Health and Religion

[Astargath]

Some falsehood is far better than 100% invented stuff, dont you think?

All you are saying is falsehood and 100% falsehood. Religion is simply the thing that people do to comfort themselves because the future is scary otherwise. Science is the thing that people do to change their future. Science theory is the thing that people believe in when they can't find the answers in science.

In other words, science theory believed in is religion. Religion without science theory covers far more aspects of life, and is way more reliable.

"Religion without science theory covers far more aspects of life, and is way more reliable"

Can you name a specific example? In what way is your religion mofe reliable?

[BADecker]

Some falsehood is far better than 100% invented stuff, dont you think?

All you are saying is falsehood and 100% falsehood. Religion is simply the thing that people do to comfort themselves because the future is scary otherwise. Science is the thing that people do to change their future. Science theory is the thing that people believe in when they can't find the answers in science.

In other words, science theory believed in is religion. Religion without science theory covers far more aspects of life, and is way more reliable.

"Religion without science theory covers far more aspects of life, and is way more reliable"

Can you name a specific example? In what way is your religion mofe reliable?

Modern science is a development of religion, religion which has been around way longer than science.

The development of the wheel was not a modern science development. More than likely it was done with the ideals of religion behind it. Certainly the people who developed it were way more religion minded than science minded. Yet science uses the wheel in one form or another in just about everything it does.

Science is simply another branch of religion.

[Astargath]

Some falsehood is far better than 100% invented stuff, dont you think?

All you are saying is falsehood and 100% falsehood. Religion is simply the thing that people do to comfort themselves because the future is scary otherwise. Science is the thing that people do to change their future. Science theory is the thing that people believe in when they can't find the answers in science.

In other words, science theory believed in is religion. Religion without science theory covers far more aspects of life, and is way more reliable.

"Religion without science theory covers far more aspects of life, and is way more reliable"

Can you name a specific example? In what way is your religion mofe reliable?

Modern science is a development of religion, religion which has been around way longer than science.

The development of the wheel was not a modern science development. More than likely it was done with the ideals of religion behind it. Certainly the people who developed it were way more religion minded than science minded. Yet science uses the wheel in one form or another in just about everything it does.

Science is simply another branch of religion.

Can you explain which religious ideals led to the invention of the wheel?

[BADecker]

Science Says: Religion Is Good For Your Health

Theologists, scientists and thought leaders have attempted for centuries to understand the impact that religion can have on human beings; both mentally and physically. And it is commonly accepted around that world that religion and spirituality are among the most important of cultural factors – giving structure and meaning to behaviors, value systems and experiences.

Thus, there is ample reason to believe that faith in a higher power is associated with health, and in a positive way. For example, researchers at the Mayo Clinic concluded, “Most studies have shown that religious involvement and spirituality are associated with better health outcomes, including greater longevity, coping skills, and health-related quality of life (even during terminal illness) and less anxiety, depression, and suicide. Several studies have shown that addressing the spiritual needs of the patient may enhance recovery from illness.”

[Astargath]

Science Says: Religion Is Good For Your Health

Theologists, scientists and thought leaders have attempted for centuries to understand the impact that religion can have on human beings; both mentally and physically. And it is commonly accepted around that world that religion and spirituality are among the most important of cultural factors – giving structure and meaning to behaviors, value systems and experiences.

Thus, there is ample reason to believe that faith in a higher power is associated with health, and in a positive way. For example, researchers at the Mayo Clinic concluded, “Most studies have shown that religious involvement and spirituality are associated with better health outcomes, including greater longevity, coping skills, and health-related quality of life (even during terminal illness) and less anxiety, depression, and suicide. Several studies have shown that addressing the spiritual needs of the patient may enhance recovery from illness.”

It's not a surprise, it probably is. Believing you are going to heaven and that you are not dying for real it's a nice way to stop depression, anxiety, etc. The only problem is that it's not real.

[CoinCube]

Multiverse Wide Cooperation

Multiverse Wide Cooperation via Correlated Decision Making.
https://foundational-research.org/files/Multiverse-wide-Cooperation-via-Correlated-Decision-Making.pdf

Superrationality is a special application of non-causal decision theories – that is, theories of rational decision making that not only take the causal implications of an action into account but also other information that making this decision would give us. In the case of superrationality, that information is always about the other agents.

