BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3892
Merit: 1373
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 02, 2018, 02:12:22 PM |
|
What's the matter? You can't come up with anything logical, so you start to badmouth and criticize Coincube, right? Sounds like you have been on too much medication. ![Cool](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cool.gif) Oh well at least he is somewhat funny. I must admit his little imaginary back and forth made me laugh. Ultimately the inability or unwillingness of many atheists to even attempt an articulation of an integrated and coherent system of belief leads me to the conclusion that they are often hypocrites possessed by incomplete ideas and unwilling to explore the logical conclusions and assumptions of their own positions. I have been watching Jordan Peterson videos recently as he is coming to my town next week and I have tickets to his presentation. I found this video on hypocrites particularly enlightening. Nietzsche on how to spot Hypocrites - Jordan Petersonhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taF8yk7MRV8Problem is that you guys refuse to use science to analyze the possibility of God existence. Science is clear on the subject. Instead you use the metaphysics and philosophy to validate your condition. That is all you can do these days, I guess. We cannot agree because we are talking about different things. Physics and metaphysics do not mix. You think I am arrogant and I dismiss your psychological claims to God existence. Problem is that we don't define "existence" to mean the same thing. If you want to argue about God existence first you have to define what 'God' is, then define what it means 'to exist'. From where I stand, all religious conditions are psychological and in severe cases mental disorders. Fundamentalist religious freaks should be removed from society and locked up because they pose risk to themselves and others. Being fascinated by the Bible is one thing, but to act out what the Bible recommends is criminal in most Western countries. I hope we can agree on that. BTW, I don't know why Peterson is so fascinated with Dostoyevsky, I read Crime and Punishment, good book, I must say, but to say that there is something there to Rosolnikov's character and question of God, is a bit stretch. We go through our moral dilemmas based one what we believe. He would not kill the old lady if he used a simple principle: "Would my actions cause harm to others or myself?". The problem is that you and many others won't take the time to critically analyze Cause and effect, entropy, and complexity... and the way they work together in this universe. Entropy shows us that there was a beginning. If there wasn't a beginning, long ago everything would have dispersed, dissipated, and diffused into a gigantic mass of equilibrium, rather than the orderly mass of complexity that we have today. Stabs at suggesting that entropy is simply localized, and therefore not universal, are stabs that are contradicted by stellar observations all over the place. Everything operates by C&E. This means that everything that happens has been set in place to happen that way, from the Beginning (entropy shows that there was a beginning). There are countless numbers of C&E actions, with nothing known to have happened without C&E. Everything is programming, nothing more. Even free will is artificial and programmed into us. Complexity is so extremely great that we have artificial free will. And we barely realize it until we look at how C&E pervades everything. Put these together, and you get God. How? Like this. The existence of the Beginning shows that something (or some non-thing) set the Beginning in place. C&E shows that it was very powerful to have set up something that would last as long as the universe by C&E action. Complexity is the key. Complexity of the universe, life, the human brain and mind, thought, the artificial free will, and everything else, shows that the Creator was intelligent beyond understanding, simply because our much lower intelligence exists via C&E, from the beginning. Toss out your preconceived ideas of what the word "God" entails. Use the dictionary definition, but use the complete definition. Then consider all the vastness of our universe from the standpoint of the three major qualities that operate within it: C&E, entropy, and complexity. The Creator of the universe is God way beyond God in any way we can conceive of God. When we honor Him even by simply realizing that He exists, He maintains our health in greater ways than normal, as a special gift to us for honoring Him. ![Cool](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cool.gif)
|
|
|
|
CoinCube (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 02, 2018, 05:04:43 PM Last edit: May 02, 2018, 05:21:15 PM by CoinCube |
|
Problem is that you guys refuse to use science to analyze the possibility of God existence. Science is clear on the subject.
You think I am arrogant and I dismiss your psychological claims to God existence. Problem is that we don't define "existence" to mean the same thing.
I do not think you are arrogant because you don't believe in God. I think you are arrogant because you insist that your non-belief is the only logical position when it clearly is not. If you were not arrogant you would be interested in deeply exploring the logical worldview and that results from competing a priori beliefs and exploring how they map to reality. You would also be deeply interested in analyzing your own worldview and subjecting it to the same process. I don't mean to be insulting but you did imply that I have a mental disorder and needed to be "removed from society and locked up" so I don't think you have grounds to complain. Your own worldview starts solidly enough with "To me if an action causes harm to yourself or other living organisms (humans included) it is immoral." Yet from there you prematurely stop your reflection assuming that this solitary metaphysical claim along with science is sufficient. A true and honest evaluation would require you to fully build out your worldview and hold it up against alternatives. If you did so you would realize that your own ethic honestly followed would lead you to also accept God because at a minimum belief that you were being observed by God would minimize deviations from your ethic in the face of temptations. Ultimately via your own value system rejecting God is immoral because it increases the probability and amount of immoral action in the world. Another problem is that you fail to recognize the limitations of science. Science cannot analyze your moral statement above because your claim is not a scientific one. Similarly, science cannot really provide the answers you claim it does about God because science a priori excludes all reference to divine. What is the difference between science and philosophy? (and theology)https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/06/what-is-difference-between-science-and.html?m=1Science came from philosophy and philosophy from theology - by a process of specialization - a part coming off from the whole, and being pursued autonomously as a social system.
Theology is a social system that aims to discover the truth; and which puts the truths of divine revelation first and reason subordinate (if at all); philosophy aims to discover truth (or used to) but puts reason first - but remains (in its early phases) constrained by revelation.
Then science broke-off from philosophy by eliminating divine revelation as an allowable explanation.
*
So science is a specialized social system, based on reason, but which excludes all reference to divine revelation.
But what is special about being a social system?
Mainly time and effort, in a co-operative sense (although the cooperation can be between just a few people).
So science is simply some people devoting time and effort to investigating the world using reason and excluding reference to divine revelation.
*
Naturally, since Science excludes divine revelation, science can have no formal impact on theology, nor can it have any formal impact on philosophy.
Yet, apparently, science has substantially impacted on theology and philosophy - it is, for example taken to have discredited Christianity.
How did this perception arise?
1. Science as (until recently) been perceived as in enabling (somehow, indirectly) humans to increase power over nature (this perception may be subjective/ delusional, or false, as it often is now - or it can be all-but undeniable).
Yet science is (or rather was) successful mainly because a lot of smart people were putting a lot of effort into discovering truth.
