Total posts: 1,001
-->
@Double_R
It's possible to use math in a way that has no real world application. It's the same with logic and philosophy. U have good points logically but u spend too much time ignoring the science. Like my last post says I think theists have a stronger argument scientifically and that is what should inform our philosophy. I realize saying I don't know is superior, but given u r taking a skeptic position to something causing the universe, you have no choice but to engage scientifically... otherwise u have empty logic and rhetoric
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The whole point of entanglement is that what happens to one particle, also happens to the other, no matter how far away, at the same time. So isn't your description inaccurate?
I don't know if entanglement can be manipulated beyond a single peice of info, movement, tho, and it seems that that would be the issue
Created:
Posted in:
To be fair to these guys, those r trumps personal attributes. Not that I think his policy and presidential attributes r much better
Created:
Can the absence of something produce something? We don't enough info to think the nothing that we know of, with quanta, can produce the universe, but we thermodynamics still must be accounted for to explain how our universe came to be. We have a firm issue with my quibble and only speculation scientifically and philosophically with the atheist quibbke
Created:
-->
@FLRW
i dont know that question is relevant to this debate, but i suspect as do most scientists that there's life out there in the distant universe, if not in our own solar system. that's the conventional wisdom, actually. as a theist, suspect something must be special about life theologically for it to be as rare as it looks... but this is just me musing as a theist.
Created:
i used to say it doesn't make sense for there to be nothing and then an infinite something, like we currently see. how can something be infinite in one direction and not the other, and how can that play out such that it happens to be our reality when it seems like it should have run its course by now? but the thing is, if 'uncaused causes' are possible, then maybe the universe is an uncaused cause, and all my quibbles are what uncaused causes look like.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
you are good at getting deep philosophically... but in simple terms, why is it so unreasonable to think something other than the universe, caused the universe? i know you dont like the idea because it's outside of what we can objectively know based on what we currently accept as reality, but i guess my question is, dont you think a reasonable person can think something other than the universe caused the universe?
also another thing we've all been circling around, there's 'accepting' something as objective truth, and there's accepting something as a running hypothesis, and there's aceepting something as debateably the best hypothesis.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
"If it is the best answer then accepting any other answer is not logically justifiable."
a few things wrong with that idea. one is that you yourself seem pretty keen on not sticking to it... you are clearly defending the atheist view point. also, if someone has a hypothesis and not the truth established... it's fair and actually good to argue back and forth about the hypothesis, for what you suspect the truth is.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
there's 'nothing' and then there's 'nothing'. in the vaccum of space, there is a lot of nothing to the layman, but scientists know there's quanta out there. but what exists outside the universe? what everyone is circling around, is that some say that's a non sense question, but others point out that at least philosophically, maybe it isn't. you point out only the nothing of what we know of can produce something... but can the nothing of what we dont know produce something?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
that looks like a great series. too bad our streaming system is so convoluted that we can't easily watch these things. i have netflix, and roku, maybe prime is cheap for month to month streaming.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
that's fair enough, i dont know, and possibly the best answer, but i think it's fair to have an opinion and then defend it.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
the only logical conclusion from your arguments is that the universe came from nothing. you act surprised when people reject that idea.
Created:
talking about necessary and contingent and such is philosophy. it might be true or not true. but when we look at the science, such as theormodynamics, the philophy starts to make sense. like i said, it looks, scientifically, like something other than the universe, caused the universe.
Created:
it looks like the universe is an effect. can the universe be an uncaused caused? yes, but it doesn't look like it. can something that caused the universe be an uncaused cause? yes, that's possible, and even if there's an infinite chain of cause and effect before the universe, it's an uncaused cause, a fortiori, and is still the cause of the universe.
maybe 'god' doesn't necessarily answer the question when it gets to specifics, but to think something caused the universe, is, in short, fair and the most reasonable conclusion.
