Topic: Health and Religion - page 37. (Read 210871 times)

So I guessing the answer is no.

How about this? You said that the Bible is true because it is a witness account of what happened.  And as such it is reliable.

My question is:  "Adam and Eve were the first man and woman.  When God talked to them in the Garden of Eden, who was the witness to write about it?  Some hunched Jew hiding in the bushes?"

Same goes for the Quran, "Who was the witness when Muhammad (a blind man) went from Mecca to Jerusalem, alone at night, and then flew to heaven, nobody saw it, yet someone wrote about it?  Who was the secret witness?"

The writers of these texts had a vivid imagination (talking snakes, winged horses), today, their work would put them in the same genre as Harry Potter books.

Why do you think I am not hearing you? We are different. I do not believe that God exists. I know He exists. I can't believe it now that I know it. You believe He exists, even though you are trying to convince yourself that He doesn't.

In order to not believe in something, you have to believe in something that negates the thing that you don't believe in. You can't just remain in a void regarding something that you do not believe in, especially when you vehemently talk about not believing it. So, what do you believe in that negates the idea of God in you? That thing is your religion. Why is it your religion? Because of the word believe. Belief is like faith. It is attached to religions. You can't believe the thing that you know. Either you know it, or you believe it because you don't know it for sure.


Why do you think it would be boring as hell? Haven't you been watching all the new inventions that science is bringing about? And they have only scratched the surface of what exists to learn about. Don't you have any imagination at all?


But you don't know that it is impossible. How do I know that you don't know? Because life is impossible to exist as it is. The only reason we know that life exists, is that we are living it, and we see it all around us. It is impossible for us to make life. But even if we could a little, we are so behind what we see in the world around us, that life really is literally impossible for us. So why would you think that it is impossible to happen a second time, since it couldn't have happened the first time, but did?


But did you see that little word you used? Maybe! Maybe means maybe not, as well. And currently, the maybe not is so extremely much greater than the maybe, that it would be easier to teleport to Mars than do your silicon idea.


That's part of the big point. Science doesn't think along the lines that it takes to discover the spirit or soul. Some scientists are starting to examine the kinds of science that might apply. But they are so far behind, that thinking about applying the soul to silicon is super science fiction, superseded in greatness only by evolution science fiction.



God talked to Adam and Eve face to face. But they didn't believe Him enough to keep from sinning. Then there were others He talked to with words from Heaven, like Cain. But Cain disobeyed, as well. And, of course, there is you, who won't even believe Him though He has given many writers to tell you. Just be glad that God is patient with you enough that He allows you to live, with the hope that you will obey Him from now on... rather than striking you down for not believing all His witnesses.

Why does the bible not translate itself to different languages immediately when you read it? That would be cool and certainly possible if god wanted to but nah, better leave an old book like plenty others as proof for his existence and punish everyone who doesn't believe in it with eternal torture because, logic. Indoctrination is truly amazing.

The best way to challenge a system of belief is to show that it fails on its own terms when applied to reality.

Often it is only after that failure is manifest that those who have accepted that worldview are willing to revisit the assumptions it is predicated upon.

My own path towards a faith in God started with the realization that I should reject atheist utilitarianism on utilitarian grounds. That was the necessary first step.

The more developed Argument for God came later.

Didn't you ever read Proverbs in the Bible? If you had, you would find that it is full of practical advise. Most of the other book have practical advice, as well.

Science, however, is full of ideas that many people think have been proven, like big bang for example, and black hole theory. Science is the thing making claims without proof.


Thanks to non-scientists, the foundations of science were laid, so science had a place to begin. Consider the simple wheel, for example. And the printing press. Both of which were made by engineers, not scientists, and without which science would never have amounted to anything at all.


Without the popular religions, there would be no order in society, and scientists would be non-existent... or at best, would be chiseling out of stone.


Not sure why you are so against looking at science from a practical point of view. You treat science as though it were God... or the most important religion of all.


When you have the writings of the witnesses, who heard it directly from God, why don't you revise things like your stupid 13.5 billion years to match the facts?


Obviously you don't understand the reasoning behind it, so just believe it like all the rest of the believers who will receive eternal life. Or don't you want eternal life?


Without the Bible, the simple proof is the machine nature of the universe. Intelligent designers design the machines that people make. The machine of the universe has been made by Someone Who is far greater than mankind. The word "God" barely fits Him He is so extremely intelligent and powerful.