Importantly, superrationality itself falls under this general rule. That is, if you do something for superrationality-related reasons, then this does not tell you anything about how people who do not accept superrationality would behave. As a trivial example, consider playing a donation game against 19 people whom you all know to make fun of superrationality whenever the opportunity avails itself. Attempting to superrationally cooperate with those people seems rather fruitless.

Superrational cooperation requires no reciprocity. That is, none of the agents who benefit from our cooperation have to benefit us. Recall the basic argument for superrationality as based on non-causal decision theories: given that we are friendly, it is more probable that other agents facing similar choices will be friendly toward us and our values. Crucially, this argument does not require that the agents whose choices we acausally affect are the same as those who benefit from our own friendliness.

Only helping superrational cooperators helps you superrationally. Cooperation usually excludes agents who are known to be unable to reciprocate. Yet superrationality does allow for cooperation with non-reciprocating agents if helping them makes it more likely that other agents help us. There is, however, at least one limitation on the set of our beneficiaries that comes without negative side-effects. We can exclude from superrational cooperation all agents who do not cooperate superrationally at all. After all, every superrational cooperator knows that this exclusion will not affect her, and the exclusion appears to be symmetrical among all superrational agents. That is, it makes it more likely that other superrational cooperators make the same choice (rather than incurring some other limitation that excludes us).

What kind of agents can join multiverse-wide superrational cooperation (MSR) at all? In particular, what sorts of values do they need to have, independent of whether or how many such agents or value systems actually exist in the multiverse? We already know that only helping superrational or correlated agents benefits us. However, the values of the superrationalists must also be open to the opportunity of gains from compromise.

In some cases, it will not be in our power to help other value systems at all. Since any will to cooperate with these agents cannot possibly be action-guiding, we do not have to help them. Other agents in the universe may have other resources available to them and thus choose to behave in a friendly way toward these values. If, on the other hand, agents know that nobody else can help them to achieve their goals, multiverse-wide superrational cooperation (in particular, any version of it in which they just give resources away) becomes less attractive to them. One example of a value system that we cannot help is the following version of speciesism:
...
The Namuh-centrists. One day, scientists inform you about a highly intelligent species of extraterrestrials known as “Namuhs”. Like us, the Namuhs have built a flourishing civilization with art, trade, science, language, humor, philosophy (including advanced decision theory research), and so on. However, the Namuhs do not live in our universe, but in a distant part of the multiverse, completely inaccessible to us. In fact, they could not even exist in our part of the multiverse, as their bodies require slightly different laws of physics to function. Knowing about superrational cooperation, you hasten to ask whether they have thought about problems analogous to Newcomb’s problem and the donation games between similar agents. A trustworthy scientist explains that their minds are indeed prone to thinking about such topics – much more so than those of humans, in fact! Understandably thrilled, you ask what values the Namuhs have, and specifically what values are held by those who have thought about acausal cooperation. The scientist then informs you that all Namuhs are very narrowly focused on their own species. They are Namuh-centrists who do not care one bit about anything that does not involve fellow Namuhs. For example, they shrug at the thought of non-Namuh suffering, the flourishing of non-Namuh civilizations, or non-Namuh well-being. In fact, they are so strict that they do not even care about simulated Namuhs or other approximations.

Learning about their values, you may be disappointed. There is nothing that you can do to help them and it is therefore irrelevant whether they use a decision theory similar to yours or not.

(They have adopted a value system incompatible with larger scale superrational cooperation)

Which moral views correlate with superrationality?

The Idea of God
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042814064088

The issue of existence and justification of the Supreme Being is constantly approached by Immanuel Kant in his entire work. For Kant, the ultimate goal of the nature created by God is man as a moral being: the world was created according to man's moral needs. This is why it is said that, after Kant, teleology leads to a moral theology, one that is not about the possibility of proving rationally God's existence but which is about stating that moral life is possible only if God exists. Under these circumstances, though the “idea of God” is presupposed in most Kantian works, we insist, below, particularly on what is debated when appealing to practical reason. In the theoretical philosophy of the Critique of Pure Reason, the idea of God as Unconditioned, as a being that is absolutely necessary, is seen as a transcendental ideal determined through an idea as a prototype of perfection necessary to everything that is contingent and determined in our sensible world: what we can do to conciliate sensible experience with the Absolute Being is to presuppose an extra-phenomenal reality designated as transcendental object: we presuppose its existence but we cannot get to know it. Later, in Critique of Practical Reason, God is postulated (together with soul's immortality) as a condition of the supreme value of moral life, the Sovereign Good (union of virtue with happiness). Since in the sensible world moral conduct does not warrant proportional happiness, the virtuous ones has strong reasons to believe in the reparatory intervention of a superior power: God, as moral ideal and warranty of moral order. “Morality leads, inevitably, to religion, through which it (morality) extends over a moral Lawgiver”

Matthew 22:36-40
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”


The first command allows for the creation of universe wide not species specific morality. The second allows for superrational cooperation and the greatest good for all.

Jesus shared absolute truth here with the world. The depth of that truth is often poorly understood.

See: Music that Illuminates the Human Condition for more.

[af_newbie]

Multiverse Wide Cooperation via Correlated Decision Making.
https://foundational-research.org/files/Multiverse-wide-Cooperation-via-Correlated-Decision-Making.pdf

Superrationality is a special application of non-causal decision theories – that is, theories of rational decision making that not only take the causal implications of an action into account but also other information that making this decision would give us. In the case of superrationality, that information is always about the other agents.

Importantly, superrationality itself falls under this general rule. That is, if you do something for superrationality-related reasons, then this does not tell you anything about how people who do not accept superrationality would behave. As a trivial example, consider playing a donation game against 19 people whom you all know to make fun of superrationality whenever the opportunity avails itself. Attempting to superrationally cooperate with those people seems rather fruitless.

Superrational cooperation requires no reciprocity. That is, none of the agents who benefit from our cooperation have to benefit us. Recall the basic argument for superrationality as based on non-causal decision theories: given that we are friendly, it is more probable that other agents facing similar choices will be friendly toward us and our values. Crucially, this argument does not require that the agents whose choices we acausally affect are the same as those who benefit from our own friendliness.

Only helping superrational cooperators helps you superrationally. Cooperation usually excludes agents who are known to be unable to reciprocate. Yet superrationality does allow for cooperation with non-reciprocating agents if helping them makes it more likely that other agents help us. There is, however, at least one limitation on the set of our beneficiaries that comes without negative side-effects. We can exclude from superrational cooperation all agents who do not cooperate superrationally at all. After all, every superrational cooperator knows that this exclusion will not affect her, and the exclusion appears to be symmetrical among all superrational agents. That is, it makes it more likely that other superrational cooperators make the same choice (rather than incurring some other limitation that excludes us).

What kind of agents can join multiverse-wide superrational cooperation (MSR) at all? In particular, what sorts of values do they need to have, independent of whether or how many such agents or value systems actually exist in the multiverse? We already know that only helping superrational or correlated agents benefits us. However, the values of the superrationalists must also be open to the opportunity of gains from compromise.

In some cases, it will not be in our power to help other value systems at all. Since any will to cooperate with these agents cannot possibly be action-guiding, we do not have to help them. Other agents in the universe may have other resources available to them and thus choose to behave in a friendly way toward these values. If, on the other hand, agents know that nobody else can help them to achieve their goals, multiverse-wide superrational cooperation (in particular, any version of it in which they just give resources away) becomes less attractive to them. One example of a value system that we cannot help is the following version of speciesism:
...
The Namuh-centrists. One day, scientists inform you about a highly intelligent species of extraterrestrials known as “Namuhs”. Like us, the Namuhs have built a flourishing civilization with art, trade, science, language, humor, philosophy (including advanced decision theory research), and so on. However, the Namuhs do not live in our universe, but in a distant part of the multiverse, completely inaccessible to us. In fact, they could not even exist in our part of the multiverse, as their bodies require slightly different laws of physics to function. Knowing about superrational cooperation, you hasten to ask whether they have thought about problems analogous to Newcomb’s problem and the donation games between similar agents. A trustworthy scientist explains that their minds are indeed prone to thinking about such topics – much more so than those of humans, in fact! Understandably thrilled, you ask what values the Namuhs have, and specifically what values are held by those who have thought about acausal cooperation. The scientist then informs you that all Namuhs are very narrowly focused on their own species. They are Namuh-centrists who do not care one bit about anything that does not involve fellow Namuhs. For example, they shrug at the thought of non-Namuh suffering, the flourishing of non-Namuh civilizations, or non-Namuh well-being. In fact, they are so strict that they do not even care about simulated Namuhs or other approximations.

Learning about their values, you may be disappointed. There is nothing that you can do to help them and it is therefore irrelevant whether they use a decision theory similar to yours or not.

(They have adopted a value system incompatible with larger scale superrational cooperation)

Which moral views correlate with superrationality?

The Idea of God
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042814064088

The issue of existence and justification of the Supreme Being is constantly approached by Immanuel Kant in his entire work. For Kant, the ultimate goal of the nature created by God is man as a moral being: the world was created according to man's moral needs. This is why it is said that, after Kant, teleology leads to a moral theology, one that is not about the possibility of proving rationally God's existence but which is about stating that moral life is possible only if God exists. Under these circumstances, though the “idea of God” is presupposed in most Kantian works, we insist, below, particularly on what is debated when appealing to practical reason. In the theoretical philosophy of the Critique of Pure Reason, the idea of God as Unconditioned, as a being that is absolutely necessary, is seen as a transcendental ideal determined through an idea as a prototype of perfection necessary to everything that is contingent and determined in our sensible world: what we can do to conciliate sensible experience with the Absolute Being is to presuppose an extra-phenomenal reality designated as transcendental object: we presuppose its existence but we cannot get to know it. Later, in Critique of Practical Reason, God is postulated (together with soul's immortality) as a condition of the supreme value of moral life, the Sovereign Good (union of virtue with happiness). Since in the sensible world moral conduct does not warrant proportional happiness, the virtuous ones has strong reasons to believe in the reparatory intervention of a superior power: God, as moral ideal and warranty of moral order. “Morality leads, inevitably, to religion, through which it (morality) extends over a moral Lawgiver”

Matthew 22:36-40
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”


The first command allows for the creation of universe wide not species specific morality. The second allows for superrational cooperation and the greatest good for all.

Jesus shared absolute truth here with the world. The depth of that truth is often poorly understood.

Except that there is absolutely no historical evidence that this mythological Jesus person ever existed.

And you base your “truth” on this fact, how gullible can you be?

[CoinCube]

Except that there is absolutely no historical evidence that this mythological Jesus person ever existed.

And you base your “truth” on this fact, how gullible can you be?

The quality of your replies have been declining lately. This one in particular was especially poor.

What I have demonstrated above is that the quoted remarks of Jesus in Matthew 22 are logically true. This truth is derived from logic and does not depend in any way on an argument from authority Biblical or otherwise.

Discussions of the historical evidence of Jesus are interesting I am sure but entirely unrelated to what I wrote.

[Astargath]

Except that there is absolutely no historical evidence that this mythological Jesus person ever existed.

And you base your “truth” on this fact, how gullible can you be?

The quality of your replies have been declining lately. This one in particular was especially poor.

What I have demonstrated above is that the quoted remarks of Jesus in Matthew 22 are logically true. This truth is derived from logic and does not depend in any way on an argument from authority Biblical or otherwise.

Discussions of the historical evidence of Jesus are interesting I am sure but entirely unrelated to what I wrote.

''are logically true'' Can you explain further what logically true means?

[af_newbie]

Except that there is absolutely no historical evidence that this mythological Jesus person ever existed.

And you base your “truth” on this fact, how gullible can you be?

The quality of your replies have been declining lately. This one in particular was especially poor.

What I have demonstrated above is that the quoted remarks of Jesus in Matthew 22 are logically true. This truth is derived from logic and does not depend in any way on an argument from authority Biblical or otherwise.

Discussions of the historical evidence of Jesus are interesting I am sure but entirely unrelated to what I wrote.

Let me try again. Your “truth” is based on mythological fiction.

BTW, we have codified what is an acceptable behavior in our Criminal Code.  Believe it. LOL.

[CoinCube]

''are logically true'' Can you explain further what logically true means?

This will answer your question.

Logical truth
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_truth

[CoinCube]

Let me try again. Your “truth” is based on mythological fiction.

BTW, we have codified what is an acceptable behavior in our Criminal Code.  Believe it. LOL.

Sigh is that really the depth of your analysis here?

I lay out and describe a logical foundation that enables universe wide cooperation and your response is we don’t need that we have a wonderful criminal justice system?

I describe how that same protocol allows cooperation in otherwise unwinnable scenarios such as the hypothetical Platonia dilemma and your reply is that you don’t reply to Nigerian lottery emails?

Your hatred of all things Biblical is blinding your ability to reason.

[Astargath]

''are logically true'' Can you explain further what logically true means?

This will answer your question.

Logical truth
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_truth

But it doesn't say anything about how to determine whether something is a logical truth or not, it seems basically impossible, for instance, this segment:

This is to say that they are considered to be such that they could not be untrue and no situation could arise which would cause us to reject a logical truth. It must be true in every sense of intuition, practices, and bodies of beliefs. However, it is not universally agreed that there are any statements which are necessarily true.

This is clearly impossible, how are you ever going to know that your logical truth is actually a logical truth? You simply cannot test it in ''all situations''. Logically, logical truths are not logical, LOL.

[CoinCube]

''are logically true'' Can you explain further what logically true means?

This will answer your question.

Logical truth
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_truth

But it doesn't say anything about how to determine whether something is a logical truth or not... how are you ever going to know that your logical truth is actually a logical truth? You simply cannot test it in ''all situations''

You are correct that it is very difficult to think of universally accepted ideas about what the generic properties of logical truths are or should be.

If you want to understand how it can potentially be done you have to dive into the topic at a far deeper level then the simplified summary I linked above.

This would probably be a good place to start if you have an interest but fair warning it is challenging and dry reading.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-truth/

[Astargath]

''are logically true'' Can you explain further what logically true means?

This will answer your question.

Logical truth
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_truth

But it doesn't say anything about how to determine whether something is a logical truth or not... how are you ever going to know that your logical truth is actually a logical truth? You simply cannot test it in ''all situations''

You are correct that it is very difficult to think of universally accepted ideas about what the generic properties of logical truths are or should be.

If you want to understand how it can potentially be done you have to dive into the topic at a far deeper level then the simplified summary I linked above.

This would probably be a good place to start if you have an interest but fair warning it is challenging and dry reading.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-truth/

As a philosophical matter it seems nice but not as science. A logical truth is 100% true in all situations, right? That can exist, the problem is, how can you know that? Have you been in all of those possible situations and if you haven't, how can you claim it's a logical truth?

[CoinCube]

As a philosophical matter it seems nice but not as science. A logical truth is 100% true in all situations, right? That can exist, the problem is, how can you know that? Have you been in all of those possible situations and if you haven't, how can you claim it's a logical truth?

Here is what the AI researcher Douglas Hofstadter wrote on the topic. The answer to your question is in the realization that reasoning is not subjective.

“You might feel that each person is completely unique and therefore that no one can be relied on as a predictor of how other people will act, especially in an intensely dilemmatic situation. There is more to the story, however.

Any number of ideal rational thinkers faced with the same situation and undergoing similar throes of reasoning agony will necessarily come up with the identical answer eventually, so long as reasoning alone is the ultimate justification for their conclusion. Otherwise reasoning would be subjective, not objective as arithmetic is. A conclusion reached by reasoning would be a matter of preference, not of necessity. Now some people may believe this of reasoning, but rational thinkers understand that a valid argument must be universally compelling, otherwise it is simply not a valid argument.