Created:
we need both schools of thought. we need facts, and we need to be able to draw conclusions from those facts. empiricists might be right that we can't know anything a priori, but for all intents and purposes, they wonder off into lacking common sense since they deny what our perceive. they are technically correct, but for practical purposes, it's all a charade.
Created:
Posted in:
i do realize quantum computing is different than communication, but i just wonder if you are as aware to the current science.
i still would think it's possible in theory to use the quantum state, even if it just means using morse code based on the manipulation of on and off. if morse code can be done, higher level communication should be possible. if i'm making sense, i'm not sure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
you are better at being able to articulate the ideas than me, but what do you think of this sixty minutes clip?
if i remember right, they said they can currently do computation with quantum mechanics, it's just not currently faster than traditional computers, and it's error prone. they have a proto type at the cleveland clinic.
they also said they expect to have them functional within the next five or so years.... tho that it, granted, just their claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I know quantum computing is right around the corner based on 60 minutes and the experts. I just assumed quantum communication could be too, cause it's at least possible in theory, but I might be wrong to make the assumption for practical purposes. Freezing complex organisms to me I wouldn't just assume is possible. Like last poster showed, tardigrades can be frozen for a long time but they can survive almost anywhere
Created:
Posted in:
just got too use to posting in religion forum, should have posted science
Created:
Posted in:
it's too difficult to freeze and unthaw humans after thousands of years. it's too difficult to maintain a civiliization on a spaceship. but it's feesible to liter the galaxy with embryos, who will use quantum communication with earth, and use artificial intelligent robots to raise the embryos that have human connections through communication. if quantum communication doesn't pan out, at least use robots to raise kids. it's more likely artificial intelligence will work out, than cryo or spaceshipcivilitions will work out.
Created:
Posted in:
how trying to date or choosing to date sometimes doesn't make sense
Created:
-->
@Morphinekid77
your arguments weren't adding up, cause i think the proper way to address it, is by arguing that 'an eye for an eye' wasn't meant literally.
Created:
a good argument that an eye for an eye wasn't meant literally, is that both modern and ancient jews didn't take it literally.
This is a complex topic that may have varying interpretations.Rabbinic Judaism rejects the literal meaning of "an eye for an eye" in the Torah. Instead, they insist that it stands for compensatory damages, such as the value of an eye for an eye.The Talmud interprets "an eye for an eye" as mandating monetary compensation in tort cases. They argue against the interpretation by Sadducees that the Bible verses refer to physical retaliation in kind."An eye for an eye" is a famous summary statement regarding appropriate punishment for a wrong, especially personal injury. It has been variously understood as requiring equivalent, even duplicate, punishment or as setting a limit on punishment.The principle of "an eye for an eye" was used in Hammurabi's Code and also in Judaism.
Created:
Posted in:
"Black Pill is for Tinder, Red Pill is for the club and Blue Pill is for church."
"Black pill is just a brutal reality check of your situation, which in turn helps you decide whether or not to pursue the red pill or accept defeat"
"I believe in Red pill because it worked for me. The first 30 years of my life I was not getting anything. Then I worked on myself and my game and had an over abundance. I'm an average looking guy. I think the black pill can be relevant if you are unwilling to get yourself in ok shape and figure out who you are as a person."
Created:
Posted in:
analysis of all the pills
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
that's an excellent analogy, but at least to our human minds, it's a paradox or contradiction. jesus is god, the father is god, but the father isn't the son. superficially it's an illogical syllogism.
some lesser good analogies compared to yours. a three leaf clover. each person of the trinity is in a different dimension but still god, thus can be considered same but different. the oceans of water, are all water and thus one, but each ocean is distinctly its own thing... as can also be compared to the body of believers, different parts, one body, united to jesus. a comparison that is also great that i made is.... like a father is both a son, father and brother... so too is God a father son and spirit in one, united mystically to humans by the son.
i think it's fair to give your analogy, but it's just an analogy. the spirit and body are distinct, and not the same, even if they are united in one being. it's illogical to say they are the same and different at one time. on this side of eternity, i think it's more accurate to say there's good ways to describe it, but it's a paradox, or even a contradiction.
