Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Your inability to discern God is not much different than a child who has not yet learned to trust their parents.Either way, the parents are still directing their child. Either way, God is still directing your steps.
Nice, so I get all the benefits of believing (gods personal guidance, like an invisible complementary life coach) without all that pesky going to church and praying and junk?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
There's probably a pretty good youtube summary/analysis somewhere someplace.I should have read it by now!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
A tree of logic built off of faulty premises will still yield results that are technically "logical" or "rational".
That is why you must make your axioms explicit and verify their efficacy and internal coherence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
That is why Orthodoxy long ago rejected the wests attempt at replacing hesychasm with scholasticism. We know hesychasm is superior.
Hesychasm is a mystical tradition of contemplative prayer in the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Scholasticism is a method of critical thought.
My mystical prayers told me to use logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
It's like the "mind" of any other government, just unfettered by any pretense of empathy (basically a psychopath).Such regimes have no compunction about killing atheist or agnostic intellectuals. The totalitarian mind is hard to understand - I'm sure I don't understand it.
It's like the "mind" of an organized criminal syndicate.
Try reading "The Prince". [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
A child has empirical evidence that their parents exist and they can test the efficacy of their directives.Does a child come to have faith in their parent after understanding everything they are taught?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I am sure they don't see it the same way as you.
Do you believe that North Koreans don't know what logic is?
Or do you believe they have a different version of it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It is better to make peace with reality.
I agree. Natural disasters and disease are a part of life and we should deal with them as best we can.
I'm just not sure that hypothetical gods help us understand these things any better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You don't think it is logically coherent, but China puts pictures of their president at the altars of the Christian Churches they allow to exist, and well... look at North Korea....
North Korea's laws are not logically coherent or based on explicit axioms or reflective of community consensus.
Like most autocratic authoritarian dictatorships throughout history, their laws are both tyrannical and capricious.
You are conflating apples and tricycles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Causing natural disasters and diseases simply to test human charity doesn't seem very godly.Proving how good of a person you are is not a very Christian motivation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
All I can think of is that the Soviet Union's state religion was "scientific atheism".
"Freedom of religion" could (should) be explicitly and logically defined under something as simple as the principle of "personal sovereignty".
I certainly don't trust the power grabbers to program these machines, because they always seem to see Christianity as a threat to their authority.
And yet, you implicitly trust the "power grabbers" to write laws and arbitrarily enforce them. Is that really so much better?
Even though we Christians are supposed to obey and pray for our civil authorities, we don't worship them as gods, which is what all these "the state is god" systems really want.
You seem to be leaping to conclusions on this one. I don't believe it is logically coherent to expect the state to be worshiped like a god.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I'm trying to illustrate the horrific consequences of blind faith in logic.I just seems that you were arguing that peoples shouldn't rely on dry logic and we should take ownership of and responsibility for our decisions but now you arguing for following prescribed rules, delegating hard choices to a judge and community consensus That seems to jar.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
We are called to help those who are afflicted.
Oh, well, how nice of the "YHWH" to give you something to keep you busy and prove what a good person you are.
It all makes perfect sense now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I'm not at all sure if you are being consistent with the thrust of your OP!
Please challenge my axioms and or point out a specific logical error and or provide a counter-factual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Implicit racial, gender, religious, and class bias is by definition unintentional and yet provably pervasive.Discrimination means discernment. It is not an inherently bad thing unless you are a despot.
Humans are particularly bad at "discernment".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
There is no room for mercy with these robots.
Mercy is de-facto discrimination.
Social experiments have shown that people who look similar have greater natural empathy for one another (I hope the cop/social worker/judge looks like you).
Data collected from sitting judges show that parole approvals and denials are highly correlated to meal times (immediately after breakfast and lunch, approvals leap to 60% and then precipitously drop to near zero within about an hour and a half).
