain the capacity to express your experiences and their implications in a consistent way?

Based upon what you've demonstrated, I can answer your questions as follows:  At this point, what I will not allow any possibility for is that you both found God and are also able to communicate the truth of what you've found in a consistent way.

Dank, your arguments are provably inconsistent and unsound, and many are flat out invalid.  There isn't anything that you could possibly to do demonstrate otherwise. Logic has rules and you break them constantly. If you're not familiar with those rules, you won't be aware you're breaking them.  For some others here, it's so stunningly clear that it warrants no explanation.  All we need to do is say, "Just look!" and it would be more than convincing.  


It doesn't make sense if 1) people repeatedly tell you that they don't want to hear it, and if 2) people prove you wrong and yet you continue to state you are correct.  That's what we call a total waste of time. You've spent hundreds of hours on this forum and have actually turned more people away from your ideas than onto them.  I don't know what part about spending several years making negative progress makes sense to you.

You also carry the actual *responsibility* of having thrown squall further into financial enslavement.


We need people who contribute to society, not who mentally masturbate all day and contribute nothing of any value.  You infinitely overexaggerate the importance of the things you say.  I'm not impressed by them.  I've said everything you've tried to say, only better (sorry, it's true) without success.  You're not a guru.  You're not a genius.  You're a stubborn fool who doesn't understand that it does not matter how right you are. Nobody even cares if you're right anymore. At this point, you could probably throw down a 100% accurate proof of God and blah blah, and NOBODY WOULD CARE.  Why would nobody care?  Because everything else you do suggests you're stupid.  Learn and adapt, or die and make way for somebody who will.

Oh, and trying to gain clarity through drugs is also insane.


Wow. Money will never bring peace.  Something I (in an ideal world) agree with.

...But you're stupid for saying it (because nobody cares...you've exhausted your cards).


Unless you want people to ignore you for the rest of your life, you might want to actually "communicate" with people instead of turning every single post into a one-way conversation wherein every the only thing you know how to talk about is what you believe in.  

This is very insulting to people. All it shows is you don't care one bit about what others think.


Ah...but not a moneyless Dank, right?  Money is only bad if everyone else has some and you don't, am i right?

What you're experiencing is jealousy manifesting itself as victimization.

Also, if a moneyless society means true freedom, why did you make 115 drug sales on Silk Road? You should have given it away.  You're a hypocrite.


And how do you suggest we do that?  Moreover, how do we get rid of your greed?

I'd argue your greed is just as bad if not worse than the elitists'.  It's people like you that allow the elitists to get away with their greed.  You -- the people who complain but never pitch in, who project their own negative qualities onto others and who needlessly play the victim and continually take without giving back -- are the larger problem.


I agree with you that the idea isn't complicated. It doesn't take any significant intelligence to recognize this.  That's why what you're saying isn't impressive.  Countless millions of people have this idea.

However, what IS complicated is fixing the problems that we have in society without everything collapsing and having tens or hundreds of millions of people die.  You're naive and you think that the world can collectively flick a lightswitch and change everything.  But, for those of us who actually have real world experience *doing stuff*, we realize that it's actually hard work, it takes time and resources, and is massively complex, and there is no perfect scenario wherein everything changes positively and you don't have any negative consequences.

TL;DR:  When I first began conversing with you, I thought you were misunderstood.  Over time, that turned into a believe that, although misguided, you still have a good heart.  Now, I *really* question your good heart, because, despite being a proven liar and thief, you still show absolutely no remorse, no concern, no sense of responsibility, etc. and you make no attempt to improve yourself or help those whom you have hurt.

So far I have managed to 'prove' that god is most certainly NOT the light, dunno about the 'spirit' of, but I'll settle for the obvious science we know. There was no light before god spoke the sentence. As for where the water, darkness, and deep came from, well, that's three different matter's entirely..

No -- see, that's the thing; I already read them.  However, as you know, I've already asserted that I believe your arguments don't make sense because I believe they are unsound, and I've told you why, point-by-point.  You also know that I understand what your conclusion is, but I believe your premises not only do not lead to your conclusion, but also are untrue unto themselves.  Therefore, I believe your argument is not only unsound, but completely invalid.

So, because we both know what your conclusion is, and we have both read your premises, I am simply asking you to restate them in a way that soundly leads to your conclusion that homosexuality is bad and unnatural.  If you can do that, then I *must* concede to a superior argument.  I'm just waiting for you to do that.  This is your chance to prove once and for all that I am wrong, and since you seem so confident in your knowledge of the topic, it should be easy for you.  You know this like the back of your hand, right?

However, if you will not, I (and anyone that understands how deductive arguments work) will assume that you cannot, and thus also will assume you concede to my superior argument.  That might give you just enough time left to work on changing some things so you can live with your conscience.

Phrase it as a deductive argument, smarty-pants.  You are asserting premises and conclusion(s), so you have all the ingredients you need to construct a good, deductive argument.

So show me!  This is your opportunity to organize your points in a way that is Universally recognizable, according to the very same rules of logic and reason that your creator endowed you with.

Go ahead. Make my day

Edit:

Here, I'll get you started.

Premise 1:  (Insert here)
Premise 2:  (Insert here)
Premises 3, 4, 5, etc., or however many you need: (Insert here)
Therefore:  Homosexuality is unnatural and bad.

All you need to do choose your premises and fill them in!    Shouldn't take you long.