Created:
Posted in:
hook up culture mostly hurts women, but we should also talk about men too
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
you are a super weird and radicalized dude. you have some great ideas sometimes too, i'll give you that.
Created:
Posted in:
the college and hook up culture we have, hurts both men and women, but it mostly hurts women. im surprised this quote doesn't include lack of passing on women's genes... cause college and hook ups, are artificial methods that distract from our biological drives, and as has been said, women end up getting infertile and then it's too late.
According to Psychology Today, hookup culture has been widely documented and is widely documented. Some say that hookup culture can do more harm than good.Here are some ways that hookup culture can hurt women:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
most of the time you come up with some wild comparisons that think there's no way to distinguish, when in reality reasonable people can come to different ways of distinguishing. but then sometimes you come up with ideas that are hard to argue with. i dont know why child labor exploitation for the benefit of the masses isn't talked or advocated about more... but it's obvious the ultimate reason is because it benefits the masses, so the masses like to look other way.
Created:
Posted in:
different philophsical approaches to genders and modern dating in usa
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
you have achieved one of your goals in life, by experiencing a sucky life. remember, experience, for the sake of experience. also, you have achieved very perceptive insights by having your condition... you achieved wisdom. even if you never become an exceptional writer or philsopher, you achieved wisdom and experience from the unique perspective of best korea.
you go, you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
you've definitely taken some time to come to some basic but profoundly insights on this topic. maybe you are meant to be a nihilist. if you want to develop your nihilism, maybe you should read more explicitly from nihilistic philosphers.
Created:
Posted in:
that guys whole channel is super insightful. i wouldn't be surprised if he's a genius, and if not, then autistic in his insights.
Created:
Posted in:
how dating and romance sucks for many men, and why many are opting out
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
here's a quick long list of attractiveness facts that defy political correctness, but are true. very insightful. i think you might have a care about this sorta stuff, but not sure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
bliss v non bliss.
you said it yourself, we can't function in life without pain, and we also can't know light without dark. it's inherent in our reality. we can't know bliss without non bliss. could there be a reality where there is only bliss and no non bliss? yes, but it's not meant for our purposes here, in my opinion. also, i expressly didn't say only the abuse can maximize bliss... i'm saying the abused coudn't know bliss unless they experienced non bliss.
another idea, is according to new age thinking, it's not just alleviating suffering,,, but also experience for the sake of experience. we are the universe experiencing itself. experience is the end game in our reality, not necessarily maximal bliss, though that should be everyone's goal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
you have a lot of insightful ideas. also consider that philsophers often agreed on the idea of maximizing happiness for everyone, as a moral thing to work towards. maximzing, not necessarily being perfect. also consider that the point of life, is for humans to alleviate suffering, and suffering can't be alleviated unless it exists to begin with. also consider that we can't know bliss without knowing non bliss. also consider that jesus said those who suffer, will one day bring glory to God, when they no longer suffer. i know i've told you these ideas, and you've rejected many of them... but i'm just reiterating.
Created:
Posted in:
According to a 2023 Gallup poll, nearly a quarter of Americans think it is morally acceptable for a married person to have more than one spouse at the same time. This is an increase from 5% in 2006.Polygamy is rare in the United States and Canada, especially in the West. However, it has recently made a comeback due to popular TV shows that show a positive side to it.Polygamy is illegal in most countries, and laws that allow it are primarily found in the Middle East and Africa. However, some cultures accept polygamy, such as some Islamic, Hindu, and even Christian countries.
Created:
Posted in:
the quote from the last post, is like the modern 'no fat or ugly chicks' in modern times,and no below median men, for how hard it is for modern men in the usa to breed or have relationships. but if half of women are soon not gonna be breeding, as is the fact i've heard, then i think our modern monogamous lifestyle, and college and hook up culture (these are constraining women when they are younger and should be reproducing. women lose fertility fast and faster between thirty and forty, to a large degree, and we see women fucking around until 30, not setttling the next few years, then not being able to reproduce at all by the time they find someone), and refusing to settle, are all pressuring women be less successful biologically, in reproducing,than they use to be.