If you want mercy, you must build it into the system from the get-go and not merely hope and pray that you and your loved ones "get lucky".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I already said of course God could solve what you call problems of they were in fact problems for God, and they aren't.But things are the way they are because that is the way they are. It is better to make peace with these things, because making peace with these things is in a great way making peace with God.
So if it is the "YHWH's" will that people die from natural disasters and diseases, why should be try to save people from them?
Wouldn't that place us in direct conflict with the "YHWH's" express will?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I don't trust the robots or their programmers.
Do you trust cameras?
Do you trust radar guns?
Do you trust politicians?
You've got to trust something.
As long as the axioms are explicit and enforcement is verifiable, I can't imagine anyone could reasonably object.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I don't think we disagree on the basic principle, but I see a problem where an unforseen or unforeseeable case means following the letter goes against the spirit. Do you punish someone who does something the rules inadvertently forbid?
I would imagine that if a case was presented where the letter of the law was considered odious to a judge, that judge could appeal the particular law in question with a proposed modification, to a body that could determine if the proposed modification is acceptable based on a combination of community consensus and logical coherence with the rest of the law and its axioms (like a constitution) with the understanding that certain rare cases will inevitably fall through the cracks. The goal should be a theoretical 95%+ justice. I would estimate the current system would be lucky to approach 45% justice.
For example, a fundamental axiom (principle) of law could be something like, "personal sovereignty" or "family first" or "+prohuman" or "innocent until proven guilty".
These axioms could be explicitly defined and the definitions checked for internal logical coherence and logical coherence with the other axioms as a group, and placed into a hierarchical structure, and scalable as they relate to individual, city, county, state, federal and foreign policy and trade rules and regulations.
These axioms (principles) should be durable enough to include most, if not all, foreseeable technological advancements, including computer intelligence (skynet), war, natural disaster, official corruption and an eventual corporate or state panopticon (which we might already have).
And enforcement should be automatic and uniform wherever possible.
Journalistic standards and practices could be as simple as "no ad hominems" and "never state opinion as fact".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The virtues, often called the fruits of the Spirit, include:
Yes, yes, virtues are virtuous. We all agree on that.
CAN THE "YHWH" SOLVE THESE NON-FREE-WILL-NON-EVIL-PROBLEMS????????????????????????
If "yes" then why do we have these problems?
If "no" then the "YHWH" is not omnipotent and or not omnibenevolent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I don't disagree, but it takes a lot of balls to stand up to a storm of criticism - especially if it threatens to affect the share price. Facebook is too big too be laissez-faire and too big to be micro-managed. DArt get problems with less than a dozen active members; facebook has billions.but a decision about a facebook post has to be made in seconds at most. It does not follow that what is right for facebook is right for jury trials that can take days or weeks.
I believe that all rules should be based on explicit axioms and should not be open to interpretation.
If a broad (near universal) consensus cannot be reached, then the rules should be balkanized to better conform to regional community standards.
I also believe that in the case of online postings, a computer intelligence could preemptively cover potentially controversial images with a message like, "this content is potentially controversial, click to view".
Also, in an online environment, it should also be possible to only allow "rated G" content by default, and then let users themselves choose if they want to set their views to allow "PG" or "R-rated" content.
I do not believe jury trials are sacrosanct and furthermore I strongly believe the current laws should be rigorously cross-checked for logical coherence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
Is quantity a quality that you can verify that your fellow humans experience?
Only if you can rigorously define it in empirically verifiable terms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Also, a computer intelligence might have difficulty determining intent which should be taken into consideration in my opinion.
If the rules make feeble attempts to weigh purely qualitative factors (like "motive" or "intent") then they are doomed to subjective and potentially arbitrary or selective enforcement.
The rules should be refined so they can be enforced with a minimum of subjective analysis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
The problem is that journalists are paid to write stories. They don't mind if it's a story about facebook spiking something or about facebook not spiking something! Either will do to fill a few column inches and pay the rent. It just needs a talent for faking indignation.
Ok?
Are we now suddenly in a discussion of journalistic standards and practices?
I really don't care what any particular company does or doesn't do (within the limits of the law, it is their own discretion).
I only highlighted this story because I believe it is a good example of how difficult it is to create a durable rule set and uniform enforcement.
Many people (not you specifically of course) say "bad stuff is bad and should obviously be taken down, why the heck do you need to write down thousands of rules?" - and this is the attitude I'm trying to address.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
So you are wrong to say that God struggles to fix these problems, as God created these things.
Hold up.
Disease is not evil.
Floods and fires and hurricanes and earthquakes are not evil.
Poverty is not evil.
I'm not talking about evil.
None of these have anything to do with free-will.
CAN THE "YHWH" SOLVE THESE NON-FREE-WILL-NON-EVIL-PROBLEMS????????????????????????
you can't say, "evil is caused by human free-will" then wipe your hands on your shirt and call it a day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Originally YHWHists 'knew' their god was but one of many gods, distinguished only by having a special relationship with his 'chosen people'. Baal or Chemosh (eg)were YHWH's peers, but as they were gods of their enemies (ie other Canaanites and the Moabites) so were to despised.
Insightful as usual.
However, if you look back at pre-Abrahamic traditions you find a few more interesting tidbits...
Question: "What was Abraham’s religion before God called him?"
Answer: Abraham is called the friend of God, the father of the Jews, and the father of the faithful. He is honored by Jews, Muslims, and Christians as a great man, but what religion did he follow before being called by Yahweh?
Answer: Abraham is called the friend of God, the father of the Jews, and the father of the faithful. He is honored by Jews, Muslims, and Christians as a great man, but what religion did he follow before being called by Yahweh?
Abraham was born and raised in Ur of the Chaldees, which is in modern Iraq, near Nasiriyah in the southeastern part of the country. Joshua 24:2 says that Abraham and his father worshiped idols. We can make some educated guesses about their religion by looking at the history and religious artifacts from that period.
Ur of the Chaldees was an ancient city that flourished until about 300 BC. The great ziggurat of Ur was built by Ur-Nammu around 2100 BC and was dedicated to Nanna, the moon god. The moon was worshiped as the power that controlled the heavens and the life cycle on earth. To the Chaldeans, the phases of the moon represented the natural cycle of birth, growth, decay, and death and also set the measurement of their yearly calendar. Among the pantheon of Mesopotamian gods, Nanna was supreme, because he was the source of fertility for crops, herds, and families. Prayers and offerings were offered to the moon to invoke its blessing. [LINK]
Also...
Rev. Dr. Nugent: The Bible calls them the sons of God, the Divine Council. The word used for God in parts of the Hebrew Bible, Elohim, is plural implying a family of deities. Angels are the lesser gods of the deposed pantheon of ancient Israel. They are under the rulership of Yahweh. Together with Yahweh they are part of Elohim, a plural word that we translate "God" in the book of Genesis. Elohim/God says "Let us make humans in our image." ...These angels came from the ancient pantheons of Mesopotamia and Egypt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
What method in the podacast do you refer to and ideal on what criterion? If your goal is to process millions of new posts, photos and videos per day then a rigid set of rules and with clearly defined exceptions is the only practical solution. i note that the rules have to be rigid in how they are implemented but flexible in that they must be kept under review and subject to amendment. The review and amendment proecedures at facebook seemed to be reactive, ad hoc and based on the personal judgement of senior individuals - there is no consultation with the community at all!
I agree that there should be some formal mechanism to quantify actual community consensus.
However, what I was referring to was specifically the efforts described to refine the rules so they could be enforced with a minimum of subjective analysis.
I was particularly impressed that when the executives over-rode the established rules in order to make an exception for a particular gory image because it was "news worthy", multiple senior analysts in charge of the rules process left the company.
This demonstrated to me their commitment to a philosophical ideal of impartial enforcement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You really think rules enforced by a computer intelligence is ideal?
We often venerate "impartial" judges and idolize the idea of "blind" justice.
Rules should be quantifiable and enforced without exception.
