Government is a kind of technology, except it’s an immoral one. It’s premised on monopoly, plunder, and coercion. Not only that but it’s entirely inefficient. Besides, Government has been the greatest progenitor of the threat of mass-extinction since the meteor. — NOS4A2

Therefore we need to improve on political philosophy to find better ways on how society should be governed which in turn should address scientific progress.

I find this to be plausible solution in addition to methods to improve development of sociology and moral education of population as suggested by @Leontiskos.

How would that look? — flannel jesus

I don't know but I admit that philosophy is such an interesting field of study.
I learned from other members here that philosophical discussions should be a "fodder" for everyone to take a little and make up for something rather than just proving our own points.

There's my proof that there's an unproven truth. — flannel jesus

OK you win! :up:
Now if only you could apply this formula to your house example within the limits on epistemology...

One of those two claims is an unproven truth. The other one is unproven and false. — flannel jesus

I'm not familiar with these math problems but here is what I found:

According to working realism, these and other classical methods are acceptable and available in all mathematical reasoning. But working realism does not take a stand on whether these methods require any philosophical defense

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/#MathSignPlat

Although this discussion seems to go off-topic, I hold my stance that truths require proofs at least in philosophical sense.

Can you prove it? — flannel jesus

Yes, name one truth that has no proof and that will be my proof.

How in the world do you figure that? — flannel jesus

Either by scientific method or argumentative philosophy.

You don't think there are any unproven truths? — flannel jesus

No, I don't think there are unprooven truths.

Does the article say "proof" and "truth" are synonyms? Because that's what you're saying. — flannel jesus

It does not explicitly say they're a synonyms (obviously they're not) but the context is that for something to be true you need proof. otherwise how do you tell it's true?
Your truth condition with the house provides no proof other than you saw your house next day which implies lack of proof yesterday.

And regarding your house example here is an argument against you:

truth is a matter of how things are, not how they can be shown to be.

See, it's not about what you see today but what you claimed yesterday, you claimed not-a-truth.
If you still don't understand this concept then I can't help sorry.

No, unfortunately it doesn't. Your use of various terms in this conversation has seemed wildly and irreconcilably inconsitsent to me. — flannel jesus

The terms I used are based on JTB article according to my understanding, (ex. I didn't made it up only to debate you). and yes there is mention of proof in the article but you're reluctant to study it so it's difficult for me to explain it to you.

Yesterday, before I went home, I believed my house was still there and was still going to be there when I got home - you said this was unjustified, but I went home and it turned out to be true! So if it was true — flannel jesus

We have already been over this before and I replied to you that this is not how epistemology works :(
In epistemology to my humble understanding you need a priori knowledge which you do not have with your house example.

Either way, externalism eliminates the normative dimension of epistemology which many philosophers find problematic, and which is a common characteristic of naturalised epistemology. — sime

That's very interesting statement and fits well into JTB, @flannel jesus saw his house a day later but we did not, but we were talking about yesterday, problem is that truth can not be one days yes and another day not, it's either true every day or it's otherwise not epistemology, that's my assertion.

When did PROOF become the T condition? T stands for "true", not "proof".

Do you think JTB stands for "Justified Proved Belief"? — flannel jesus

Here is a quote from the JTB article:

Sometimes when people are very confident of something that turns out to be wrong, we use the word “knows” to describe their situation.

I respect you and your view on JTB but again I highly suggest you read the article:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/#TrutCond

Another quote:

Something’s truth does not require that anyone can know or prove that it is true. Not all truths are established truths.

I hope this helps you to understand my stance?

But if it's true, then it's justified, right? That's what you said. — flannel jesus

Perhaps if you're visionary or prophet then you can know what will happen with your house days or weeks later, that's not proof and so not "T" true condition

If I believe it, and it's true, then it's justified, regardless of if I'm certain — flannel jesus

You replied so fast I'm certain you didn't read carefully what I said.
In the quote above you said it's true because you believe it, do you see?

Anyway "certain" or "proof" is same thing here. you have no proof that your house will be there in the future. which is required to know for truth condition to be true.

How do you know it's unjustified? You said beliefs are justified if they're true and unjustified if they're false. You can't know I'm unjustified unless you also know my house isn't there. — flannel jesus

You said:

I believe my house is going to still be there when I get home. I think I'm pretty justified in that. — flannel jesus

That's not what "justification" condition is about in JTB!
you don't know your house will be there when you return, you do know it's there now but you can't know if it will still be there later (ex. it could caught fire).
Thus your belief is not justified because what you believe is not true for certain. (you only assume it will be there)

The JTB definition of knowledge involves belief, and we might say that it frames knowledge as a "form of belief": namely justified true belief, but it does not follow that it is nothing more than belief, because the 'justified' and the 'true', as conceived, have nothing to do with belief. — Janus

Exactly, some folks seem to have problem with "belief" in JTB because they're trying to separate belief from knowledge but are not able.
The whole point however with "J" condition is that you have to believe proof is true to justify your belief, rather than blindly believing (in some not-a-truth)

P1: This is philosophy forum (certain truth)
P2: You believe it's philosophy forum (belief)
P3: Your belief is justified (justified true belief)

On another side if you believe in not-a-truth then it's as follows:
P1: This is NOT philosophy forum (false)
P2: You believe it's NOT philosophy forum (belief)
P3: Your belief is unjustified (false belief)

What opponents of JTB are trying to do is to simplify this to:

P1: This is philosophy forum (certain truth)
C: Therefore we know this is philosophy forum

But then the question is, do you believe it? and what if you don't believe it?

Again, just what are the devastating effects caused by scientific progress? — ssu

We don't know yet, it's a matter of the future, for now the only evidence is nuclear weapons and AI and perhaps some other developments like genetics etc.
According to this trend we can be sure to discover more such destabilizing technologies (unless you suspect science is capable of this?)

Without scientific progress there sure would be devastating effects. Not just potential. Have you thought about this question from this viewpoint? — ssu

We already established that stopping research is unrealistic and costly option.

So let's assume there wouldn't have been any Renaissance and further age of Enlightenment in the West, but the Church would have held power as in the Muslim World. Where would be now? — ssu

I see this there is a hidden argument among commentators here who oppose this hypothesis which is that there are 2 camps now, traditionalist current and liberalist current, where liberalists label this hypothesis with traditionalism and compare it with "church style" opposition against science, but this is so wrong.

If your answer to my secondary question (see OP) is negative then I can understand your stance.

Ok, but why isn't then this more of a problem of basically the abuse of technology? — ssu

I guess because the purpose of devastating tech (nukes) is to destroy, there is no abuse since there is only one purpose.

Tech has evolved at an astronomical pace while the species itself hasn't. Given this disparity it is quite possible we could destroy ourselves with it. But it is for this same reason that a world government is out of the question. — NOS4A2

Yes agree, we're not evolved enough and are behind tech, the paper however says that it's politics that's behind tech and suggests that improvements in politics should be improved, suggesting world government and policing which is a political matter.

Rather, the objection is that any solution which requires that a small minority maintain power indefinitely will eventually fail. — Leontiskos

Yes agree.

I think this is wrong approach, counting good things about science to encourage discovery of potentially devastating technologies is not an argument IMO.

Main problem about this hypothesis is how to contain potential devastating effects caused by scientific progress.
I did agree that stopping research is not an option and so does the linked paper say it's unrealistic and costly, so this is not a solution, global governance and policing is a better solution but not popular, so we seek something better than that.

@Leontiskos so far is the only one to provide one possible solution, not that I find it better but it's not that bad IMO.

Ah indeed! yeah, there are always arguments against, not just JTB but anything else.

I beleive or disbelieve statements. Those statements can be true or false. But if I believe in a statement, and that statement is also false, I would never word that as "I believe in false" — flannel jesus

ofc. not, it should be worded as unjustified belief because it's not true.

I would word that as "I believe in that statement, and <later when I discover it's false> I was wrong about that belief. I was incorrect." — flannel jesus

But epistemology makes no room for speculations like "maybe later I'll see if it's false but for now I'll believe it without justification", rather either something is outright knowledge (JTB) or it is not.

So, with that in mind, the question I guess is, "Can you ever be justified in believing in a statement when that statement is false?" — flannel jesus

No you can't.

"Can you ever be unjustified in beleiving in a statement that's true?" — flannel jesus

No as well.

Banno and I both say, YES, both of those things are possible. — flannel jesus

To my understanding Banno does not agree with you.

I believe my house is going to still be there when I get home. I think I'm pretty justified in that. — flannel jesus

But problem is that you do not KNOW that thus your belief is unjustified, there is no proof (true proposition) your house will be there.

