• Animals are Happier than humans
    think that animals such as squirrels and elephants are happier than most humans. Because they do not need to worry about jobs or rent or friends or close minded parents or racism or self esteem etc

    They have very simple needs, so long as their stomach is full of either nuts or grass they're happy.

    Animals mainly experience either happiness or pain but not sadness when an event is over they move on. I specifically chose squirrels and elephants because they live better lives compared to other animals such as cows that get slaughtered or lions that may go hungry for days.

    My estimation of the world is that only half the people that live in it are possibly happy, the rest struggle with poverty, hunger inequality and unrealised dreams.

    Everything from being bullied in school to being socially rejected to hating your boss to not being able to pay rent to expensive dental bills.

    In short unless your a millionaire or one of the lucky few happy with your life, you'd be much happier as a squirrel or elephant.

    I agree completely. Abstract thought leads to depression. We are one of the very few animals that actually commits suicide. Money is a legal fiction and it is an abstract thought. I'm not entirely against money though.
  • Why does entropy work backwards for living systems?
    I find the fact that life is a self-organised, decreasingly entropic, complex structured system of equilibrium that regulates and perpetuates itself in an otherwise chaotic world.

    On a celestial scale things are winding down, dispersing, cooling and ultimately leading in a very definitive direction - heat death. Things are becoming more disorganised and random and spread out. But life goes completely against that. It wants to be/ or has to be extremely organised and self-manipulating with the goal if reproducing the same system continuously to defy death.

    I think the most remarkable change in the creation of life was the way chaotic conditions could (with the help of gravity) form incredibly consistent and diverse cycles -organised, repeating states of predictability and balance for which life would emerge; tectonic convection cycles, magnetism, orbits, day and night, seasons, precession and therefore ice ages, tides, annual temperature fluctuations and thus ocean currents, weather patterns, the water cycle. The list is endless.

    Why is life so different. What does the living mean in terms of the function of the fundamental laws of nature, and why dies negative entropy occur to such a massive extent in a chaotic universe. Is gravity the opposite of entropy? A negatively entropic force combining and condensing things?

    I also believe pan-psychism plays a role in this. There are over 11 different forms of pan-psychism.
  • Dark Matter possibly preceded the Big Bang by ~3 billion years.

    the forum moderators say i have to turn the other cheek 100% of the time. so:

    thats fair.
  • Dark Matter possibly preceded the Big Bang by ~3 billion years.

    for whatever reason this post will probably be taken down due to supposed "poor quality".
    I'm sure they'll give me a poor reason for why it had to be taken down.
  • Dark Matter possibly preceded the Big Bang by ~3 billion years.

    Oh i forgot that a guy by Haim Shore came to that conclusion from studying ancient Hebrew and the book of Genesis.

    Actually no i don't necessarily believe that God is dark matter. I do believe in pan-psychism (there are over 11 forms). Did you read the article?
  • What does a question require to exist?

    missing knowledge on the part of the asker and a request for information from someone else.


    When 2 people are arguing it is very often easier to counter someones argument with a question (similar to Jeopardy). Forcing the debate opponent to pump blood to his/her brain to answer the question gives you time to counter their notion (that you don't like). If they answer with a bad answer you can then attack their answer.

    This tactic predates Jesus Christ even though this tactic is associated with him. It probably even predates the oldest (supposedly oldest) book in the Bible (Book of Job).

    For complex issues its easier to get your debate opponent to mess up in his/her logic if he/she can't nail down the concepts that are apart of the greater picture.

    You could say the people involved in the debate are using this tactic because they are gambling (unknown variables) on whether the "opponent" fully understands the issue. If the "opponent" does fully understand the issue thats when the person asking the question might be put in check or check mate.

    It all depends on whether the opponent or me or you fully understands the problem. Ofcourse you would agree if you or i fully understand or atleast to a great degree understand the problem its easier to come to the right conclusion.

    I believe in absolute truth but i believe it is often hard to come to the right conclusion given Human's short life spans and limited testing abilities.
  • Does Philosophy of Religion get a bad rep?

    Noah Harrari who is a naturalist/atheist argues humans were able to dominate this planet using legal fiction and fiction. He says Apes can work in groups of ~150 and he went on to say there are ~155 nations on this earth. Check out his book "Sapiens" or watch some of his youtube videos.

    Legal fiction and fiction enable mass coordination.
  • God Almost Certainly Exists

    I don't have alot of room to play with considering my username and this is a typical online philosophy room. I agree with the OP 90% to 95%. What you said is somewhat fair (to some extent).
  • God Almost Certainly Exists

    Whats your problem with the OP? Hes not a Christian last time i checked (last time i checked). The forum moderator said i have to turn the other cheek. People like me are held to a higher standard.
  • God Almost Certainly Exists

    Olives are good. I like green olives and black olives on Pizza. Lets hope we don't get caught getting off topic. Shhhhh. quick there coming.
  • God Almost Certainly Exists

    The OP is based on a misapprehension of how physics deals with causation, and hence the argument fails.

    But that will make no difference to its defenders, since the real point of this thread is to engage in mutual preening.

    I disagree.
  • God Almost Certainly Exists

    Would you like to summarize your argument?
  • God Almost Certainly Exists

    Why do you say that?
  • God Almost Certainly Exists
    I know this is an old argument that has been with us for 1000s of years. Most memorably, St Thomas Aquinas recounted it as his 2nd of 5 ways to prove the existence of God. But I feel it is worth revisiting - it is almost certainly correct.

    Infinite regresses come up when discussing the origin of the universe in terms of cause and effect - chains of cause and effect stretch backwards in time (a cause causes an effect and the effect in turn causes another effect and so on), the question is do these chains of cause and effect stretch back forever or is there an initial first cause?

    If the chains of cause and effect stretch back forever, then there cannot be a first cause. The first cause would cause the 2nd cause - without the first cause, the second cause cannot be. Likewise, the nth cause would cause the nth+1 cause, so by mathematical induction, causality cannot exist at all if there is no first cause. But causality does exist, so there must be a first cause.

    Illustrating this proof with an example from pool: The cue hits the white ball. The white ball hits the black ball. The black goes in the pocket. Would the black ball go in the pocket if the cue did not hit the white? No - we have removed the first element in a time ordered regress and found that the rest of the regress disappears. So the first element (in time order) is key - it defines the whole of the rest of a regress. If it is absent as in the case of an infinite regress, then the regress cannot exist - infinite regresses are impossible.

    Obviously this argument makes the assumption that the law of cause and effect holds universally. Causality is best explained as matter interacting with matter - either by collision or gravitational interaction. Newton's third law of motion is that whenever two objects interact, they exert equal and opposite forces on each other - this law governs causality (for matter collisions). The other main law governing causality is Newton’s second law - the mass of bodies causes a force on other bodies remotely via the force of gravity. So the often mentioned claim that causality is somehow an unscientific concept does not seem justifiable.

    We also live our lives according to the law of cause and effect - so we have all consciously or sub-consciously accepted the axiom of causality.

    So if the assumption that cause and effect holds universally is correct, we have the result that there must be a first cause and that the first cause itself must be uncaused. Causality appears to be a feature of time - everything in time appears to have a cause - so for something to be uncaused, it seems it would have to be external to time.

    I would argue this is a strong argument that there always was and always will be movement and heat in the universe. I think the universe was predestined (scientific determinism or determinism) to have feeling/awareness but i don't want to get entirely off topic.

    What many people don't understand is if there is gravity then there is definitely matter and heat and movement. Many Physicists agree with your OP and many don't. Many assume all Physicists agree.

    In short i agree with you.
  • Can one provide a reason to live?
    seems & believing are both on the same spectrum. Believing and gambling are essentially the same thing.

    self doubt = success but we should try to avoid self doubt as much as possible. Success isn't all that important. We should always forgive ourselves and Suicide is never the answer.
  • God given rights. Do you really have any?
    Is socialism the answer?
    — christian2017

    We have never had a true socialist system with a flat demographic pyramid so we have nothing to compare.

    We do know that all societies are hierarchal and they are showing that socialism, whatever that is, is not what they want.

    You might look at the happiness stats and recognize that the Northern European democracies have blende democracy with social programs in ways that have increased the happiness factor.

    Gnostic Christian Bishop

    thats fair. did you check out my website?
  • God given rights. Do you really have any?
    You insult me all the time. We both read the Bible and claim to adhere to Jesus's teachings.
    — christian2017

    I insult you for your morals as you are following the Rome created Jesus.

    I follow Jesus' more esoteric/shamanic ways.

    Your way slaves you to religion while my way frees us from it.

    Keep following a genocidal god if you like, but do not expect moral people to respect you for holding such a position.

    Do you respect the old German S S's thinking?

    You are thinking the same way if you idolize Yahweh.

    Gnostic Christian Bishop

  • God given rights. Do you really have any?