If rules are quantifiable, there is no reason a computer cannot identify violations.
If the rules make feeble attempts to weigh purely qualitative factors (like "motive" or "intent") then they are doomed to subjective and potentially arbitrary or selective enforcement.
There is also the very real psychological damage that is suffered by minimum wage workers viewing literally hundreds and hundreds of gory murder and sexually explicit images and videos day after day. If this doesn't qualify as a hostile (inhumane) work environment, I'm not sure what does. This work should be conducted by a computer intelligence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The problem of evil amounts to little more than denying reality because it doesn't conform to one's arbitrary sense of aesthetics. If you recognize God as being The Truth, The Ultimate Reality, it is a nonsense argument.
Disease is not evil.
Floods and fires and hurricanes and earthquakes are not evil.
Poverty is not evil.
I'm not talking about evil.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
So all Christians should be observant Jews and attend Synagogues and observe the Sabbath?Jesus and his disciples were all observant Jews.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
What other options are there? Is there a middle ground between mob rule and anarchy? Should society be more or less tolerant of potentially offensive content or actions when the feelings of a few people can sway an entire policy?
I think the method described in the podcast is pretty close to a hypothetical ideal.
At a certain point the goal should be that the principled rules should be enforceable by a computer intelligence (approaching 90%+ accuracy and automatic enforcement).
Enforcement and corrective action (justice) should be blind (not subject to opinion or "officer discretion").
If a rule (or specific punishment) is disputed, like with the example of nursing mothers (in the podcast), there should be a formal process to determine actual consensus, otherwise we will be subject to the whims of the Tyranny of the Thin Skinned.
The rule making and enforcement mechanism should be impervious to (insulated from) executive decisions and public protests.
The rule making process should have the goal of making as few rules as necessary with as few exceptions as possible and based on easy to understand principles with the express purpose of being durable over long periods of time.
For example, legislators routinely pass unconstitutional laws (bans on flag burning and restrictions on abortion services) that they know will be struck down in the courts (because they already have been struck down numerous times) but they waste their own time and the time of the courts (and millions upon millions of dollars) because they consider it politically savvy and there are zero repercussions for them (there is currently no legal penalty for passing unconstitutional laws).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
We can't quantify whether anything is conscious.
But only because it has not be rigorously defined.
If you defined consciousness as simply "being able to recognize oneself in a mirror" then it would be quantifiable.
However, this would not bring us any closer to determining if a god could "recognize itself in a mirror" (although a robot probably could).
Consciousness is beyond scientific verification.
But only because it has not be rigorously defined.
You just said that consciousness is qualitative yet demand we have a quantitative method for determining whether something is conscious.
I'm merely pointing it out to you. I'm perfectly willing to explore any hypothetical quantifiable standard of consciousness you wish.
I've never mentioned omniscience or omnipotence. Your IFF conditional doesnt apply.
Sure, so what do you know about a Deistic Being? Does it think like a human? (IFF) a deistic being thinks like a human and doesn't know the future and experiences time similarly to humans (THEN) it probably plans and designs things.
There's no reason to think that all concepts are tainted by human experience.
There's no reason to think that a Deistic Being thinks (or experiences things) like a human.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The Existing One has given us the gift of poverty and disease.
What does disease have to do with free-will?
What do floods and fires and hurricanes and earthquakes have to do with free-will?
What does poverty have to do with free-will?
Do infants choose to be born into horrific circumstances?
If gods can't even fix these problems, what hope do us mere humans have?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Can you please be more specific?That is easily refuted by reading the gospels and the book of acts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
So you think animals aren't conscious?
In order to determine (Quantify) if animals are "conscious" we must rigorously define consciousness in empirically (scientifically) verifiable terms.
Consciousness is a private experience (Qualia). You can't even verify if your fellow humans possess it.
You think that intending to create something is limited to human beings only?
Intention and planning are a function of our imprecise and obviously limited ability to predict the future.
(IFF) you believe that gods are "omniscient" and "omnipotent" and "eternal", (THEN) they would never have to "plan" or "design" anything.
Whatever they "wanted" would "happen" automatically. It would always be perfect automatically. It would be incapable of error. There would be no need to wipe out mistakes with floods or fire and brimstone.
There is nothing "constrained" about it except for the arbitrary contraints you mentioned.
There is no reason to believe a Deistic Being's "actions" would be limited by our fabricated human concepts.
And depending on your choice of axioms, it may be logically impossible for gods to have the same types of experiences as humans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Perhaps godliness can be described as..."charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned."
The "YHWH" does not have a conscience or a heart or faith and could solve all poverty and disease in the blink of an eye.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Does the bible teach that people must attend weekly services? - No
Did Jesus go to church? - No
Do Christians attend or teach at Synagogues? - No
Do Christians observe the Sabbath - No
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
The functional difference, with atheism, is that the universe was designed rather than undesigned.
Deism implies no such thing.
The idea of "consciousness" is specific to humans (anthropomorphic fallacy).
The concept of "designed" is specific to humans (anthropomorphic fallacy).
We have absolutely no reason to believe that "gods" would be constrained by such feeble terminology.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I'm not calling the big bang God. Restart everything in your post.
I'm describing Deism.
Deism is functionally identical to atheism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Godliness with contentment is great gain
What do you mean by "godliness"?
Do you mean "act like the old testament god"?
Please sacrifice your best livestock specimen to me once a year to assuage my fury.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
There is no Christianity without the church.
Does the bible teach that people must attend weekly services?
Did Jesus go to church?
Created:
Posted in:
His cure is relatively simple, or at least relatively simple to acquire – all the ingredients are available in pharmacies, or online.
To prevent the hangover, Bishop-Stall will quaff – after drinking but before sleep – milk thistle, for the liver; the amino acid and immune system aid N-acetylcysteine; vitamins B1, B6 and B12, which boost metabolism; and that famous gift to Jesus, frankincense – an anti-inflammatory.
So no more sickness, no more pain. No more bothering doctors. But one thing Bishop-Stall still hasn’t managed to crack is “the tiredness, lethargy and grouchiness” that has more to do with a lack of deep sleep than the booze itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Case in point. Rush to disqualify.Yes, because unlike you, I am not willfully ignorant about what the concept of "God" refers to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I don't know how a fact can be 'indisputable'. All one as to is say 'no it isn't!'.
Pure genius that link is.
Gravity (for example) is considered a fact because it is empirically verifiable and generally considered indisputable.
Fact (and by logical extension Truth) is quite rare, but not non-existent.
Without some tacit agreement on at least a few fundamental facts (like language), communication between two persons would be impossible.
And if you can't communicate with someone, it is impossible to confirm if you disagree with them.
Facts exist as a logical necessity, but not everything (and actually a great many things) that people consider facts are merely opinions.
If you merely "gainsay" the law of gravity, you are likely to be dismissed as either disingenuous or insane.
The battle lines are drawn exactly at the place where you disqualify your opponent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
If Ahura Mazda is real, I certainly want to know and believe.If Jesus is real, I certainly want to know and believe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
So are you saying one needs to sell everything they own in order to join your favorite flavor of Jesusology?I would recommend going to an Orthodox Church. I would recommend bothering the priest with all your questions. I would recommend reading the books in their library. I would recommend being charitable rather than dismissive. You have to want it to click.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The Orthodox Church is a hospital for such sicknesses. But make no mistake, God is the physician.
I'm just looking for the practical up-shot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
I was referring to actual written and enforceable laws. Some are very specific, some are more universal. My point being that the law attempts to eliminate personal intuition from the equation and requires everyone to follow the same moral standards.
Sort of like a community consensus.
Law is codified mob rule.
Here's a practical example of how difficult it is to make rules based on community consensus -
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
What is it good for? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgJ11FW6B3EMaybe that isn't supposed to be your motivation.
Created: