Topic: Intervention Theory: An alternative to Darwinism and Creationism - page 4. (Read 9465 times)

Some nonphysical beings can be and indeed are proven to exist as i have already discussed in detail. So consider the messengers and the information they bring. God is subject to doubt by humans but does this also apply to other beings of a different kind? I choose to read their wisdom because i doubt that humanism will elevate the human races.

By far Anonymints most perspicacious piece of writing on any subject on these boards IMO - though I would never claim to have trolled through the entirity of his voluminous meanderings.

In philosophy (the philosophy of science) there is a concept (and adherents to the concept) of verisimilitude. This is close, I believe, to what both Anonymint and myself would both ascribe to. The notion can likewise be applied to ethics and political philosophy. That is, we can only ever have an approximation to truth, not a hold on it absolutely.

Coincube, on the other hand, seems to ascribe to a more pragmatic approach to ethics - and in its way this is not a million miles from the approach mentioned above and championed most notably by Karl Popper. That is, for the pragmatist, the "truth value" of an ethical proposition can most readily be ascertained by its practical application - further, the practical "unfolding" of a precept is its only meaningful measure.

Of course, Anonymint then goes off at a tangent when he starts banging on about "leftists" - which is ironic really, as the idea's that he has propounded above come as close to Mao's idea of the "permanent revolution" as anything you will find this side of Beijing.

Anyhow, 2 random thoughts that I'll give you. The first is that you can't have knowledge without doubt. I can be in no doubt about a logical tautology of the nature "Its either raining outside, or its not raining outside" - but of course, this tells us nothing about the weather or the world.
    And two, a quote from the economist JK Galbraith - "The fortunate find virtue in that which perpetuates their good fortune". And that in a nutshell captures and explains the large part of any absolutist theory of morality.

The only generative essence absolute I can think of so far which I can't refute, is our desire to give meaning to our perception of our existence.

This explains the necessity of death. Eternal continuity of perception could not coexist with wonderment because everything that exists would have always been. We'd lose that fundamental absolute which drives the differentiation between the past and future light cones of relativity.

Ancient artifacts from other beings, but very little of this makes any sense without Intervention.

https://youtu.be/dtBkkY7txhY

More on the difference between thinking and knowing:


https://books.google.com/books?id=UgmirRl4JRMC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=In+vain+do+we+build+the+city+if+we+do+not+first+build+the+man&source=bl&ots=nlIkR70s0Y&sig=UsbMfmCwTtTFfAJ3nvq9-sBzr0M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKsOzt8YbRAhUiq1QKHWHDBY8Q6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=In%20vain%20do%20we%20build%20the%20city%20if%20we%20do%20not%20first%20build%20the%20man&f=false

In that thread I mentioned one metaphysical fact, which is an absolute:

"the world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived"

it is one which has been recognized by eminent researchers throughout the ages. A great link for anyone who is curious about intellectuals who profess religious belief.

Here is another absolute, this time it is an ethical fact:
11. YOU MUST NOT IMPOSE NOR FORCE YOUR FREE-WILL UPON THE FREE-WILL OF ANOTHER. ALSO KNOWN AS "THE LAW OF NON-INTERFERENCE".

I think that this law #11 professes absolute moral correctness, so it is obviously by definition a moral system, in my opinion.

Believing in moral absolutes like law #11 is not immoral per se; if such belief were immoral, then knowing a moral fact and believing in it would be immoral--by definition.

Like I mentioned in that thread, to solve the valuation problem, a wide diversity of moral lessons and instructions must be comprehended and evaluated because of the lack of a priori truths; that is to say that each one is on his/her own spiritual journey. Lessons can even come from non-physical teachers (e.g. extraterrestrials) and I am lucky enough to have found useful teachings (from beyond Earth) that I will share here: I opine that the contents of Phoenix Journal #27 are impressive and obviously the result of INTERVENTION; this Journal lays out the laws of GOD and Creation in full detail.


I also mentioned this about values:

"In another context, man may find himself giving up those values that were (somehow) discerned ex-nihilo and instead return his free will to GOD and live by faith according to the rules given unto mankind for the total transformation of the species (true progress)."

The Operator-Owner Manual is a source for those rules; I have always sought out new and diverse teachings and I wish to share the benefits of this strategy by pointing out these valuable writings. I do agree that the right values will take a genius very far in life.

I don't have a religion at the moment other then general Ethical Monotheism though I am considering several options. However, I did not equate your position to a philosophy that says humans have no value.

There are several branches of nihilism one of these is epistemological nihilism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism#Epistemological_nihilism

The link I gave to the debate on Nihilism earlier was a debate between myself and nihilnegativum who argued in favor of a metaphysical nihilism, that is a nihilism in ontology and epistemology. He argued that his position did not lead to moral nihilism though he did not provide much detail about that. Since his position appeared to be at least superficially similar to yours I simply thought you would find the debate interesting.


It is clear that instead of prodding to self-reflection I only managed to offend which was not my intent.  
I have stated my position on the matter and I will leave any last words or comments to you.

Morals and values are a very difficult topic for people from different backgrounds to discuss. This is the reason for so much strife between ethnicities.

That is one reason I leaned towards not even wanting to think about it for most of life.

Religion has destroyed so much too. Including friendships.

There are more productive activities. You are clearly trying to find a fault in me personally, to justify your religion conceptually. So what does that say about your value system.


Absolutely not! You can't take words out-of-context and claim they convey the intended meaning. Not to mention that I can't possibly convey all my intended meaning, because I don't have time to write a book on this topic. Value systems are complex. I have many thoughts and points about this which I don't have time to write down right now.


Removing context when in fact what I need to write to express myself adequately is much, much more involved and longer than that quick attempt to dump some thoughts.

I know what you are doing. You are trying to make me see that I need to subjugate myself to a higher authority (when in fact I already stated that we all are subject to the NATURAL LAW whether we admit or not). You are pushing the dogma that provides your self-esteem on me by trying to find a weakness in my words. To bolster your confidence in your unfalsifiable God, you will of course relish the moment to say, "I told you so" (even a broken 12-hr clock is correct twice a day).

As I wrote upthread, you (we all) are in a competition (and sometimes also cooperation) to prove that our group evolutionary strategy is the better and correct one.

But I am not measuring my value system by how much others who don't choose my value system suffer, except in the case of the leftist, because the leftist do the one thing that I think is unequivocal evil and that is they force their religion on those who choose not to participate in their religion. Leftists are the most violent and oppressive religion on earth, including any other religion that tries to force everyone to convert. Religious zealots seem to relish in pointing out how everyone else suffers if they don't follow the "correct" religion.


Have you not considered how much more difficult it may be to formulate a stable set of values given the logical conclusion that there are no absolute truths. I consider it much more challenging than accepting some faith that some unfalsifiable God is absolute. But to each his own. My most important value is that I abhor those who force their value systems on those who opted-out. I try to observe and understand other cultures. It doesn't mean I shouldn't and can't have my own value system, even perhaps one that is unwavering or eventually consistent with my perspective of the world.

Religion and value systems lead to war. As evident right now in this conversation. Implying to someone else that they are inferior or evil because of their value system is war. You had better be sure about your decision when doing that. I am sure about that when I say leftists are evil. I know they will make war against me, even I try to opt-out, so I lose no potential peace by fighting back and telling them what they really are.

I thought you were a peaceful person.


You are constructing a strawman, because I specifically stated in the part of my comment which your elided from your bullshit quote, that one of the reasons I have a value system is because I love people. So to equate me with some philosophy that says humans have no value, is a fucking lie. What does your religion say about liars who bear false witness and false testimony?

The words above are your own. My contribution was only to shorten them and invite you to consider the possibility that your stated conclusions follow naturally from your starting premises. I tried to abbreviate your arguments for clarity and it was not my intent to alter your meaning. However, when we abbreviate the writings of another there is always some danger that without context the meaning will change.

You are correct that I disagree with your opening argument on absolute Truth. However, my opinion in this instance is entirely irrelevant. What matters in this particular case is your opinion.

If you are interested in my opinion I shared it in a recent debate on the nature and consequences of nihilism.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15883731

Also there you will find counter arguments from the perspective of nihilism which are more in line with your starting posit that there is no absolute Truth.

That is bullshit that you gutted the context. For example when I stated that I am free to choose a set of values, it is in large part because there either wasn't a well defined value system in my family (upbringing) or it was a hodgepodge of values that wasn't working for my nuclear family. Thus why would I emulate/continue what wasn't working? To quote that out of context and try to insinuate that I think I should change my value system willynilly, is disingenuous discussion. It is also spiteful and hateful to intentionally try to take advantage of another person's life situation and intentionally attempt to twist the meaning of what they have written to serve your selfish aspirations to defend the absolutist morals of some faith. I conveyed that I am trying to more clearly understand what my value system is and should be. I understand you think that without subjugating myself to a Christian God, then I will suffer. Did the Jews not suffer in the Holocaust because they choose a religion which caused them to be targeted. It is absolute bullshit to judge another person this way. You aren't even close to reaching ethical and spiritual Zen with that stance. It may be true the allegation that the Jews lack the insight of Jesus. They think they are the chosen ones. Lol. Btw, I wasn't criticizing the Jews. I was saying that I wouldn't want to submit to a religion which tries to control my diet and they can't even agree on the interpretation between different sects. But those who want to choose that are free to do so. I have no desire to tell them not to or to try to criticize them. But if I am sharing about what I would choose for myself, I can speak honestly.

Afaics, you are moralizing and judging (probably because you observe that I have vacated the foundation of your value system of an absolute truth, therefor you must attack mine). Please read Jesus's wisdom in Matthew 7.

I really "enjoyed" (more correct term may be 'riveted by') this movie Finding Home last night:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3319398/videoplayer/vi2310911513?ref_=tt_ov_vi  (there is a trailer video)
http://www.findinghomefilm.com/about/film/
http://corneredglobe.com/finding-home-cambodias-prostitution-epidemic/

It is available on Netflix.

It was interesting on many levels, most of which is just the emotional connection to the girls and their sadness, hardships, and triumphs. But it was also interesting the negative role that religion played in their debacle.

There are many different religions, because there is no absolute truth. We typically pick a set of values that make sense within your family background, culture, and what we and the people we love can believe in.

The Jews have a strong discipline and culture, and they have the right to think very highly of it because it is quite successful for them. But it does have the the downside that they alienate the goyim and there has been at least one purge already because the Jews are seen as outsiders or parasites. I am not saying I agree with the Nazis but it is a risk one takes when choosing to be a Jew. So if you can judge me and say that my problems in life are due to my choices in life including my choice of value system, then I can also turn that mirror back on the Jews and say they reaped what they sowed in Nazi Germany. I am not that judgmental so as to blame their deaths on their choice of religion, but if you are going to really want to look at the speck of dust in my eye, perhaps you may want to check if there is plank of wood in your own. We were having a discussion here about the science and facts. I merely opened up and shared my viewpoints at this time. I guess that turned into an attack on me personally, when we were supposed to be discussing systems not personal triumphs and failures.

No choice of value system and culture is free. There are tradeoffs. Because there are no absolutes.

There is no system which would bring absolute harmony to mankind. The human ecosystem is just like nature. Diversity is important for evolutionary resiliency.

Any group which thinks it has the absolute moral correctness, is already by definition an immoral system IMO.

The challenge and problem of recognizing this reality, is to establish a firm individual value system that can be successful. This is a very big challenge, because avoiding the question of a value system can leave one rudderless and prone to falling into unsuccessful diversions.

My strong distaste for the leftist religion is because they attempt to bind those outside their choice of religion to obligations that their religion deems important. They are not minding their own business. Any religion which does not respect the freewill of others to choose their own value system, is IMO the greatest evil.


While we are pontificating, those (I presume GOYIM) Americans in that video above are actually doing something for those girls in Cambodia. How many Jews are there actually doing something?

Yesterday I took young boys from the squalor area to go play basketball on a nice court. Tomorrow (actually today, it is 2am) I send some money to help some very young kids who live in squalor have a Xmas experience. I am not normally talking in public about what I am doing in this respect (I did document the donations after typhoon Yolanda for tax reasons in case IRS would try to insinuate I pocketed money). Please don't incite me to. The Bible instructs to not let our other hand know what the other hand is giving to the poor.

I don't believe in Darwin's theory! I do not believe man came from apes, and other monkeys not turning into people. I think that landed on the Ground some meteorite and brought life. And how it has adapted and mutated it already another thing.

It may be highly unwise to dismiss proper interpretation of religious dietary restrictions as illusion or meaningless "group think".

See:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17252945

I have reduced your argument to its core premises and conclusions. It is for you to decide if further reflection is warranted.

The law of thermodynamics is implicitly fundamental. It can't be any other way, unless past and future become undifferentiated but then everything is static.

My point is that God is unlimited in what He can do.

In the New Testament, God tells us, through Jesus, that not one jot or tittle will fall from the law until everything is fulfilled. This might mean that all the laws of physics will remain stable until the time of the end. But the "time" of the beginning is before physics was set up in its entirety.

We don't have the info necessary to see what things were like before physics was set up. We can only take God at His word, or remain without knowledge and guess instead.

With this opinion you are making a "religious" choice of your own. You are committing yourself to the belief that religion is not an objective measure of Truth. This inevitably leads to moral relativism and it is moral relativism that can take you to acceptance of slavery or genocide or "culling the herd" as the effective strategy of alpha males. I do not deny that reason can take you to these conclusions. However, before reason and before logic comes a critical metaphysical choice! Make a different choice and reason will take you in a diametrically opposing direction! Other have highlighted this choice to you before.



l3552 was not perhaps not very diplomatic but he was essentially arguing that your error is not one of intellect but of metaphysics.

Fix your life? Fix your metaphysics
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2016/06/fix-your-life-fix-your-metaphysics.html

Your missed the most important difference here which is essentially one of centralization. Judaism as opposed to most religions lacks a centralized authority. Although historically they once had a Great Sanhedrin which served this function nothing of the kind currently exists. Instead each synagogue functions independently under the direction of a Rabbi. Karaite challenges Rabbinic authority placing responsibility entirely on the individual. For example a Karaite Jew could conclude that the Talmud was entirely true. However, the individual would first be obligated to reach that conclusion after review of each argument and passage it contained.

Our existence and space-time are not an absolute but rather can only be a mutually shared (agreed upon) illusion (i.e. mutual relative perspective).

I will quote an excerpt from my unpublished whitepaper for the “Bitcoin killer”:


So the viewpoint I seem to be coming to is that religion is purely a matter of group evolutionary strategy choice. There can't be only one correct way. Religions are purposefully spreading (erroneous) selfish propaganda (that their way is the only correct way) because it is necessary for the optimization of the group evolutionary strategy― refer to my prior posts yesterday on why we need to play this mind control game in order to control defection as an evolutionary strategy.

I assume CoinCube is searching for statistical outliers (e.g. the Nazi failure in Russia) to convince himself that there is one correct choice. But this can not be falsifiable because of the nature of existence per the excerpt from my whitepaper. Faith is not falsifiable. That fat-tailed distributions exist doesn't prove a God exists.

I assume all very intelligent people including Einstein are perplexed by this situation wherein our existence can't coincide with any total ordering and thus we can't conceive of what might be outside of our own existence other than it is unbounded. It doesn't explain how we got here or why we are here, etc.. We yearn for a total understanding, but our mere existence requires that there can't be a total understanding (this isn't a philosophical conclusion, please review the physics that I already explained and the footnotes cited).

I would be interested to learn more as to Freeman Dyson's logic on why he is a non-denomination Christian. Does anyone have any reference which provides that information?



We can objectively conclude that leftism is a group evolutionary strategy which results in eventual (but delayed!) self-destruction of large portions of the group, but that doesn't mean it isn't an effective strategy because culling the herd is probably an effective means of refining the gene pool, i.e. by participating in leftism you can gain some leverage if your individual strategy within the group strategy is effective for your genes surviving the periodic culling of collectivism.

It appears that group evolutionary strategy is a complex issue. It doesn't seem there is one correct strategy. Rather I am leaning towards the view that we are all pursuing (i.e. competing+interopting+cooperating) with a diversity of strategies.

I had written to CoinCube in private that it seems to me that rationality doesn't exist without a framework and choice of values. Good and evil are relative to one's evolutionary strategy, per my point above that even culling the herd could be considered "good" from objective standpoint of the evolutionary resilience of the human race. Damned facts are sometimes abhorrent.