Created:
Posted in:
Today's human population is descended from twice as many women as men. I think this difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.
Created:
or maybe an eye for an eye was never meant to be taken literally, but just meant that injuring another person, allows for proportional compensation. that's not so bad, if we interpret it that way.
"An eye for an eye" is a metaphor that means punishment should be equal in kind to the offense. It's based on the concept of lex talionis, the law of retaliation, which is expressed in Exodus 21:24. The principle of "an eye for an eye" means that if someone puts out another's eye, one of the offender's eyes should be put out.However, some say that "an eye for an eye" can't be applied to all situations because it would produce absurd results. For example, a car thief may not have a car to steal, and an arsonist may not own anything to burn down. Others say that "an eye for an eye" would not be fair if the person is punished even though they are innocent.In Judaism, Isaac Kalimi said that the Rabbis "humanized" the lex talionis by interpreting "an eye for an eye" to mean reasonable pecuniary compensation.
Created:
-->
@Morphinekid77
an eye for an eye is the default and what humans deserve, but jesus showed a higher method? but, point blank, if a human injures another human, the transgressor deserves to himself be similarly injured? if even we as christians choose mercy instead?
Created:
Posted in:
According to a 2011 paper, early humans began to shift towards monogamy around 3.5 million years ago. However, the species never evolved to be 100% monogamous.Fossil evidence suggests that monogamy predates even Ardipithecus ramidus, a 4.4-million-year-old partial female skeleton.Recent anthropological data suggests that the modern concept of life-long monogamy has only been in place for the last 1,000 years.In Israel, the Second Temple period, from 515 B.C.E. to 70 C.E., brought about widespread monogamy. Men began to pledge their fidelity to their first wife and polygyny in the area was reduced.Scientists at University College London believe monogamy emerged so males could protect their infants from other males in ancestral groups who may kill them in order to mate with their mothers.
i've read that most males, historially, didn't reproduce. a minority of men, were responsible for multiple women having babies. the current trend with dating, in the usa, is that women only are atracted to the top fifth of men, and get passed around by them when they are younger. i think what's happening, is that many women refuse to settle or lower their standards, in expectation of our still mostly monogamous society, and so we see stats that show half of adults will soon be unmarried and childless, women included.
but is this trend to fuck around when younger, and the breaking of social norms regarding sex and marriage and attractions, leading to a time when only 'chads' and above average men will impregnante the majority of women? if life long monogamy is only recent, and being serial monogamous before that for a short while... are humans evolving back to the old polyamorous set up? are we in the process of switching? it kinda looks like that, and it's at the root of humans as a biological species.
Created:
-->
@Morphinekid77
well i've made a certain peace with the idea that maybe the penalty of sin is death, and not only that, that maybe humans are made to put them to death for sinning, at least in the old testament. (though the modern death penalty could be said to be morally and divinely applicable sometimes too).... so is the bottom line, that, criminally, when someone injures someone else, that person who insured the other, they deserve to be injured themselves? if a person pokes out someone's eye or take their tooth, is their just penalty for their own eye and tooth to be taken? i understand that there can legit be a play on when the law is necessary, and when mercy is necessary.. but it's a lot to accept that the just consequence of insuring someone is that they the transgressor should himself be injured.
the short quote and you, are both not clarifying whether the old law was just meant for them, or if it's what we all deserve, even if there was a higher way made by jesus.
Created:
-->
@Morphinekid77
what do you think of my last post and the quoted text i gave? would you be open to the idea that 'an eye for an eye' wasn't God's teaching for humanity, but God's practical approach to work with humans? like a lot in the bible, it doesn't quite make sense if we approach it the way we've been taught by religions, but could make sense if it's understood differently and tweaked.