    How do you feel about Christians and Non-Christians working too hard in the work place? Is socialism the answer? check out this website.
  • God given rights. Do you really have any?

    edited. You insult me all the time. We both read the Bible and claim to adhere to Jesus's teachings.
  • Can one provide a reason to live?

    It seems you suffer from depression. Sorry to hear that. I wish you the best.
  • Can one provide a reason to live?
    I know that this may sound pretentious or unnecessarily "edgy" but I am genuinely trying to enquire about a difficult and unfalsifiable subsection of metaphysics: death and the value of life. From my research, most philosophers, most notably Socrates, conclude that death is not inherently bad, but also that life is worth living; These two premises are contradictory in my opinion. If something (life) is worth keeping, then surely the removal of said thing is inherently negative, no? In conclusion, I do not believe that anyone can provide a reason for me not to end my life tomorrow (hypothetically, I'm not suicidal by any means), other than "because you may aswell live". In my personal opinion the length of one's life is not a factor when determining whether the ending of it was negative or not. Once one is dead, one is indifferent to such event, and indifferent to the life from which was lived, therefore length and memory are invalid to the state of non-existence, as death and not having been born are an identical state in my opinion.

    I am incredibly curious as to how much more intelligent people answer the question provided by the title of the thread. I'm new to this forum so I hope that this is to standard and isn't removed.

    This was originally a Question but I have changed the category to debate, because I do not believe that I am able to mark a comment as having answered the question, as it is incredibly subjective.

    I would like to develop a previous point: Life cannot be both worth living and acceptable in ending. One of these premeses has to be false, either life is not worth living (and therefore there is no reason not to end it) or death is inherently bad (and therefore should be feared). This presents an interesting dilemma as neither outcome is particularly desirable in my opinion: either fear death or kill yourself.

    #Shark_Fighter_Nation is the political party i belong too.

    This includes skydiving, shark fighting, fighting a rattle snake with a pair of garden shears, moving to Chicago, moving to Iran, fighting a bobcat, fighting a bear, fighting an aligator

    Suicide is never in any circumstance or after any set of bad choices the right answer. Suicide is never the right answer.
  • If God(s) existed.. and he played a scenario in his head....
    Frankly i think you're jumping the gun slightly, we are looking for evidence of consciousness which we can witness in animals / humans. We cannot measure consciousness in plants and fungi or other objects. Plants / fungi and objects (i.e. inorganic matter) also do not contain nerve cells (i.e Neurons) or a brain.

    So what i am stating is that without a cell that is electrically excitable without the ability to connect with other cells via specialised connections called synapses. There is no way of passing sensory information to the brain which itself is made up specialised neurons which pass information to one another forming complex net (branches) creating neural activity (i.e consciousness).

    So when looking at particle collisions since electricity is present (i.e. voltage gradients across cell membranes) we there must be an ordered flow of electrons formed in biochemical reactions from nerve cell to nerve cell.

    This can be found in an electrical cable but a cable does not have ability to collect external stimuli or a brain to process stimuli.

    The unique thing about sensory neurons is the ability to detect stimuli. Human senses such as touch, taste, hearing stem from this interaction of sensory neurons which make up the nervous system.

    Therefore consciousness cannot be created through the structural arrangement of particles found in objects but only in specialised biological systems which can detect external stimuli & transfer them to a central hub, the brain which processes the stimuli & generates consciousness.

    If something reacts to stimuli that is the effect of something having an excessive ability to show feeling or awareness, not neccesarily the cause of feeling or awareness. What is the cause of feeling or awareness? I don't believe pan-psychism is a complete solution to the problem but simply stating neurons form feeling or awareness is a less complete solution than embracing one of the forms of pan-psychism. Most solutions scientists come up with our never complete solutions.

    Have you seen any of the youtube videos on pan-psychism? Plato believed in a form of pan-psychism.
  • God given rights. Do you really have any?

    Since we are both Christianoid i don't have to turn the other cheek with you since we are both essentially equals as far as an online forum is concerned. I have no reason to believe you aren't more ethical than me considering i know nothing about you. I don't need to turn the other cheek since we are both Christianoid.
  • God given rights. Do you really have any?
    Talk to your Christian friends and ask them to do the same for gays and women.Gnostic Christian Bishop

    My Christian friends are more ethical than your Christian friends so there. Ha!

    We abort less Babies. Isaiah chapter 57, Exodus chapter 21 and Numbers chapter 5 says abortion is forgivable though. (KJV) The KJV doesn't support rape but the NIV does support rape. Strange how the more conservative Bible is less evil.

    Uber is the future.
  • God given rights. Do you really have any?
    He says we dominated the planet due to legal fictions such as money and fictions such as human rights and religion.
    — christian2017

    There is some truth to that, but you forget that the religious fictions that Christianity used, where backed up by inquisitionsd and murder to grow Christianity as the did not have decent moral arguments to convert with.

    You forget what made Christianity the size it is. Murder and lies.

    Gnostic Christian Bishop

    one of the forum moderators said i have to act like a christian so

    i'm in the process of turning the other cheek, can you see me turning the other cheek through the screen, there i turned the other cheek.

    I turned the other cheek.

    Are you familiar with ancient Iraq temple prostitution and modern hindu temple prostitution?

    How do you feel about the Roman Catholic (not all Christian) sex scandals?

    Haven't we talked about the inquisition before.

    i'm in the process of turning the other cheek, can you see me turning the other cheek through the screen, there i turned the other cheek.

    I turned the other cheek.
  • Does this prove that God exists only because we decide that he does and we don't want to believe oth
    If you are an atheist do you atleast agree that scientific determinism (~Fate) determines all of our actions? I'm not sure how someone who claims to embrace reason and rationality can at the same time reject scientific determinism (~Fate).
    — christian2017

    I don't entirely believe that fate determines our actions, simply because it is said that we have the ability to choose and to make choices. I agree that we may not always be conscious or aware of what we are doing at any given time, for example if I move my foot without realizing it or thinking about it, but very often we are forced to become aware of our actions, such as when making decisions or performing very specific tasks. Moreover, it is primarily in cases of decision-making that we become the most self-aware and have a conscious ability to choose, even in spite of of actions that we don't think about but that we are taking subconsciously outside of the decision-making process. But the fact that any task can be performed consciously without us being made directly aware of us doing it, shows that task is a matter of free will and not of fate. For instance a person doesn't choose to do something without being aware that they are making a choice, or what the choice is.

    I also don't believe that so many decisions would be stressful or difficult to make if we actually knew in hindsight that the decision was determined by fate, so the fact that we still have to make decisions and often don't know what to decide is another indication that the decision is not predetermined. But we also can't allow ourselves to believe that our decisions are predetermined, as we may ultimately allow that thought process to determine what decisions we make.

    i guess.
  • 0.999... = 1
    Ppppphhhhorrrrrest explained to me what you were talking about.
  • 0.999... = 1

    lol. this is the bullshit we do on here. this is so we drink less alcohol.
  • 0.999... = 1
    The point I’m making is that that “...” is an important difference.

    0.111 does not equal 1/9. It’s close, and you’re saying it might be close enough for some purposes, but for others you might need more 1s. But so long as you have finitely many 1s, it won’t equal exactly 1/9.

    But 0.111... (with that “...”, that’s very important) equals EXACTLY 1/9, by definition. It has infinitely many 1s. That’s what the “...” means: “keep repeating the preceding pattern forever.”

    0.111 x 9 = 0.999, which is not 1.

    0.111... x 9 = 1/9 x 9 = 0.999... = 1, exactly.

    i agree. I'm used to the line that goes over the 0.9999.... in which case you wouldn't need the .... . ______________________________________ i don't type alot of math equations so i didn't equate .... with that line that goes over the integers that come after the decimal. You win. No sarcasm intended.
  • Does this prove that God exists only because we decide that he does and we don't want to believe oth
    I have an almost indisputable explanation regarding God and how He (or rather the idea of Him) came to be. It is a known fact that the first people to define or describe the presence of a God were those who were looking for an explanation for unexplained things that happen such as natural disasters or deaths before there was knowledge of disease or bacteria, or even good things such as rain after a long drought. So they ultimately decided that these things were being caused by a celestial being that they decided existed and was causing anything that could not be explained. This is believed to be the foundation of the first so-called religion, and things just took off from there. It makes sense when you consider in those times that people likely suffered a great deal of hardships and losses when people got sick and died or when their crops failed, which happened frequently, and I can imagine that the idea of having someone or something to look to for answers offered them a great deal of comfort, as it does to people even today. However, this does not by any means change the reality of the situation, which is that the being or thing they are turning to is just that, and has no physical presence beyond that which they decide that He does.
    If I decide that an invisible spirit exists and several other people agree with me, then we have all simply made the decision to believe it, even though this invisible spirit does not actually exist. I know that it is difficult for people to accept this about God because on some level they don't want to believe it, and they also want something to be there for them when they have nothing else, so perhaps it is best that these people do still have the idea of God to offer them comfort and keep their spirits up. But I feel like we must also understand that doing this does not at all change the idea of God as He relates to my invisible spirit example. This is important to remember since it could easily be forgotten by reading or listening to anything religious that talks about God in a matter-of-fact manner.