Many people look for aliens who are more intelligent and smarter than people. But you disdain the greatest Alien of all, One Who is able to build universes. Why are you trying to remain in a backward state? Step up to truth.



The Bible is God's Word. Read it any time you want to hear him talking to you.

If you won't change and become a believer in Jesus salvation, you will never find out what God looks like. He isn't going to share His goodness with someone who says he wants to see, yet won't accept what he is shown.

Yet we don't find anything new thanks to religion.

And that's why you have thousands of different religions with different gods and meanings. They bypass science and jump to conclusions without evidence. This is the big difference between religion and science. The theory of evolution or gravity are the accepted theories, scientists don't believe in thousands of theories for the same concept. They accept the best one. You can't say the same for religious people, otherwise they would all believe in the same religion and that's clearly not the case.

Science is in its infancy. So far, the more we find out scientifically, the more we are shown that science has a lot farther to go than ever.

Religion jumps to the major points of life. It bypasses science, and is far more important than science because of this. Someday science will catch up to religion a little... maybe.

And that's exactly why religions are useless, this is all based on science and research. We don't need religion for any of this, religion does nothing, it's outdated. Coincube uses a lot of science and philosophy in his arguments, it's funny that he doesn't realize none of that is in the bible.

The failure with this solution is that it does not really solve the underlying problem. High IQ while generally a good thing does not make one morally capable. Without moral capability all high IQ does is enable you to cause more damage and defection.

High IQ Psychopaths
https://www.iq-brain.com/blog/high-iq-psychopaths/

If my analysis in the opening post of this thread is correct this is not ideal when looked at from a purely Darwinian perspective.

Fair enough in the course of the friendly jabs we both throw back and forth to keep the debate fun you should know that you have my respect for reading and evaluating the views of others.

The end goal is always to reach consensus or in our case where consensus is not attainable a solid understanding of the position of ones opponent.

Ultimately, my view is that your moral framework is untrue because it is insufficient. I believe it fails when actually applied to the world both in the vast majority of individuals and for society as a whole. I made this case for why it fails in my Argument for God upthread and our following conversation.

You disagree. You feel that your moral framework is true and sufficient capable of accurately mapping to reality and sustaining humanity. You also feel that the framework I use to support my worldview is arbitrary, unnecessary and ultimately imaginary.

This is a basic disagreement about the nature of reality.

Below are a couple of queries I recommend holding in mind going forward as you observe reality. It is my opinion that they will help you to either solidify your current worldview or reject it as false.

1) Does your worldview keep you on track in the face of temptation? When the opportunities arise to accomplish your desires at the cost of minor or major breaches of your code is your code functional? Does it keep you in line?

2) Does your worldview propagate and keep others on track? Are you able to share it with your children and with your neighbors. Do they in turn adopt it and live by it or dismiss it as your eccentric and individual ideas?

In then end we all implement our beliefs in our lives. We are tested against the framework of reality and reality provides feedback. Often it is in the process of living the implementation that we find our best opportunities to discover truth.

I see so you and you fellow "strong intellects" are going to develop the perfect moral standard free of all references to the devine and minister to the great unwashed masses who will absorb your wisdom with rapture as you lead us all to human moral perfection and utopia huh?

Good luck with that.

The causing of nature to come into being is the greatest supernatural happening that we know of. So the Being that caused it to happen is much more supernatural.

It is good to have religion and good health.

God transforms the world by rectifying it through us as we contemplate him. Our actions, essence, and potential change.

I have a question about your worldview.

You agree that humans are capable of great evil describing us as collectively evil.

You also agree that a belief in God helps us establish and follow a moral standard the very thing that makes us less evil.

.

Yet you argue against a belief in God.

You state that humans are mostly stupid


Yet believe these same stupid humans are capable of abstractly developing and following their own moral codes modifying them on the fly in the face of temptation.


Your views appear incoherent to me. Please clarify where I am misunderstanding your position.

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 Evil
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S8cAD0DEcJE

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.


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://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.36246134

Therefore 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.

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://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.36246134

I believe they answer most of your questions above. If you feel they do not please re highlight the area needing clarification.

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://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.36167734

3. 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.



I addressed this here:.

An Argument for God


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 Century

Claim #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 Truth

Claim #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 Attitudes

Claim #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 Future

Claim #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.


See: The Beginning of Wisdom

Claim #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.