Created:
Ancient Judah wasn’t just a religion, it was a country with its own civil law. In the United States, if you crash your car into another vehicle, and it’s your fault, the other person can take you to court and force you to pay for the damages to their car. Similarly, in ancient Judah, if you punched some guy and blinded him in one eye, then he had the right to take you to court and have you blinded in one eye as well.One section of the Bible (called the Torah or Pentateuch) is mostly just a list of civil ordinances. It covers everything from how to deal with cases of assault to the penalties for allowing your cow to trample someone else’s field.The Bible contains a list of civil ordinances that are only applicable to the nation of Judah, and are by no means intended as a guide to the daily morality of someone living in the middle of the United States (or any other country that isn’t ancient Judah). The law in the United States mandates jail time for thieves, but that doesn’t give you the right to lock someone in your basement for five to ten years if you catch them breaking into your car. Some laws are designed to govern a nation, and some penalties are meant to be enforced by a governing body. Other writings in the Bible make this point perfectly clear: the law was meant for the citizens of Judah (i.e. the Jews). If you were not a citizen of Judah, either directly or by proxy, then those laws did not apply to you.Jesus was a reformer of sorts. Imagine you stop at a stop light and some other car crashes into your back bumper. In the United States, at least, you have the right to claim damages from the other driver. Jesus would have argued that the right thing to do is to let the other driver go without suing them for damages. A few years after the time of Jesus, Paul of Tarsus theorized that the civil law of Judah was primarily intended to show would-be criminals what they deserved, and not to show would-be victims the penalties that they should impose. In other words, the law was meant, in part, to instruct people in good behavior by appealing to empathy.I recently saw a comment in which a woman asserted that anyone who swears at another person in a bar deserves to have a beer dumped over their head. That certainly seems like a rational option to an angry person, doesn’t it? The whole “eye for an eye” thing teaches us otherwise. A beer over the head deserves a beer over the head, and mean words only deserve mean words. Jesus, of course, would have argued that a beer over the head deserves a beer over the head, but the right thing to do is walk away from the conflict without exacting retribution.
i found this excellent analysis on the internet. but even by this standard, it seems 'an eye for an eye' is a man made law for that local people, or for humans as humans. but if this was the case, it was still only a law for humans and by humans. maybe an eye for an eye isn't God's rule, but maybe the heart of the old testament is that God's rule for them was "be good enough". and the law of the new testament was "have faith and try to be good". (more precisely, repent, believe in jesus, and try to progress in holiness)
here are more great insight into finding how to reconcile this stuff
maybe an eye for an eye, literally, was a criminal penalty, and also a basis for fair civil judgments? it's fair to penalize people criminally, and there does need to be a way to meat out justice civially in the name of justice, even if the higher standard of Jesus and st paul was to let shit slide and let bygones be bygones. considered this way, maybe an eye for an eye is still the law of humans as a default, even if normally we're called for more?
i feel like i'm getting closer to reconciling the two theologies, but it seems the only way to authentically do so, is to tweak the old rule beyond what it's normally interpreted as
Created:
-->
@Morphinekid77
it's almost such, that i want to say the old testament is man's covenant with God, but the new testament is God's covenant with man. but i know you and other good christians would tell me i'm wrong.
Created:
-->
@Morphinekid77
still maintain they seem to contradict each other on a moral truth level.The Law was sent to show us our need for Christ. It is the gold standard that nobody could uphold perfectly. And therefore the judgment was death for breaking it.Once we get to Christ we are saved from the penalty of the Law, and now our new contract has different terms and conditions for not just a single nation (Israel) but all humanity.So eye for and eye for example, is still true, and still the standard. But as the saying goes, an eye for an eye would make the world blind. So, the new covenant teaches turn the other cheek. This, put into practice is more suitable for all humanity
it seems like you're arguing 'that's just the way it is'. which could be true, but i am just not seeing how they can be reconciled, the two theologies both being possible.
Created: