Health and Religion

[Buffer Overflow]

Because you, of your own free will, scorn God and salvation.

Bu bu but but... you said we haven't got free will. 

We don't even have free will.

[BADecker]

Because you, of your own free will, scorn God and salvation.

Bu bu but but... you said we haven't got free will. 

We don't even have free will.

Science is generally unwilling to recognize God, even though science has proven God. The point is that scientifically speaking, through the science proofs, we do not have free will.

People who accept God and what God says in the Bible, know that people have free will held open by God, and that God works with the free will of mankind.

Since you don't accept God, you might as well admit that you don't have free will, even though you do, because God holds it open for you. Of course, you could always accept God and start to recognize that you have free will.

[qwik2learn]

In his 1920 study on high IQ children Lewis Terman noted that despite these advantages high IQ is not always beneficial. He found that the very brightest often grew up maladjusted in some way suffering from anxiety, depression, personality disorder, or nervous breakdowns.

In Mensa Magazine Bruce G Charlton posited three fundamental disadvantages of high IQ .

Charlton’s triad:
1)   Socialism
2)   Atheism
3)   Reduced Fertility

Charlton argued that IQ is associated with a tendency to embrace socialism, a rejection of religious teachings, and ultimately a declining fertility. The writings in the Economic Devastation thread especially the essays of Shelby Moore delve deeply into the topic of socialism. The purpose of this essay is to evaluate the second of Charlton’s triad. Is atheism toxic to mankind and if so why?

Greetings, friend!
You can heal yourself of toxins; with God, anything is possible!
I am also one who converted from atheism.
I hope the knowledge that I offer will assist you in your journey.
I am offering just one resource to allow you to help yourself to live a better life.
I hope that we can have more and more diverse discussions about spiritual tools for emotional healing on bitcointalk because to me it looks like the "old time religion" is not helping to heal mankind. I have tried the requests and decrees from Tom T. Moore, I think they are powerful and worth a shot!

Would you like to have less fear, less stress, and more success in your life?  Welcome to The Gentle Way website.  Here you will find the MOST SIMPLE, yet MOST POWERFUL spiritual tool you can use for the rest of your life! Here you will learn how to reconnect with that beautiful being we call a Guardian Angel on a DAILY BASIS, and KNOW you’re connected!  These Guardian Angels are here to assist us, but you have to ASK, and know HOW TO ASK.  Here you’ll learn how to request Benevolent Outcomes. By requesting Benevolent Outcomes in your life, you will...
http://www.thegentlewaybook.com/

[Buffer Overflow]

That's what I and many others are here for... to let them know about God and salvation.

You mind has created this delusion to convince yourself that your on some important mission for mankind.
Spoiler: You not. It is of no importance.

Science is generally unwilling to recognize God, even though science has proven God.

Pseudoscience.

People who accept God and what God says in the Bible, know that people have free will held open by God, and that God works with the free will of mankind.

Oh, so now we do have free will. You change your mind quicker than the wind.

Since you don't accept God

Well not false ones, no.

Of course, you could always accept God and start to recognize that you have free will.

Thing is you have no interest in people accepting God.
What you want is people to accept YOUR custom bespoke god and YOUR custom bespoke religious cult.

Big difference.

[Jmild1]

Because you, of your own free will, scorn God and salvation.

Bu bu but but... you said we haven't got free will.  

We don't even have free will.

The way he contradict his own statement, and reply with long preaching and spamming. I think this is how BADecker get his quota in camp. sig

[Jmild1]

Keep on quoting "Science prove god" where?
Or is it more likely, theist adapt the credit to their malevolent god instead of the one who scrutinized such thing to find the truth which is science

[CoinCube]

Kant argued that free will requires a noumenal self which is causally undetermined an uncaused cause outside of and therefore not subject to the deterministic laws of nature.

Immanuel Kant on Free Will
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/#ThePraAut

The most important belief about things in themselves that Kant thinks only practical philosophy can justify concerns human freedom. Freedom is important because, on Kant's view, moral appraisal presupposes that we are free in the sense that we have the ability to do otherwise. To see why, consider Kant's example of a man who commits a theft (5:95ff.). Kant holds that in order for this man's action to be morally wrong, it must have been within his control in the sense that it was within his power at the time not to have committed the theft. If this was not within his control at the time, then, while it may be useful to punish him in order to shape his behavior or to influence others, it nevertheless would not be correct to say that his action was morally wrong. Moral rightness and wrongness apply only to free agents who control their actions and have it in their power, at the time of their actions, either to act rightly or not. According to Kant, this is just common sense.

On these grounds, Kant rejects a type of compatibilism that he calls the “comparative concept of freedom” and associates with Leibniz (5:96–97). (Note that Kant has a specific type of compatibilism in mind, which I will refer to simply as “compatibilism,” although there may be other types of compatibilism that do not fit Kant's characterization of that view). On the compatibilist view, as Kant understands it, I am free whenever the cause of my action is within me. So I am unfree only when something external to me pushes or moves me, but I am free whenever the proximate cause of my body's movement is internal to me as an “acting being” (5:96). If we distinguish between involuntary convulsions and voluntary bodily movements, then on this view free actions are just voluntary bodily movements. Kant ridicules this view as a “wretched subterfuge” that tries to solve an ancient philosophical problem “with a little quibbling about words” (ibid.). This view, he says, assimilates human freedom to “the freedom of a turnspit,” or a projectile in flight, or the motion of a clock's hands (5:96–97). The proximate causes of these movements are internal to the turnspit, the projectile, and the clock at the time of the movement. This cannot be sufficient for moral responsibility.

Why not? The reason, Kant says, is ultimately that the causes of these movements occur in time. Return to the theft example. A compatibilist would say that the thief's action is free because its proximate cause is inside him, and because the theft was not an involuntary convulsion but a voluntary action. The thief decided to commit the theft, and his action flowed from this decision. According to Kant, however, if the thief's decision is a natural phenomenon that occurs in time, then it must be the effect of some cause that occurred in a previous time. This is an essential part of Kant's Newtonian worldview and is grounded in the a priori laws (specifically, the category of cause and effect) in accordance with which our understanding constructs experience: every event has a cause that begins in an earlier time. If that cause too was an event occurring in time, then it must also have a cause beginning in a still earlier time, etc. All natural events occur in time and are thoroughly determined by causal chains that stretch backwards into the distant past. So there is no room for freedom in nature, which is deterministic in a strong sense.

The root of the problem, for Kant, is time. Again, if the thief's choice to commit the theft is a natural event in time, then it is the effect of a causal chain extending into the distant past. But the past is out of his control now, in the present. Once the past is past, he can't change it. On Kant's view, that is why his actions would not be in his control in the present if they are determined by events in the past. Even if he could control those past events in the past, he cannot control them now. But in fact past events were not in his control in the past either if they too were determined by events in the more distant past, because eventually the causal antecedents of his action stretch back before his birth, and obviously events that occurred before his birth were not in his control. So if the thief's choice to commit the theft is a natural event in time, then it is not now and never was in his control, and he could not have done otherwise than to commit the theft. In that case, it would be a mistake to hold him morally responsible for it.

Compatibilism, as Kant understands it, therefore locates the issue in the wrong place. Even if the cause of my action is internal to me, if it is in the past — for example, if my action today is determined by a decision I made yesterday, or from the character I developed in childhood — then it is not within my control now. The real issue is not whether the cause of my action is internal or external to me, but whether it is in my control now. For Kant, however, the cause of my action can be within my control now only if it is not in time. This is why Kant thinks that transcendental idealism is the only way to make sense of the kind of freedom that morality requires. For transcendental idealism allows that the cause of my action may be a thing in itself outside of time: namely, my noumenal self, which is free because it is not part of nature. No matter what kind of character I have developed or what external influences act on me, on Kant's view all of my intentional, voluntary actions are immediate effects of my noumenal self, which is causally undetermined (5:97–98). My noumenal self is an uncaused cause outside of time, which therefore is not subject to the deterministic laws of nature in accordance with which our understanding constructs experience.

Kant holds that we can make sense of moral appraisal and responsibility only by thinking about human freedom in this way, because it is the only way to prevent natural necessity from undermining both.

Is there a rational and coherent reason to think such a noumenal self might exists?
The answer to this question yes as I argued over several posts starting here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg14277573#msg14277573

Combining the above insights leads us to the idea that the world around us indeed the entire universe is simply the projection of a deeper fundamental reality. A universe with consciousness, as its ultimate teleology where consciousness operates upon matter with the proximate goal of sustaining and developing itself via instantiations in matter. A universe where entropy always increases and entropy is understood as information for consciousness to act upon.

This model cannot currently be proven true but neither can you disprove it or reject it as illogical for it for it is logically sound. Indeed one can even argue that this model better explains our universe for this model allows you to reconcile gravity and quantum mechanics a task which traditional models have been unable to accomplish.

[CoinCube]

Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory
By Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188

Highlights
• The Orch OR theory proposes quantum computations in brain microtubules account for consciousness.
• Microtubule ‘quantum channels’ in which anesthetics erase consciousness are identified.
• Evidence for warm quantum vibrations in brain microtubules is cited.
• Interference of microtubule vibrations are ‘beat frequencies’ seen as EEG.
• Orch OR links consciousness to processes in fundamental space–time geometry.

Abstract
The nature of consciousness, the mechanism by which it occurs in the brain, and its ultimate place in the universe are unknown. We proposed in the mid 1990's that consciousness depends on biologically ‘orchestrated’ coherent quantum processes in collections of microtubules within brain neurons, that these quantum processes correlate with, and regulate, neuronal synaptic and membrane activity, and that the continuous Schrödinger evolution of each such process terminates in accordance with the specific Diósi–Penrose (DP) scheme of ‘objective reduction’ (‘OR’) of the quantum state. This orchestrated OR activity (‘Orch OR’) is taken to result in moments of conscious awareness and/or choice. The DP form of OR is related to the fundamentals of quantum mechanics and space–time geometry, so Orch OR suggests that there is a connection between the brain's biomolecular processes and the basic structure of the universe. Here we review Orch OR in light of criticisms and developments in quantum biology, neuroscience, physics and cosmology. We also introduce a novel suggestion of ‘beat frequencies’ of faster microtubule vibrations as a possible source of the observed electro-encephalographic (‘EEG’) correlates of consciousness. We conclude that consciousness plays an intrinsic role in the universe.

[BADecker]

Because you, of your own free will, scorn God and salvation.

Bu bu but but... you said we haven't got free will.  

We don't even have free will.

The way he contradict his own statement, and reply with long preaching and spamming. I think this is how BADecker get his quota in camp. sig

No contradiction in the free will thing. I will explain it again, although I have in the past.

There is no free will from a pure science position, since everything works by cause and effect.

God, for His own purposes has held a tiny bit of free will open in people. This little piece of free will has to do with the strength of faith that a person has in God. That's it. It doesn't have anything to do with anything that we think about in life. And even this tidbit of free will is regulated by God to some extent.

God looks at the position of free will in every person. If a change in the universe and circumstances in life is dictated by the change in any person's strength of faith in God, God goes back to the Beginning, and juggles or jiggles the way He set cause and effect into motion, so that changes happen according to the free will of each and every person that uses the speck of free will that he has to make a change. Even the free will is changed in this jiggling juggling of cause and effect... change that reaches to our time, through all the ages of history.

To the person it looks like he changed his mind, or like he decided to get out of bed on the other side this morning, or like he chose apple juice rather than the regular orange juice for breakfast. Yet the person's free will didn't have anything to do with it. All the free will did was to look at God from a slightly different standpoint, even though the person didn't realize he was looking at God. Then God went back in time to the Beginning and jiggled and juggled all of cause and effect to make things happen the way He determines, based on what He sees in the splinter of free will that we have, about believing God.

The strength of God is immense, and the control that He exerts is way farther in understanding beyond us than we are beyond the microbes.

[BADecker]

Keep on quoting "Science prove god" where?
Or is it more likely, theist adapt the credit to their malevolent god instead of the one who scrutinized such thing to find the truth which is science

Scientifically speaking, science generally doesn't believe in soul or spirit.

Everything operates by cause and effect. Science understands this. Something set the cause and effect in motion. Cause and effect produces complexity, especially complexity regarding the brain and mind and intelligence of mankind. Complexity is all around us, in us, and through us.

Anything that can cause mind and intelligence complexity, along with the multitudes of complex cause and effect actions, must be at least as "mental" and as intelligent as the things that it produces. Why? Because universal entropy shows us that complexity is breaking down, just like everything else is.

The "Thing" that set cause and effect and complexity in place at the Beginning fits our dictionary definitions of "God."

Why must there have been a Beginning? Because, if everything had continued forever into the past, entropy would have reduced all complexity to simplicity long ago.

God is the answer. God is outside of our universe, even though He is within it as well. Science proves God as explained above, in this post.



EDIT: I want to thank everyone who has questioned me about this issue of how science proves the existence of God. Every time someone asks me this, I find ways to answer more clearly and succinctly. So, thanks again.

[Jmild1]

Keep on quoting "Science prove god" where?
Or is it more likely, theist adapt the credit to their malevolent god instead of the one who scrutinized such thing to find the truth which is science

Scientifically speaking, science generally doesn't believe in soul or spirit.

Everything operates by cause and effect. Science understands this. Something set the cause and effect in motion. Cause and effect produces complexity, especially complexity regarding the brain and mind and intelligence of mankind. Complexity is all around us, in us, and through us.

Anything that can cause mind and intelligence complexity, along with the multitudes of complex cause and effect actions, must be at least as "mental" and as intelligent as the things that it produces. Why? Because universal entropy shows us that complexity is breaking down, just like everything else is.

The "Thing" that set cause and effect and complexity in place at the Beginning fits our dictionary definitions of "God."

Why must there have been a Beginning? Because, if everything had continued forever into the past, entropy would have reduced all complexity to simplicity long ago.

God is the answer. God is outside of our universe, even though He is within it as well. Science proves God as explained above, in this post.



EDIT: I want to thank everyone who has questioned me about this issue of how science proves the existence of God. Every time someone asks me this, I find ways to answer more clearly and succinctly. So, thanks again.

If all things has cause and effect, there must be something above your god, if you will say nothing because he's god. That would be special pleading.

Appeal to ignorance and gap of the gods is not a valid argument and does't undergo logical thinking. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

[Buffer Overflow]

There is no free will from a pure science position, since everything works by cause and effect.

God, for His own purposes has held a tiny bit of free will open in people. This little piece of free will has to do with the strength of faith that a person has in God. That's it. It doesn't have anything to do with anything that we think about in life. And even this tidbit of free will is regulated by God to some extent.

No no no, that won't work. You cannot pick and choose free will out of your arse when it suits you.
Christianity relies on free will. Without it people cannot ask for salivation, rendering Christianity false.

So take your pick:

1) We don't have free will. Thus Christainity is false.
2) We do have free will. Christainity could be true.

[BADecker]

Keep on quoting "Science prove god" where?
Or is it more likely, theist adapt the credit to their malevolent god instead of the one who scrutinized such thing to find the truth which is science

Scientifically speaking, science generally doesn't believe in soul or spirit.

Everything operates by cause and effect. Science understands this. Something set the cause and effect in motion. Cause and effect produces complexity, especially complexity regarding the brain and mind and intelligence of mankind. Complexity is all around us, in us, and through us.

Anything that can cause mind and intelligence complexity, along with the multitudes of complex cause and effect actions, must be at least as "mental" and as intelligent as the things that it produces. Why? Because universal entropy shows us that complexity is breaking down, just like everything else is.

The "Thing" that set cause and effect and complexity in place at the Beginning fits our dictionary definitions of "God."

Why must there have been a Beginning? Because, if everything had continued forever into the past, entropy would have reduced all complexity to simplicity long ago.

God is the answer. God is outside of our universe, even though He is within it as well. Science proves God as explained above, in this post.



EDIT: I want to thank everyone who has questioned me about this issue of how science proves the existence of God. Every time someone asks me this, I find ways to answer more clearly and succinctly. So, thanks again.

If all things has cause and effect, there must be something above your god, if you will say nothing because he's god. That would be special pleading.

No pleading involved at all. Cause and effect are only for this universe. To us people, this universe is all that there is, because we are part of it, and not part of anything outside of it. When God is in this universe, He does operate by cause and effect. But because He is outside of it as well, cause and effect constraints do not affect Him.

Appeal to ignorance and gap of the gods is not a valid argument and does't undergo logical thinking. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Not sure what you mean by "gap of gods."

There is no argument. Cause and effect, complex universe, and universal entropy are scientifically accepted facts.

[organofcorti]

There is no argument. Cause and effect, complex universe, and universal entropy are scientifically accepted facts.

I'll never get tired of writing this:

"complex universe" is not a law. If you think it is, please link to a peer reviewed paper which asserts that there is a law called the "complex universe law".

[BADecker]

I'll never get tired of writing this:

"complex universe" is not a law. If you think it is, please link to a peer reviewed paper which asserts that there is a law called the "complex universe law".

Call our complex universe what you will or what you will not. But the fact is that the complexity of our universe is a fact.

What this means is, if science somehow fails to recognize cause and effect as a law of science, then science is simply remiss in this area. God's existence is still proven by the 3 facts, cause and effect, complex universe, and universal entropy.

Since God is proven to exist by the 3 facts of the universe, your whole idea of never getting tired of writing that complex universe is not a scientific law, in response to my proof that God exists, is simply an ad-hominem attack against me, but it might be evidence of your own stupidity, however, at least of your duplicity.

[organofcorti]

I'll never get tired of writing this:

"complex universe" is not a law. If you think it is, please link to a peer reviewed paper which asserts that there is a law called the "complex universe law".

Call our complex universe what you will or what you will not. But the fact is that the complexity of our universe is a fact.

What this means is, if science somehow fails to recognize cause and effect as a law of science, then science is simply remiss in this area.
<snip>

Not recognised by science? So you're admitting "complex universe" not a scientific law then?

[CoinCube]

...
Christianity relies on free will. Without it people cannot ask for salivation, rendering Christianity false.

So take your pick:

1) We don't have free will. Thus Christainity is false.
2) We do have free will. Christainity could be true.

Delayed choice quantum eraser experiments tell us that certain quantum phenomena operate outside of what we traditionally think of as time.

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

Delayed choice experiments raise questions about time and time sequences, and thereby bring our usual ideas of time and causal sequence into question.[note 1] If events at D1, D2, D3, D4 determine outcomes at D0, then effect seems to precede cause. If the idler light paths were greatly extended so that a year goes by before a photon shows up at D1, D2, D3, or D4, then when a photon shows up in one of these detectors, it would cause a signal photon to have shown up in a certain mode a year earlier. Alternatively, knowledge of the future fate of the idler photon would determine the activity of the signal photon in its own present. Neither of these ideas conforms to the usual human expectation of causality.

• Orch OR theory posits that conscious arises from quantum computations in brain microtubules.
• As noted by Kant in his model of a noumenal self free will requires a true self that is independent of time.
• Grounding consciousness in quantum mechanics provides this independence.

Therefore we have free will.
 

[organofcorti]

...
Christianity relies on free will. Without it people cannot ask for salivation, rendering Christianity false.

So take your pick:

1) We don't have free will. Thus Christainity is false.
2) We do have free will. Christainity could be true.

Delayed choice quantum eraser experiments tell us that certain quantum phenomena operate outside of what we traditionally think of as time.

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

Delayed choice experiments raise questions about time and time sequences, and thereby bring our usual ideas of time and causal sequence into question.[note 1] If events at D1, D2, D3, D4 determine outcomes at D0, then effect seems to precede cause. If the idler light paths were greatly extended so that a year goes by before a photon shows up at D1, D2, D3, or D4, then when a photon shows up in one of these detectors, it would cause a signal photon to have shown up in a certain mode a year earlier. Alternatively, knowledge of the future fate of the idler photon would determine the activity of the signal photon in its own present. Neither of these ideas conforms to the usual human expectation of causality.

• Orch OR theory posits that conscious arises from quantum computations in brain microtubules.
• As noted by Kant in his model of a noumenal self free will requires a true self that is independent of time.
• Grounding consciousness in quantum mechanics provides this independence.

Therefore we have free will.
 

Why do we "ground consciousness in quantum mechanics"? Is there some experiment that proves consciousness is a phenomenon affected more by quantum scale effects? I'm astonished - I didn't even know we were at the point that consciousness was that well understood.

If OTOH you're just putting forward a conjecture then until there is proof we cannot know whether or not free will exists.

[Moloch]

[BADecker]

...
Christianity relies on free will. Without it people cannot ask for salivation, rendering Christianity false.

So take your pick:

1) We don't have free will. Thus Christainity is false.
2) We do have free will. Christainity could be true.

Delayed choice quantum eraser experiments tell us that certain quantum phenomena operate outside of what we traditionally think of as time.

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

Delayed choice experiments raise questions about time and time sequences, and thereby bring our usual ideas of time and causal sequence into question.[note 1] If events at D1, D2, D3, D4 determine outcomes at D0, then effect seems to precede cause. If the idler light paths were greatly extended so that a year goes by before a photon shows up at D1, D2, D3, or D4, then when a photon shows up in one of these detectors, it would cause a signal photon to have shown up in a certain mode a year earlier. Alternatively, knowledge of the future fate of the idler photon would determine the activity of the signal photon in its own present. Neither of these ideas conforms to the usual human expectation of causality.

• Orch OR theory posits that conscious arises from quantum computations in brain microtubules.
• As noted by Kant in his model of a noumenal self free will requires a true self that is independent of time.
• Grounding consciousness in quantum mechanics provides this independence.

Therefore we have free will.
 

Quantum is complex probability. Probability needs to be confirmed by other science because probability can be used to determine anything any which way... even the probability of quantum usage strength or quality.

Experiments directed to cause a change in causal sequences are causal sequence changing experiments. Even if all they are designed to do is to show the change, they are still causing cause and effect to act differently that they normally do.

The tiny pip of free will that man has, does not of itself act on the things that people do or think. It simply gives God direction to adjust the lives of people in the ways that He wills. The results of mankind's free will are directed entirely by God, generally through cause and effect. Free will in the sense that man is free to do what he wants is non-existent. All is dictated by God through cause and effect, except in a few instances where God uses direct miracles for His own purposes.