If you’ll grant this, then you are 90% of the way. All you need ask now is which world is better for the individual rational thinker: (one with thinkers all cooperating or all defecting)
...
Since I am typical, cooperating must be preferred by all rational thinkers. So I’ll cooperate.” Another way of stating it, making it sound weirder, is this: “If I choose cooperation, then everyone will choose cooperation.”
...
“We live in a world filled with opposing belief systems so similar as to be nearly interchangeable, yet whose adherents are blind to that symmetry. This description applies not only to myriad small, conflicts in the world but also to the colossal... Yet the recognition of symmetry - in short, the sanity - has not yet come. In fact, the insanity seems only to grow, rather than be supplanted by sanity. What has an intelligent species like our own done to get itself into this horrible dilemma? What can it do to get itself out? Are we all helpless as we watch this spectacle unfold, or does the answer lie, for each one of us, in recognition of our own typicality, and in small steps taken on an individual level toward sanity?”
...
“To many people, this sounds like a belief in voodoo or sympathetic magic, a vision of a universe permeated by tenuous threads of synchronicity, conveying thoughts from mind to mind like pneumatic tubes carrying messages across Paris, and making people resonate to a secret harmony. Nothing could be further from the truth. This solution depends in no way on telepathy or bizarre forms of causality. It’s just that the statement “I’ll choose C and then everyone will”, though entirely correct, is somewhat misleadingly phrased. It involves the word “choice”, which is incompatible with the compelling quality of logic. Schoolchildren do not choose what 507 divided by 13 is; they figure it out. Analogously, my letter really did not allow choice; it demanded reasoning. Thus, a better way to phrase the “voodoo” statement would be this: “If reasoning guides me to say C, then, as I am no different from anyone else as far as rational thinking is concerned, it will guide everyone to say C.””

[af_newbie]

As a philosophical matter it seems nice but not as science. A logical truth is 100% true in all situations, right? That can exist, the problem is, how can you know that? Have you been in all of those possible situations and if you haven't, how can you claim it's a logical truth?

Here is what the AI researcher Douglas Hofstadter wrote on the topic. The answer to your question is in the realization that reasoning is not subjective.

“You might feel that each person is completely unique and therefore that no one can be relied on as a predictor of how other people will act, especially in an intensely dilemmatic situation. There is more to the story, however.

Any number of ideal rational thinkers faced with the same situation and undergoing similar throes of reasoning agony will necessarily come up with the identical answer eventually, so long as reasoning alone is the ultimate justification for their conclusion. Otherwise reasoning would be subjective, not objective as arithmetic is. A conclusion reached by reasoning would be a matter of preference, not of necessity. Now some people may believe this of reasoning, but rational thinkers understand that a valid argument must be universally compelling, otherwise it is simply not a valid argument.

If you’ll grant this, then you are 90% of the way. All you need ask now is which world is better for the individual rational thinker: (one with thinkers all cooperating or all defecting)
...
Since I am typical, cooperating must be preferred by all rational thinkers. So I’ll cooperate.” Another way of stating it, making it sound weirder, is this: “If I choose cooperation, then everyone will choose cooperation.”
...
“We live in a world filled with opposing belief systems so similar as to be nearly interchangeable, yet whose adherents are blind to that symmetry. This description applies not only to myriad small, conflicts in the world but also to the colossal... Yet the recognition of symmetry - in short, the sanity - has not yet come. In fact, the insanity seems only to grow, rather than be supplanted by sanity. What has an intelligent species like our own done to get itself into this horrible dilemma? What can it do to get itself out? Are we all helpless as we watch this spectacle unfold, or does the answer lie, for each one of us, in recognition of our own typicality, and in small steps taken on an individual level toward sanity?”
...
“To many people, this sounds like a belief in voodoo or sympathetic magic, a vision of a universe permeated by tenuous threads of synchronicity, conveying thoughts from mind to mind like pneumatic tubes carrying messages across Paris, and making people resonate to a secret harmony. Nothing could be further from the truth. This solution depends in no way on telepathy or bizarre forms of causality. It’s just that the statement “I’ll choose C and then everyone will”, though entirely correct, is somewhat misleadingly phrased. It involves the word “choice”, which is incompatible with the compelling quality of logic. Schoolchildren do not choose what 507 divided by 13 is; they figure it out. Analogously, my letter really did not allow choice; it demanded reasoning. Thus, a better way to phrase the “voodoo” statement would be this: “If reasoning guides me to say C, then, as I am no different from anyone else as far as rational thinking is concerned, it will guide everyone to say C.””

Rational thinking is objective. Problem is that very few people can stay objective.

For example, faced with no evidence in the existence of the supernatural, some people “deduce” that it might exist, yourself included.

Logical, objective conclusion should have been “we cannot say that the supernatural does exist in lieu of any evidence”. PERIOD.

To help us stay objective we have developed the scientific method.  It is the best epistemic tool we have.

You should use it to stay objective.

[CoinCube]

 

Rational thinking is objective. Problem is that very few people can stay objective.

For example, faced with no evidence in the existence of the supernatural, some people “deduce” that it might exist, yourself included.

Logical, objective conclusion should have been “we cannot say that the supernatural does exist in lieu of any evidence”. PERIOD.

To help us stay objective we have developed the scientific method.  It is the best epistemic tool we have.

You should use it to stay objective.

Yes we should stay objective. Objectively demands embracing a worldview that will make maximum universal cooperation possible.

That in turns requires embracing God and the principle of love your neighbor as yourself.

This belief honestly followed allows for unconditional love and solves the Platonia Dilemma as well as any other similar cooperation and coordination problems. It will in the long run make everyone all superrationally cooperating life better off.

We have discussed the rationality of God in depth in our discussion here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg36246134#msg36246134

We did not agree then and won’t now.

You should take great care and fully think through the logic and it’s implications. You are a new consciousness in a very old universe. These brief moments of learning our biological time on this earth is our moment to signal to the universe what we truly are.

This decision may have much more importance then you think. Indeed if the religious are correct it is the most important choice you will ever make.

[af_newbie]

Rational thinking is objective. Problem is that very few people can stay objective.

For example, faced with no evidence in the existence of the supernatural, some people “deduce” that it might exist, yourself included.

Logical, objective conclusion should have been “we cannot say that the supernatural does exist in lieu of any evidence”. PERIOD.

To help us stay objective we have developed the scientific method.  It is the best epistemic tool we have.

You should use it to stay objective.

Yes we should stay objective. Objectively demands embracing a worldview that will make maximum universal cooperation possible.

That in turns requires embracing God and the principle of love your neighbor as yourself.

This belief honestly followed allows for unconditional love and solves the Platonia Dilemma as well as any other similar cooperation and coordination problems. It will in the long run make everyone all superrationally cooperating life better off.

We have discussed the rationality of God in depth in our discussion here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg36246134#msg36246134

We did not agree then and won’t now.

You should take great care and fully think through the logic and it’s implications. You are a new consciousness in a very old universe. These brief moments of learning our biological time on this earth is our moment to signal to the universe what we truly are.

This decision may have much more importance then you think. Indeed if the religious are correct it is the most important choice you will ever make.

First define God. Then go from there.

Embrace God? What are you talking about?  You make no sense.

It is like me saying embrace Goo Goo.

[CoinCube]

First define God. Then go from there.

Embrace God? What are you talking about?  You make no sense.

It is like me saying embrace Goo Goo.

You seem to have forgotten our earlier conversations. We have previously discussed in some depth how one can define God to the best of our ability given our limited perspectives. I would refer you back to those prior conversations. Or if you wish you can review the conversation I had with Astargath on the same topic here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg24470502#msg24470502

I have laid out a logical argument and you apparently are either unable to comprehend it or you understand it and cannot refute and are thus prevaricating. I am a busy man and have no interest in forum games. My time is limited so if you lack the ability to understand you lack the ability to understand and if you are simply playing dumb for the fun of it then we are also both wasting our time. Regardless I have shared what I wanted to share on the topic and the time has come for me return to work so I will give you the final word to inspire us all with your wisdom.

Edit: I find it sad that you entirely ignored the actual argument I was making in my post on Multiverse Wide Cooperation no engagement on the concept of superrationality no argument at all really just utter blindness and repeated attempts to change the subject. You will never see past your preconceived notions if you refuse to think.