(And now that people don't try to discover truth, they don't discover it - naturally not.)
2. Sheer habit. People trained and competent in the (wholly artificial) scientific way of thinking, which a priori excludes religious explanations, leads to human beings who habitually exclude divine explanations.
*
And it turns out that habit is very powerful as a socialization device.
Such that people trained in an artificial (hence difficult) and socially-approved specialized mode of thinking, eventually do not notice the exclusions of their mode of thought, and assume that their mode of thought is the whole thing; assume that that which was excluded a priori has instead been excluded because it was false.
A mistaken inference - but mainstream in modernity.
|
|
|
|
af_newbie
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 02, 2018, 05:16:59 PM |
|
What's the matter? You can't come up with anything logical, so you start to badmouth and criticize Coincube, right? Sounds like you have been on too much medication. ![Cool](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cool.gif) Oh well at least he is somewhat funny. I must admit his little imaginary back and forth made me laugh. Ultimately the inability or unwillingness of many atheists to even attempt an articulation of an integrated and coherent system of belief leads me to the conclusion that they are often hypocrites possessed by incomplete ideas and unwilling to explore the logical conclusions and assumptions of their own positions. I have been watching Jordan Peterson videos recently as he is coming to my town next week and I have tickets to his presentation. I found this video on hypocrites particularly enlightening. Nietzsche on how to spot Hypocrites - Jordan Petersonhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taF8yk7MRV8Problem is that you guys refuse to use science to analyze the possibility of God existence. Science is clear on the subject. Instead you use the metaphysics and philosophy to validate your condition. That is all you can do these days, I guess. We cannot agree because we are talking about different things. Physics and metaphysics do not mix. You think I am arrogant and I dismiss your psychological claims to God existence. Problem is that we don't define "existence" to mean the same thing. If you want to argue about God existence first you have to define what 'God' is, then define what it means 'to exist'. From where I stand, all religious conditions are psychological and in severe cases mental disorders. Fundamentalist religious freaks should be removed from society and locked up because they pose risk to themselves and others. Being fascinated by the Bible is one thing, but to act out what the Bible recommends is criminal in most Western countries. I hope we can agree on that. BTW, I don't know why Peterson is so fascinated with Dostoyevsky, I read Crime and Punishment, good book, I must say, but to say that there is something there to Rosolnikov's character and question of God, is a bit stretch. We go through our moral dilemmas based one what we believe. He would not kill the old lady if he used a simple principle: "Would my actions cause harm to others or myself?". The problem is that you and many others won't take the time to critically analyze Cause and effect, entropy, and complexity... and the way they work together in this universe. Entropy shows us that there was a beginning. If there wasn't a beginning, long ago everything would have dispersed, dissipated, and diffused into a gigantic mass of equilibrium, rather than the orderly mass of complexity that we have today. Stabs at suggesting that entropy is simply localized, and therefore not universal, are stabs that are contradicted by stellar observations all over the place. Everything operates by C&E. This means that everything that happens has been set in place to happen that way, from the Beginning (entropy shows that there was a beginning). There are countless numbers of C&E actions, with nothing known to have happened without C&E. Everything is programming, nothing more. Even free will is artificial and programmed into us. Complexity is so extremely great that we have artificial free will. And we barely realize it until we look at how C&E pervades everything. Put these together, and you get God. How? Like this. The existence of the Beginning shows that something (or some non-thing) set the Beginning in place. C&E shows that it was very powerful to have set up something that would last as long as the universe by C&E action. Complexity is the key. Complexity of the universe, life, the human brain and mind, thought, the artificial free will, and everything else, shows that the Creator was intelligent beyond understanding, simply because our much lower intelligence exists via C&E, from the beginning. Toss out your preconceived ideas of what the word "God" entails. Use the dictionary definition, but use the complete definition. Then consider all the vastness of our universe from the standpoint of the three major qualities that operate within it: C&E, entropy, and complexity. The Creator of the universe is God way beyond God in any way we can conceive of God. When we honor Him even by simply realizing that He exists, He maintains our health in greater ways than normal, as a special gift to us for honoring Him. ![Cool](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cool.gif) First of all C&E only can be applied in temporal domain, i.e. when the cause predicates the effect. The time and space were created when the Big Bang happened. There was no time before the Big Bang so you cannot talk about the cause because there is no time for the cause to exist in.Universe was not designed because it started as an explosion, it is still exploding in parts of the universe. The shear volume of space and time tells you that it was not designed. You do not design a system to have such positive feedback loops. It was an accident, not a design.How do you go from complexity to God beats me? Nature is a violent set of events, a wild river that destroys its banks as it forms new shape and delivers new, slightly evolved species. Science helps us understand how nature actually works. Religion explains nature without understanding it.Those two will never be able to reconcile. No matter how hard you try. God exists in that small space behind and between your eyes, nowhere else. You can talk all you want about the metaphysical God, but it will be always that. Your own thoughts and feelings. Nothing else.
|
|
|
|
CoinCube (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 02, 2018, 06:59:37 PM Last edit: May 02, 2018, 10:49:11 PM by CoinCube |
|
Problem is that you guys refuse to use science to analyze the possibility of God existence. Science is clear on the subject.
You think I am arrogant and I dismiss your psychological claims to God existence. Problem is that we don't define "existence" to mean the same thing.
I do not think you are arrogant because you don't believe in God. I think you are arrogant because you insist that your non-belief is the only logical position when it clearly is not. If you were not arrogant you would be interested in deeply exploring the logical worldview and that results from competing a priori beliefs and exploring how they map to reality. You would also be deeply interested in analyzing your own worldview and subjecting it to the same process. I don't mean to be insulting but you did imply that I have a mental disorder and needed to be "removed from society and locked up" so I don't think you have grounds to complain. Your own worldview starts solidly enough with "To me if an action causes harm to yourself or other living organisms (humans included) it is immoral." Yet from there you prematurely stop your reflection assuming that this solitary metaphysical claim along with science is sufficient. A true and honest evaluation would require you to fully build out your worldview and hold it up against alternatives. If you did so you would realize that your own ethic honestly followed would lead you to also accept God because at a minimum belief that you were being observed by God would minimize deviations from your ethic in the face of temptations. Ultimately via your own value system rejecting God is immoral because it increases the probability and amount of immoral action in the world.I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist. I am an engineer.What you are asking is beyond my expertise. If you want to talk science, I'm all yours. No that may be your profession but that is not who you are. You are Nietzsche's bloodless scholar a puppet for the ideas you so vociferously promote. To borrow the words of Peterson you are a performative contradiction one who claims to live by an ethical code and then does not follow that code to its logical conclusion. Unfortunately that makes you a hypocrite. Nietzsche on how to spot Hypocrites - Jordan Peterson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taF8yk7MRV8
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 03, 2018, 12:17:40 AM |
|
Problem is that you guys refuse to use science to analyze the possibility of God existence. Science is clear on the subject.