Yes, I understand. We are talking about beliefs. Everything I'm saying is about beliefs. — flannel jesus

So are you saying that belief in false can be justified belief?

The article doesn't say "you're justified when it's true, and youre unjusitified when it's false". — flannel jesus

Justified refers to "belief" not "truth", it's belief that's is either justified or not, not the "true" statement.

It's not ommitted, it's a given. We're talking about a belief. — flannel jesus

It has been long time since I last time read the JTB article, I don't find it hard to understand but I find it difficult to explain to someone who didn't read it obviously, I warmly suggest you read it, I'm sure if you study it you'll get better understanding that me trying to explain it.

Perhaps someone here can help as well, but I'm not in that position.

That means, for any belief you have, it's either (true and justified), or its (untrue and unjustified), right? — flannel jesus

If you believe something that's true, then it's justified. — flannel jesus

Yes.

If you believe something that's not true, then it's not justified. — flannel jesus

Yes.

That means, for any belief you have, it's either (true and justified), or its (untrue and unjustified), right? — flannel jesus

No.
Not for "any belief" but only those beliefs that are true first are then justified, while beliefs that are false first are then unjustified.
You reduced this to simply "Justified <-> True" which is false because belief condition was omitted from equation. in other words you excluded P2 (belief condition) from "The Tripartite Analysis of Knowledge" to simplify it to just:

P1: p is true;
P3: S is justified in believing that p.

Which is incorrect because P2 (S believes that p;) was removed but is required for belief to be justified.

If what you say is right, that Justified <-> True, then it's pointless to say both. — flannel jesus

I did not say that because "justified belief" is justified only if you believe in what's true, otherwise it's not justified and neither it's justified if you believe in false propositions.

That tripart seems to be doing exactly what I'm doing - separating "justified" and "true". It doesn't seem to me to support what you're saying. — flannel jesus

Justified on it's own makes no sense without also believing in what's true only (but not false)
Again belief is justified only if you believe in true proposition, in al other case it's not justified.

I should correct my self and say that it's be more correct to says TBJ rather than JTB, that is, it first must be true, and then you have to believe it's true to finally justify your belief, I hope this makes more sense?

If that were how people were using the word 'justified', then either the T or the J would be superfluous in JTB. I don't think many people think that way. — flannel jesus

Sorry but this makes no sense to me, how could "true" statement be superfluous?
To my understanding of the article, "true" statement (condition) is that which is proven to be true or truth.

I certainly don't think that way. Someone could have a justified belief that's false. — flannel jesus

No because believing something which is false is not justified belief, because precondition for justification is that true is not false.
I suggest you refer to "The Tripartite Analysis of Knowledge" which shows the relationship between JTB condition, (because you broke the chain of proposition) P1, P2 and P3 (JTB) which is the following:

The Tripartite Analysis of Knowledge:
S knows that p if

- p is true;
- S believes that p;
- S is justified in believing that p.

The T in JTB is kinda awkward. If someone says they believe something, they're already saying they think it's true. If someone says they're justified in believing something, they're saying they think it's true, and their thought is justified. — flannel jesus

I'm not an expert so please correct me if you think otherwise, but I think you got it wrong, if you read the linked JTB article you should notice right at the beginning the "The Tripartite Analysis of Knowledge" which states that for something which is "true" you also have to believe it it's true.
Otherwise for ex. if you're presented a proof of something and then claim you don't believe it that's equivalent of making truth not truth (subjectively I suppose).

And the "J", justification condition makes only sense if both belief and truth are fulfilled, that is, you believe true is indeed true, which justifies your belief that something is true.

On another side if you believe something that's not true then your belief is not justified (ex. it's false belief or belief in false statement), that's the fundamental point!

"JTB" is antiquated. Much more cogent: — 180 Proof

Thank you, I might read about it some time, didn't know it's antiquated, but is that your personal opinion or is it established that JTB is out of date?

Thinking about what you said, this should probably be classified as passive danger and active danger.
concrete tech ex. nukes correspond to active danger while what you said corresponds to passive danger, one which develops over time and does general destabilization.

Every 'civilization' is always most vulnerable to (thermodynamic and/or information) entropy. — 180 Proof

Maybe you want to explain?, I don't get it.

Everything will be just engineers improving current machines and concepts. But once you have developed the pencil, the written book, the spoon etc. there's not much to improve there. Spoons and books have stayed the same for quite a while. No incentive or reason to improve a technology that works so well. — ssu

Spoons will likely never go out of scope, but for written books there already are alternatives, PDF's and similar which we read on PC and mobile etc.

Fire was first invention to prepare meals followed by stoves and now wait until food replicator is discovered like the one in star trek series.

The point is that it takes centuries until one seemingly irreplaceable tech goes out of scope and is replaced with newer one.
Only because spoons and similar are used for very long time doesn't mean they'll be used for eternity.

I suspect so. Global travel increases the likelihood of a global pandemic, excessive industrialisation increases the use of non-renewable resources and the likelihood of harmful climate change, and automated systems controlled by an artificial intelligence is vulnerable to coding errors and sabotage. — Michael

Good point, so that's an alternative danger other than concrete technology, maybe it should be called self-destruction caused by cumulative scientific discoveries.
Climate change is good real-world example.

Knowledge consists of truths or not-yet-falsified claims the statuses of which are independent of dis/belief. — 180 Proof

Perhaps outside the concept of justified true belief:
"The general idea behind the belief condition is that you can only know what you believe."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/#KnowJustTrueBeli

Chet says that statement is incontrovertible. I would like to see an argument to support that contention. — Janus

If you take JTB (above) into the picture then that's an argument against it because belief only is insufficient.

Must be really some awesome technology of the future, because the fact is that even an all-out nuclear war between US/Russia and China wouldn't devastate everything and kill everybody. It might be a well respected mantra to say to voice opposition to nuclear weapons, but destroying everything is a lot harder than we think. — ssu

Yeah we don't know what the future holds, so we can't dismiss the possibility.
General preventive measures are desired, just like there are preventive measures being discussed about the use of AI today even though the AI does not pose any risks for now but has the capacity to be weaponized in the future.

There really is a difference between science and technology. Your simply not using the definition of technology and just putting it together with everything being 'science'. However there's a reason why the standard definitions are different. Let's define first what they mean: — ssu

Agree but I think it's not wrong to say "scientific progress" when addressing this question because without scientific progress there is no technological progress.

ex. discovery of nuclear fission is science without which there would be no nuclear weapons (concrete technology)
inventing nukes was really easy thanks to scientific progress.

The point is that scientific progress leads to potentially devastating technologies.

There's a lot of examples that show that we aren't as vulnerable as earlier: we don't die as early as before. If there are bad harvests, we don't in the industrialized World die of famine. Actually famines have become more rare. We don't just have to raise our hands up and hope that the God's wouldn't be angry at us, we have an idea just how we changing (destroying?) our environment. — ssu

Yes, there are many benefits of scientific progress but the thing is that only one wrong technology can devastate all benefits.

I don't think science is inherently evil because of this, only that it has the potential of self-destruction if not controlled.

So you could think of the individualism-framed problem as a problem of the ratio between adults and toddlers, and the ensuing probability that any given random individual will be a "toddler." The government solution is based on the idea that a minority of adults will maintain control over time, thus preventing toddlers from accessing dangerous weapons. — Leontiskos

So the world government idea becomes even more undesirable in the eyes of those who oppose it, because it implies censorship of destructive knowledge further raising suspicion and conspiracies about world government.
Overall world government, censorship of knowledge and moral development play together, inclusively instead of either one exclusively.

I think maturation is needed, including moral maturation. — Leontiskos

I think no matter how morally perfect or morally enlightened world population is there will always be individuals willing to do immoral things with the help of destructive knowledge or technology.

What you seem to have problem with is to prevent censorship of knowledge or to ensure public access to knowledge.
From one side this also means bad actors having free access to dangerous knowledge increasing the risk of destabilization.
The opposite is that such knowledge should be censored to prevent destabilization which you compare to Biblical view in that people should have the knowledge regardless of what some "evil" world government (or God) says.

Since you like neither of these 2 options you propose that moral maturity of the population is the answer.

But the chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and so is the population only as mature as it's most immoral (or insane) individual.
For this reason I don't find maturity any better than world government or censorship of knowledge.

It seem Russia didn't drop investigation against Prigozhin, Putin likely betrayed his word.

https://tass.com/society/1638327

Prigozhin doesn't look sane enough to control a nuclear arsenal.
He can't even control his own emotions.

What happens next in your view? — Baden

This is so difficult question not even the wisest could answer given past events that happened so far in regard to Ukraine war.

I think stalemate is inevitable followed by some events to replace Putin peacefully.

I don't believe Ukraine will regain lost territories and all that Putin is likely to do is to maintain current position and exhaust Ukrainians militarily to force them to negotiation table.

With gene manipulation just like there is a chance to cause undesired effects so is there a chance to cause desired ones.

Whether that's good or not then boils down to the study of the results.
The bigger "issue makers" are those taking ethics into the matter though rather than those postulating about positive or negative side effects.

Truth cannot be a lie. Otherwise the foundations of our court/judiciary system is completely faulty and evidence and justice are total nonsense. — Benj96

Truth cannot be esoteric, because it spans the range from basic/simple to complex. — Benj96

Truth cannot not exist, otherwise all of science is debased. — Benj96

Therefore truth exists. And as a spectrum of all true things, some are more longstanding, more consistent, more fundamental, than others.
I just drank some water is true.
Civilisation has been around for millenia is true.
Animals exists for millions of years is true.
The planet condensed via gravity is true... — Benj96

We need to distinguish true statements or logical truths from universal truth.
There any many logical truths while universal truth is only one.

Existence of logical truths does not imply existence of universal truth, universal truth may as well consist of multiple or a series of logical truths, however the opposite is false, such that any of the logical truths is universal truth because no such logical truth is known.

What you're saying is that universal truth is necessarily logical truth even though unknown, but this is wrong assumption for reason above.

universal truth might as well be illogical or paradoxical.

I don't know if you're aware but since 1990's there is a new field of study called "Western esotericism", only very few universities in the world exist, and only the one in Amsterdam offers PhD degree.

According to this field of study, there are three approaches on how this problem of universal truth could be approached:

1. Historical-critical approach,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism

There are two currents of thought in this approach, one is strictly "historical-critical" aka. "kill the God" approach, that is, remove God or anything spiritual and then deconstruct texts.
And another one, the “generalists,” who intend to study "esotericism" as a whole.

2. Perennial philosophy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy

Perennialist approach is either:
A) Universalists

consists in postulating the existence of a "universal esotericism" of which
it would be a matter of discovering, of explicating the “true” nature

That is, approach in which there is search for "esoteric truth"

B) Religionists (3rd approach)

consists in positing that, to validly study a religion, a tradition, a spiritual trend, and so on - and, consequently, "esotericism" - it is necessary to be a member of it oneself on pain of not
understanding very much about it

C) Both A and B in same time
Principally "Perennial philosophy"

Btw. I took above two quotes (A and B) from the book called "Western Esotericism" by Arthur Versluis.

What I'm trying to say here is this:
1. If truth is known only by small circle (ex. esoteric truth) then as we already concluded, this circle either A) keeps the truth to manipulate masses, ex. for their own gain, or
B) keeps the truth because it would not be understood or may be harmful for society

2. truth itself can be either of religious nature or historical nature where both may be considered with the aim for either one to outweight the other with the support of outweighted one.

3. It clearly shows that truth-saying has evolved to the level of scholarship and there are divided opinions non-the less, probably influenced by real "truth-keepers" which is well known among scholars except it's unknown who keeps the truth and why.

How does one prove their validity as the claimant to objective morality in this dilemma? When everyone is prepared to project delusion, judgement, intolerance, envy and hatred onto them despite their noble attempt?

The answer is a 3 step process: ... — Benj96

I think none of the 3 propositions are desired for "truth-speaker", at least not for wise one, first two would simply fail because mass media is biased and controlled by governments or lobbies or by truth-keepers, very likely resulting in denigration of a truth-speaker which was the case with many truth-speakers.
The 3rd one is unwise because with one's own death one cannot be sure what will happen later nor can a dead person influence the world once it's dead.
There are countless martyrs in the name of truth and none succeeded to answer great questions.

Thus a wise one knows the result of truth-saying is equal to destruction of it's life or carrier.

1). Speak the truth, if it is indeed as powerful as it ought to be - because of its logical and revelatory nature, the truth speaker ought to gain some attention and fandom, rising from obscurity to the height of politics and media coverage. — Benj96

This is interesting however, if it is indeed as powerful as it ought to be - because of its logical and revelatory nature then such truth if it ever was told is a lie because we still do not know the answers to great questions, at least not empirical ones.
Therefore I think truth is either esoteric, a lie or it doesn't exist.

I would rule out "doesn't exist" however because we and the world around us obviously does exist, so I'm in favor of, it's either esoteric or an elaborate lie.

I agree with you though that not telling the truth is evil for society if such truth exists, however also without knowing the actual truth we can only speculate about reasons for keeping it secret.
Maybe speculating about what truth is could help figure out reasons for keeping it secret.

Why would a fundamental, profound or simple/basic truth be esoteric (specialised and inaccessible).
The whole point of truth and it's "acknowledgement" ie "knowledge of what's true" is that it very much is accesible by following basic logic and reasoning to their ends.

Truths make sense to people. Strings of lies do not because theyre "inconsistent" (false) ie not true and thus not sensible. — Benj96

I think because it is objective truth that truth is not known.
But I don't think truth makes (or would make) sense to people just because it's truth.

That's why I linked to the allegory of the cave, knowing the truth in this sense means going out of the cave but nobody is willing to do it (to know the truth):

Socrates concludes that the prisoners, if they were able, would therefore reach out and kill anyone who attempted to drag them out of the cave

Secondly you speak in doubles first saying "one who has some revelation" and then "such as institutions" which is it? One person does not an institution make. — Benj96

I would say it applies to both but more leaning toward institution, it depends on what is meant by 'truth' or how is it defined.
I think of truth as of universal truth which answers the existence of all things because this would answer many great philosophical questions.

I think it's far more reasonable that an "institution" or hierarchy of power, withholds the truth from the top (manipulator/truth with-holder) downward not because the general public couldn't understand it but rather because they don't want the public to understand it as if they did, they wouldn't be in a position of power anymore would they? — Benj96

What you're talking about is exactly "esoteric" truth, meaning not only that it would not be understood by cave men (it blinds them) but also unwillingness of those circles which know it to share, both applies.

Also the publics lack of understanding of it is literally caused by whoever withholds it from them. It's in effect keeping the public distracted and uneducated (without knowledge). It's easier to deceive and manipulate someone without much understanding of anything. — Benj96

Yes, agree.

If you asked the public would they like to know who is fooling them and misguiding them. Who is spreading prooganada and misinformation. Do you genuinely think they wouldnt care? — Benj96

The public would of course care but I don't think they would believe it.
We are again to the cave story, the public would "reach out and kill anyone who attempted to drag them out of the cave"

Imagine going up to someone and saying "so I have this big super important super powerful secret which let's me manipulate others. And I'm not telling you what that is."

You think people "wouldn't care". — Benj96

Well, Jesus also proclaimed truth and we all know people *did* care but didn't believe it.
Jews went out of the cave and killed him to not be dragged out of the cave.

I think for this discussion to make any sense you should define what is meant by truth, that is, what should this universal truth be about, what should that universal truth answer or reveal?

You said "Any individual in possession or "revelation" of such a truth", thus I assume by revelation you mean truth which answers great questions.

Also I assume there can be only one truth, otherwise it's not truth but just true statement related to something of insignificant value to the general public.

Conclusion: Any individual in possession or "revelation" of such a truth has 2 options: conceal it/keep it to oneself. In which case one cannot tell the truth. And so becomes a liar by definition.

This is basis for powerful and dangerous propaganda - from the word "to propagate" - as in to propagate delusions, deceptions and misinformation. To be deceitful. This is therefore wholly immoral as it disempowers others/misleads them and reduces their ability to be moral or take control. It is manipulative.
So to know the truth and not speak it is the archetype of the "villain", "antagonist" or "evil doer". — Benj96

I don't agree with this and to support my disagreement I'm going to point to the amazing allegory of the cave by Plato:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave

Scroll to "summary" section to read the allegory.

Thus if one who has some revelation and knows truth but does not speak about it such as institutions, it's very likely this is so because revealing the truth would not be understood (esoteric truth) or the public wouldn't even care to listen to it.

nice nickname lol

If humanity is unified under single government, meaning no wars between nations, then anyone who would oppose such government could easily be declared as terrorist or terrorist group.

Doesn't sound like a good idea.

So, there is nothing in the definition of God that commits a Christian to the belief that God created the world. — Bartricks

there is,
consider a god which creates a world, and god which doesn't.
which one is more benevolent?