    Are you familiar with pan-psychism? There are over 11 forms of it and Plato even had his own form. If you are an atheist do you atleast agree that scientific determinism (~Fate) determines all of our actions? I'm not sure how someone who claims to embrace reason and rationality can at the same time reject scientific determinism (~Fate).

    What causes feeling or awareness? All things are particle and wave collisions (waves collide and interact with each other just like particles). Does a neuron (a complex particle collision happening in "slow" motion) create feeling or awareness? A significant amount of scientists doubt that complex particle colliosions such as a neuron or human brain (a slow motion particle collision) can explain feeling or awareness.

    Noah Harrari would argue that Humans have religion and legal fictions because thats what enabled us to have mass coordination and dominate the planet. Apes don't typically operate in groups bigger than 150 and there are approximately 155 Human Nations on the earth. This fun fact is stated in this Naturalist/Atheist's book called "Sapiens".
  • 0.999... = 1

    lets not worry about that ancient book because i was replying to someone else.

    Yes 1/9 is fine. Like i said it depends on the system as to how many integers after the decimal will be used for a variable or component of an equation.

    Yes limits as for example in calculus make things alot more simple if a person took high school calculus. I'm familiar with the greek method of exhaustion as well.

    I don't have a problem with what you are saying however am i correct that you could summarize what your OP is stating with: "some systems require more precision than others in terms of how many integers are used after the decimal"? I wouldn't be surprised if you have a less clear but at the same time more professional way of saying what i just said. Most of the people on here including me are amateur arm chair quarterback mathematicians.
  • 0.999... = 1

    I'm confused what sort of system would this sort of concept be applicable too. I would agree that for some systems 0.111 would be close enough and for NASA (they have less room for error), 0.1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 might be required.
  • 0.999... = 1

    9/9 = 9 × (1/9) = 9 × (0.111...)

    1/9 doesn't equal exactly 0.111 nor 0.111111. But for some systems it would be close enough.
  • 0.999... = 1

    typically when "0.999... = 1" is brought up, you'll find a flurry of objections, you just watch. :)

    Either way, I think the attached proof is valid, but others are invited to point out errors.

    Another argument, more or less following similar thinking, is whether a number could be found between 0.999... and 1.000... (like the mean).
    If no such number can be found, then we might reasonably say they're one and the same.


    Perhaps if the OP was written with more clarity you could prove otherwise but 0.999 is different from 0.999999 and also different from 1.0 or 1. Would you like to rewrite the OP so that my above statement is invalid?
  • 0.999... = 1

    .999 and 1 are not the same thing. Is that what the OP was saying? That would be incorrect. In some systems you could claim it is close enough while in other systems they would not be close enough. Everything including personalities can have systems analysis and design principles applied to them.
  • 0.999... = 1

    true but how does that negate what i said. Are you familiar with scientific notation. Something to consider is Pie is a never ending set of integers after the decimal. For NASA the number of those integers would need to be much greater than for Chevrolet engineers. Perhaps i wasn't clear enough the first time.
  • If God(s) existed.. and he played a scenario in his head....

    Just answering the question posed at the end of the YouTube video (link provided at the top of the page):

    1) Does everything have some mental properties? If so, how do they combine to form conscious minds? (or do they even do this?) 2) How can you explain consciousness arising from objects which are not conscious?

    1) No, only living creatures can be considered to have some mental properties. They do not combine to form conscious minds as each living organism has an individual mental state.

    2) There are no examples of inanimate objects have any type of consciousness.

    Living beings generate consciousness based on the interaction of neurons. Is consciousness present in lower forms of life (i.e. bacteria)? I do not believe so. The presence of a brain is necessary to create a conscious being. Therefore how do bacteria "make decisions"? See Chemotaxis (i.e. Biological programming via DNA tells bacteria how to behave in response to chemical stimuli).

    So you say feeling or awareness is caused by complex particle collisions? All things are (all matter) is wave and particle collisions (and yes waves due collide and effect each other). Some scientists embrace some forms of pan-psychism because they don't see complex particle collisions (neurons) as a rational explanation for why there is feeling or awareness.