You think I am arrogant and I dismiss your psychological claims to God existence. Problem is that we don't define "existence" to mean the same thing.
I do not think you are arrogant because you don't believe in God. I think you are arrogant because you insist that your non-belief is the only logical position when it clearly is not. If you were not arrogant you would be interested in deeply exploring the logical worldview and that results from competing a priori beliefs and exploring how they map to reality. You would also be deeply interested in analyzing your own worldview and subjecting it to the same process. I don't mean to be insulting but you did imply that I have a mental disorder and needed to be "removed from society and locked up" so I don't think you have grounds to complain. Your own worldview starts solidly enough with "To me if an action causes harm to yourself or other living organisms (humans included) it is immoral." Yet from there you prematurely stop your reflection assuming that this solitary metaphysical claim along with science is sufficient. A true and honest evaluation would require you to fully build out your worldview and hold it up against alternatives. If you did so you would realize that your own ethic honestly followed would lead you to also accept God because at a minimum belief that you were being observed by God would minimize deviations from your ethic in the face of temptations. Ultimately via your own value system rejecting God is immoral because it increases the probability and amount of immoral action in the world. I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist. I am an engineer.What you are asking is beyond my expertise. If you want to talk science, I'm all yours. No that may be your profession but that is not who you are. You are Nietzsche's bloodless scholar a puppet for the ideas you so vociferously promote. To borrow the words of Peterson you are a performative contradiction one who claims to live by an ethical code and then does not follow that code to its logical conclusion. What you are is a hypocrite. Nietzsche on how to spot Hypocrites - Jordan Petersonhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taF8yk7MRV8That is rich!!! LOL A puppet, eh? You have no idea who I am. I've been indoctrinated into Roman Catholic faith since my birth, was forced to study it until cows came home... Guess what, then I turned 12 and started asking questions which no clergy could answer. All religions are products of human imagination, desire to create a common goal, something to strive for. They create an instant trust among followers and distrust of disbelievers. My logic lead me to my position, not the other way around. Your dogmatic metaphysical 'logic' is not logic an engineer or scientist can follow. You can kick and scream, but in the end it is you that is empty handed. Not one tiny bit of evidence of God existence. Not one shred.As I said multiple times, if the christian god was the real deal and there was evidence proving it you would see muslims and other religious people turn to Christianity all the time yet it doesn't happen just like people don't suddenly stop believing in their god to believe in another one because no one is looking for proof or evidence, they were indoctrinated that way just like you coincube.
|
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3892
Merit: 1373
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 03, 2018, 01:46:13 AM |
|
ANALYSIS: Alfie Evans was executed by lethal injection; Alder Hey hospital steeped...![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.freedomsphoenix.com%2FUploads%2FGraphics%2F693-0502073747-Baby-Alfie-Evans.jpg&t=665&c=363uLSPNLF3GPw) Watching in horror the "health care" murder of baby Alfie Evans over the last few days, I've been gathering an array of stories and sources to bring you a detailed, definitive report of what actually went down. Until that full report is ready, however, it seems urgent to share with you the conclusion of my research: I am convinced that Baby Alfie Evans was executed by lethal injection, and the hospital that murdered him appears to be the center hub of a multi-decade baby organ harvesting crime ring that saw 100,000 baby body parts harvested and illegally held in hospitals all across Britain. (See multiple news sources, below.)
It has always been clear that the Alder Hey children's hospital sought to accelerate the death of Alfie Evans while silencing his parents through a sustained attack consisting of threats and intimidation tactics. Now, Life Site News is report that Alfie Evans was injected with four different drugs by hospital staff just two hours before he died. This, of course, was after several days of being starved to death and denied water. Virtually the entire corporate-controlled media has withheld this information from the public for a variety of nefarious reasons that I will discuss in another post.
Via LifeSiteNews.com:
UK toddler Alfie Evans allegedly died within hours of receiving four different drugs from a nurse at Alder Hey hospital, Italian media is reporting…
[A] nurse entered the child's cubicle after his father Tom had been called aside and gave him four drugs. A source close to the family told LifeSiteNews that these were injections that were administered to Alfie after Tom had been summoned for an unusual middle-of-the-night meeting with the hospital. The child died two hours later.
Get more news like this without being censored: Get the Natural News app for your mobile devices. Enjoy uncensored news, lab test results, videos, podcasts and more. Bypass all the unfair censorship by Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. Get your daily news and videos directly from the source! Download here.
Alder Hey hospital doctors had previously conveyed to the Evans' family in a legal document how they intended to use a drug cocktail that included Midazolam and Fentanyl as part of Alfie's "end of life care plan." Side effects of the drugs included respiratory depression. Tom Evans called it an "execution plan" for his son.
Keep in mind that the hospital forced Alfie's parents to read a so-called "hostage letter" to the press, and they stated that the family would be punished because of the poor attitude of the parents who apparently didn't go along with the hospital's plan to murder their baby. As LifeSiteNews reports:
The day prior to Alfie's death, Tom Evans read to the press outside the hospital what is now being called by many a "hostage letter." In what appeared to be a forced statement, Tom read out a letter calling all the supporters of Alfie to go home and resume their lives. He thanked the hospital staff for their care of Alfie, even though just hours earlier he had attempted to have them charged with conspiracy to murder his son. Read more at https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-05-01-alfie-evans-executed-by-lethal-injection-organ-harvesting-alder-hey.html.![Cool](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cool.gif)
|
|
|
|
CoinCube (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 03, 2018, 01:53:44 AM Last edit: May 03, 2018, 03:49:19 AM by CoinCube |
|
... My logic lead me to my position, not the other way around.
Sorry I don't believe you. If it was truly logic that led you to your position then you would engage me with logic not evasion. You would deconstruct my arguments to their logical foundations and highlight the assumptions I have made. Then you would present your challenge your own logical construct and argue for its superiority. Instead you hide your own beliefs going to great lengths to avoid any discussion of what you actually believe in. Immediately upthread I challenged your single moral principle as being incompatible with your denial of God. Do you rise up in defense with logic attempting to refute my claim and restore coherence to your worldview? No you retreat embracing incoherence to protect your disbelief. The meaning of insanity in persons and nations - the primary need for restoration of sanityhttp://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-meaning-of-insanity-in-persons-and.html?m=1To be sane is to be in touch with reality, to be in touch with reality means (minimally) having a coherent perspective.
To have more than one perspective - to be thinking one way, then another, then another; and to lack a basis for ever combining, sequencing, stratifying these perspectives - is to be insane.
It is to lack any basis for deciding-between persepctives - merely to be trapped by whatever perpective is currently in-place.
As far as I can tell you have chosen to be sure of only one thing: that there is no God. This choice has consequences. Modern Man is metaphysically insanehttps://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/modern-man-is-metaphysically-insane.html?m=1Indeed, metaphysically insanity is the only true madness - it is the madness of having false assumptions about the basic nature of reality.
Modern man is sure of only one thing: that there is no God. That is why he is insane - because this metaphysical assumption leads to nihilism (unbelief in reality).
Once he is unsure of anything; he loses all possibility of a scale of judgment: so modern Man utterly believes things that not only aren't true, but cannot be true - and what is more he knows they are not true and cannot be true - but he believes them anyway (sort of) because, ultimately, nothing is true.
And he disbelieves common sense and his own experience because, after all - he might be insane, deluded, hallucinating... indeed Modern Man knows, deep down, that he is insane.
And therefore he cannot believe anything - or rather, he can disbelieve anything; no matter how obvious, no matter how much evidence or logic agrees with it.
Modern Man knows he is insane because he knows that he has made himself insane - by choice, by choosing to be sure of only one thing: that there is no God.
Therefore, Modern Man is completely to blame and responsible for his condition and situation - he initiated and perpetuates it; and fights tooth and nail to retain his insanity against the hourly onslaught of counter-evidence, rationality and basic conviction.
He could change at any moment in the twinkling of an eye - but he does not. So this is a moral insanity - insanity based upon evil.
The basic answer (not the complete answer - but the necessary start) is itself very basic - acknowledge the reality of God, of Deity.
|
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3892
Merit: 1373
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 03, 2018, 01:58:36 AM |
|
WATCH: CNN's Wolf Blitzer Says Slaughtering Kids in Yemen is Worth It Because It Creates Jobs![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.freedomsphoenix.com%2FUploads%2FGraphics%2F522-0502123351-index.jpg&t=665&c=0Kv154Xj8EiHvA) According to an analysis from Unicef, more than 5,000 children have been slaughtered in the war, with the death toll from violence alone surpassing 10,000—as millions teeter on the brink of starvation. The number of casualties has only continued to increase, as a report from the United Nations noted that the parties involved are conducting operations "heedless of their impact on civilians."
As The Free Thought Project has reported, the current situation in Yemen is nothing short of genocide, as there are 7 million civilians in starvation, and 19 million out of the country's 27 million population "in need of some form of aid." Saudi Arabia has repeatedly facilitated famine, continued to murder children, and all of it is with the help and approval of the United States.
Just last week, TFTP reported on a bombing that took place at a wedding near Yemen's capital city of Sana'a. A report from the Associated Press which barely registered as a blip in the rest of the media claimed that the majority of people who were killed were "women and children who were gathered in one of the tents set up for the wedding party in the district of Bani Qayis." YEMEN: CNN Host Wolf Blitzer puts Jobs and Revenue above Human Lives
![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2Fts8tEGie9Pw%2Fhqdefault.jpg%3Fsqp%3D-oaymwEXCPYBEIoBSFryq4qpAwkIARUAAIhCGAE%3D%26rs%3DAOn4CLAi0BKfb5AcRLAbcB6HPz3bAhezKg&t=665&c=56cv5uJDExqt0A) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ts8tEGie9PwRead more at http://www.dcclothesline.com/2018/05/01/watch-cnns-wolf-blitzer-says-slaughtering-kids-in-yemen-is-worth-it-because-it-creates-jobs/.![Cool](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cool.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
SkyFlakes
Full Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 307
Merit: 101
WPP ENERGY - BACKED ASSET GREEN ENERGY TOKEN
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 03, 2018, 02:01:29 PM |
|
At first, I thought that Religion cannot affects our Health But as I think of it, it somehow really affects. Religion offers a lot of beliefs that a person on it would acquire. These beliefs affects our mind in either positive and negative way. And that continues to our well being, where I believe in what you think can manifest on your health. That's what made me believe that somehow Religion really affects our health. But I would love to know more about it so I'll try to have some research about it.
|
﹏﹏﹋﹌﹌ WPP ENERGY ﹌﹌﹋﹏﹏
☆═══━┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈━═══☆
≈ WORLD POWER PRODUCTION ≈ █ █ █
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3892
Merit: 1373
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 03, 2018, 02:58:38 PM |
|
BBC article: The hospital at the centre of a row over organ retention has admitted for the first time that it gave organs from live children for research purposes in return for cash.
Liverpool's Alder Hey Hospital has admitted taking the organs and giving them to a pharmaceutical company in return for cash donations.
While the practice is thought not to be without precedent among hospitals, many parents, even those aware that organs are retained, may not know about the role of pharmaceutical companies in their disposal.
And the idea of "payment" in return for body parts still leaves many doctors uneasy. Read more at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1137751.stm.![Cool](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cool.gif)
|
|
|
|
duniamalam
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 126
Merit: 0
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 03, 2018, 05:45:37 PM |
|
In examining the aspects of health in religion, there are two things to note: 1. Religious teachings are normative Religion provides teachings or guidance on the importance of maintaining health 2. There are real or visible religious behaviors and practices by the community In terms of real behavior there are adherents of religion who do not pay attention to aspects of health
|
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3892
Merit: 1373
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 03, 2018, 07:12:35 PM |
|
What's the matter? You can't come up with anything logical, so you start to badmouth and criticize Coincube, right? Sounds like you have been on too much medication. ![Cool](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cool.gif) Oh well at least he is somewhat funny. I must admit his little imaginary back and forth made me laugh. Ultimately the inability or unwillingness of many atheists to even attempt an articulation of an integrated and coherent system of belief leads me to the conclusion that they are often hypocrites possessed by incomplete ideas and unwilling to explore the logical conclusions and assumptions of their own positions. I have been watching Jordan Peterson videos recently as he is coming to my town next week and I have tickets to his presentation. I found this video on hypocrites particularly enlightening. Nietzsche on how to spot Hypocrites - Jordan Petersonhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taF8yk7MRV8Problem is that you guys refuse to use science to analyze the possibility of God existence. Science is clear on the subject. Instead you use the metaphysics and philosophy to validate your condition. That is all you can do these days, I guess. We cannot agree because we are talking about different things. Physics and metaphysics do not mix. You think I am arrogant and I dismiss your psychological claims to God existence. Problem is that we don't define "existence" to mean the same thing. If you want to argue about God existence first you have to define what 'God' is, then define what it means 'to exist'. From where I stand, all religious conditions are psychological and in severe cases mental disorders. Fundamentalist religious freaks should be removed from society and locked up because they pose risk to themselves and others. Being fascinated by the Bible is one thing, but to act out what the Bible recommends is criminal in most Western countries. I hope we can agree on that. BTW, I don't know why Peterson is so fascinated with Dostoyevsky, I read Crime and Punishment, good book, I must say, but to say that there is something there to Rosolnikov's character and question of God, is a bit stretch. We go through our moral dilemmas based one what we believe. He would not kill the old lady if he used a simple principle: "Would my actions cause harm to others or myself?". The problem is that you and many others won't take the time to critically analyze Cause and effect, entropy, and complexity... and the way they work together in this universe. Entropy shows us that there was a beginning. If there wasn't a beginning, long ago everything would have dispersed, dissipated, and diffused into a gigantic mass of equilibrium, rather than the orderly mass of complexity that we have today. Stabs at suggesting that entropy is simply localized, and therefore not universal, are stabs that are contradicted by stellar observations all over the place. Everything operates by C&E. This means that everything that happens has been set in place to happen that way, from the Beginning (entropy shows that there was a beginning). There are countless numbers of C&E actions, with nothing known to have happened without C&E. Everything is programming, nothing more. Even free will is artificial and programmed into us. Complexity is so extremely great that we have artificial free will. And we barely realize it until we look at how C&E pervades everything. Put these together, and you get God. How? Like this. The existence of the Beginning shows that something (or some non-thing) set the Beginning in place. C&E shows that it was very powerful to have set up something that would last as long as the universe by C&E action. Complexity is the key. Complexity of the universe, life, the human brain and mind, thought, the artificial free will, and everything else, shows that the Creator was intelligent beyond understanding, simply because our much lower intelligence exists via C&E, from the beginning. Toss out your preconceived ideas of what the word "God" entails. Use the dictionary definition, but use the complete definition. Then consider all the vastness of our universe from the standpoint of the three major qualities that operate within it: C&E, entropy, and complexity. The Creator of the universe is God way beyond God in any way we can conceive of God. When we honor Him even by simply realizing that He exists, He maintains our health in greater ways than normal, as a special gift to us for honoring Him. ![Cool](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cool.gif) First of all C&E only can be applied in temporal domain, i.e. when the cause predicates the effect. The time and space were created when the Big Bang happened. There was no time before the Big Bang so you cannot talk about the cause because there is no time for the cause to exist in.Even Hawking suggested that there was something that caused BB. Nobody knows for fact that BB happened. When the physics of the universe was caused, time was caused right along with the rest of the physics. Nobody knows for a fact that C&E doesn't work outside of time and the physics of the universe. It simply might work differently. We see C&E all around us. But we haven't seen anything else. It's your guess that there was no cause for time. Odds are dramatically and overwhelmingly against you. Universe was not designed because it started as an explosion, it is still exploding in parts of the universe. The shear volume of space and time tells you that it was not designed. You do not design a system to have such positive feedback loops. It was an accident, not a design.
There is no proof or even firm evidence that the universe was caused by an explosion. There is complete order in the physics of the universe. If there weren't, the universe would be an explosion, because explosions suggest lack of order. But the universe has order. Explosions are designed. Some of them - nuclear - have a great amount of design in them. Show us something that has design by accident, and I will show you something that has micro-design. How do you go from complexity to God beats me? Nature is a violent set of events, a wild river that destroys its banks as it forms new shape and delivers new, slightly evolved species.
Even BB would have had to have had the whole universe order within it. There is intelligence in man within the universe = intelligence in the universe. If BB were God, BB would have to have intelligence in it, for the intelligence to have come out of it. C&E doesn't allow for any pure random. Intelligence great enough to cause the intelligent design of the universe is God-intelligence. Removing the BB idea which has not been proven, and is far from being proven, leaves God. Regarding your wild river idea, all the atoms and molecules and energies within the river are acting according to orderly C&E. It is only your idea that suggests that the wild river is disorderly. Science helps us understand how nature actually works. Religion explains nature without understanding it.
Those two will never be able to reconcile. No matter how hard you try.
Using BB for an example, people who believe that BB is real, do so without proof. Thus, science becomes religion for them. Religious principles, like scientific principles, are nothing without someone for them to become active within. Therefore, at their base, science and religion are almost the same. God exists in that small space behind and between your eyes, nowhere else.
DNA shows that all animal life on earth is only at the most 3% different from all other animal life. We are both people. This makes our DNA difference very tiny, only a tiny fraction of a percent. You have God in your small space behind your eyes, as well. You can talk all you want about the metaphysical God, but it will be always that. Your own thoughts and feelings. Nothing else.
That which you stated is your religion, nothing else. Sometime you might try stepping up to science, so you can see that BB hasn't been proven, but that God has. Regarding health, placebo effect really works. But it works a lot better when you have a religion that says that God is helping you... rather than a religion that has no helper like God. Then on top of that, since God has been proven to us to exist, we know that God, Himself, works health. You have an unhealthy religion in atheism or agnosticism. ![Cool](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cool.gif)
|
|
|
|
ScroodjMoney
Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 210
Merit: 10
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 03, 2018, 07:44:44 PM |
|
Part of the point is, however long you live in this life, it is short compared with eternity. Get right with eternity, 'cause it is a long time to live there in a wretched, pathetic state.
|
|
|
|
CoinCube (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 03, 2018, 10:33:55 PM Last edit: August 05, 2019, 05:15:22 AM by CoinCube |
|
An Argument for God1. Do you believe God exist? What lead you to this conclusion?
Yes I do. Here is how I reached this conclusion. Claim #1 There are things in this universe that are true yet cannot ever be proven true no matter how much knowledge or technology advance.This first step is a general statement about the possibility of truths that can never be proven and it can be derived from mathematical deduction. Gödel’s theorem proved that any generated system capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. What this means is that in any created system that determines basic arithmetical truths/answers, there is at least one statement that is true, but not provable in the system. The universe is a non-trivial computational system. We know this from the Church-Turing thesis which tells us that physical systems can express elementary arithmetic. It is a system capable of expressing elementary arithmetic. Thus if the universe is logical we can conclude that it is incomplete. There is at least one thing in the universe that is true but cannot ever be proven from inside the universe. Optimal understanding of the universe necessitates we develop a way of evaluating concepts that are possibly true yet forever unprovable. We know that we can prove some truths and we know that we cannot prove all truths. Therefore we must develop a theory of truth that allows us to prove the truths we can and infer the truths we cannot. See: The #1 Mathematical Discovery of the 20th CenturyClaim #2 The Coherence Theory of Truth is the best known system that allows us to prove the truths we can and infer the truths we cannot. The Coherence theory of truth provides us with a mechanism for testing both provable and unprovable truth. Coherence theory holds that a belief is true if we can incorporate it in an orderly and logical manner into a larger and complex system of beliefs or, even more simply still, a belief is true when it fits in with the set of all our other beliefs without creating a contradiction. Coherence theory holds that a statement is true when it can be fully integrated into a group of complex ideas, the whole set of which is then tested against reality. Similarly an idea is false when it cannot be integrated into a group of complex ideas or if upon integration the set fails when tested against reality. Another and more common word for an unprovable truth is an a priori truth. See: The Coherence Theory of TruthClaim #3 Metaphysical truths are unprovable/assumed/a priori truths. They can only be verified with a systematic approach such as The Coherence Theory of Truth and their verification or falsification is important due to their dramatic impact on human society, human action, and human institutions.Nihilism leads to very different conclusions then Theism. Varying conceptualizations of reality lead to varying conclusions. All knowledge ultimately traces back to assumed axioms of this type. Without knowledge, scientific inquiry including empiric inquiry is meaningless and we can’t analyze the world around us. Choosing sound metaphysical first axioms is therefore a critical part of the formation of a sound empirical model of the universe and our place within it. See: Metaphysical AttitudesClaim #4 Human progress and civilization requires the growth of knowledge and is ultimately cooperation dependent. Our first premises and axioms directly impact the degree of cooperation that the system can support.Ultimately progress is maximized when voluntary cooperation is maximized. Another way of saying this is that progress is maximized when superrationality is maximized. Superrationality (or renormalized rationality) is an alternative method of reasoning. First, it assumes that the answer to a symmetric problem will be the same for all the superrational players. This sameness is taken into account before knowing what the strategy will be. Superrationality occurs when individuals have perfect rationality (and thus maximize their own utility) but can assume that other players are also superrational. Superrational players for example can escape Nash’s prisoner’s dilemma. See: Superrationality and the Infinite Claim #5 Defection is the fundamental challenge humanity must overcome. Without the suppression of defection we cannot solve the coordination problem. The removal of defection allows superrationality to manifest and thus maximizes cooperation.Cooperation involves a mutually beneficial exchange that improves the well-being of both participants. Defection is an interaction that benefits one party at the expense of another. Defection always implies violence, the threat of violence, ignorance, or forced interaction. The greatest obstacle to human progress is not a technological hurdle but the defection inherent in our nature. All forms of law and government are ultimately collective attempts to limit this defection. Instinctively we know that defection must be suppressed so we form laws and governments to do this. Government is expensive and inefficient. These inefficiencies are less costly then unrestrained individualism, however, because of pervasive human defection. The utopia of limited to no government would only be possible for a population in which all individuals were constantly striving at all times to always be superrational. Such a utopia would require all individuals to always act cooperatively, honesty, and transparently. We lack the required moral fiber for anything like this to work at our current juncture in history. Defection ultimately can be viewed as a manifestation of evil. See: Religion and Progress Claim #6 The state is incapable of suppressing defection/evil over long time horizons.The nation state, police, and laws suppress physical violence and obvious defection but it is composed of many individuals who inherently wish to defect. Over time the functionality of the state must inevitably fail as the habits and virtue necessary to sustain it are undermined by the defection of its citizens and leaders. When this occurs the internal integrity of the state itself fails. Collectivism limits some avenues of defection while opening entire new possibilities. New opportunities for defection arise along the entire economic spectrum. Everything from special interest lobbying, to disability scammers, and on a larger scale our entire fiat monetary system are essentially forms of defection allowing the few to profit at the expense of the many. Nation state collectivism has allowed for the creation of great civilizations and yet it is entirely unsustainable in its current form. This failure is not a new observation. Polybius described this about 100 years before the fall of the Roman Republic. It was also well articulated by Henning Webb Prentis, Jr in the 1940's. "The historical cycle seems to be: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage once more." - Henning Webb Prentis, Jr See: Faith and FutureClaim #7 The a priori truth of God is capable of suppressing evil and limiting defection.Genuine belief in God especially individual belief in God coupled with a genuine fear of God’s judgement is world changing. It is a well-known empirical fact that humans are much less likely to defect if they know their behavior is being observed. This has been documented in study after study in both children and adults. A society where all individuals genuinely believe their actions are being observed by God and fear God’s judgement would all else being equal have much less defection then an otherwise identical society where individuals feel their actions are secret. A society where all individuals are genuinely striving not to defect would dramatically transform the landscape of the possible. In such a society defection would be minimal and the defection that did occur would be the result of ignorance not intent. Errors of ignorance themselves would rapidly decline with time as knowledge progressed. Proverbs 9:10 "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom" See: The Beginning of WisdomClaim #8 God and the attendant superrationality that accompanies God is the only pathway forward that does not lead to permanent tyranny or utter ruin.Freedom is the right of the individual to choose how he controls himself, so long as he respects the equal rights of every other individual to control and plan his own life. Freedom is thus not the ability to do whatever you want. It is self-control, and self-government, no more, no less. Thus "freedom is self-control" leads to the conclusion that as acting individuals, we must respect the rights and boundaries of others. In other words, every individual should control his or her actions such that they do not aggress or invade against other individuals. A free society is a superrational society. It is one where all individuals are able to live their lives without being subjected to violence, the threat of violence, ignorance, or forced interaction. Human nature is deeply flawed. That ultimately is the common theme in each stage of the cycle highlighted by Polybius and Prentis all those years ago. As human knowledge progresses we as individuals are rapidly growing ever more powerful. One man with a knife can only do so much harm one man with a bioweapons lab quite a bit more. This trend will only accelerate in the years to come. Without a matching growth in moral behavior technological progress must inevitably lead to ever growing omnipresent state control as a logical necessity. Freedom requires self-control if the people’s self-control does not grow to match their power it is inevitable that the state will dramatically grow in a necessary attempt to control the people. Yet as discussed above the state cannot suppress defection/evil over long time horizons. The more powerful the state becomes the greater the opportunity, temptation and profit that results from defectors corrupting the state itself. The very growth of the nation state will lead to its accelerated corruption. The cycle of governmental collapse highlighted by Polybius and Prentis is mostly accurate but it has three basic requirements for progression to occur. 1) There has to be moral corruption that those with power are susceptible too. 2) There has to be a means by which the corrupt can be overthrown. 3) There has to be survivors following the collapse who are able to continue society. If we ever reached the stage where there was leadership without corruption the cycle would cease. If we ever reached the stage where tyranny was absolute omnipresent with no viable way to ever overthrow it the cycle would also cease. If we reach the stage where we are so powerful that government collapse leads to utter loss of control and the destruction of all human life the cycle would cease. Unfortunately of the three possible ends to the cycle the path of freedom from corruption appears the least likely one. We are a perhaps only a single generation away from the time when technological advances will make overthrowing a tyranny nearly impossible once it is established. Whatever small hope there is of attaining a moral leadership without corruption requires we establish both a leadership and a population that is superrational. This in turn requires God. Our forefathers understood that it is morality, virtue and ultimately God that allows for freedom. It is a lesson many of their descendants have forgotten. "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Benjamin Franklin “Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men; so that we do not depend upon their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them.” - James Madison “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” - George Washington See: Freedom and God Claim #9 Ultimately the a priori claim of God requires genuine faith in God or it is hypocritical.To accept something a priori means to accept it on faith axiomatically and without doubt. The Christian Pastor, the Jewish Rabbi, and the Islamic Imam are ultimately correct. You have to believe. That is the only viable pathway forward for humanity. That is my view having thought about this issue for a very long time. A worldview that leads only to extinction or permanent tyranny is not one I am interested in entertaining. I define any such worldview as evil as false. God is the very narrow very difficult road that leads to life. I believe in the a priori truth of God. I have faith in God. Now you know why. See: Multiverse Wide Cooperation for more.
|
|
|
|
CoinCube (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 04, 2018, 05:13:08 AM Last edit: May 04, 2018, 07:24:11 AM by CoinCube |
|
Also, if you want to have a discussion on the subject of God please state your position by answering the following questions:
1. Do you believe God exist? What lead you to this conclusion? - Answered above please see my addition to the post immediately above. 2. Which God is that? Which religion do you follow? - The only God the definition of God is that he is infinite so there can only be one God. I answered the question of which religion I follow here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg36167734#msg361677343. Please describe where this God exists. - I do not pretend to know. It is beyond my knowledge and a better question for a priest or rabbi. Ultimately it is irrelevant as it was not a necessary data point for me to know this in order to determine that God is true. I understand it is important to you in your quest for truth but I don't have an answer for you. 4. Please describe what this God looks like. - You cannot look at something infinite. You might as well ask what what a black hole looks like from the inside that at least is a finite body. 5. Please describe how this God interacts with the physical world. - He interacts with the world by transforming it and us as we contemplate him of that I am confident. He may also interact with the world in other ways. Anyway, my moral principle is this: "If an action causes harm to any living organism, that action is immoral". Please explain how this principle is incompatible with my denial of God existence.
I addressed this here:. A true and honest evaluation would require you to fully build out your worldview and hold it up against alternatives. If you did so you would realize that your own ethic honestly followed would lead you to also accept God because at a minimum belief that you were being observed by God would minimize deviations from your ethic in the face of temptations. Ultimately via your own value system rejecting God is immoral because it increases the probability and amount of immoral action in the world.
|
|
|
|
CoinCube (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 04, 2018, 01:58:15 PM |
|
I have a very simple moral system that works, it comes from within, system that most passionate human beings would say is worth following. And you just come out and say that my system of morality is immoral because I refuse to accept existence of some undefined infinite entity that should dictate my morals? Where do you get your morality from? So far I have not seen anything from your logic that talks about the source of your morality..
I think you might have missed a large portion of my reasoning. Please see claims #5-9 in my answer to your first question above. I added those later as I did not have time to complete my answer in a single setting. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg36246134#msg36246134I believe they answer most of your questions above. If you feel they do not please re highlight the area needing clarification.
|
|
|
|
CoinCube (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 04, 2018, 03:37:51 PM Last edit: May 04, 2018, 04:54:03 PM by CoinCube |
|
I have a very simple moral system that works, it comes from within, system that most passionate human beings would say is worth following. My moral principle is this: "If an action causes harm to any living organism, that action is immoral". Please explain how this principle is incompatible with my denial of God existence.
My one liner moral system suppresses defection without reliance on a supernatural stick. Not sure what is your point. You still have not answered the question of morality, where do you get it from. How do you determine if an action is moral?
I think your moral rule is a good one overall. If instantiated it is not that different from my own primary principle. I think it could use a little fleshing out. We cannot not harm other living organisms and continue to exist for example, but I think you could overcome these deficiencies with some clarification or subordinate principles. The primary principle I follow goes by many names. It has been referred to as The Golden Rule, Biblical Law, and Kant’s categorical imperative. They are all variations on the same concept. Some have taught this rule with more clarity than others but the rule can be found in many places. Christianity: Jesus "So everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Judaism: Hillel the Elder "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn." Islam: Abdullah ibn Amr Al-Ass "Whoever wishes to be delivered from the fire and enter the garden should die with faith in Allah and the Last Day and should treat the people as he wishes to be treated by them" Philosophy: Immanuel Kant "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. " The biggest difference between us is that you appear to take the position that your rule stands alone. That it is necessary and sufficient. Do you claim that you always live by your rule and never deviate from it. Do you manifest this idea and embody it perfectly in this world? That is impossible you are human prone to weakness, temptation, fatigue like the rest of us. Therefore you cannot live up to your own moral code it is impossible. The best you can do is approximate it. God helps humanity better approximate both your moral code and mine. I highlighted this in my claim number #7 and claim #8 above. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg36246134#msg36246134Therefore rejection of God is immoral under both your value system and mine as it leads to an increased failure to live up to the moral code.
|
|
|
|
CoinCube (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 04, 2018, 07:54:38 PM |
|
You might find my recent post in the Health and Religion thread interesting. I was asked why I believed in God. This was my answer. Why Do I Believe In God?
. I am a Chinese and I am an atheist. I have to say that from the perspective of mysticism, I can NOT understand some of the points. Please forgive my disrespect. Let me break down his points in more readable form. CoinCube believes that because there are truths and infinities in Mathematics that cannot be proven there must be an external infinite entity that exists but cannot be proven to exist.He also claims that such truth (about existence of such infinite entity aka God) predicates all our system of logic and is required for that system to work truthfully. He also claims that this infinite entity interacts with the physical world, is the source of the moral code that we should follow. He claims that any other moral code that is not dictated by predicated on this external supernatural infinite entity is doomed to fail and leads to atrocities and disintegration of societies (or utter tyranny). More or less. The underlined statement skips 8 steps from opening permise to final conclusion but anyone who wants to read those steps can follow my link above. I also corrected a few minor areas of your summary. Also when talking about infinity it is useful to differentiate the potential infinite from the actual infinite. Mathematics as it advances is inching us ever closer to the realization that the actual infinite exists. Potential Infinity vs. Actual Infinityhttp://www.numbersleuth.org/trends/potential-vs-actual-infinity/![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.numbersleuth.org%2Ftrends%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F05%2Factual-infinity.jpg&t=665&c=z6iXULMQFKPXNw) What is infinity and does it even exist? In our everyday experience, we find only finite things. A basket of eggs contains only a fixed number of eggs and no more. Our bodies are composed of particles (molecules, atoms, protons, quarks, etc.). But whatever particles describe our make up, we find only a finite number. It may be billions or trillions or more, but it still doesn’t get close to infinity. Even the known universe is finite – it’s only so many light-years in diameter and contains only so many elementary particles.
How, then, does one even get close to infinity? People have long realized that there’s no biggest number because it’s always possible to add 1 to any number and get still a bigger number. So numbers themselves, taken collectively, are infinite. Any given number is finite, but the mere fact that numbers go on forever – that’s infinite.
But what sort of infinite is this? The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle (384– 322 BC) proposed that there are two types of infinity, a potential and an actual infinity. In a potential infinity, one can keep adding or subdividing without end, but one never actually reaches infinity. In a sense, a potential infinity is an endless process that at any point along the way is finite. By contrast, in an actual infinity, the infinite is viewed as a completed totality. Aristotle rejected actual infinity, claiming that only potential infinity exists.
So what, you say? For all practical purposes, we get on quite well with quite a bit less than even a potential infinity. Take the world’s most powerful supercomputer, Japan’s K Computer, which runs at 10 petaflops, using 705,024 SPARC64 processing cores. There are absolute limits to what this machine can do in terms of storage, retrieval, and processing. It’s safe to say that 10^100 (i.e., the number 1 followed by 100 zeros, aka “google”) sets an absolute limit on the amount of processing steps this machine will ever do, on the length of the longest number it can compute, and on the amount of bytes available to the machine’s memory.
And yet, the infinite is not so readily cast aside for practical reasons. Modern mathematics is done almost entirely in terms of sets (recall the “New Math”). Set theory treats just about anything as a set (the only things that are not sets are things too big to be sets – more on that in another post). Now numbers are sets. For instance, 0 is the empty set (it contains zero items). The number 1 is also a set (it is the set that contains zero, and thus is a set with one item). But all the numbers taken collectively (0, 1, 2, etc.) also form a set, known to mathematicians as the natural numbers and represented as {0,1,2,3,…}. Ah, but what’s that ellipsis, those three dots (i.e., …), doing there? Doesn’t that tell us that the natural numbers are really just a potential infinity? Mathematicians don’t treat the natural numbers as a potential infinity but as an actual infinity – a completed totality that includes all numbers 0, 1, 2, etc.
But what do mathematicians know anyway? Perhaps treating the natural numbers as an actual infinity is just a convenient way to think about numbers and do calculations. If people’s concerns about infinity were left simply at the level of mathematics and its scientific applications, the debate over potential and actual infinities would be moot. But it turns out that this debate spills over into other areas, notably theology. If God is real, is he an actual infinite or is he just a potential infinite? Most religious believers see God also as unchanging, so if God is real and infinite, he must be an actual infinity.
Now it’s interesting that Georg Cantor, who invented set theory over 100 years ago, did so in part for theological reasons, seeing the infinite sets he came up with as a reflection of the infinity of God. Others, however, not believing that God exists or thinking that the very concept of an actual infinity is incoherent, reject the actual infinity and thus view Cantor’s so-called actual infinities as simply a device for describing much more mundane and finite processes. Yet it is a device that every working mathematician uses. As the great mathematician David Hilbert put it, “No one will drive us from the paradise which Cantor created for us.”
The debate over potential and actual infinities has been ongoing for centuries, and this short post won’t resolve it. Nonetheless, it’s worth noting that Cantor’s work on set theory has showed that the concept of an infinite set makes mathematical sense and avoids contradiction. Certain paradoxes, such as that infinite sets can be put in one-to-one correspondence with proper subsets (e.g., there are as many even numbers as natural numbers: 0à0, 1à2, 2à4, 3à6, etc.), may fly in the face of common intuitions, but science confronts us with lots of things that are counterintuitive.
In any case, modern mathematics, especially in its wholesale incorporation of set theory, has given the single biggest boost to the view that the actual infinite exists. Not that this proves the actual infinite exists – the nature of existence itself (a field philosophers refer to as “ontology” – the study of being) is itself up for grabs. But the mere fact that treating mathematical entities as actual infinities has yielded incredibly fruitful mathematical insights (Cantor’s paradise) gives the actual infinite breathing room that it never had in the past. —– References:
Joseph Dauben, Georg Cantor: His Mathematics and Philosophy of the Infinite (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990). Michael Hallett, Cantorian Set Theory and Limitation of Size (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984).
|
|
|
|
CoinCube (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 04, 2018, 08:10:52 PM |
|
... Of course we stray from our moral standards sometimes. ... Many people live by my moral standard and do not require external source such as 'God'. ... sometimes we have to bend our rules in order to survive ... I am saying that we have evolved enough to make that determination ourselves ...
I think this position of yours in particular is hopelessly naive. I also think it represents a fundamental misjudgment of human nature utterly misjudging our capacity for evil and attributing to our species a wisdom we do not possess. Jordan Peterson - Your Capacity For Evilhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S8cAD0DEcJE
|
|
|
|
|